« AACR: Calories in, calories out | Main | Nature Podcast 19 Apr 2007 »

Physicists bid farewell to reality?

Quantum mechanics just got even stranger.

There's only one way to describe the experiment performed by physicist Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues: it's unreal, dude.

Read the story here.

Posted by Nicola Jones on April 18, 2007 06:35 PM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2341

Comments

Wonderful!

This is exactly what some of our day to day observations (if you are careful and unbiased enough to judge them)suggest. To make a lay man understand this concept, we can take the example of "Dreams". As far as we are dreaming, we never thnik that what is going on in the dream is unreal. But we realise it's unreality only when we wake up. In dreams, there are objects with which you interact as though they are real, but they are never there and were never created at all. It is all an illusion.

Also, the world any being (humans or animals) looks at is shown to him according to his ability of perception. For example, if we see seven colors and an animal can see only infra red, the perception of the world to the two of us would be very different. Both woould argue for their side, but in reality both are true and untrue. Ture, with respect to the senses and untrue because the judgement is still on the basis of a given set of sense perception of that reality (like organs od perception).

Hence, we can never really know the reality if see the world through a given set of perception. Because it is the perception that gives the world it's distinct appearance (like the world with seven colors of light to us). To know the reality we may need to come out of every kind of bias and perceptive limits, in fact we may need to totally abandon the perceptions (as they are biased).

But, the problem is that when we may attain such a stage, where we have dropped all bias and perceptions, in the course of this transformation, we may ourseleves become the unknown reality which is hidden. For example, a salt doll that dives the ocean to see how deep it is, will never know it because by the time it approaces the floor of the ocean, it itself has become one with the ocean and no loanger maintains it's separate identity (as a doll) as was in the begining.

I recently read a beautiful article which also speaks in this light:

http://www.johndobson.org/articles/physics.html

Posted by: Sharath T Poojary | April 19, 2007 06:43 AM

This is the membrane that separates the physical make up of the body and the metaphysical realm of the rest of existence.

I do believe physicists have finally discovered discovered Bob.

Posted by: unxzst | April 19, 2007 01:37 PM

I have no idea how any of this is "news". Everything mentioned in this article has been known for *years*.

Posted by: Russ Moling | April 19, 2007 06:55 PM

[But, the problem is that when we may attain such a stage, where we have dropped all bias and perceptions, in the course of this transformation, we may ourseleves become the unknown reality which is hidden. For example, a salt doll that dives the ocean to see how deep it is, will never know it because by the time it approaces the floor of the ocean, it itself has become one with the ocean and no loanger maintains it's separate identity (as a doll) as was in the begining.]
The moment of dropping all biases of perception is the enlightenment and I'm not talking about religious ideology [but consider that ideas are affecting work of the brain, this one may be interesting too], but about neurological change in the mechanisms of perception. Similarities between your example and the descriptions of the final state of mind are stunning:
>we may ourseleves become the unknown reality which is hidden
- please, tell me what is the subject in your own cognitive system and please don't talk about 'you' - it is really logical that 'you' and all your thoughts about yourself are pieces of the 'phenomenological field' (using Rogers terms), which is the object in this relation. Meditation practice, which isn't anything else than regulation of the neurological chaos in the attention subsystem, enables clear perception and conciousness without the object (in hindu terms: nirvikalpa). In other words: putting aside religious beliefs of buddhism leaves the psychological claim that we already are the unknown reality: the subject. Subject can't be known [when considered as a part of the cognitive system in subjective experience] {but this isn't the enlightenment itself, it's the level just before it).
>it itself has become one with the ocean
- well, we already are one with the ocean: it isn't anything new, that on atomic level there are no borders between body and air around it, and it isn't new claim, that conceptual borders in perception are parts of the organisation of phenomena in mind. It may be worth inquiring what buddhists mean by 'formless perception' on the enlightened level of mind.
These hypotheses are based on 'religious experience' (if the buddhist psychology really falls into category of religion), but are worth of scientific, neurological research without doubt. Scientists discard subjective experience at all and thus don't try to test the limits of human cognitive system (shorter: brain). It is very possible that scientific exploration of the enlightenment won't let us break the perception barrier, but if more 'objective' or rather unbiased viewpoint (the whole process kills many if not all of the defensive mechanisms of ego) is possible to obtain, then it is worth giving a shot in my opinion.
And one more simple comment:
>it's separate identity (as a doll)
The separate identity is a simple, but very disturbing, example of conceptual border in perception. Realising it's mental, conceptual nature leads to new quality of seeing things. This understanding can't be only conceptual, intellectual however - thinking it's enough is like having a file containing technical description on hard disk of the computer and arguing that this file is the functioning of a computer itself. Map is not territory. Perception has to be trained like muscles are. Research and development of such training techniques may be an important part of psychological research at all.

Posted by: Lucas Bialy .pl | April 19, 2007 11:11 PM

Agree, photon entanglement is electro magnetic radiation.

If you are talking about entangled particles you still have the possibility of spooky behavior Einstein was afraid of.

http://www.colossalstorage.net/home_entangled.htm

Posted by: grey eminence | April 20, 2007 12:55 AM

The whole QM magic show is debunked in this article:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/7001651u4726jk51/

Read it with an open mind and you will never again be baffled by this stuff.

Posted by: Donald Graft | April 20, 2007 02:44 AM

There's a simple, common sense way of arguing for a nonlocal reality.

The experimental findings indicate that matter consists almost all of the space between its smallest parts. Thus atoms and molecules consist of nuclei that are a billionth of their total volume and electrons have a size that is much smaller than that of the nucleus or no size at all.

The charge force acts so as to powerfully attract between electrons and nuclei and repel between electrons themselves. While electrons can be described as forming shells by their orbital around the nuclei.

No details can be described of the charge or any other force to explain how electrons can remain in the orbitals around the nuclei and so be resistent to the charge and any other force. Nor can any measurement, calculation or mathematical formulae describe the action of any other cause.

But it could be reasoned that if there was a further cause then this would need to act just so to maintain or conerve the forms of atoms and mocules. So that such a cause would not have any measurable properties and not act by pushing or pulling objects.

However, the effects of such a further cause could be measured and could be considered as the wave function that is described of electrons and other quantum objects and the entanglement of their composite states.

Because the further cause acts with no strength of effect then the effects between entangled quantum objects would not vary at any distance like the effects of the forces. And in this respect can be described as nonlocal.

Also, because of the ivariability of the effects with distance between quantum objects the cause could not be described as acting where it surrounds the objects in 3D space.

Nonlocal effects have also been measured to occur at faster that the speed of light and so appear to defy relativity theory.

But then it can be cosidered that if the cause of entanglement does not surround the objects it acts between then it would need to act from outside 3D space. Whereas relativity only applies to 3D space plus time as a fourth dimension.

No measurement, calculation or calculation would be sufficient to describe enough details of a nonlocally acting cause to clerly show that or how a non-locally acting cause affects matter or energy.

Although there is one interpretation of quantum physics where a further cause has been described and called the quantum potential.

And one can just ask how can the universe that includes life be or remain organised out of its smallest parts and while just the forces act as they have been measured and described?

http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com On quantum gravity

Why believe there could be a successful unified account of general relativty and the quantum theory of the standard model if, even given the quantum theory, nobody understands quantum mechanics?

The assumption seems to be that if you could develop a theory of quantum gravity you could then explain what is at present inexplicable in quantum theory. But is there any real justication for this assumption?

Why shouldn't it be the case that the behaviour that is uniquely described of quantum objects, called wave, spin and entanglement, actually has nothing to do with any of the forces, with quantum field theory only giving the illusion that this could be so?

Why shouldn't the quantum behaviour have its own independently acting cause, like that called the quantum potential in Bohmian mechanics, and it is for this reason that no successful theory of quantum gravity has been or can be developed?

Sol the basic general thought could be that there is, on the one hand, the particukar form and organisation of matter into atoms, molecules and living organisms, and on the other, there are the forces that act within and upon matter. While this material form and organisation can be described as persisting despite the action of the forces and quantum wave, spin and entanglement of subatomic components can be described as the simplest units of material organisation. And this model alone is an indication that a distinct naturally organising cause acts in addition to the forces.


Posted by: Andrew Daw | April 22, 2007 11:12 PM

I am not a physicist, but I presume I have read similar conclusion. In the biology of cognition of Maturana and the constructivist school of epistemology, they have tangetially alluded to the multiplicity of universe or multiverse. Practically creating a premise that reality cannot be denied neither confirmed. Things are really getting crazier, physicist are not helping matters neither.

Posted by: Olalekan Sakariyawo | April 24, 2007 01:02 PM

"We have a little more evidence that the world is really strange."

Anton Zeilinger

With all due respect, such statements have now become staple and a sure-fire way to rake in the money. Stranger the 'evidence' more the research funds next year! This hype has to stop for the future of science.

The atom is a breathing entity; and the sooner we realize this basic fact, the sooner will quantum mechanics be out of the woods – and into a purely classical mechanical realm. Please check out:

www.sittampalam.net/LateralThoughts.htm

www.sittampalam.net/EinsteinLegacy.htm

Refute this simple worldview that has emerged with all such data properly pieced together and be awarded US$25,000 by your own physics department head; details in www.sittampalam.net; no joke, no scam, word of honour.
Eugene Sittampalam,
www.sittampalam.net

Posted by: Eugene Sittampalam | May 18, 2007 05:37 PM

So then, how do physicists explain locality and a fairly consistent reality in the human-scale world? Perhaps an object could be described as a part of space in which certain properties (such as mass, electron spin, charge and so on) are present, but are not reliably assignable to particular particles. This object may be an atom or something a little larger depending on the material. Sub-atomic 'particles' might only spring into existence during interactions with other 'objects' (such as measuring devices) where the localization of properties is necessary for the interaction to happen.

Richard KeslerWest

Posted by: Richard KeslerWest | May 18, 2007 05:40 PM

These most interesting questions raised by Zeilinger, Aspect and others (among them Einstein and Bohr hundred years ago) about ’locality’ and ’reality’ in the quantum universe seem to touch again more and more metaphysical terrain. But up to now I have not heard of any philosopher or epistemologist really commenting these fundamental problems that finally shake up natural sciences self-established complacency. Why is that? Shouldn’t a general discussion on „to be or not to be local“ – about our ontology, epistemological tools and limits take place?
Maybe new qualities have to be assigned to particles such as the ability to deal with information (remember Heisenberg’s Potentia)? Or is it really thinkable that there is an information transfer between entangled photons at major distance through something Zeilinger calls a “Bit” in popular scientific publications?
Wouldn’t it be really spooky to connect this discussion with Intelligent Design questions? – Our demand for absolute predictability and/or the predictability of all application possibilities contradicts the concept of a not-determined evolution …

Posted by: David Schnaiter | March 5, 2008 02:52 PM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search