
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality - hansoolo
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/
======
BoiledCabbage
This seems like another case where the alternate of "...or simply use the
DeBroglie Bohm interpretation and most of the mysticism of this goes away."

I'm not remotely an expert in this, but non-locality always seems like the
"simpliest" explanation. Like two boat floating on a lake, things you do in
your boat that create waves can affect me in my boat even though our boats
never touch.

The world around us has a similar lake surface which explains all of this
without giving up objective reality.

Every QM article I read, I try to repicture using DeBroglie Bohm and it always
gives an easier to grasp, although less sensational explanation.

It surprises me it's never presented.

~~~
teilo
The article explicitly states that non-locality could explain it:

>But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist.
In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions —
the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have
freedom of choice, _or the idea of locality_ — must be wrong.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, of the possibilities, "reality
we can agree on" is the _least_ likely to be wrong.

~~~
teilo
I agree. I'm in the non-locality camp myself.

------
ikeboy
[https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975)

Here's Scott Aaronson arguing that the theoretical work underpinning this
experiment is flawed.

------
qengho
"There's no such thing as objective reality".

We did an experiment to prove it, so it must be objectively true!

In other news:

"This sentence is false".

~~~
teilo
You are confusing two different ontological domains. The key word is
"objective" not "reality". The experiment, regardless of the interpretation,
does not deny the existence of reality.

------
mizchief2
Not sure what I'm missing here. "superposition" is more of an explanation of
not knowing the result of a measurement until it is measured. So saying that
one person performing the measurement and not telling someone else what is
was, so that person sees it as in the "superposition" state vs. the measured
state is not two conflicting realities. One person just has access to
different facts.

If I witnessed a murder and withheld that information, and someone else thinks
the person committed suicide based on the evidence they have, we aren't living
in two different realities.

------
Aardwolf
I assume this is true for observation of a single quantum particle, but on
macro scale statistically speaking everyone observes essentially the same

~~~
marcus0x62
I really wonder how it is possible to have different realities at the quantum
level that -- seemingly -- converge at a single shared reality at the macro
level.

------
PavlikPaja
We were able to deal with time and space being relative, we can deal with
superposition being relative. It was kind of obvious anyway, since
superposition can affect non-elementary particles as well.

~~~
karmakaze
So all this experiment is saying is that wavefunction collapse is observer-
dependent and not a global property. It's hard to comprehend that the
superposition state exists after the other group makes their measurement and
says they've done so. When the wavefunction collapses for the second group, it
still has to agree with the first right? So how could the superposition state
continued to have existed when only one outcome was possible?

~~~
PavlikPaja
Because the second group is still in superposition relative to the first. It's
kind of exactly like the schrödinger's cat, where the cat is in the same
position as the second group.

------
dandare
>Wigner then performs an interference measurement to determine if the
measurement and the photon are in a superposition.

Could anyone explain this interference measurement? Thanks.

------
kgwgk
“Accepting the photons’ status as observers”, says the paper.

In other words, this is just another experiment confirming QM predictions.

