Reality doesn't exist until we measure it, Quantum Experiment confirms.

Is this one more experiment which is the victim of how news generally hypes stuff like this?

This is a section from the article:

Australian scientists have recreated a famous experiment and confirmed quantum physics's bizarre predictions about the nature of reality, by proving that reality doesn't actually exist until we measure it - at least, not on the very small scale.

That all sounds a little mind-meltingly complex, but the experiment poses a pretty To successfully recreate the experiment, the team trapped a bunch of helium atoms in a suspended state known as a Bose-Einstein condensate, and then ejected them all until there was only a single atom left.

This chosen atom was then dropped through a pair of laser beams, which made a grating pattern that acted as a crossroads that would scatter the path of the atom, much like a solid grating would scatter light.

They then randomly added a second grating that recombined the paths, but only after the atom had already passed the first grating.

When this second grating was added, it led to constructive or destructive interference, which is what you'd expect if the atom had travelled both paths, like a wave would. But when the second grating was added, no interference was observed, as if the atom chose only one path.

The fact that this second grating was only added after the atom passed through the first crossroads suggests that the atom hadn't yet determined its nature before being measured a second time.

So if you believe that the atom did take a particular path or paths at the first crossroad, this means that a future measurement was affecting the atom's path, explained Truscott. "The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behaviour was brought into existence," he said.

Some of the things about this really confuse me, especially the claim that a future measurement affected the path the atom would end up taking. How literal are they being when they say this? (I don't think they are.)

Does this have any serious implications on QM or its interpretations?


Yes, it is hocus pocus from scientific reporters.

Going to the original press release from the experimenters:

Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.

This is 100% consistent with quantum mechanics, and I would stick to that.

Quantum mechanics does not predict trajectories or energy/mass waves , it gives the probability for detecting a "particle" at (x,y,z,t) . The probability distribution may show interference patterns characteristic of wave equations. The "particle" is a quantum mechanical entity, and we keep using the term because at the limit of macroscopic manifestation, the track of an electron for example, it acts like a classical particle.

As probability distributions need a great number of measurements whereas a "particle" manifestation is one instance of that distribution the term particle is still used.

In this particular experiment to detect an interference pattern for the alpha particles a large number must have been accumulated, one by one, similar to the double slit experiment with single electrons at a time.

The way I read the description is like a complicated double slit experiment, "one slit no interference, two slits interference". They use light grids to run the gauntlet for the alpha particles . One could randomize one of the slits in the double slit experiment and get the same result . So no new implications .

I would like though to see the published paper , to evaluate the claim

"However, the random number determining whether the grating was added was only generated after the atom had passed through the crossroads."

In general with interference phenomena in QM changes in boundary conditions change the accumulated distributions.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.