Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

[value]

(2022) The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
“Real,” meaning that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking; “local” means objects can only be influenced by their surroundings, and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true. Instead, the evidence shows objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/

I've seen many discussions related to the question whether reality is really real. My experience has been that many users on this forum today are of the opinion that reality is really real and that consciousness is causally produced by 'the external world'.

A few days ago:

Explaining the existence of the "sensory facility per se" is precisely the purpose of "physicalist theory." It postulates an external world with mechanisms for producing conscious creatures. And it does a pretty good job of it.

The idea that reality is really real is based on a magical belief that underlays ontological realism. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking.

An example:

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Because without knowledge of 'why' reality exists, one can pose anything, from 'random chance' to 'illusion' to 'magic' to a simulation by aliens. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is 'real'.

Results of a 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 51.9% of academic philosophers believe in physicalism.

What Philosophers Believe: Results from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17640

An example (a philosophy teacher):

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

Winners of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics:

1. Alain Aspect
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
2. John F. Clauser
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clauser
3. Anton Zeilinger
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Zeilinger

What is your opinion on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 for research that disproves ontological realism?

[Consul]

(2022) The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
“Real,” meaning that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking; “local” means objects can only be influenced by their surroundings, and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true. Instead, the evidence shows objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... proved-it/
…
What is your opinion on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 for research that disproves ontological realism?

"…the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell, who laid the foundations for this year’s Physics Nobel in the early 1960s."

Ironically, John Bell himself was a (quantum-)physical realist, who didn't believe that the quantum realm depends on and is determined by human observations and measurements!

"Was the world wave function waiting for millions of years until a single-celled creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer—with a Ph.D.?"

(Bell, J. S. "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 117)

"[W]e will exclude the notion of ‘observable’ in favour of that of ‘beable’. The beables of the theory are those elements which might correspond to elements of reality, to things which exist. Their existence does not depend on ‘observation’. Indeed observation and observers must be made out of beables.

(Bell, J. S. "Beables for Quantum Field Theory." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 173-180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. p. 174)

Anyway, the very concept of an objectively indefinite or indeterminate (physical) property makes no coherent ontological sense. To have a property is to have a definite/determinate property; so not to have any definite/determinate property is not to have any property at all, and for a thing to lack properties is for it not to exist at all.

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"So very little can be concluded unconditionally on the basis of quantum mechanics: Metaphysical claims of the form "Quantum mechanics shows that ..." need to be treated very carefully, and in their full generality are likely to be false. However, this doesn't mean that thinking about quantum ontology is a useless exercise. The empirically informed debate over ontological issues generated by quantum mechanics is often quite unlike the standard debates over these issues, and the range of possibilities entertained is often different, too. Even if quantum mechanics doesn't settle many ontological questions, it shifts the debate in interesting and fruitful ways. Furthermore, the metaphysical consequences of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics may, in some cases, reflect back on the tenability of those interpretations. If an interpretation cannot yield a coherent metaphysical picture of the world, then it cannot be regarded as an adequate descriptive theory.
Quantum mechanics is fascinating and frustrating. Its phenomena are astonishingly difficult to fit into any coherent ontological framework. The frameworks we end up with are fascinatingly revisionary but also frustratingly problematic. The best we can say is that not everything in our received classical worldview can be right."

(Lewis, Peter J. Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. p. 182)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

Ironically, John Bell himself was a (quantum-)physical realist, who didn't believe that the quantum realm depends on and is determined by human observations and measurements!

He accepted physical "nonlocalism", but to do so is not necessarily to accept (quantum-)physical antirealism.

[Consul]

Anyway, the very concept of an objectively indefinite or indeterminate (physical) property makes no coherent ontological sense. To have a property is to have a definite/determinate property; so not to have any definite/determinate property is not to have any property at all, and for a thing to lack properties is for it not to exist at all.

It's one thing to say that particles have no definite/determinate spin prior to measurement, and another thing to say that they have no spin prior to measurement. Of course, what has no spin has no definite/determinate spin; but nothing can have a spin without having any definite/determinate spin.

[Mercury]

We've known about EPR; also known as "spooky action at a distance" - for some time, but projecting that onto macroscopic reality without reconciling quantum and classical physics, overstates the demonstrated implications of the experimental results. What we can say, is that EPR is one of several peculiar effects observed at the quantum level - effects that do not accord with a cause and effect understanding of reality. There's quantum tunnelling and the dual slit experiment, for example - that describe phenomena no more or less bizarre. But I don't think the researchers themselves think it "disproves ontological realism." Only subjectivist philosophers think that! And why? Because they adopt the philosophical prejudices of the Cartesian tradition, and strive to prove it - latching onto anything that casts doubt upon the evidence of the senses and/or objective reality, to free them from the tyranny of science as truth.

If I were to hazard a guess; based on much intuition in respect to a little reading - I'd wager these weird effects have a common explanation. Getting ever more speculative as I continue, I know of no good reason why it may not be that the focus of reality is the macroscopic cause and effect reality we inhabit, and weird effects at the quantum level are explained by the loss of existential properties on the frayed edge between something and nothing at all. In other words, the smaller things get, the less they are able to embody existential qualities like location, velocity, mass etc, and the peculiar behaviours observed are the result. It just makes more sense to me to project from established physics onto quantum phenomena, than the other way around.

[Sy Borg]

I'm thinking the studies show that quantum fields are not localised. I expect that we humans feel pretty localised as we hurtle through the cosmos at over two million kms per hour (mostly due to the Milky Way's movement). As others have pointed out, spooky action at a distance has not been observed in larger entities.

[Mercury]

I'm thinking the studies show that quantum fields are not localised. I expect that we humans feel pretty localised as we hurtle through the cosmos at over two million kms per hour (mostly due to the Milky Way's movement). As others have pointed out, spooky action at a distance has not been observed in larger entities.

Insofar as I understood this study, they tested EPR over a distance of 400 light years - and found spooky action at a distance that could not be a consequence of quantum communication. Non-locality of itself, would seem to be a problem for quantum field theory, in that QFT maintains forces act locally through the exchange of quanta. But then again, doesn't this experiment show that there are no such exchanges - and spooky action happens anyway? So there's some other explanation for spooky action than quantum fields. But that so, what are elementary particles? Not excited states of their underlying quantum fields!

[Sy Borg]

I'm thinking the studies show that quantum fields are not localised. I expect that we humans feel pretty localised as we hurtle through the cosmos at over two million kms per hour (mostly due to the Milky Way's movement). As others have pointed out, spooky action at a distance has not been observed in larger entities.

Insofar as I understood this study, they tested EPR over a distance of 400 light years - and found spooky action at a distance that could not be a consequence of quantum communication. Non-locality of itself, would seem to be a problem for quantum field theory, in that QFT maintains forces act locally through the exchange of quanta. But then again, doesn't this experiment show that there are no such exchanges - and spooky action happens anyway? So there's some other explanation for spooky action than quantum fields. But that so, what are elementary particles? Not excited states of their underlying quantum fields!

It's all ultimately packets of energy. The connections that form between very small entities are one of the various mysteries in our inability to reconcile relativity and QM.

I don't much care for grand claims like "The universe is not locally real", though. After all, our own locality would seem pretty undeniable.

Maybe it's not a discovery that macro objects can be non-local like quanta, but a discovery that the boundary between quanta and macro entities is not sharp, but indistinct? Likewise, defining the the boundary of the Sun or the galaxy is as much a matter of definitions as reality.

[Mercury]

I'm thinking the studies show that quantum fields are not localised. I expect that we humans feel pretty localised as we hurtle through the cosmos at over two million kms per hour (mostly due to the Milky Way's movement). As others have pointed out, spooky action at a distance has not been observed in larger entities.

Insofar as I understood this study, they tested EPR over a distance of 400 light years - and found spooky action at a distance that could not be a consequence of quantum communication. Non-locality of itself, would seem to be a problem for quantum field theory, in that QFT maintains forces act locally through the exchange of quanta. But then again, doesn't this experiment show that there are no such exchanges - and spooky action happens anyway? So there's some other explanation for spooky action than quantum fields. But that so, what are elementary particles? Not excited states of their underlying quantum fields!

It's all ultimately packets of energy. The connections that form between very small entities are one of the various mysteries in our inability to reconcile relativity and QM.

I don't much care for grand claims like "The universe is not locally real", though. After all, our own locality would seem pretty undeniable.

Maybe it's not a discovery that macro objects can be non-local like quanta, but a discovery that the boundary between quanta and macro entities is not sharp, but indistinct? Likewise, defining the the boundary of the Sun or the galaxy is as much a matter of definitions as reality.

That's the idea that strikes me as potentially erroneous: "ultimately" - because it's baked into the language as an assumption that if we take something apart we naturally discover its constituent - fundamental building blocks. I have a sense that's incorrect; that beyond the atomic scale - as we keep dismantling particles, and sub-atomic particles, the existential 'object' is gone - such that we are breaking the down the very physics that defines the existential object - resulting in these weird effects, and what we end up with is not something fundamental, but just nothing.

It's way beyond me to prove it, but were that so, quantum mechanics would be "fundamentally" misconceived, and classical physics would be re-established as the core of scientific explanation. And I'd sleep better without the odd effects of QM projected onto macroscopic reality in a series of bizarre theories; multiverses, non-locality, quantum consciousness, holographic universe and so on, and on and on, lending credibility to anti-science crackpots and other subjectivists! The very fact that QM throws up so many wacky theories; or grand claims - as you say, suggests they've got something basic wrong!

[Sy Borg]

I'm thinking the studies show that quantum fields are not localised. I expect that we humans feel pretty localised as we hurtle through the cosmos at over two million kms per hour (mostly due to the Milky Way's movement). As others have pointed out, spooky action at a distance has not been observed in larger entities.

Insofar as I understood this study, they tested EPR over a distance of 400 light years - and found spooky action at a distance that could not be a consequence of quantum communication. Non-locality of itself, would seem to be a problem for quantum field theory, in that QFT maintains forces act locally through the exchange of quanta. But then again, doesn't this experiment show that there are no such exchanges - and spooky action happens anyway? So there's some other explanation for spooky action than quantum fields. But that so, what are elementary particles? Not excited states of their underlying quantum fields!

It's all ultimately packets of energy. The connections that form between very small entities are one of the various mysteries in our inability to reconcile relativity and QM.

I don't much care for grand claims like "The universe is not locally real", though. After all, our own locality would seem pretty undeniable.

Maybe it's not a discovery that macro objects can be non-local like quanta, but a discovery that the boundary between quanta and macro entities is not sharp, but indistinct? Likewise, defining the the boundary of the Sun or the galaxy is as much a matter of definitions as reality.

That's the idea that strikes me as potentially erroneous: "ultimately" - because it's baked into the language as an assumption that if we take something apart we naturally discover its constituent - fundamental building blocks. I have a sense that's incorrect; that beyond the atomic scale - as we keep dismantling particles, and sub-atomic particles, the existential 'object' is gone - such that we are breaking the down the very physics that defines the existential object - resulting in these weird effects, and what we end up with is not something fundamental, but just nothing.

It's way beyond me to prove it, but were that so, quantum mechanics would be "fundamentally" misconceived, and classical physics would be re-established as the core of scientific explanation. And I'd sleep better without the odd effects of QM projected onto macroscopic reality in a series of bizarre theories; multiverses, non-locality, quantum consciousness, holographic universe and so on, and on and on, lending credibility to anti-science crackpots and other subjectivists! The very fact that QM throws up so many wacky theories; or grand claims - as you say, suggests they've got something basic wrong!

Much of the issue is science journalism, not all of which is created equal. Some outlets are sloppy infotainment, with scant regard to accuracy. The low-rent journalists latch onto anything weird and sexy it up. This, as you say, lends false credibility to anti-science types, most of whom appear hell-bent (pardon pun) on dismissing anything that might threaten their eternal afterlife.

I admit to wondering about the Standard Model, dark matter, dark energy and singularities in black holes. It's messy. The breakdown you referred to was probably best illustrated by the double-slit experiment. The way I visualise quanta, they are so light and physically inconsequential that just about anything going on in the vicinity impacts them.

I am pretty comfortable with apparent particles turning out to be wave packets when you zoom in more. It's interesting that the energy packets form in those particular ways, with particular masses and spins. I love the oddness of it all. The space between electron orbitals. Quarks - created about ten seconds after the BB, insanely dense entities that only ever stablise in threes, which jiggle around each other at absurd speeds, being only held in place by the strong nuclear force. And we have squillions of them in us at this very moment, comprising most of our mass, while even more neutrinos pass through our bodies at every moment.

I like the idea of the experiment you referred to, exploring activity at scales at the "shoreline" between quanta and relativistic objects. As stated, It would not surprise me at all if the boundary is unclear.

The entire schema is so nuts, I probably shouldn't baulk at non-locality. After all, string theory may be on shaky ground, but it's not been disproved. If there are other dimensions, that might provide an avenue for spooky action at a distance and quantum tunnelling.

[Mercury]

I'm thinking the studies show that quantum fields are not localised. I expect that we humans feel pretty localised as we hurtle through the cosmos at over two million kms per hour (mostly due to the Milky Way's movement). As others have pointed out, spooky action at a distance has not been observed in larger entities.

Insofar as I understood this study, they tested EPR over a distance of 400 light years - and found spooky action at a distance that could not be a consequence of quantum communication. Non-locality of itself, would seem to be a problem for quantum field theory, in that QFT maintains forces act locally through the exchange of quanta. But then again, doesn't this experiment show that there are no such exchanges - and spooky action happens anyway? So there's some other explanation for spooky action than quantum fields. But that so, what are elementary particles? Not excited states of their underlying quantum fields!

It's all ultimately packets of energy. The connections that form between very small entities are one of the various mysteries in our inability to reconcile relativity and QM.

I don't much care for grand claims like "The universe is not locally real", though. After all, our own locality would seem pretty undeniable.

Maybe it's not a discovery that macro objects can be non-local like quanta, but a discovery that the boundary between quanta and macro entities is not sharp, but indistinct? Likewise, defining the the boundary of the Sun or the galaxy is as much a matter of definitions as reality.

That's the idea that strikes me as potentially erroneous: "ultimately" - because it's baked into the language as an assumption that if we take something apart we naturally discover its constituent - fundamental building blocks. I have a sense that's incorrect; that beyond the atomic scale - as we keep dismantling particles, and sub-atomic particles, the existential 'object' is gone - such that we are breaking the down the very physics that defines the existential object - resulting in these weird effects, and what we end up with is not something fundamental, but just nothing.

It's way beyond me to prove it, but were that so, quantum mechanics would be "fundamentally" misconceived, and classical physics would be re-established as the core of scientific explanation. And I'd sleep better without the odd effects of QM projected onto macroscopic reality in a series of bizarre theories; multiverses, non-locality, quantum consciousness, holographic universe and so on, and on and on, lending credibility to anti-science crackpots and other subjectivists! The very fact that QM throws up so many wacky theories; or grand claims - as you say, suggests they've got something basic wrong!

Much of the issue is science journalism, not all of which is created equal. Some outlets are sloppy infotainment, with scant regard to accuracy. The low-rent journalists latch onto anything weird and sexy it up. This, as you say, lends false credibility to anti-science types, most of whom appear hell-bent (pardon pun) on dismissing anything that might threaten their eternal afterlife.

I admit to wondering about the Standard Model, dark matter, dark energy and singularities in black holes. It's messy. The breakdown you referred to was probably best illustrated by the double-slit experiment. The way I visualise quanta, they are so light and physically inconsequential that just about anything going on in the vicinity impacts them.

I am pretty comfortable with apparent particles turning out to be wave packets when you zoom in more. It's interesting that the energy packets form in those particular ways, with particular masses and spins. I love the oddness of it all. The space between electron orbitals. Quarks - created about ten seconds after the BB, insanely dense entities that only ever stablise in threes, which jiggle around each other at absurd speeds, being only held in place by the strong nuclear force. And we have squillions of them in us at this very moment, comprising most of our mass, while even more neutrinos pass through our bodies at every moment.

I like the idea of the experiment you referred to, exploring activity at scales at the "shoreline" between quanta and relativistic objects. As stated, It would not surprise me at all if the boundary is unclear.

The entire schema is so nuts, I probably shouldn't baulk at non-locality. After all, string theory may be on shaky ground, but it's not been disproved. If there are other dimensions, that might provide an avenue for spooky action at a distance and quantum tunnelling.

I agree low quality science journalism is a problem; and would have to chastise myself similarly had I not made clear, repeatedly, I am speculating wildly and wholly incapable of proving my conjectures. Further, I don't think I'm a victim of sensationalist journalism; all the bizarre theories mentioned are genuine implications of QM: multiverses, non-locality, quantum consciousness, holographic universe and so on. Which is why I suspect QM has something basic wrong. It's Mars doing loops in the sky; the theory is wrong. It has to be.

Setting all this in context, the scientific revolution only got going in the past few hundred years, and only in the last 50 years - since the advent of computers enabled computation and communication heretofore very difficult indeed, has science really come together. It feels like we are rushing the job; failing to incorporate established knowledge properly while pushing the frontiers. Maybe we need to go back and check the maths of previous generations before standing on their shoulders.

Personally, I don't see how "non-locality" benefits humankind. I'd have given the award to NASA's Magma Energy Project team who demonstrated the technology to harness limitless clean energy from magma - in 1982! So maybe posthumously! But no; another wacky, cutting edge QM concept with no practical application but to confuse and alienate the masses, sweeps the Nobel prize! Well, hurray for science!

[Consul]

As for the meaning of "locality" ("local causality") and "local realism", see:

Bell’s Theorem: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/

[Pattern-chaser]

That's the idea that strikes me as potentially erroneous: "ultimately" - because it's baked into the language as an assumption that if we take something apart we naturally discover its constituent - fundamental building blocks. I have a sense that's incorrect; that beyond the atomic scale - as we keep dismantling particles, and sub-atomic particles, the existential 'object' is gone - such that we are breaking the down the very physics that defines the existential object - resulting in these weird effects, and what we end up with is not something fundamental, but just nothing.

It's way beyond me to prove it, but were that so, quantum mechanics would be "fundamentally" misconceived, and classical physics would be re-established as the core of scientific explanation. And I'd sleep better without the odd effects of QM projected onto macroscopic reality in a series of bizarre theories; multiverses, non-locality, quantum consciousness, holographic universe and so on, and on and on, lending credibility to anti-science crackpots and other subjectivists! The very fact that QM throws up so many wacky theories; or grand claims - as you say, suggests they've got something basic wrong!

OK, so how do you respond to the fact that QM is the most tested and the most successful theory in the history of science? You may not like it; you may yearn for the return of simpler theories; but this is wishful thinking, isn't it? QM works, and it works better than its predecessors. Even "anti-science crackpots and other subjectivists" know this, or at least many/most of them do. Where does that leave you?

[Pattern-chaser]

I admit to wondering about the Standard Model, dark matter, dark energy and singularities in black holes. It's messy. The breakdown you referred to was probably best illustrated by the double-slit experiment. The way I visualise quanta, they are so light and physically inconsequential that just about anything going on in the vicinity impacts them.

I am pretty comfortable with apparent particles turning out to be wave packets when you zoom in more. It's interesting that the energy packets form in those particular ways, with particular masses and spins. I love the oddness of it all.

I love some of these oddities, too. I particularly like the double-slit experiment, where individual photons are passed through the experimental apparatus. Each of these individual photons casually passes through both slits, interferes with itself, and forms a scatter pattern on the detector screen at the outlet of the experimental equipment!

Some scientists find this so non-intuitive that they create experiments to try to confirm a more 'rational' explanation. And, every time this has been done, it is the weird QM version of the explanation that comes out on top!

Classical physics simply cannot explain this, so according to scientific investigative tradition, it should be discarded. It has been proven wrong, after all...?