0
2

[–] creep 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

From the comments:

God, I hate popular science descriptions in QM. Simplifying a complicated idea to the point where it is no longer correct is not helpful to anyone. More often than not, it muddles understanding. In this case, implying that reality doesn't exist when we don't measure it is just plain wrong, and leads to things like the quantum woo peddled by Deepak Chopra.

It isn't that reality doesn't exist when we don't look at it. It's that certain quantities only become well defined in the context of particular measurements. The moon is still there when we look at it. It's just that if we attempted to measure the spin of one of the photons reflected from its surface, we would only be able to confidently confidently measure its value along one axis of our own choosing.

Furthermore, quantum measurements happen without intelligent agents. For example, a decaying radioactive isotope in an asteroid might still emit a particle capable of starting a chain reaction, in say, interstellar gas.

Other comments in the thread said this experiment implies that there aren't just "particle" and "wave" states, but a third state that we are simply incapable of measuring because the moment we do, the results become one or the other.