Even if I was to compare / contrast what comes out of public school with the real world, the reality is never questioned ...
What people THINK and why should be challenged ... not reality.
But then ... these are scientific Americans .... /;^)
Huh?
Just follow Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity” - everyone has relatives.
Democrats make me rethink reality.
Their anomalies, contradictions, hypocrisies and paradoxes defy reality.
I fail to grok how we can co-exist in the same universe; it's like matter & antimatter.
I suggest the author test reality this way: step off a fifth floor ledge.
If he falls, he has confirmed reality...
That right there makes a hell of a lot of sense; whether it's GOOD sense or not remains to be contemplated.
Where is Professor Irwin Corey when you need him?
The strange behavior of QM could be telling us that the Universe or God really does self create.
So is the cat dead or alive?
The Bible discusses the universe, all we consider reality, as something that God can deconstruct as if were a rug that he can roll up. Are the quantum scientist starting to realize this may be true?
This article entangled concepts that are not even related, when it compares cultural interpretations of reality and quantum mechanics. For example, some languages have many words for snow. We see the same snow they do, and we even see the same variations of snow. But we only have one word because to us, the distinctions between types of snow do not warrant inventing new words. And if it is important to distinguish between two types of snow, we still have the ability to describe them.
Another thing is that the weirdness of quantum phenomena does not manifest at the macro level where we exist, except in the e!event of random chance. If it did, scientific research would become impossible. We may have different languages to describe what we see, but scientists studying the same thing do, in fact, come up with the same results no matter where they are or what language they speak. Or, in simple terms, a person with XY chromosomes and normal hormones and hormone receptors is still a man, even if he calls himself a woman and wears a dress.
I learn much more when things don’t go as expected than when they do.
Never stop thinking, but realize that Thomas Kuhn’s “ Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is a very accurate book.
I recall a quote, supposedly attributed to Einstein, that goods something like:
“Before I heard your lecture, I was confused on this subject. After hearing you speak, I am still confused, but at a higher level.”
A lot of the supposed “entanglement” being discussed here is nothing more than the fact that language is used by human beings to describe their environments and that individual human beings have differing levels of access to words to describe the attributes of objects.
As we grow, we acquire (or should be acquiring) more and more vocabulary words to help us describe sensory inputs. Using the example from the article, it takes a lot of personal and collective education/experience/interest to go from a specific perceived sound the identifying it as a thrush “singing.”
My descriptive vocabularity for color is going to be more limited than say, a professional color consultant. This limitation is not a limitation on the object but on the part of the observer’s education, experience, and frankly, interest in the subject. The particular color of an object, which is a function of the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum it does not absorb, is independent of who is observing the object.
The same is true for other physical properties it may possess. They are attributes of the object and they do not change with the observer. I take this to be the “noncontextuality” being referred to. The “Quantum entanglement” being discussed seems to come down to a complaint about the lack of a specific enough vocabulary to describe what is being observed.
On a separate note, the article’s author(s) do their audience no favors by assuming it has a deep, prior education in the details of the cited experiments being conducted to prove or disprove “noncontextuality” and “quantum entanglement.” Scientific American magazine has a educated but non-specialist readership and article content should be pitched at that level.
I’ve found that reading quantum mechanics explains my experiences and perceptions during meditation.
Perception of reality is a function of the level of consciousness from which you view it. I merely tune my consciousness into the gamma frequency which is the rate of the action potential firing rates of the pyramidal cells in level 3 of the cerebral cortex and other peoples stored memories in their soul becomes physical to my perception.
Something about reality has been puzzling me. Some time ago i read that NASA and other space engineers have a problem that causes difficulty. Now i am not a physicist but i do remember the high points of my Pre Med Physics. The “Black Box” radiation problem arose by simple observation of an event that was not novel to mankind but was seen some 100 years ago with “new eyes”. When pottery is glazed it is heated to temperatures so high that the wavelengths of all light leaving each surface is the same and the objects in there “disappear”. This observation really sparked modern physics.
Back to NASA, engineers design vehicles for space have a problem. How to dissipate heat. It seems there is something about a hard vacuum that makes this difficult relative to a planet surface where there is a lot of mass to dissipate heat to. At first glance this doesn’t seem unusual. It makes sense, there is nothing there to radiate heat TO. But back up. Why should this be so? Why cant a hot surface just radiate heat in all directions into an environment which is ABSOLUTE ZERO? One would think you could radiate all the heat you wanted down that gradient. Turns out that a photon of IR light leaving a surface has to have a “place to land before it can leave”. Isn’t that curious? As i said, i am not a physicist but seems to me that right there is a fact that we need to consider the ramifications of very slowly and deliberately. I have no idea what is meant by “entanglement” but this sounds like it is that kind of thing. A photon leaves an atom and the energy it takes is drained away and transferred to the atom upon which it lands and travels “at the speed of light” en route. But it can’t leave until it has a “place to go”. So there is an instantaneous event on both ends that does very much “exceed the speed of light”. So a Universe built on location has something about it that is NOT local and that something is elemental in the fabric of reality.
Ridiculous! Reality is just fine, thank you, without “scientists” telling us that reality is not reality.
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? That depends....
Tell that to those who fought against British rule.
I quote myself from long ago: “The Scientific Method requires objectivity, but does not provide it.”