Have quantum interpretations been experimentally verified?

"New evidence could break the standard view of quantum mechanics," says a headline at Science Alert. I wasn't sure what to think, so I began the thread, Article About New Developments in Quantum Mechanics. There were good responses, and Son Goku said that possibly there was something worth discussing, hence this thread proposal.Son Goku explained that both the standard and Bohmian versions of quantum mechanics yield the same experimental results regarding quantum uncertainty (as phrased in the article, "particles don't have a location until they're observed"), and that the only way to distinguish between the two was to observe the trajectories suggested by the Bohmian model. The experiment described in the article suggests that such trajectories may have been observed, with the emphasis on "may." Son Goku questions how much weight should be given the experiment's use of "weak measurements," and the article echoes this when it says:

quote:

---

So let's step back for a second here and break this down. First thing's first, this is just one study, and A LOT more replication and verification would be needed before the standard view comes crumbling down. So don't go burning any text books just yet, okay? Good.

---

Particle trajectories seems to me an incredibly obscure subject of discussion, but as the article describes the implications are dramatic, for if the Bohmian model is correct it means that particles *do* have precise locations. Success of the Bohmian model would also mean that nonlocality is true, meaning that everything in the universe is always affected by everything else in the universe, no matter how far apart, which would have implications for our interpretation of what Einstein called, "spooky action at a distance," what we observe as quantum entanglement.According to the article the Bohmiam view fell into disfavor when a 1992 study found that it required outlandish particle trajectories, but this new study suggests that because of nonlocality the information about trajectories is not reliable.The article doesn't describe the actual experimental results. The paper itself, Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories, is a bit above my pay grade. I'd like to see someone more qualified tackle it first, but I'll wade in on my own if necessary.Usually threads about quantum mechanics go in Big Bang and Cosmology.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify.

Thread copied here from the Have quantum interpretations been experimentally verified? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

To me, the two main quantum interpretations are the classical Copenhagen and the Everettian Many worlds. And the problem is not how to verify one of them but how to see them reconciled.Dr. Henry Stapp's writings are extremely interesting. He seems to prove, analyzing the brain research, that the quantum choice is coming "from nowhere", from some transcendent "world of mind". So, according to his worldview, the Physical Reality is no more than "structure of tendencies/probabilities within the world of mind".That Structure is what the quantum theory, when applied to the whole universe, calculate the abstract "Tree" of branching Everettian universes. But they are potential, not actual. The "world of mind" is busy making actual choice each moment.Thinking of that, I can't help remembering the Tree of Game in the mathematical Game Theory - where every game is seen as the process of the branch choice; and also these Richard Feynman's words:"physics, or rather nature, is considered analogous to a great chess game... The great gods who play this chess play it very rapidly..."So, the physical reality is the Great Game played by some spiritual entities!
The human consciousness is among those Players; it's attached to the brain, performing the quantum choice of the actual thought for this moment.
This seems explaining everything. The classic wavefunction becomes a Tree's branch, the Collapse a move of the Game, the Born Rule a rule of the game that maintains seemingly independent macroscopic reality.So the Creation must now be seen as the First Move of the Game, the Choice of good Nature, chosen, and made real, by God. Before it was chosen, Nature was a potential outcome of an abstract evolution. God's Creative Act(s) made the Nature, with the evidence of Evolution, real leaving its Evolution unreal! Edited by AlexCaledin, : No reason given.Edited by AlexCaledin, : No reason given.

But would we not then have to believe that God's choice was to show us a lie?

quote:

---

Dr. Henry Stapp's writings are extremely interesting. He seems to prove, analyzing the brain research, that the quantum choice is coming "from nowhere", from some transcendent "world of mind".

---

Surely brain research could only show that the "choice" (if there is one - I would think that the "many-worlds" interpretation denies it) does not come from the brain. Which would hardly surprise those who think that it has nothing to do with the mind at all.

I didn't follow that at all.

If the "choice" is what is more often called "collapse" then:If "many-worlds" is true every possible outcome happens so there is nothing that could be called a "choice"Brain research can only show that the presumed "choice" is or is not caused by something in the brain. If it shows "not" then I cannot see how we can jump to a cause coming from "some transcendent world of mind". Not when we don't know that there is a cause or even a "choice". Brain research in itself cannot even rule out causes outside the brain.

So as a receiver enters the end zone while the football descends into his outstretched hands before 70,000 onlookers, what is going on in all their worlds of mind? Is there a negotiation? Is there a branching of realities into "touchdown," "incompletion, "under review," and all possibilities in between? Something else?To me such ideas seem the kind of typical anthropocentric claptrap we humans are so prone to, as if nothing ever happened (no wave functions collapsed) until we humans developed consciousness.This thread's actually about whether particles *do* have precise locations. At the time I proposed this thread I was all primed, locked and loaded to discuss the topic, but I can't maintain readiness for months on topics that are at the limits of my understanding, even on a good day. I'd have to reread everything before I could be ready to discuss and misunderstand this topic again, and if anyone is interested then I'll do that.--Percy

"But would we not then have to believe that God's choice was to show us a lie?"Well, that's the most usual thing I have to hear!But believers ought to be "Bible-minded" and Bible definitely says that material, "carnal" things are deceptive and every believer must develop awareness of the spiritual things.

If "many-worlds" is true every possible outcome happens so there is nothing that could be called a "choice" yes I can imagine this for a moment; but soon after that I can't help making actual choices in my life. So, my actual life is somehow outside that abstract Everettian mechanics and so is the actual life of my neighbors etc. You may of course call it "inside" instead of "outside" but I believe that God is on my side and we are, spiritually, cannot be inside any mechanics, otherwise it would imply some "many-God" interpretation.Werner Heisenberg insisted that what QM calculates is the Potentiality that's where every possible outcome potentially but not actually "happens".

Goodness gracious me. With Physics1 and Maths 2 I have no idea what you guys are talking about.However, my basic training in geology, together with specialising in some form of geology (sedimentolgy), got the result that I'm quite capable of providing relatively accurate predictions on what would be found underground for those minerals I studied. Exploration and mining companies keep on employing me and the research organisation I work for.Quantum interpretations or not. Aren't you guys just keeping on pulling your own chains?

One of my collegues in the Human Resources Department keeps on telling me that believers ought to be "Quran-minded".

Hi AlexCaledin, and welcome to the fray ... as you are new here, some posting tips:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

I like to use this form to quote from articles and the previous for quoting from posts.also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0You can also select "Peek Mode" when replying to see how that post was formatted. Of course you do, and in the universe next door you welcome that interpretation.Enjoy

I don't assume that quantum uncertainty is at all relevant to human choices. You seem to be confusing two different things.

I think there could still be choice. After all we assume that we are constrained to occupy only one universe at a time. A remaining question might be whether or not our choices matter if all of them are actually made by some version of ourselves.