so i read an article about the Nobel prize winners this year winning it through their experiments that prove quantum entanglement. this is super neat, and exciting, but i feel like people are jumping to conclusions fairly quickly without considering what the implications of quantum research are from a strictly scientific perspective, given what we know now
im not going to pretend im a physicist or in any way qualified to have an opinion on this that contradicts the research/scientific consensus, HOWEVER, i think we need to recognize when we dont know something, not conclude that in our lack of knowledge, a conclusion may be derived based upon what is most likely. i bring this up because of the article in question that had a title along the lines of "the universe isn't real, and the 2022 Nobel prize winners prove it." whats important here is what we mean by "real". the winners did not disprove the existence of reality, but rather proved that the universe, on a quantum level, cannot be either:
1) local: which is to say particles may only interact with particles that are close in proximity to it
2) causal: which is to say every effect must have a cause "every action has an equal and opppsite reaction", and so on.
3) real: the universe is real, in that a set of particles will behave the same regardless of the perception of those particles
so if particles interact and communicate faster than the speed of light, and behave differently basednon if they are being measured, does this suggest reality is fake? well, no. we can't ignore the incredible reliability of both classical mechanics and general relativity, which suggests that the macro observations of the universe are accurate, and thus real. instead, we should do as we did at the foundation of general relativity, and modify our understanding of the universes to *include* quantum mechanics, rather than discard classical mechanics and general relativity as being fake. this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and not good science. there are clear proofs and experimental data supporting the more bizarre conclusions of quantum mechanics, this is true, but this does not exclude the reality of the rest of physics. it would be too quick of a conclusion to declare all of reality as fake, and i do not take people seriously when they jump to that conclusion
feel free to correct me it i got any lf the science wrong--again, i am not a physicist, and do not claim to be.
Link to article im referencing, although im not mad about the article itself, just some redditors being redditors
Back