The Quantum Reality Paradox

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot contain a finite spirituality. Please think for yourself.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Nicholas,

Reality cannot be studied. Only unrealistic abstract information about abstract reality can be abstractly studied.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

I wish there was an ignore option for you.

Hi Bertrand

I don't think this is, what contextuality means. Your observation is relative but not contextual. An observer in one direction can share its information with another observer in another direction. If they know their relative location (rotation or distance or whatever), they can agree, that they observed the same thing. This is not possible any more in QM.

A easy introduction to contextuality seems to be in this blog.

Regards

Luca

Hi Luca,

I refered to the following definition of noncontextuality in QM: «If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.» Applying the same definition in classical physics, the sense of rotation relative to the observer is contextual. It has a measurable value that clearly depends on the context, that depends on the observer.

The fact that there is a unique objective reality behind the different measurements made by two observers has nothing to do with the definition of noncontextuality that is given to us in the citation. You may give another definition to noncontextuality and contextuality, but I refered precisely to the above mentioned definition.

Let me reframe clearly the question of noncontextuality and hidden variable models.

With their theorem, Kochen and Specker showed that noncontextual theories that invoke hidden variables cannot explain the outcome of quantum measurements. But it says nothing about the nature, quantum or classical, of contextual measurements.

In classical physics, the sense of rotation relative to the observer or to a measuring apparatus is clearly a contextual property. A rotating object impacting a measuring apparatus will deviate accordingly to this sense of rotation. The «subjective» act of measurement is as important here as the intrinsic rotation of the classical object. So Kochen and Specker and its reference to contextuality in no way exhausts the question of the deterministic or non-deterministic nature of quantum reality.

Let me finish by stating my own opinion on the Bohr-Einstein controversy : as proven and stated repeatedly by modern physicists, Einstein was wrong to refer implicitly to noncontextual hidden variable models but he was quite right is thinking that QM in its current form is incomplete...

Does Commonsense really run counter to Quantum Mechanics?...

http://sciforums.com/threads/does-commonsense-really-run-counter-to-quantum-mechanics.153740/

Thanks for the Kochen and Specker reference. I continue to be amazed at the large number of different approaches to the quantum versus classical dilemma...is reality real?

I tend to like Category Theory as a more general approach to the algebras of either classical reality (parabolic, commuting) without phase coherence or quantum reality (elliptic, noncommuting) with phase coherence. Category Theory includes one more quantum algebra, hyperbolic, that I find especially intriguing.

However, at the root of all of these algebras is the phase coherence of matter and the quantum dilemma and all of these restatements using words like context and Hilbert space and commutation tend to obfuscate the basic notion of the quantum phase coherence of matter.

The missing piece in our quantum dilemma is gravity phase coherence, which is a very much weaker effect than charge, but phase coherence must be somehow just as important for quantum gravity as it is for quantum charge.

One of the pieces that is always missing in quantum phase arguments is the role of quantum phase of gravity with charge. Just because we can ignore gravity phase in much of our classical reality does not mean that gravity phase coherence plays no role in our quantum reality.

In a sense, the hidden variable of quantum charge lies in the nature of quantum gravity, which bonds each particle of matter to the universe as well and therefore to each other as well. Quantum gravity is ever so much weaker than quantum charge that it appears as our classical reality without phase coherence. However, gravity phase coherence is there and is simply hidden by a lack of understanding, not by its absence.

- "Could God be omniscient, if reality itself is not set until it is observed by humans? " -

First, let us change the word "God" with "Nature" in order to avoid any offense. A simple dialogue follows:

- What if a cat observed the "particle" of the exp? Will the result be changed?

- Of course it would. But no cat is able to observe the "particle" as it does not have the appropriate equipment for this.

- OK. What if another "particle" (e.g. electron, photon) observed our "particle"?

- Hm. This is a good quest, but we consider living creatures as observers and not "particles".

- The equipment of measurement we have used for observation is a living creature?

- What do you mean, the "particle" of exp is always observed by something and this is contextuality?

- YES. In a sense, contextuality, as humans like to say it, is the same thing with "entanglement" because anything has been born by an entanglement procedure in the past. This interconnection of anything with anything in the Universe is one of the causes that weirdness quantum theory seems to have. The other missing part is the duality of the reality we are all living in. We tried to host two realities into one without success.

- Though you went too far for me, can you explain what do you imply?

- Let us suppose that reality is consisted by two (sub-)realities, red(R) and blue(B). These two are inseparable and they both shape our whole reality (R+B). We are able to sense only the R one. So far we have formalized two theories (GR and QM) that are not compatible.

- So what?

- You always wait for a ready solution. Try to get your brain to work. Anyway, What if one theory (GR) is dealing with R part and the other (QM) incorporates both R and B?

- Stop, I think I got you. These two theories would seem incompatible because QM would be like having some "hidden variables" that would be undetectable through GR. Furthermore, whenever these "hidden variables" play a role, by enforcing R to "strange" results, we would discover a new "paradox".

- I think you got the point ...

The dialogue could finish like this:

- OK, I will try to find some more paradoxes.

I would hopping to a different response ...

In the past couple months I've witnessed God a number of times. He is the self-aware reality.

Why does God have to mentioned in this article? Enough God. More science. God particle. God in the universe. Blah blah. The more God the less I want to read the article.

Contextuality is undefined without definition of INSTANT of time.

And instant of time can only be axiomatic because speed of light is axiomatic.

INSTANT OF TIME is the key concept.