@PeterDonis, thanks for clarification, I feel that I understand a bit better on that subject.
But I feel the need to repeat a previous question I asked: if reality requires observers to exist then how did observers themselves appear, i.e how did they came into existence? By being themselves...
Thanks.
In fact, I find the term "observer" to be a rather nebulous concept (is it a conscious entity, a particle, a device, is it microscopic or macroscopic, etc) but this could be due to my lack of knowledge, while it's probably much clearer to those that are knowledgeable in QM.
That'a why...
I'm sorry for my badly put question.
What I wanted to ask is: is an observer (in QM) and a frame of reference (in general physics, be it Newtonian or Relativistic) the same thing?
Thanks to all for trying to explain this weirdness.
I guess I'm more of a classical mindset and I find subjectivity hard to swallow.
But if I understand somehow what you're saying then there might be no absolute reality, just like there is no absolute space and time as Newton believed. Did I...
Can a field be an "observer" since photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field?
If yes, it would mean that basically any physical entity can be an "observer" and saying that there is no objective reality (i.e no observers -> no reality) is just a more convoluted way to say that there...
I feel I should explain why I don't agree with statements such as "there is no objective reality": because these are contradicting logic.
If reality depends on observers then how did observers appear in first place? For example, how did the BB happen if there was no one to observe it since it...
Then I don't understand why the article was given that title ("there might be no objective reality") if the paper does not seem to talk about this but about Bohr's complementarity principle.
Reading the paper and from its language, I got the impression that the authors really want Bohr's...
@PeroK, interesting. In what way is it "quite mad", if I may ask? I had a similar feeling but it was based on those headlines that I read ("no objective reality", etc).
Well, this seems to be the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-022-00828-z?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_PRODUCT&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100052570&CJEVENT=057c36e4014111ed802502350a180511
Any thoughts?
@Lord Jestocost, I'm not talking about philosophy but science. In that article I linked to, is said that there was an experiment done by scientists from Brazil and its conclusion was, apparently, that there is no objective reality. At least, that is what the title of this article says.
But I...
Sorry for the delayed response, I was busy.
An example of what caused me to open this thread: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a40460495/objective-reality-may-not-exist/
But I don't really understand what they're talking about except that it seems like there was an experiment that led...
As per title and the TL;DR, I'm curious if there could be some truth in these statements of the headlines I had read recently or are they just sensationalist fluff.
Personally, I find these statements very hard to believe. In fact, impossible to believe. But I'm not a QM expert, not even an...
@Vanadium 50: I did not ask about the nature of coupling of tachyons to normal matter. I just asked about the implications of their mere existence. That's why this thread is at B level.
But you're right about my first post asking about a fully consistent theory of tachyons out of nowhere. So I...
@Vanadium 50: but where did I say about a "fully consistent theory of tachyons" appearing out of nowhere? All I said was that further experiments would be required in order to elaborate such a theory.
It seems that no one wants to guess what impact would the existence of tachyons have on physics.