Rejection of observer independence.

[danydandan]

Interesting experiment I was reading about. I thought some of the folks here would be interested in.

Quote

While observer-independence has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, recent no-go-theorems construct an extended Wigner's friend scenario with four entangled observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we here realise this extended Wigner's friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. This result lends considerable strength to interpretations of quantum theory already set in an observer-dependent framework and demands for revision of those which are not.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080

Quote

Modulo the potential loopholes and accepting the photons’ status as observers, the violation of inequality (2) implies that at least one of the three assumptions of free choice, locality, and observer-independent facts must fail. Since abandoning free choice and locality might not resolve the contradiction [5], one way to accommodate our result is by proclaiming that “facts of the world” can only be established by a privileged observer—e.g., one that would have access to the “global wavefunction” in the many worlds interpretation [17] or Bohmian mechanics [18]. Another option is to give up observer independence completely by considering facts only relative to observers [19], or by adopting an interpretation such as QBism, where quantum mechanics is just a a tool that captures an agent’s subjective prediction of future measurement outcomes [20]. This choice, however, requires us to embrace the possibility that different observers irreconcilably disagree about what happened in an experiment.

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by danydandan

[XenoFish]

Can I get a translation? Pretend I'm in 5th grade.

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Can I get a translation? Pretend I'm in 5th grade.

Simplest way I can say it is that, it's entirely possible that our reality may be subjective. Even at the micro and macro scales.

[zep73]

18 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Can I get a translation? Pretend I'm in 5th grade.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

It basically means that Schrödinger's cat does not stay dead. Or in other words, the particle returns to its superposition.

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Simplest way I can say it is that, it's entirely possible that our reality may be subjective. Even at the micro and macro scales.

Then is there a consensual reality?

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Then is there a consensual reality?

With these results I'm not even sure a consensual reality is testable!.

[XenoFish]

Just now, danydandan said:

With these results I'm not even sure a consensual reality is testable!.

Yeah, this is beyond my pay grade. I mean if everything is subjective that opens up a whole bag of weirdness that I can't (for some reason) process. I mean I do get we experience things subjectively. But all the information we receive in filter through our senses. So where is this information coming from?

If we are arguing points, doesn't that basically mean we're trying to pull others into our reality?

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yeah, this is beyond my pay grade. I mean if everything is subjective that opens up a whole bag of weirdness that I can't (for some reason) process. I mean I do get we experience things subjectively. But all the information we receive in filter through our senses. So where is this information coming from?

If we are arguing points, doesn't that basically mean we're trying to pull others into our reality?

Don't get too hung up about it. This and results similar to these are as a result of uncertainty and error. In particular uncertainty. I'm not going to philosophise, but the results are extremely important and interesting.

@sci-nerd maybe you are on step closer to being in a simulation after all. 

 

[L.A.T.1961]

Some interesting alternatives - this jumped out at me. 

- one way to accommodate our result is by proclaiming that “facts of the world” can only be established by a privileged observer—e.g., one that would have access to the “global wavefunction” in the many worlds interpretation.

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Don't get too hung up about it. This and results similar to these are as a result of uncertainty and error. In particular uncertainty. I'm not going to philosophise, but the results are extremely important and interesting.

@sci-nerd maybe you are on step closer to being in a simulation after all. 

 

I'm not exactly philosophizing. You can not experience my reality, I can not experience your reality. But you can paint a view of it, express your ideas of it. Creating a mental model of it for me. However I can not ever truly know it. Yet we exist on this planet, in this system, with the same sun. Expect my point of view is different. Because in some regards it's says to me that "nothing is real". Everything is imaginary.

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

@sci-nerd maybe you are on step closer to being in a simulation after all. 

If Hawking was a "Black Hole guy", I suppose I'm a "simulation guy". This comes as no surprise to me, as I am sure that the M87* picture would have been no surprise to Mr. Hawking. But he would have been pleased to get the confirmation. As am I.

Not saying it is my conviction though. Just the most plausible explanation to everything.

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Some interesting alternatives - this jumped out at me. 

- one way to accommodate our result is by proclaiming that “facts of the world” can only be established by a privileged observer—e.g., one that would have access to the “global wavefunction” in the many worlds interpretation.

That 'privileged observer' can be anyone. You or I or a goldfish, or what ever instrumentation used to measure the observations or something outside of this reality.

 

[zep73]

37 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That 'privileged observer' can be anyone. You or I or a goldfish, or what ever instrumentation used to measure the observations or something outside of this reality.

"Perhaps the thing we call "observation" is just entanglement between the observer and the experiment?" (9:42)

 

[DingoLingo]

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Then is there a consensual reality?

no.. I do not consent for you to be in my reality Xeno