Reality Check - New Scientist article

[Single Serving Jack]

In the current edition of NS the main article is about quantum theory, entanglement and 'reality':

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...evolution.html

(Subscriber only at the moment)

I don't pretend to understand it in any meaningful way, but the gist of it seems to be this: a recent experiment has shown that rather than there being an objective reality, the universe actually only exists when you're looking at it. The thought occurred that if there is a God (being omnipresent and omniscient and all that), that would mean that the universe would be under perpetual observation and measurement by Him, and if so this experiment should have shown that there is an objective reality.

I was thinking about the 'collapsing of the wave function' etc, which is supposed to happen when a particle in superposition is observed... well, if God is observing everything at all times that wouldn't happen, would it? Isn't the result of this experiment and the fact that we can put particles into superposition proof there is no God? Or at least proof than he can't possibly be omnipresent and omniscient?

I realise that this is in all probability the ravings of someone who badly needs a cup of coffee and if so, I'll get my coat :lol:

Single Serving Jack wrote

In the current edition of NS the main article is about quantum theory, entanglement and 'reality':

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...evolution.html

(Subscriber only at the moment)

I don't pretend to understand it in any meaningful way, but the gist of it seems to be this: a recent experiment has shown that rather than there being an objective reality, the universe actually only exists when you're looking at it. The thought occurred that if there is a God (being omnipresent and omniscient and all that), that would mean that the universe would be under perpetual observation and measurement by Him, and if so this experiment should have shown that there is an objective reality.

I was thinking about the 'collapsing of the wave function' etc, which is supposed to happen when a particle in superposition is observed... well, if God is observing everything at all times that wouldn't happen, would it? Isn't the result of this experiment and the fact that we can put particles into superposition proof there is no God? Or at least proof than he can't possibly be omnipresent and omniscient?

I realise that this is in all probability the ravings of someone who badly needs a cup of coffee and if so, I'll get my coat :lol:

But...but...God is OUTSIDE of space, time and reality!!!!!!! :o

He can do anything!!!

Youre just a baby eater!!! what would you know!!!!

:wall:

[a different tim]

I don't think it's anything new. The Aspect experiment kind of implied this anyway as far as I can tell. Reality is in some way probabilistic. It's only a problem if you wnat to concieve of reality as a deterministic billiard ball model at the micro level.

All it shows is that when we try to translate quantum theory into English it doesn't fit any of our standard concepts. Since we evolved to deal with medium size objects travelling quite slowly, it doesn't really surprise me. In a way it's astonishing that we have developed a set of mathematical tools that can model quantum phenomena at all.

I don't even want to read the article. this says it all;

"...the universe actually only exists when you're looking at it"

This implies that the existance is persuant to an INTELLIGENCE looking at it. Would a more accurate statement not be:

"the universe exists because of a self supporting overlap of quantum and inertial frames"

Which essentially says the same thing... but remove the implication of the 'Intelligent observer'.

[Choobus]

I can't read the article, but often in these quantum mechanical arguments the term "observer" is misused (or at leas at misunderstood). There has never been a decent argument that required an intelligent observer. What they usually mean is a decoherance due to interactions with a non-quantum system (like a radiation detector, for example). The "observer" is not so much looking at the quantum event as scrambling its quantum phase so that it can no longer exist in that deliciously quantum superposition of states. Once it has been forced into a particular state it can't play many of it's quantum tricks, and starts acting more like a classical system. The statement "the universe only exists when you are looking at it" is at best misleading, and more like sensationalist arse chocolate, in my opinion.