Quantum experiment suggests there's no such thing as objective reality - Sensationalist Headlines

that just kinda looks like a paintball/target course

if it was i would consider joining but it's fucked up that i would have to go to JZ's lame ass rants just to do some operating.

So is this just Hollywood science again or is this something legitimate this time? I'm getting sick of this materialistic universe but everything's pointing only at that.

well if there's no such thing as reality that means psychic powers must exist according to new age retro hippies, better get to work on that tulpa so that I finally have a chance at a gf

Having recently done my graduate dissertation on the measurement problem, I feel vaguely qualified to comment on this research. Basically, like everything else, JohnnyMo is right A case of over-sensationalized science reporting, wherein 'this extended version of a well-known thought experiment seems to violate a Bell Inequality' is translated into 'the universe is fake and reality isn't real'. The paper itself is interesting enough, but nothing really special or overwhelmingly groundbreaking. Nothing that moves this area of physics beyond never ending, mostly-philosophical arguments between MWI/De-Broglie Bohm/Consistent Histories/the three people that still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation.

Some day I'll find the time to read all of Griffiths' consistent histories book. I read some ages ago and remember it being interesting, like Copenhagen but with more than 5 minutes worth of thought put into it.

I've always found that Copenhagen is used most often in practical circumstances, where there's no motivation to root a conclusion in anything other than what is seen on the surface. After all, if you're dealing with QBits or something, you may as well hold full-scale collapse as true because no interpretation offers any (currently observable) practical differences. Consistent Histories was interesting to me, because my opinion on what Griffiths was doing kept changing as I read more of it. I like that the Propositions/Event construction is effectively based around information theory (which is, oddly, kind-of included in part of the research in the OP), as I feel that any 'true' interpretation should be based around the exchange of information between systems rather than physical interaction. While I like the underlying point (changing 'what is the state of this system' into 'what questions are you allowed to ask of it'), I do think that CH feels more like a descriptive tool rather than an actual description of reality. I'm much less comfortable with how it uses Decoherence within the apparatus as an vector for collapse, however, rather than some property of the thing being observed. It seems to try to dismiss the oddity of the probabilistic process by pushing it away from the superposition and onto the measurement device - in the end you have the same issue, but you've moved it to somewhere you can consider it irrelevant. While it's certainly far more thoughtful and, well, sane than traditional Copenhagen, I walked away from my research into CH thinking that its single-world viewpoint was still unsatisfactory.

I take it from that phrasing that you lean towards MWI

So to be clear, is this still "observation necessitates interacting with the particle" and not "the particle knows we're looking?"

Between the jokes and possible misinterpretations it is worth to point that for now the observer collapsing different possibilities into one is only true at quantum scale. If you have a table it will keep being a table and it will not turn into a cloud of probability while you blink or leave the room, no matter how many observers are especulating about the table being somewhere between said room and, I don't know, Saturn. Althought I'm not mistaken someone tried to calculate this.

Isn't this actually huge, as it basically disproves any theory that tries to make the wave function collapse a part of objective reality, so Objective-collapse interpretations, almost all of pilot wave theories, and almost all of modal interpretations, unless it takes into account the observers perspective? Thing is that case even observers from afar observing that the photon is in a superposition would have an entangled effect on the particle, as it would let it still exist in a state of superposition even when something else has already measured it. The mere act of observing the superposition causes entanglement, nullifying the MWI. Copenhagen still reigns supreme.

This doesn't seem extremely surprising. If I read this right, Wigner's friend (from Wigner's perspective) enters a macroscopic superposition regarding the stored result that doesn't collapse until they disclose the result of their measurement to Wigner. This shouldn't destroy the original superposition from Wigner's perspective either, then. It looks pretty reconcilable to me, though. The important part to understand is that everything has quantum properties to some extent. As far as I understand it, It's just that larger things normally don't appear to be in superposition to us because their interference-effects are vanishingly small at those scales.

Excuse me, the name is Reality Prime. Get your objective facts straight.

the earth is flat and round at the same time