article and paper link: The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph (Submitted on 14 Nov 2011)

Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state represents. There are at least two opposing schools of thought, each almost as old as quantum theory itself. One is that a pure state is a physical property of system, much like position and momentum in classical mechanics. Another is that even a pure state has only a statistical significance, akin to a probability distribution in statistical mechanics. Here we show that, given only very mild assumptions, the statistical interpretation of the quantum state is inconsistent with the predictions of quantum theory. This result holds even in the presence of small amounts of experimental noise, and is therefore amenable to experimental test using present or near-future technology. If the predictions of quantum theory are confirmed, such a test would show that distinct quantum states must correspond to physically distinct states of reality. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1111.3328 I thought this was interesting enough to post here as it relates to arithmetic realism vs physics. Anyone have any comments or feel like explaining the experiment in ultra-layman's terms? My comments (from http://s33light.org/post/13589393141): Ah, they are getting closer. “if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.” What they are not considering is that it only seems very unlikely that quantum states are able to communicate with each other across space and time because they are assuming that space and time *are not part of what is being communicated*. It’s frustrating, because if that little consideration turns out to be true, it would be much more ‘seismic’ even than the paper in question. Once you realize that the singularity is perpetual (because it occurs outside of time…because all time and space arise as a consequence of the Big Bang and the Big Bang is a consequence of the singularity) then space and time become a logical function within the singularity rather than a concrete physical primitive. Matter-‘energy’ (experience) is the concrete primitive. That is what is all connected. The vacuum of space and sequences of time are relativistic pantomimes - a stagecraft of entropies and attenuations evoked through the scalar relation of mass-energy with itself, from within itself. Why does space seem real to us? Space is only real to us because we are living organisms and our body relates to other bodies and objects in a specific way. It’s all about frames of reference…micro to meso to macro; holarchies and nested inertias translating each other as presentation-algebras which recapitulate the ‘differences that make a difference’ between the local and distal inertial frames (distal in both perceptual-semantic and relativistic-literal senses). Why does time seem real-ish to us? Because the organism that we are has finite limitations on how much ‘now’ it can experience. Those limitations are what make us what we are in the universe as opposed to something else or everything else. The reality of time is only the sequential sense of experiences and participation. There are no cosmic clock gears pushing things along literally, rather the vast synchrony of events evolves holographically from within each inertial frame of reference. Each ‘now’ is just the most local node on an Indra’s Net of reflected and refracted distal nows, cycles within cycles, as perceived by whatever subject calls that node, that now, and those cycles home. Without such a home, without a frame of reference, we cannot presume that there is nothingness when it is just as likely that the ground of being can be described just as well as being ‘everythingness’. Both are true in one sense, false in another. Is the future laid out for us then? Is the largest, all inclusive ‘now’ (the singularity’s now) deterministic? That’s where the singularity makes use of it’s ‘shadow’. Eastern philosophies such as Taosim and Vedanta have it right, it is one thing pretending to be also nothing, and thereby dividing itself into an infinitely finite, and completely incomplete process of processes. Time and space are that shadow of the singularity which allows it’s self involution- definition-evolution-extinction. So, to the question ‘spooky action at a distance’? My answer, “Who are you calling ‘distance’, kimosabe?” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.