JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:38 pm
chownah wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 11, 2020 9:23 am
When scientists find something which can not be explained with science it does not lead to collapse!!!....not in the least!!!....on the contrary it really excites scientist to find something they can't explain.
Finding things that can't be explained or is not understood is pretty much the entirety of what science is all about.
I know several scientists who'd be thrilled to find some empirical, provable way to test rebirth. They'd make history, win a Nobel prize, become world famous, and be given lots of $$$.
Unfortunately our current level of tech isn't good enough to detect those levels of reality. But someday, maybe someday...
Yes, if someone could come up with a way of actually doing measurements, they would do it. If measurements were possible, it would just become science. A century or so ago, quantum entanglement, or measuring gravitational waves that travelled for a billion years to get here was not even dreamed of, let alone measured.
It's not quite the same topic, but on the role of consciousness in quantum measurements, there was a paper in Nature a couple of years ago, "Challenging local realism with human choices
" which tested whether having people interacting with quantum experiments would make any difference to the outcome. Usually such measurements are made by having a computer making random choices (to set switches and polarizers and so on) but in this case the keystrokes of 100,000 gamers provided the input. The results turned out to be the same as just using a computer, but the point is that the scientists were able to do an experiment which coupled human choice to a quantum measurement.
Here's part of the Editorial about the paper:
0 or 1? Computer gamers have helped to close a quantum loophole
Wednesday, 30 November 2016 ... a crowd of 100,000 people around the world came together over an online video game to type in a series of 0s and 1s as fast as their fingers could fly, to put to the test a central feature of quantum mechanics.
The gamers were part of a day-long experiment called the BIG Bell Test, the results of which are described in this issue of Nature (The BIG Bell Test Collaboration. Nature 557, 212–216; 2018).
... the paper explores the tension between quantum physics and local realism. The latter brings together two principles: locality — according to which, observing a particle at one physical location cannot have immediate effects on the properties of a particle at a different location — and realism, which expresses how the observable features of particles exist even if we don’t actively measure them. But in quantum mechanics, correlations between distant particles exist that are so strong they violate local realism. Put differently, in quantum theory it is possible to have two correlated particles far away from each other, to measure the first and, as a result, learn something about the second without having observed it directly.
So here’s the conundrum: does quantum mechanics really violate local realism, or could it be the case that some unknown factors would complete the theory and explain these apparent violations? In the 1960s, the physicist John Bell offered a way to tackle the problem in the laboratory, by studying quantum correlations in the form of entanglement. In these experiments, sequences of spatially separated measurements on entangled particles lead to computing a quantity that can have values not possible in the context of local and realistic theories. Bell tests have confirmed the validity of quantum theory many times, but they include assumptions that leave wiggle room for non-quantum explanations as to why local realism is violated, and so physicists have been looking for ways to close these loopholes ever since.
In 2015, physicists showed that successful Bell tests could not be due to speed-of-light communication between the particles, or to inefficient detection processes during the measurements. But another, more subtle, loophole was still open. Bell tests also assume that experimenters have free choice over which measurements they make on each particle. And yet, hidden parameters could be influencing these choices to produce correlations that give the illusion of entanglement.
The BIG Bell Test closes this freedom-of-choice loophole. The various experimental groups had no say in which measurement settings to use. Instead, they performed their measurements according to the unpredictable streams of bits received from the 100,000 gamers.
The results show the presence of correlations strong enough to contradict local realism. Maybe that’s how 30 November 2016 might be remembered: the day the people of the world came together to test quantum theory.
Here's the last paragraph of the actual paper:
In summary, on 30 November 2016, a set of 13 Bell tests and similar experiments using photons, single atoms, atomic ensembles and superconducting devices, demonstrated strong disagreement with local realism, using measurement settings chosen by tens of thousands of globally distributed human participants. The results also showed empirically that measurement-setting independence—here provided by human agency—is in strong disagreement with causal determinism, a topic formerly accessible only by metaphysics. The experiments reject local realism in a wide variety of physical systems and scenarios, set the groundwork for Bell-test-based applications in quantum information, introduce gamification to randomness generation and demonstrate global networking techniques by which hundreds of thousands of individuals can directly participate in experimental science.