How the human eye could destroy quantum mechanics

[nec209]

Interesting article on how it could destroy the quantum mechanics theory. 

Yes If quantum mechanics theory turns out to be correct. But what other theories does Alipasha Vaziri, a physicist have to replace quantum mechanics?

And interesting experiment how it could destroy quantum mechanics.

https://thenextweb.com/news/how-the-human-eye-could-destroy-quantum-mechanics

 

 

[joigus]

How would the human eye destroy quantum mechanics?

And if so, in what way is a human eye essentially different from any other photo-detecting device? --Never mind entanglement.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

Interesting article on how it could destroy the quantum mechanics theory. 

Yes If quantum mechanics theory turns out to be correct. But what other theories does Alipasha Vaziri, a physicist have to replace quantum mechanics?

And interesting experiment how it could destroy quantum mechanics.

https://thenextweb.com/news/how-the-human-eye-could-destroy-quantum-mechanics

 

 

The article seems to be Chopraesque quantum woo. In other words, meaningless ballocks. 😁

Unless, perhaps, you can unpack it for me and explain what it actually says that has some science content to it. 

 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, nec209 said:

Interesting article on how it could destroy the quantum mechanics theory. 

I disagree. It seems like a pretty standard "Vividly misleading headline" followed by a bogus argument that for a theory to work it has to explain everything. It seems designed to lure the misinformed into clicking on the link and wasting precious minutes of their lives. 

Quote

This is because, for quantum mechanics to work as a theory, it has to explain everything that happens, including why we don’t usually perceive quantum phenomena. 

 

[swansont]

I second the “bollocks” diagnosis. There’s no science in the article back up these claims

Quote

If quantum mechanics turns out to be correct this could be interpreted to mean our purpose in the universe is simply to behold the beauty around us, so it can become reality.

That, in particular, is crap. 

As for the notion that observing an entangled vs unentangled photon, the article doesn’t say why this matters. The human eye only weakly detects light polarization*, and one can’t tell if the photon was entangled simply by detecting it. 

 

*see Haidinger’s brush
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger's_brush

[TheVat]

Seems like a garbled reporting of this paper, or one similar:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08430

where they propose shooting two entangled photons at each side of a retina, if it's sensitive enough (like a frog's or cat's?).

The SciAm citation in the OP linked article has this explanation...

The GRW model and its many variants posit wave functions collapse spontaneously; the more massive the object in superposition, the faster its collapse. One consequence of this would be that individual particles could remain in superposition for interminably long times whereas macroscopic objects could not. So, the infamous Schrödinger’s cat, in GRW, can never be in a superposition of being dead and alive. Rather it is always either dead or alive, and we only discover its state when we look. Such theories are said to be “observer-independent” models of reality.

If a collapse theory such as GRW is the correct description of nature, it would upend almost a century of thought that has tried to argue observation and measurement are central to the making of reality. Crucially, when the superposed photon lands on an eye, GRW would predict ever-so-slightly different photon counts for the left and the right sides of the eye than does standard quantum mechanics. This is because differently sized systems in the various stages of the photon’s processing—such as two light-sensitive proteins in two rod cells versus two assemblies of rod cells and associated nerves in the retina—would exhibit different spontaneous collapse rates after interacting with a photon. Although both Kwiat and Holmes stress it is highly unlikely they will see a difference in their experiments, they acknowledge that any observed deviation would hint at GRW-like theories.

Edited January 28, 2023 by TheVat
bdpejgi

[Sensei]

Quote

How the human eye could destroy quantum mechanics

 

Who said the human eye destroys quantum mechanics?

If you saw the double slit experiment, once in your life, you would have seen the interference pattern on the screen.. so your personal observation did not "destroy" it..

 

[joigus]

This all seems to belong in the decades-old ongoing mindless hullabaloo about quantum mechanics and consciousness. If there's something that's clear about quantum mechanics and the process of measurement is that it's nothing to do with consciousness necessarily, but with quantum mechanics of open systems and dissipative processes. Conscious processes sure involve dissipation and quantum mechanics of open systems.