Does QM disprove realism and materialism?

[Halbhh]

For people wanting to learn better than a video with its necessarily arbitrary selections of information, I think this article is worthwhile, since one can copy and paste text from it to a search to quickly learn more:
(or if you just prefer to read, at your own pace, carefully )
Closed Loophole Confirms the Unreality of the Quantum World | Quanta Magazine

...

 

[Halbhh]

[here's a very nice background article to help understand the whole picture usefully -- involving whether there is a 'realism', a determinism -- and also to set up the situation prior to the results in the newer article below:
Fluid Experiments Support Deterministic “Pilot-Wave” Quantum Theory | Quanta Magazine]

Ah, this one should be interesting also:
Famous Experiment Dooms Pilot-Wave Alternative to Quantum Weirdness | Quanta Magazine

This involves the main contender that competes with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

..

 

[Chriliman]

[here's a very nice background article to help understand the whole picture usefully -- involving whether there is a 'realism', a determinism -- and also to set up the situation prior to the results in the newer article below:
Fluid Experiments Support Deterministic “Pilot-Wave” Quantum Theory | Quanta Magazine]

Ah, this one should be interesting also:
Famous Experiment Dooms Pilot-Wave Alternative to Quantum Weirdness | Quanta Magazine

This involves the main contender that competes with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "Pilot-Wave" suggest the particle is riding on a wave and so both the particle and the wave should be detected in the double slit experiment, but thats not what happens. We see either a wave or a particle, not both. Does that interpretation get around that, if so, how?

 

[Halbhh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "Pilot-Wave" suggest the particle is riding on a wave and so both the particle and the wave should be detected in the double slit experiment, but thats not what happens. We see either a wave or a particle, not both. Does that interpretation get around that, if so, how?

I had to leave, and was using a portable device, and ended up finding first the good background article which I added at the beginning of that post as an edit, and only now am back to where I can read through new article from Oct 2018. You should find the background article from June 2014 I added in post #22 at the beginning of the post very useful I think; I did.

It might answer your question here much better than my own attempt to paraphrase, having good pictures and very lucid writing. My answer might be too mysterious: both are really being detected, because the particle obeys the interference pattern. Nicely the waves are also visible of course in these experiments.

 

[Chriliman]

I had to leave, and was using a portable device, and ended up finding first the good background article which I added at the beginning of that post as an edit, and only now am back to where I can read through new article from Oct 2018. You should find the background article from June 2014 I added in post #22 at the beginning of the post very useful I think; I did.

It might answer your question here much better than my own attempt to paraphrase, having good pictures and very lucid writing. My answer might be too mysterious: both are really being detected, because the particle obeys the interference pattern. Nicely the waves are also visible of course in these experiments.

Okay, thanks. I'll have to read it when I have more time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not trying to twist and turn anything, I just know physics has to do with material things, not necissarily non-material phenomenon. One can conclude that everything is material based, but QM research is telling us that's not the case.

QM is physics. Quantum physics. Particle physics.
We even actively use it in technology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It can certainly fit within my theistic worldview.

And that is what this is really all about.
It's not about an objective evaluation of the discoveries of physics.

It is rather about force fitting the discoveries of physics into a jacket that you can marry with your a priori religious beliefs. Because "god forbid" that certain aspects of science contradict what you believe religiously.

 

[Chriliman]

And that is what this is really all about.
It's not about an objective evaluation of the discoveries of physics.

It is rather about force fitting the discoveries of physics into a jacket that you can marry with your a priori religious beliefs. Because "god forbid" that certain aspects of science contradict what you believe religiously.

I’m really not trying to force fit anything. Just lining up these new discoveries with what I currently believe and seeing if I need to adjust my beliefs and I have adjusted them, but just not to the point of concluding God does not exist. None of these discoveries shake my belief in God, sorry if that offends you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just lining up these new discoveries with what I currently believe

Indeed. That's basically what I said.
It's ad hoc rationalisation.

 

[durangodawood]

What QM tells us is that the traditional concept of "matter" is bogus and always has been.....

I dont think so. At the macro scale, matter is as robust a concept as ever.

But yeah, at the atomic scale the concept breaks down.

 

[Chriliman]

Indeed. That's basically what I said.
It's ad hoc rationalisation.

It's normal for new evidence to change what people believe, if they're willing. Also, I'd appreciate it if you kept my comments in context to reduce confusion, thanks.

 

[Halbhh]

Okay, thanks. I'll have to read it when I have more time.

I was left with some good questions after the Oct 2018 article, such as what about with a different medium for the waves (than the oil so far we know works at least partly), a different medium that would have significantly less energy loss, and also one that would allow more rapid propagation (I need to get my spell checker working again!), and also one that wouldn't have reflecting surfaces (the size of the tank the fluid/oil is in, etc.)

So, I don't think the pilot-wave theory, the realism/determinism theory, is ruled out yet. It's very much still in the running to my mind at the moment. Even though I prefer the qualities of the Copenhagen Interpretation, I'm like anyone else, also liking the ideas of 'local realism', etc., determinism. I both like and dislike it. I bet it's not the case, but I'm very interested to learn more in the future if anything support the Bohmian or de Broglie views. If determinism get's more support in the future, I'll be happy to rethink some things. Meanwhile, I continue to think there is likely a true randomness nestled in the heart of nature, as Bell Test experiements continue to make look more and more likely, as best I understand. If God didn't make true randomness at the heart of nature, if it's truly natural determinism instead of chance on that level, I'll have to rethink some other things, but perhaps we'll never know in this temporary life. I'm eager to learn more we can find, either way.

 

[Speedwell]

I dont think so. At the macro scale, matter is as robust a concept as ever.

But yeah, at the atomic scale the concept breaks down.

And our ability to conceptualize breaks down there too. It's a challenge to think about elementary particles without having visions of hard little beads of something coming into your mind. It's like trying to not think about a hippopotamus. But conceptions like "particle" are built on sensory data. Now science has extended the range of our senses for us with its instruments. I think the wave/particle duality thing was a dead giveaway, like the blind men and the elephant.

 

[durangodawood]

And our ability to conceptualize breaks down there too. It's a challenge to think about elementary particles without having visions of hard little beads of something coming into your mind. It's like trying to not think about a hippopotamus. But conceptions like "particle" are built on sensory data. Now science has extended the range of our senses for us with its instruments. I think the wave/particle duality thing was a dead giveaway, like the blind men and the elephant.

What I object to is what i call "scale privilege" whereby people declare smaller scale components to be more "really real" than human scale (or larger) objects. You can hear it in the language people use: "well that table is really just mostly empty space" and so on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's normal for new evidence to change what people believe, if they're willing.

Yes, that's the rational thing to do.
But you're doing the opposite here.

You're rather desperately seeking ways to inject your religious beliefs into the science of quantum physics.

 

[John Bowen]

Good video eighty years of experiments proves it . It so simple Einstein proved everything is energy therefore are thoughts are energy .

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, that's the rational thing to do.
But you're doing the opposite here.

You're rather desperately seeking ways to inject your religious beliefs into the science of quantum physics.

If I thought QM suggested God doesn't exist then I'd understnad why you'd think I'm desperately trying to inject my religious beliefs, but QM doesn't suggest that so I'm a bit puzzled why you're acting this way. Maybe you think it does suggest that and if so, please explain.

 

[Halbhh]

Physicists Are Closing the Bell Test Loophole | Quanta Magazine

 

[Chriliman]

Another interesting video

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was left with some good questions after the Oct 2018 article, such as what about with a different medium for the waves (than the oil so far we know works at least partly), a different medium that would have significantly less energy loss, and also one that would allow more rapid propagation (I need to get my spell checker working again!), and also one that wouldn't have reflecting surfaces (the size of the tank the fluid/oil is in, etc.)

Yes, it's an interesting model - it also rather reminded me of the classical description of the propagation of electromagnetic waves with their mutually supportive orthogonal fields...

So, I don't think the pilot-wave theory, the realism/determinism theory, is ruled out yet. It's very much still in the running to my mind at the moment. Even though I prefer the qualities of the Copenhagen Interpretation, I'm like anyone else, also liking the ideas of 'local realism', etc., determinism. I both like and dislike it. I bet it's not the case, but I'm very interested to learn more in the future if anything support the Bohmian or de Broglie views. If determinism get's more support in the future, I'll be happy to rethink some things. Meanwhile, I continue to think there is likely a true randomness nestled in the heart of nature, as Bell Test experiements continue to make look more and more likely, as best I understand. If God didn't make true randomness at the heart of nature, if it's truly natural determinism instead of chance on that level, I'll have to rethink some other things, but perhaps we'll never know in this temporary life. I'm eager to learn more we can find, either way.

Copenhagen interpretations seem to be losing popularity because of the ad-hoc nature of wavefunction collapse which has no formal justification, and the measurement problem. It's becoming increasingly accepted that a measurement or observation is just a particular case of quantum systems interacting.

If one drops the collapse of the wavefunction and simply accepts its unitary evolution according to the Schrödinger equation (and that observers are quantum systems too), the apparent randomness goes away and the universe has a fully deterministic description. One can even derive the Born rule that describes the probability of a particular observational outcome.