Physicists Just Found a New Quantum Paradox That Casts Doubt on a Pillar of Reality

[Brickjectivity]

so, in a universe where the observer affects the outcome in some manner, merely by being involved,
even if ostensibly "undetected",
what does that then imply in a world obsessed with surveillance of others due to unfounded suspicions or slanderous opinionation [the hung jury]?

Not much to me, but there is an analogy in Philosophy. Philosophers recognize that people under surveillance feel less trusted and therefore less responsible for their actions. The term is 'Autonomy'. They have less autonomy which has effects on psychology.

 

[MNoBody]

Not much to me, but there is an analogy in Philosophy. Philosophers recognize that people under surveillance feel less trusted and therefore less responsible for their actions. The term is 'Autonomy'. They have less autonomy which has effects on psychology.

lots of experiments have been done which require those being thusly handled to not be aware of it, since, if they were, they would go out of their way to fudge the results, which corrupts the data, useless it becomes.
it was a line of reasoning i thought worth exploring here....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It does not cast doubt based on peer reviewed research with evidence.

No, because like the articles you link to it is popular science. Unlike many of the articles you link to it seems to have been written by the authors of the 2020 Nature study (which was peer-reviewed).

It is subjective conjecture as to what a paradox is in science.

It is not. It is a paper that is based on new work since ~2016 first in theoretical foundation physics and quantum foundations and then in experimental realizations of this work published in some of the world's leading science journals (such as PRL, Nature, Science, etc.).

At best it is 'arguing from ignorance' based on maybe unknowns in Quantum Mechanics.

The argument is based on the experimental side on work by the lab behind it as well as another whose work was published in Science last year (and of course earlier realizations and implementations of theoretical experiments such as Bell-type tests iQIT or EPR realizations in quantum photonics and so forth). On the theory side, the work stems out of a 2016 arXiv paper by Frauchiger and Renner later published in Nature Communications. This work caused quite a stir in the quantum foundations community.

If you want to pursue this further let's go with some peer reviewed research that justifies this claim.

Let me know if you need access to any of these:
BIG Bell Test Collaboration. (2018). Challenging local realism with human choices. Nature, 557(7704), 212.
Bong, K.W., Utreras-Alarcón, A., Ghafari, F., Liang, Y.C., Tischler, N., Cavalcanti, E.G., Pryde, G.J. & Wiseman, H.M. (2020). A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox. Nature Physics, pp.1-7.
Brukner, Č. (2017). On the quantum measurement problem. In R. Bertlmann & A. Zeilinger (Eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem (pp. 95-117). Springer.
Brukner, Č. (2018). A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts. Entropy, 20(5), 350.
Brukner, Č. (2020). Facts are relative. Nature Physics, 1-2.
DeBrota, J. B., Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2020). Respecting One’s Fellow: QBism’s Analysis of Wigner’s Friend. Foundations of Physics, 1-16.
Frauchiger, D., & Renner, R. (2018). Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nature communications, 9(1), 1-10.
Healey, R. (2018). Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity. Foundations of Physics, 48(11), 1568-1589.
Proietti, M., Pickston, A., Graffitti, F., Barrow, P., Kundys, D., Branciard, C., Ringbauer, M. & Fedrizzi, A. (2019). Experimental test of local observer independence. Science Advances, 5(9), eaaw9832.
Vilasini, V., Nurgalieva, N., & del Rio, L. (2019). Multi-agent paradoxes beyond quantum theory. New Journal of Physics, 21(11), 113028.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The trend in contemporary physics is to negate the importance of the 'observer,' and just consider them as observations from the human perspective. Recent research has provided a much better explanation of Quantum Mechanics and particle behavior.

This is false. In particular, many of the most recent trends in contemporary quantum (foundation) physics have been quite the opposite. Qbism, Relational QM, quantum information-theoretic approaches, etc., have all emerged more recently and on the cusp of cutting edge quantum measurement schemes and technologies and yet have tended to place human observers or agents as so fundamental to QM as to make quantum physics less a physical theory in the classical sense and more of a theory that informs one as to how one should bet on, estimate, or otherwise statistically interpret measurement outcomes.
We are seeing more of a trend towards a neo-Copenhagen-type approach in much of the literature, primarily in the form of information-theoretic approaches as well as their experimental/empirical counterparts and in particular those that oppose the idea of a quantum realm as a physical reality rather than a potential one and/or a participatory universe that is in fact agent-centered.

I have cited advances in QM in the past like the imaging of Quantum particles, and other advances in science, which do give greater explanations than in the past.

You've linked to online popular science articles, such as:

For example this thread: Quantum Mechanics becomes less mysterious.

In which you refer to research ruling out a possible explanation of quantum phenomena as somehow making things less mysterious. Generally speaking, when one has an explanation for why things are the way that they are, and research like the one cited in the article in your linked post rules out such an explanation, one doesn't claim that anything has become "less mysterious".

I do not believe either of these options explain the contemporary view and advance in Quantum Mechanics

It would be nice if, in a thread on cutting edge work undertaken over the past several years on several fronts in quantum foundations, you actually referred to more than popular science summaries and actually cited and showed the relevance of the "contemporary view" and "advance in Quantum Mechanics" you refer to.

I do not base my conclusions on speculation.

No, rather it seems primarily based on a lack of familiarity either with quantum theory or research on quantum foundations..

Yes I dismiss the theory that 'conscious observation collapses the wave function' based on recent research, as in the thread I cited

The thread you cited was on research in which a possible explanation relating to gravity was deemed implausible, and no alternative explanation proposed. It did not claim anything like what you have stated.

Layman articles like what was cited starting this thread represents a third party speculative article of no particular value.

The author is a specialist behind the peer-reviewed literature you ask for but do not yourself cite.

I cite cutting edge contemporary research

You refer to popular science articles like that of the OP. Unlike the article in the OP, the aren't generally written by specialists. Also, you don't seem to actually refer to the "cutting edge contemporary research" you believe you cite, but instead to over-simplifications in popular science online press (which, if the thread you linked to is any indication, you've misunderstood).

Please cite contemporary peer reviewed research

The link in the OP is to a peer-reviewed paper that the author was part of and which is brand new. It would be nice if you would do what you ask of another above, rather than refer (as you have done) to stuff such as this:

opinions about what is unknown, that supports your position.