Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> What hypothesis is being tested here? Is there any theory that predicts that large objects won't behave like waves if they are properly isolated from the environment?

We can probably devise some interesting experiments when we have conscious human observers within the apparent independent wave function.




BTW, these fringe theories have no real place in modern QM. Nobody has demonstrated anything even remotely relevant to quantum mechanics in consciousness.


Here's what's science: have a hypothesis that makes predictions that confirm or falsify it, then carry out experiments to do so.

Here's what's not science: someone's subjective emotional opinion about what "has place" in science and what doesn't.

Also, Roger Penrose who recently WON A NOBEL PRIZE makes some very strong connections between QM and consciousness. Which you're clearly ignorant of.

So not only you're wrong about what science is, you're even factually wrong about what leading and awarded scientists believe and propose.

People like you, who decide what has "place" in science and what doesn't have called Einstein's Relativity "fake Jew science" back in the day, simply because (racism aside) they didn't like the complex implications of his theory.

Think hard if you actually care what science is, or you're looking to lazily identify easy enemies to call quacks based on keywords like "consciousness", despite you're clearly uninformed on the subject. An intellectually honest person in your place would take a step back and maybe even apologize.


I was a longtime scientist and have a publication record. I know what science is. I am intellectually honest. My area of study included quantum chemistry. I have researched all the work in consciousness and QM and so far, nobody has even the most basic of theories that woudl explain the data in a simpler way than existing, classical ones.

If you do some reading you'll see Hameroff (who cares about penrose) isn't operating in good faith.

I don't see your point about "fake jew science", relativity is very different from "the neural correlate of consciousness necessarily exploits quantum phenomena".


Are you pushing "quantum conscious" here?


I'm not necessarily pushing for anything, but I'm saying if you have someone who can report what they observe on the other side of this experiment, it'll be a brand new component to extract data from.

As for the QM interpretations, honestly all of them are outrageous in their implications, if you truly analyze them.

- Copenhagen interpretation can't determine where to draw the line between quantum and classical, and yet says at that line the probability wave collapses. It also has non-local implications, without defining a timespace reference for this non-local effect (i.e. it says things like the wave collapses "everywhere" without describing mechanism for it, and it collapses "now" without noting that "now" has no meaning on universe-wide scale).

- Pilot wave and QFT have the same problems as Copenhagen.

- Superdeterminism decides cause and effect is just an illusion and everything is determined from initial conditions, but has no explanation for the elaborate cause-effect reality we observe at every moment.

- Many worlds requires literally infinite universe clones to spawn at every moment of time.

There are few more but they have similar issues.


I'm not sure what the relevance of "human observers" is, versus any physical measurement device that can "report" their measurements just as well.


What's the purpose of human observers on either end? Just hook up some measurement devices and let them write the paper and publish it for other measuring devices to read.

Kidding aside, the overall point was putting macroscopic objects in superposition, be it mechanical or biological, might yield opportunity for new experiments.


you're just pushing pop culture QM here, not scientific QM.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: