Physicists at ANU Experimentally Conclude (again) That Physical Reality Exists Only When Observed

Well you would be wrong about that too.

It is the fact you can't measure both position and momemtum (precisely) simultaneously. Right? A well known phenomena.

They actually do not even have precise values simultaneously.

Again, let me state I have no real expertise in this discussion. That said, I agree with your comment LS, about not "having" a real structure comprehensive enough for both. A single "particle", isolated, exhibits a SoA that is limited in possible Shannon information and that limit is expressed as one or the other in terms of its data.
 
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantu...e=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu

"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," he said.

I think this is well worded. I also think - and stand open to clarification and correction from Max - that further measurements continue to add enough Shannon information to make the data well-formed regarding an evolving quantum event sequence. In particular, I imagine that quantum Zeno effect as another way to see the bits add-up to have enough mutual information to track isolated particles like they are "macro billiard balls".

Of course, when isolated and measured one at a time - they only have enough Shannon information to show "one foot" in reality.
 
I think this is well worded. I also think - and stand open to clarification and correction from Max - that further measurements continue to add enough Shannon information to make the data well-formed regarding an evolving quantum event sequence. In particular, I imagine that quantum Zeno effect as another way to see the bits add-up to have enough mutual information to track isolated particles like they are "macro billiard balls".

Of course, when isolated and measured one at a time - they only have enough Shannon information to show "one foot" in reality.

It is complicated, I only have a conceptual understanding and am not properly able to explain. But the uncertainty principle comes about between the relationship between observables and their commuters. Basicaly the observables commute or they don't. If they do commute their are no restrictions on accuracy. If they don't the general uncertainty principle holds.

So if there are commuters, it would imply time ordering important in the uncertainty relationship otherwise commuters must be zero.

Eg. Take five steps, turn left, take two steps turn right take ten steps and jump.
Or turn right take five steps, jump, take ten steps turn left and take two steps.

This is very simplistic, it is an interesting point you raise but not at all simple.
Any measurement will find the system in a definate state, where as the wave function is a super position of states. So the future is then defined by the initial state from when the measurement is made. So the measurement does something to the system.
which is not a consequence of the Schrodinger equation. So you see the issue. The Xeno effect shows it, generally measuring halts the evolution of the quantum sequence.

Electrons, the wave function, are not real in the same sense of things we have of the macro. Time is not an issue for the unreal.
 
Last edited:
I think this is well worded. I also think - and stand open to clarification and correction from Max - that further measurements continue to add enough Shannon information to make the data well-formed regarding an evolving quantum event sequence. In particular, I imagine that quantum Zeno effect as another way to see the bits add-up to have enough mutual information to track isolated particles like they are "macro billiard balls".

Of course, when isolated and measured one at a time - they only have enough Shannon information to show "one foot" in reality.

What you've written doesn't make any sense to me at all, and seems all wrong, as far as I can make out. I can't educate you on QM, I wouldn't know where to start with what you have written, I think I'd need you to chuck out all your preconceptions, and start from fresh.

If you're interested, you would do better to simply sit down, grit teeth, and watch a few hours of Feynman's New Zealand QED lectures on YouTube. They are watchable, and might give you a very basic grasp of QM, and correct your misunderstanding.
 
I think this is well worded. I also think - and stand open to clarification and correction from Max - that further measurements continue to add enough Shannon information to make the data well-formed regarding an evolving quantum event sequence.
There is no actual event sequence. Or to be more accurate - there is no actual singular event sequence. The act of observation/measurement creates a set of probable event sequences and one (or more) actualized event sequences.

Also,while used by some, the application of Shannon's concepts to this area is incorrect. Quantum information theory is not QM. It is using QM to communicate "real-world" information. It relies heavily on the qubit which is a representative, not actual, version of QM.
 
Back
Top