The measurement problem in physics is that quantum waves evolve predictably by Schrödinger’s equation, to allow many possibilities, but the measured result is always one physical state. This problem was raised early last century, and no progress has been made on the matter since:
“The history of the quantum measurement paradox is fascinating. There is still no general agreement on the matter even after eighty years of heated debate.” (Laughlin, 2005), p49.
Essentially, we understand quantum waves very well, but can’t explain why observing them always produces a single physical event. Given the science is good, then:
“… why not simply accept the reality of the wave function? (Zeh, 2004), p8.
This hasn’t happened so far because quantum theory:
“… paints a picture of the world that is less objectively real than we usually believe it to be.” (Walker, 2000), p72.
In other words, quantum theory contradicts the current culture of physics, and if one accepts the wave part of quantum theory is real, one must accept that all of it is.
“… if we are to take y [the quantum field] as providing a picture of reality, then we must take these jumps as physically real occurrences too…” (Penrose, 1994), p331.
Schrödinger tried to explain quantum theory in physical terms but failed, as did all who tried later, because it describes waves that superpose in physically impossible ways, entangle to ignore the speed of light, and disappear instantly when observed. A quantum wave that is spread across a galaxy can instantly collapse to a point, but:
“How can something real disappear instantaneously?” (Barbour, 1999), p200.
When Pauli and Born defined the quantum field strength as the probability of physical existence, physics inevitably became about something that wasn’t physically real:
“For the first time in physics, we have an equation that allows us to describe the behavior of objects in the universe with astounding accuracy, but for which one of the mathematical objects of the theory, the quantum field y, apparently does not correspond to any known physical quantity.” (Oerter, 2006), p89.
If we say the quantum field doesn’t exist because it isn’t physical, why does quantum theory predict so well? The result is the paradox that the unreal causes the real, for as one physicist says:
“Can something that affects real events … itself be unreal?” (Zeh, 2004), p4.
Physics uses quantum states to predict physical states, but as Penrose says:
“How, indeed, can real objects be constituted from unreal components?” (Penrose, 1994), p313.
For over a century, physics has faced this paradox like a deer in headlights, attracted by the success of quantum theory but afraid to abandon its orthodox stance of materialism. No-one has resolved this issue in the past hundred years, so will the next hundred years be the same?
Paradoxes vanish when false assumptions are exposed. For example, Figure 3.26 seems to have two square and three round prongs based on where you look. Look at the top to see two square prongs, but look at the bottom to clearly see three round ones! Both seem to be true but how can one object have two and three prongs? The answer isn’t some sort of square-round duality but to see that one line can’t bound a square and a round prong at the same time.
Likewise, a physics where the unreal causes the real builds illogic into its foundations. Accepting paradoxes like this and wave-particle duality, by institutionalizing illogic, isn’t science. The paradoxes of physics suggest that materialism is the false assumption, so we now consider the alternative that quantum reality generates physical events, based on quantum theory and the facts of physics.