Yet quantum mechanics, a thoroughly validated theory of how the world works, seems to suggest otherwise. The theory’s math assigns redness to the billiard ball at the moment you measure it. Before then, the theory gives you only a set of probabilities telling you what color the ball might be. Key founders of quantum mechanics suggested that this math reflects the nature of reality — that in some sense, a single, objective reality doesn’t really exist.
In 1935, Einstein rebelled against this surreal reading of quantum theory, proposing one of the 20th century’s most famous thought experiments. But his rebellion was doomed. In 1964, the physicist John Stewart Bell showed with a thought experiment of his own that reality had to be stranger than Einstein assumed. Subsequent work would put Bell’s thought experiment to the test — and prove him right.
Then, 50 years after Bell, Matthew Pusey (opens a new tab), at the time a graduate student at Imperial College London, took on what remained of Einstein’s notion of reality and — without originally intending to — delivered the killing blow.
The paradigm-shifting theorem became known as PBR, for Pusey and his academic accomplices, Jonathan Barrett and Terry Rudolph. Since the publication of PBR in 2012, many theorists have come to accept that it rules out our most commonsense understanding of reality.
…
As with Bell, PBR has been experimentally confirmed multiple times. Last fall, for instance, researchers in the U.K. played an expanded version of the PBR game, dealing out five cards instead of just two, using a quantum computer built by IBM. Indeed, the quantum machine always won, although no one had doubted that it would. In fact, the researchers had been using the PBR theorem mainly to check whether the quantum computer was functioning properly. The validity of quantum mechanics — and PBR — was taken as a given.
“That was really the motivation,” said Crispin Barnes (opens a new tab), a physicist at the University of Cambridge who led the experiment, “to see whether a theorem from quantum foundations could also be turned into [an] experimental probe of genuinely quantum behavior.”
…
But to conclude that the quantum state is definitely real is to misunderstand the PBR theorem, because PBR also leaves open the other extreme path: It could be, as the Copenhagenists have steadfastly maintained since the days of Bohr, that in some sense nothing is real, including the quantum state. It’s perfectly possible that the quantum state lives in our minds and has no direct connection to an objective reality. In this case, the redness of the billiard ball would be inextricably linked with the act of observing it — precisely the state of affairs that so deeply offended Einstein. “Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?” Einstein once famously pressed his colleague Abraham Pais.
PBR doesn’t give us the answer. What it does do is end a century of bargaining with quantum mechanics. By ruling out the possibility that reality is real while the wave function is not, PBR requires that physicists either fully embrace the notion of an objective but entirely surreal reality, or fully reject objective reality altogether. “Do you bite the bullet, or do you try and dodge the bullet?” Pusey said.



I always hate how people misinterpret the whole probability thing in quantum mechanics, or think that Schrödinger’s Cat was meant to prove something rather than the fact that it was to show the ridiculousness of some of Heisenberg’s work, among others.
The real issue is that the act of observing a quantum particle in any way that a human or their machines could possibly observe them necessarily alters the state of that particle in some way. It’s like if the only way you could detect how far away a bullet sitting on the ground was from you was to fire another bullet at it and have it reflected back. Obviously whatever reading that were to give you is now no longer correct, the bullet has been moved by the detection bullet and possibly some other characteristics have changed. So you only do real detection at the moment you need to and realize that value is only valid in that moment and for everything else you use probabilities.
Of course an oversimplification, but pretending there’s something surreal and supernatural about quantum mechanics is just silly.
This is an idiotic take that shows that you didn’t even read the article, let alone have a basic understanding of quantum physics. Even if your take was right about the uncertainty principle, which it isnt, how does that explain non-locality? Entangled particles? How is that not surreal or supernatural?
Well for a couple reasons, a) they’re real, b) they’re natural 😜
Clearly all the physicists that have claimed otherwise must be idiots then.