By Shristi Pandey
Whenever we discuss about the possibility of a shared existence of particles in the same electromagnetic field of ours, we immediately find ourselves correlating it to the principles of quantum physics with a desperate need for a conclusion that might sound more certain that what we have been left with, since decades.
The assumptions made about the coexistence of a different set of particles or atomic units, mess up with the already prevalent information and facts that have stayed traditional in reference to universe and its theories. However, there have been superficial events occurred, that do demand a change in how we perceive science. The time capsule idea encountered by MIT administrators suspect it to be a strong evidence to the potential power of these ambiguities. In accordance to the Einstein’s general theory of relativity which clearly states that we perceive as the force of gravity arises from the curvature of space and time that govern our daily lives in order, this very structure of space-time unifies with the very concept of quantum theory, as well. While one event might take place just at the same time as another, each of them might be the reason behind the other. This validates that the observers of each of these might travel at different velocities, explaining a part of the Einstein’s theory. These space-time relations could be termed as quantum relationalism. While they do, the ways and directions to calculate the distances may cross may vary. As these particles are closely related, they share one quantum space, from where they are allowed to traverse different paths. In spite of measuring their locations from universally opposite points, the measurements match and quite surprisingly so.
One of the perennial paradoxes of quantum theories could be traced back to its relation with the perception of these space-time relations. Quantum mechanics can be used to define the smallest bits of the universal objects. While quantum physicists is capable of accomplishing what ordinary individuals can’t, predicting the link between quantum theory and the objective reality has been equally challenging for them too. The notion has always sounded skeptical and puzzling at the same time. Our view of the world is generally how we perceive it as a whole. The objective side of it is probably something that exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. When we perceive objects or people beyond what they actually possess, there lies a ground for questions. Similarly, when we undermine the assumption of science about the basic existence of an objective world, discrepancies follow. Two different parties are entitled to their own sets of alternative facts and very rightly so. The reality perceived by one cannot be reconciled with the reality perceived by another. The answers to all such complexities of the world, encompassing quantum fields and black holes. While some researches might argue that objectivity is an illusion, some believe that neither quantum nor classical physics provides any principled means for saying what counts as an object.
Science and its reliable notions of observation, measurement and repeatability have times and again been counter intuitive to the foundations of the quantum realm. Such scenarios have long remained an interesting thought experiment and how they reflect reality. According to an experiment conducted to overrule the theory of superposition, under certain assumptions, measurements in quantum mechanics are subjective to observers. It was argued that applying quantum mechanics to an observer that is themselves being observed could be a distinct reversal to the objectivity theory. According to the theory, particles can co-exist in several places or states at once — this is called a superposition. But oddly, this is only the case when they aren't observed. The second we observe a quantum system, it picks a specific location or state — breaking the superposition. To evaluate the same, composing a framework, the entire experiment is said to be devised into a method inclusive of two different boxes- the observers measure on a shared state. The results are then summed up to evaluate an inequality failing of which, observers could have alternative facts. There isn’t any access to this fact and to prove it, both the particles have to be in a superposition of all possible outcomes of the experiment. This however, presented a problem because the reality perceived by one didn’t match with the one seen by another. This experiment therefore shows that, we do need to rethink our notion of objectivity. Scientists viewed this as a new development as strengthening observations to accommodate more than one outcome to occur.
A defender of the prospects for objective knowledge however, might root for clear and distinct ideas distinguishing the reliable perceptions of objective truth from subjective experiences. Despite plausible ways of arguing that subjective reality is what the world is heading towards, there is a general explanation that lines within. We are usually much more confident about our instincts and knowledge about a certain topic, rather than believing someone else’s thought put worth. This agreement is based mostly on one’s subjective impressions of perceiving subjects agreeing with one’s own judgments only. When we value our judgements over something that is consistently valued by others, on a universal basis, it’s likely to be wrong or to have incurred some error. One can also argue that agreement indicates probable truth, as it is unlikely that you and I would both be wrong in our judgment regarding an object and both be wrong in exactly the same way. The differences are usually marked in the philosophy of mind. Observing something from the subjective point of view is something that we humans are used to, and is central to the basic psychology of our mind. Whether or not this subjective conscious experience influences quantum mechanics might be needed to fully understand how the human brain works. Like the quantum objects can apparently be in two places or states at once, it’s highly predictable that the mind can hold onto two conjectural ideas at the same time. Because of this theory of entanglement, two such ideas might thus in turn become entangled: a kind of quantum superposition of thoughts. Highly speculative and disturbing as it sounds, the idea of quantum consciousness has had a long history.
Comments