I don’t hold hope of “UFO Disclosure” of any type, but this interview is as entertaining as any Gene and Dave have ever done. Enjoy.
In quantum mechanics, a vanguard of physics where science often merges into philosophy, much of our understanding is based on conjecture and probabilities, but a group of researchers in Japan has moved one of the fundamental paradoxes in quantum mechanics into the lab for experimentation and observed some of the ‘spooky action of quantum mechanics’ directly.
Hardy’s Paradox, the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth, poses a conundrum that quantum physicists have sought to overcome for decades. How do you observe quantum mechanics, atomic and sub-atomic systems that are so small-scale they cannot be described in classical terms, when the act of looking at them changes them permanently?
Interesting conundrum. Just how does one do this?
According to the New Journal of Physics, the scientists used “a form of “weak measurement” that observes entangled photons at the same time without interfering with their path.”
So, one cannot create their own reality by just observing it?
I don’t know about that, but this little post from Physorg.com just might confirm that hypothesis:
…while scientists have experimentally observed the failure of local realism in laboratories, no one has ever observed any non-local or non-realistic system on the macroscopic scale. Physicists have usually attributed this fact to decoherence: when quantum systems become macroscopic, they unavoidable interact with their environment, causing them to rapidly lose their quantum features. More recently, physicists Johannes Kofler and Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna in Austria have suggested an alternative view: that the classical world emerges from the quantum world because our measurements of classical systems are too fuzzy, or coarse-grained, to detect quantum features of nature.
If I understand correctly, because our rulers and yardsticks only measure to the 1/32nds, we cannot tell whether the wood quarks in the 2 x 4 we just cut exist in this Universe or the one next to us.
Makes sense to me….
But…but…what about this?
It’s almost a year since Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva announced that they had calculated that a human eye ought to be able to detect entangled photons. “Entanglement in principle could be seen,” they concluded.
That’s extraordinary because it would mean that the humans involved in such an experiment would become entangled themselves, if only for an instant.
Gisin is a world leader in quantum entanglement and his claims are by no means easy to dismiss.
Now he’s going a step further saying that the human eye could be used in a Bell type experiment to sense spooky-action-at-a-distance. “Quantum experiments with human
eyes as detectors appear possible, based on a realistic model of the eye as a photon detector,” they say.
One problem is that human eyes cannot se single photons–a handful are needed to trigger a nerve impulse to the brain.
That might have scuppered the possibility of a Bell-type experiment were it not for some interesting work from Francesco De Martini and buddies at the Universityof Rome, pointing out how the quantum properties of a single particle can be transferred to an ensemble of particles.
That allows a single entangled photon, which a human eye cannot see, to be amplified into a number of entangled photons that can be seen. The eye can then be treated like any other detector.
So which is it, does the simple act of intelligent observation affect reality or not?
Obviously the jury is still out!