New Physics and New Age?
What's all the fuss about? Since 1975, enthusiastic adcovates of "mystical physics" have claimed that the New Physics (especially Quantum Physics) lends scientific support to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating your own reality." (*) But these claims, which are not scientifically justifiable, are based on nonscientific interpretations leading to implausible metaphysical speculations that are rejected by most scientists. By contrast, the views in this page are in the mainstream of conventional quantum physics, which is an excellent theory that I accept. I'm criticizing mystical physics, not conventional physics.* mystical physics (quantum mysticism) is advocated in books such as The Tao of Physics (Capra) and The Dancing Wu Li Masters (Zukav), plus Deepak Chopra (who was awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize for his quantum foolishness) on PBS television, and What the bleep do we know? with Wikipedia reporting (on 3-25-2007) that "this film has received widespread criticism from the scientific community; physicists, in particular, claim that the film grossly misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics, and is in fact pseudoscience."
note: quantum physics is also called quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and quantum theory
I've written
three pages about quantum physics:
You can see The
Joy of Science in letters between two scientists who were pioneers
in the history of quantum physics.
And two pages — a non-mathematical
introduction to The Basic Principles
of Quantum Theory plus Quantum Physics, New
Age
Religion, and Schrodinger's Cat (in the revised-and-condensed page
you're now reading, or the original full-length
version) — will help you combine creativity with critical
thinking, so you can be creatively imaginative (which is necessary
to understand the reality of what is constantly happening in nature, as described
in the unfamiliar ideas of quantum physics) and logically critical (to avoid
being
silly
and
illogical), so you can realize that...
YES,
things
really
are
strange, but...
NO,
things are not as strange as some people say they are. Why
not? Here is a brief introduction to four
of
the
many reasons that are explored later in this page:
• Authors of books promoting
mystical physics mix scientific physics with speculative
metaphysics, without telling a reader where the science ends and speculation
begins. They explain the strange (but conventional) physics, then continue
into
their strange (and unconventional) metaphysics, and imply that the conventional
physics leads to their unconventional metaphysics. This illogical leap, which is based on their philosophical interpretation of the science,
is accompanied by an implication that if you reject their metaphysics, you are
also rejecting
the physics, or you just don't understand the physics. Their implications, or explicit assertions, that "quantum mysteries lead to quantum mysticism" will mislead
a
reader
who
is not scientifically confident,
who therefore
is not likely to challenge the conclusions of an author that they perceive
to be an expert. It is especially easy to fool readers
who
want the power to "create their own reality" and are looking for a
reason to believe they can do this.
• Much confusion is caused by
a misunderstanding of what "observation" means in quantum
physics, since there are four possible meanings: physical
interaction, human experimental design, human passive observation, and human
consciousness. All
scientists think the first two meanings are important in quantum experiments,
while the third
is irrelevant, and almost all think that human consciousness does
not play any role. Authors can confuse
readers by using the wrong meaning, or shifting from one meaning to another.
• One
evidence
for
the irrelevance of consciousness is the fact that almost all events in nature,
both now and in the past, have occurred and are occurring without being observed
by
humans.
• To understand what is
happening in nature, we must recognize that quantum common
sense is
not everyday common
sense, and we should avoid unwarranted extrapolations in both directions
-- from everyday to quantum, and from quantum to everyday. There is a
connection between the quantum and everyday levels, but the connection is not
what
advocates of "mystical
physics" claim
it is. Strange quantum effects on a small scale (with individual particles) disappear on
a large scale (in systems with a large number of wave/particles) due to the decoherence caused
by randomization and probabilities. In
fact, the strange small-scale behavior produces the normal
large-scale behavior that we experience in everyday life.
What will you find in the rest of this page?
1 — Principles of Quantum Physics: Wave-Particle Duality, Uncertainty Principle, Two-Slit Experiment
2 — Schrodinger's Cat and Schrodinger's Non-Cat
3 — Why does the weirdness disappear? What does observation mean? Do we create reality? Is everything connected? Quantum Common Sense and Nonsense
4 — Religious Implications for Judaism and Christianity
Here is a brief summary of the main ideas in Sections 1A-1C of my longer page:
1. Basic Principles of Quantum Physics
1A.
Wave-Particle Duality
The wave/particle dual nature
of everything (photons, electrons, protons, neutrons,...) is unfamiliar
and
seems very strange, but all predictions of quantum physics — which
is
based
on
wave/particle
duality and quantization — have been confirmed in a wide variety of situations.
To understand
quantum physics, first you must recognize that "yes,
quantum behaviors really are strange," and then you must use critical thinking
for proper balance, to recognize that "no,
things are not as strange as some people claim."
1B.
The Uncertainty Principle
One result of wave-particle
duality is a limit on the precision of measurements. For example,
if we shine light-photons on a moving electron to determine the electron's location,
interaction between the photon and electron changes the electron's momentum (which
is mass x velocity). Due to this change, there is a natural limit
on how precisely we can measure the combination of location-and-momentum
for the electron; the more precisely we know its location, the
less precisely we can know its momentum, and vice versa.
This limitation — which is
caused by wave/particle duality, and described in the Uncertainty Principle — is
due to interaction between the photon and electron, and it occurs whether or
not the interaction is "observed" by a human and thus become a part of human
knowledge. Because wave/particle duality is an essential characteristic
of
nature,
it always occurs, even
when
we are "not
looking." For example, without its wavelike nature a negatively charged
electron would cling tightly to a positively charged proton, forming a tiny negative-positive
clump. If this happened, there would be no sunshine or biochemistry, and
our
universe
would
be
boring
and
lifeless. But
it doesn't happen because "clinging" would confine a motionless electron
(with a precise momentum) to a small space (with a precise location) but this
would
violate
the
uncertainty relationship, so clinging doesn't occur. Instead,
the electron gets "close to a proton, but not too close" in a simple hydrogen
atom, and in other atoms (carbon, oxygen,...)
inside your body. Yes, without
the wave/particle
duality
that prevents "clumps of +- charge" you would not be reading this web-page,
because
you would
not be alive.
1C.
An Example (two-slit experiments)
A series of experiments with
two slits and a wall (see the diagram in Section
2A) show the fascinating wave/particle behavior of an electron,
which can behave sort of like a wave (when it passes through both slits)
or a particle (when
it hits the wall) but not really like either. Amazingly, we see wave/particle
duality even when only one electron is passing through the slits. Yes,
one electron-wave can pass through two slits; an electron
has self-interference (like a wave) but
(like a particle) it does
not have electrical self-repulsion. Wow.
This
experiment, and many others (done with electrons and the other wave-particles
form our bodies and our world) shows us that our ideas about waves and particles — ideas
which are useful for describing familiar large-scale behaviors at our everyday
level — are not sufficient for describing the unfamiliar small-scale behaviors
of wave/particles at
the
quantum
level.
Due to wave/particle duality, the
math
of
quantum
physics
must be probabilistic, and
even though we cannot use the equations of quantum physics to predict
the location where an individual electron will hit the wall, we can predict
the probability of
this electron hitting at each location on the wall, thereby predicting
the pattern (which shows wave-interference!) that forms when a large
number of electrons have hit the wall.
2A. Schrodinger's Cat
We can use a "two slits and a wall" setup, as in 1C, to run a variation of the Schrodinger's Cat Experiment (a famous thought experiment proposed by Erwin Schrodinger in 1935) that produces the Schrödinger's Cat Paradox. Imagine that we put a cat in a box, and send one electron toward the slits and the wall. The experiment is set up so the wall detects the location where the electron interacts with the wall, and then sends a signal that executes the cat (with poison gas) if the electron hits the bottom half of the wall, or protects the cat (by not releasing the gas) if the electron hits the top half.
A Time-Delayed Schroedinger's Cat Experiment: In a time-delay version of the experiment, you provide the cat with plenty of food and water, then wait for two weeks. When you finally look in the box, you will observe either two weeks of eating or two weeks of rotting. { We'll assume that if the cat is not killed by the poison, it survives the full two weeks. }
The Cat Question
Everyone agrees that for two weeks we
don't know if the cat is dead or alive. The controversial question
is whether the cat is either dead or alive during these two weeks. When
is the cat's fate decided, and how? Let's
look at two answers.
Mystical Physics: The cat's fate was delayed for two weeks because the quantum
event, with electron hitting wall, is not "completed" until the event-result
is observed by
the consciousness of a human.
Quantum Common Sense: Even
though our state of knowledge is uncertain during the two weeks of waiting,
the cat's fate was determined when the electron
interacted with the wall and, based on the location of this interaction, the
detector either executed or protected the cat. What
we know about the cat does not determine what
the cat is.
note: Sections 2B-2C in my original full-length page describes another cat-experiment, using dice instead of an electron,
and "compares the cats" to show their major similarities (showing
why "what we know about the cat" has no effect on the cat)
and minor unimportant differences. Later, I'll work it into this
page in
a condensed version.
2B. Schrodinger's Non-Cat
To more clearly illustrate the foolishness of a "mystical physics" interpretation that proposes Consciousness-Created Reality, let's modify the experiment by replacing the cat with an electric typewriter that types either T or B when the electron hits the Top or Bottom half of the wall, and sends a signal that turns on a light bulb (outside the box) for 5 seconds. Then we unplug the typewriter, and nobody looks inside the box (to see whether the paper has T or B typed on it) for two weeks. To be analogous to the two weeks of eating or rotting for the cat, we can imagine using time-sensitive ink that will change color during the two weeks.Or we can include both Cat and Non-Cat: with a top-half hit the detector protects the cat, types T, and turns the light on, but with a bottom-half hit it executes the cat, types B, and turns the light on; and we make a video/audio movie of the event and the following two weeks, showing the cat (eating or rotting) and paper (with a T or B that slowly changes color). We unplug the typewriter after hearing it type and seeing the light, but we don't observe the cat, paper, or movie until two weeks later.
Think about three phases
of the experiment: 1) while the electron is moving
toward the wall, quantum physics says "it might hit anywhere on the wall" so
we can't know where it will hit; 2) a
primary event (the physical interaction of "electron hitting wall" which
causes the electron's many location-potentialities to become one location-actuality)
leads to secondary events involving the detector, typewriter-and-paper, light
bulb,
and maybe
poison-and-cat; at this time you
hear the
typewriter
and see the light, so you
know that the electron hit the wall and has been detected; 3) two
weeks later, when you see either cat or paper or movie, you know the cat's
fate, paper result, and electron-hitting location.
Everyone, whether they propose
mystical physics or conventional physics, agrees that quantum physics will
only make a probabilistic prediction (it will say "the cat has a 50%
chance of living) and that until we observe the cat (or paper or movie) we
won't know the
outcome or the cat's fate. So in what way do we disagree, and why?
EVERYDAY COMMON SENSE leads us
to intuitively expect a "delayed
knowledge" of
two weeks. During this time period the
primary event (electron hitting wall) and secondary events (cat killed or protected,
and T or B typed on paper) already have occurred, even though we don't know
what the outcome is until someone observes the results.
QUANTUM COMMON SENSE, based on
the scientific principles of quantum physics, leads to the same "delayed knowledge"
conclusion.
MYSTICAL PHYSICS disagrees by claiming
that the primary event and secondary events don't really "happen" until a human
observes the result. They claim that during the two weeks of delay, before
we know the result, the cat is in a "half-dead and half-alive" limbo, and what
the cat is really
does depend on what we know about the cat.
Some intelligent people reject
Quantum Common Sense, so they can believe the foolishness
of Mystical Physics. But instead you should reject mystical physics,
if you understand quantum physics and you are willing to use logic. Why? This
is explained in Sections 3A-3E.
3A. Why does the weirdness disappear?
A typical quantum experiment is small-scale
and simple; by contrast, everyday situations are large-scale and
complex. This difference in scale-and-complexity is important,
but
is
usually ignored in mystical physics, and this is a mistake. As explained
in Sections 1A-1C, we should not insist that concepts
from our large-scale everyday experience are adequate for understanding the small-scale
quantum realm. We also should avoid the reverse mistake, of extrapolating
from small-scale to large-scale by assuming, as in mystical physics, that quantum
descriptions of small-scale events (involving electrons,...) can be applied to
other levels. This section explains why "things are
not as strange as some people say they are."
The first
prominent scholar to propose "mystical physics" was John von Neumann,
a mathematician who in 1932 analyzed the process of quantum measurement by
assuming that — since everything, including a small-scale wave/particle
(photon, electron,...) and a large-scale observing device, is governed
by quantum principles — the quantum effects do not disappear when moving
from small-scale to large-scale levels. Because he could imagine
constructing a continuous chain of interconnected mathematical wave-functions,
from observed particle through actively observing device to passively observing
human, he concluded that anything composed of quantum-matter cannot "collapse
the wave-function" but human consciousness can do this. Basically
his argument was that there is no obvious place to draw a line between small-scale
and large-scale behavior, so he wouldn't draw a line, and he challenged others
to "prove" where the line was. But for some strange reason,
he considered quantum processes in the human brain to be in a different category
(evidently not governed by the quantum principles of wave-particle duality?)
so this is where he drew the line.
The physical process of decoherence is a mathematical analysis — developed with more sophistication since the 1970s, after the era of von Neumann in the 1930s — to explain why "a line is drawn" within real physical systems, so "drawing the line" is not something humans need to do, or can do. But before we look at deoherence, let's take a few paragraphs to compare the expectations for proof and confidence in mathematics (the mental world of von Neumann and his mystical speculations) and in science (the physical world of quantum physics and systemic decoherence).
Technical Proof (in math) and Rationally Justified Confidence (in Science)
Part of the
quantum debate is about the standards we should use for evaluation. In
the scholarly world of theoretical mathematicians, proof is possible
and is expected. But proof is impossible in science, so scientists
are more practical; instead of demanding certainty, we aim for a rationally
justified confidence in a "good way to bet."
For example, the Second
Law of Thermodynamics is based on probabilities, not certainty. If
you place a drop of food color in a glass of water, the color will spread
throughout the water. Can you be totally certain that this process
will not reverse itself, with an un-spreading in which all of the color
moves back into the drop? No, this reversed process is not impossible,
it's just extremely improbable. The statistics
of large numbers is the scientific basis for the Second Law, which
claims that some types of events (such as an un-spreading of color) will
be extremely improbable, even though not impossible.
PROBABILITY is why large-scale
events have thermodynamic irreversibility, and
is the basis for the directionality of time that
is accepted by scientists and nonscientists, with time running "forward" when
events occur in ways that are more probable. If we made a molecular
movie of the color-spreading process and ran it backward, every individual
collision between molecules would obey the laws of physics, but the overall
process would disobey the Second Law and it would appear to be running
backward in time, in a strange un-natural way. Why? Most
actual processes occur in the way we expect because a time-reversed process,
violating the Second Law, would be extremely improbable so time-reversal
does not occur naturally. Things that are possible (and reasonably
probable) on a small scale become practically impossible (i.e., super-extremely
improbable)
on a large scale. Scientists cannot prove that a reversal
of color spreading is impossible, but they can show that betting
against it is an extremely good way to bet, and you will (almost) always
be correct.
Using similar principles
of probability, scientists can show that unfamiliar small-scale behaviors
(at the level of quantum wave/particles) produce familiar medium-scale
behaviors (at the level of biochemistry) and familiar large-scale behaviors
(at the level of everyday experience). Scientists cannot prove this,
but can show that it's an extremely good way to bet.
DECOHERENCE
An excellent explanation of quantum mysteries — of
why the weirdness "goes away" so small-scale quantum weirdness produces
large-scale normal behavior — is in Where does the weirdness
go? by David Lindley (1996), who explains the book's title: "If
it's true that the weirdness of the quantum mechanical world seems to disappear
when we look at 'big' objects, then where, precisely, does that weirdness go?
... Why should an assembly of a trillion weird little quantum objects behave
any less mysteriously than its components?" To answer, Lindley
describes the results and the reason:
Schrodinger's cat...therefore has
some probability of being alive, some probability of being dead, and no probability
at all of being both alive and dead at the same time. This vanishing of
the probability for the superposed state [half-dead/half-alive] is known as "decoherence" ...
Decoherence inevitably happens in a large system built of
quantum components: its individual quantum states rattle around at random,
disposing of all the strange quantum superpositions that depend on almost impossibly
precise coherence between all the constituent quantum states. ... [decoherence]
is a property of large systems in general, not of some specific "act of
measurement" that has to be distinguished in some mysterious way from other
straightforward physical processes. There's no need of human intervention,
still less of human consciousness. ...
In quantum mechanics nature is, at the most fundamental
level, genuinely unknowable, but despite that, the world at large, the world
of which quantum mechanics is the foundation, can be known and understood.
Lindley explains why weird quantum
behaviors decohere and disappear, why in Schrodinger's Cat the
strange wave/particle behavior of a single electron becomes normal large-scale
behavior when this electron interacts with a large number of wave/particles
in the wall-detector, and also in the wire carrying an electrical signal
to a device that executes or protects the cat, in the spread of the poison
gas (if it's released) and in the cat's body. And all of this occurs
before a human is involved in any way, before any of us passively observes
the cat.
At each stage of a cat experiment,
scientific analysis (using principles of statistical probabilities) shows
what happens when interactions between wave/particles combine to produce
thermodynamic irreversibility and a decoherence of the mathematical
wave-functions calculated in quantum physics. If an advocate of mystical
physics asks, "Can you prove it?", the answer is "No, we can't
prove it (and you can't disprove it) but we can show you why it's an extremely
good way to bet!"
The fact of quantum decoherence also limits quantum effects in neurochemistry, and it forms the scientific foundation for logical critiques of Quantum Mind, as explained in a reality check by Victor Stenger, and in a book review (by Amanda Gefter for New Scientist) of Quantum Gods written by Stenger.
And there are many other scientific reasons for betting against mystical physics, as explained below in Sections 3B-3E.
3B. What does observation mean?
oops, they used a bad word: During the late-1920s, scientists made a bad decision when they were constructing the language of quantum physics. They used the word observation (which implies a conscious human observer, and leads to unscientific speculation about the role of human consciousness) even though calling it interaction that allows observation (which is almost always done with a large-scale unconscious measuring device that may or may not then be observed by a human) is a more accurate description of what is happening.
visual observation is passive: Most
people think that seeing involves emissions from the eye, but this
is a false belief. When you see, you do not "send something out" from
your eyes. Instead, you see an object because light-photons move away
from the object and into your eyes. Your mind is actively involved
with processing and interpreting what you see, but the physical flow of
matter/energy (and associated information) is in one direction, from
an external event into your eyes and mind, so an event is not affected when
you observe it. Here are three examples:
• When you look at a tree,
does your "act of observation" affect the tree? No. You see the
tree because
light-photons move from the tree to your eyes, but nothing moves from
your eyes to the tree. Your passive
observation is not the active interaction described
in the uncertainty principle. If you shine
a flashlight on the tree so you can see it more clearly, the light-photons
will affect electrons in the tree's atoms, but nothing you have done as a
person (except pressing the flashlight button, which could be done by a trained
dog or mechanical robot) has affected the tree.
• When you look at a cat,
does your "act of observation" affect the cat? No. During a time-delayed
Schrodinger's Cat experiment, the "observation" by a human is passive,
in contrast with the active interaction that is important in quantum physics. Advocates
of mystical quantum nonsense must explain what happens when a human
sees (or smells) the result two weeks later. Does something "go out" from
the eyes (or nose or mind) of a human, time-travel back two weeks and cause
the
observed result? If so, what is the mechanism? Or, as in quantum
common sense, did
the wall-interaction cause the electron's probabilistic wave-function
(which may exist only in our mathematics as a way to describe our knowledge)
to "collapse" at
a specific location on the wall, thus triggering the detector and determining
the cat's
fate?
• In a typical science experiment,
or in a cat experiment, a large-scale measuring
device interacts with a wave/particle as a part of the quantum event that
is being observed, and this physical interaction produces the data (such as
a meter reading or photograph)
that we observe,
so a
human
is not directly involved at
the quantum
level, even with passive observation. Instead, an unconscious device "observes" the
event, then a human passively receives information from the device
in a one-way flow of information.
Loose language causes confusion. Unfortunately,
confusion is common in quantum physics interpretations because "observation" is
a term overpopulated with meanings, since it can mean: physical
interaction (when wave/particles interact), human
active intervention (by designing and doing an experiment), human
passive observation (to take information in through the senses) and human
consciousness (to process this incoming information). All scientists agree that (as
explained in Section 3C) the first two meanings play an important role
in quantum experiments, and (as explained above) that passive observation
is irrelevant; almost all scientists think that human consciousness
does not play any role in quantum phenomena and experiments.
Unfortunately, authors
can confuse readers by shifting from one meaning to another, and by taking
advantage of the common misconception (which the author may also believe?)
that the process of human vision produces an interaction with the object
being observed. This mistaken belief in an extramission theory of vision is surprisingly common, and in recent studies "at least one-third of college students — and maybe more — wrongly believe that something such as rays or waves go out of the eyes during the act of seeing." But this misconception about vision is raised to a new level of error in a Mystical Physics claim that when rays "go out of the eyes" they can time-travel back two weeks, as in a Time-Delayed Schrodinger's Cat Experiment.
3C. Do we create reality?
According to conventional quantum
physics (*), in a two-slit
experiment we cannot know where a moving electron will hit
the wall, and — more amazingly! — the electron does not even have a
definite value for the attribute of "future
location" until an interaction (when electron hits wall) causes one
outcome to manifest; before the wall-interaction this attribute has
only potential probabilities, which can be calculated, instead of a
definite value. {* Proponents
of hidden variables quantum physics — who propose that some
attributes (such as an electron's current location, momentum, future location,
and spin) are specified by variables which aren't included in the conventional quantum
physics advocated by most scientists — think the wall-hitting location
is determined before the electron hits the wall, even though we
cannot know (before it is manifested) what this attribute is. }
But despite the claims of mystical
physics, scientists do not "create the reality" of an electron during
experiments. In quantum physics, a wave/particle has wave characteristics
and particle characteristics, and an electron is equally "real" when
it is traveling toward the wall (when in quantum theory its behavior is best
represented as a wave) and when it hits the wall (when it is best
represented as a particle or a collapsed-wave). Even if a moving electron
does not have an attribute for "where it will hit the wall," this moving
electron is a real electron.
When this real electron hits the
wall, it attains a specific hitting-location because it interacts with wave/particles
in the wall. This physical interaction, between electron and wall, occurs
whether or not there is a one-way flow of information that occurs during passive
observation
by a human, so our "observation" is irrelevant for the interaction.
Observation is also irrelevant
for most biochemical reactions, because the electrons inside your body always
behave in a "real" way, even when they're not being observed. In
a living cell, an electron is constantly interacting with other electrons inside
an
atom that is interacting with other atoms in a molecule that is interacting
with other molecules, and so on. In this complex
biochemical context (in a "wild state") each electron has frequent interactions,
similar to the ways that scientists can make an electron interact in a simplified
experimental context. An absence of observation does not hinder
the effective practical functioning of electrons in biochemical reactions.
Observation is also irrelevant
inside our sun (and in other stars in galaxies throughout the universe) where
hydrogen atoms interact with each other to produce nuclear reactions and the
life-allowing energy of sunshine.
And with or without human observation, hydrogen atoms form
because wave/particle
duality
prevents "clumps of +- charge," as explained in Section
1B.
Almost all events in the history of nature (99.99999...%)
have not been observed by humans. If nothing really happens until a human
observes it,
how did nature operate — with nuclear reactions in stars, biochemistry
in organisms, and more — for billions of years before we began making quantum
observations? And even now, almost all quantum processes — occurring
in distant galaxies, on earth, and in our own bodies — are unobserved.
Arrogance conquers Humility — The Participatory Anthropic Principle
In the reality of quantum common sense, this fact (the recognition almost all events, now and
in the past, occur without being observed by humans) should be seen as evidence for the irrelevance
of "consciousness" and a logical reason to abandon claims that we "create reality." It should be seen as a logical reason to be
humble about the importance of humans, because the universe does
not need us to "observe things and make them happen."
In the delusion of quantum mysticism, this
obvious
reason for humility is rejected. Instead, the evangelists of mystical physics arrogantly claim — in
their Participatory
Anthropic Principle — that the universe could not exist without
us because "the eventual emergence of observers is necessary
to bring our universe into existence." Wow. The claims for "humans creating reality" are
similar in The Fate of Schrodinger's Cat and The
History of the Universe, but why mess around with mere cats when you can
go for The Big One?
Does quantum physics say "we
are powerful"? No. In carefully controlled situations, scientists
can make wave-particles (electrons,...) attain specific values for attributes
(location, spin,...) that previously they didn't have. But here are
some reasons to reject a claim that we are powerful:
• The human action is
limited to arranging a situation in which a physical interaction causes
the attribute to manifest, and this occurs due to physical interaction
of wave/particles, not human passive perception (which is not the interactive
"observation" involved in the Uncertainty Principle) or human consciousness.
• A scientist can make
decisions when designing an experiment, setting up the equipment, and pushing
a button to make it run. But these are ordinary human decisions (and
many could be made by a trained pig or a random number generator) with
an impact that is no greater than in other decisions: consider, for
example, a physicist deciding to measure an electron's location, not a
photon's energy; or in
a study of photosynthesis a biologist pushes a button that shines blue
light on a plant, instead of green light; a chemist runs an experiment
by mixing chemicals B and C instead of B and D; the physicist gets
drunk at a party, decides to drive home instead of taking a taxi, and crashes
headlong into another car; and so on. Is the human effect greater
for the physicist's first decision, because it occurs at the level of individual
wave/particles, than for the other "reality creating" decisions?
• In small-scale quantum
experiments the effects are extremely small, and (as explained in Sections
3A, 3C, and 3D) they are neutralized at higher levels, in medium-scale biochemistry
or large-scale everyday events. But what about effects within your own
body? Yes, there is a "mind-body interaction" because your
mind (your thoughts, emotions, attitudes,...) can affect what happens inside
your own body. But the level of action is medium-scale biochemistry and
physiology (due to neurochemicals, hormones,...) rather than small-scale quantum physics, and quantum decoherence eliminates practical quantum effects at the level of neurochemistry and neurophysiology.
An extremely speculative interpretation of quantum physics is the Many Worlds Interpretation which claims that during every observation — i.e. during every interaction that collapses a quantum wave function, which happens many times per second all across the universe — the universe splits into ALL quantum possibilities, and every possibility actually occurs in a different physical universe.
The many worlds interpretation was introduced to avoid the "problem" of wave-function collapse, but why is this a problem? Let's look at physics and psychology:
Regarding physics, there is no problem because the process of decoherence explains why "things are
not as strange as some people say they are" during the process of quantum interaction that is usually called "observation" even though, unfortunately, this term can lead people into confusion and error as in claims about "creating your own reality."
Regarding psychology, there should be no problem. Just because it's difficult for humans to understand a concept, or because we cannot calculate exact results and make precise predictions using the mathematics of quantum physics, this is not a problem (except in our ego-driven lack of humility) that should be solved by extravagantly proposing, without any evidence, the physical existence of an immense number of universes.
Although a many-worlds interpretation might be impossible to disprove, it seems excessive and imaginary, the stuff of science fiction rather than science.
3D. Is everything
connected?
In quantum theory, the entire
universe can be mathematically represented (in principle but not in practice)
as a single interconnected quantum wave, spanning all space and time. Does
this mathematical formalism mean that each part of the universe is physically connected
with and affected by every other part? Maybe.
And the appropriate response is "so
what?" because the effects are extremely small, and a quantum-connectedness
wouldn't be significant. Think about this analogy: If a tiny grain of
sand drops into the Pacific Ocean in California, in principle this will cause
a
change on the shores of Hawaii, but no practical effect is transmitted to Hawaii
because the sand's tiny wave splash is quickly neutralized by random collisions
with other water molecules; this also happens with analogous quantum
effects (which were tiny and insignificant even before their effects were further
reduced by the process of decoherence) as explained in Section
3A.
In other web-pages (eventually
links will be available here) you can learn about a variety of experiments
and
discussions, regarding EPR, Bell,
Aspect,
Scully, Afshar, delayed choice, quantum erasers, quantum entanglement, nonlocality,
superluminal signaling or causation, no-communication theorem,... and interesting
effects at the quantum level. But what scientists have learned does not
provide any evidence for "the power of human minds" because the quantum
effects are extremely small and they occur with artificially produced pairs
of wave-particles in unconscious
experimental systems, and human consciousness is not involved in any of the
interactions.
3E. Quantum
Common Sense (and nonsense)
In an effort to minimize the misunderstandings
that are encouraged by quantum
nonsense, a brief review of Sections 3A-3D will summarize the scientific
foundations for quantum common sense, and show how the basic principles
of
quantum
physics
can
help
us
put
human powers in proper perspective:
some effects in quantum experiments
seem strange because they are unfamiliar, but these effects are extremely small,
and due to decoherence [3A] they disappear for large-scale systems, except for
the fact that strange small-scale quantum behaviors produce normal medium-scale
behaviors (as in biochemistry) and
large-scale behaviors (in everyday
experience);
quantum effects occur due to observation-allowing
physical interaction, and in "observation" by a human the passive
one-way flow of information is irrelevant
[3B];
when scientists "create reality" in
small-scale quantum experiments [3C] their power is limited to setting up a situation
in which wave/particles interact,
and the resulting effects are extremely small;
almost everything in the history
of nature has occurred, and is occurring, without human observation [3C] so humans
are not necessary for the
functioning
of nature;
even if everything in the universe
is interconnected at the
quantum level, the appropriate response [3D] is "so what?" because
the unfamiliar quantum-level effects are extremely small and do not involve human
consciousness.
note to reader, about the mis-education used by quantum mystics: Eventually this section will continue the
analysis begun in the introduction by looking at the surprisingly effective teaching methods used by advocates
of quantum mysticism, to make their views
seem "scientific" and logical (for their readers) instead of
pseudo-scientific and illogical (like they seem to me and most other scientists).
4. Religious
Implications for Judaism and Christianity
Nothing in the science of quantum
physics — including its probabilistic abandonment of natural determinism — is
a problem for Judeo-Christian believers, and all of its scientific principles
can be easily integrated into a Bible-based monotheistic
worldview.
But quantum physics can
be expanded, using nonscientific speculation, into mystical physics and
a pantheistic worldview claiming that "the quantum-connected
whole universe is god" and a New Age belief that "each of us is part of the
unified whole so each of us is god" and "we create our own reality." This pantheistic
new-age worldview is not compatible with a monotheistic worldview based
on the Bible. { In pantheism, the
universe creates god. In theism, God created
the universe. }
In a Judeo-Christian worldview, a generic "mysticism" is ambiguous, because mysticism can be spiritually beneficial or spiritually harmful. An authentic Christian mysticism (defined by Wikipedia as "the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight") is based on the Bible, not on wild speculations that illogically extrapolate from quantum mysteries to a quantum mysticism involving "quantum mind" and an unbiblical pantheistic worldview. If you want to seek enlightenment through Christian mysticism, you should focus their "spiritual discipline" efforts on believing the Bible and seeking an improved relationship with Jesus Christ through intimate communion with the Holy Spirit — as explained in John 14-17 and Abide in Christ — for the purpose of obediently living by faith.
Opposition to Quantum Mysticism in Many Worldviews
The people opposing quantum mysticism are not limited to those with a Christian worldview. If you web-search for [quantum mysticism] or [quantum physics religion] or [quantum mysticism myth] or related search-string variations, in addition to pages by those promoting mystical physics you'll see critiques from a wide range of viewpoints, including atheists (e.g. Victor Stenger) and agnostics, Jews and Christians.
Our shared motivation is to improve the integrity of science education by decreasing the popularity and power of science mis-education. We share a common concern, because we are amazed that a surprising large number of seemingly intelligent people are believing the silly quantum flapdoodle being peddled by the evangelists of quantum mysticism. These popularizers of flapdoodle-psychobabble become rich and famous by misleading readers and listeners who are motivated to believe the alluring quantum-based claims about the personal power of "creating their own reality," who want to be persuaded that there are scientific reasons for believing mystical ideas that, for their own personal psychological reasons, they really do want to believe.
Divine
Design of Nature?
Most scientists agree that
wave/particle duality, which is the foundation of quantum physics, is one
of the many properties of nature that seem necessary to allow intelligent
life. Victor Guillemin explains: "It is
quantization that accounts for the existence of stability and organization
in the atomic substratum of the universe. ... Without quantization...there
would be no well-defined organization of atoms into molecules or of molecules
into large structures. The universe would be a formless and meaningless
blob [as in the "clumps of +- charge" I've described?] without
history, plan or purpose." Maybe quantum strangeness,
which produces everyday normality, is just a byproduct of a universe that
has been designed so we can exist. But design cannot be proved or
disproved, since we have THREE
EXPLANATIONS for a Just-Right Universe and humility is logically appropriate, as explained in Anthropic Principle & Fine Tuning: Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design.
Divine Knowledge of Natural
Process: For humans, nature imposes limitations on observing (due
to quantum uncertainties) and predicting (due to quantum uncertainties plus
the amplification of small initial uncertainties to produce divergent
histories that is described in chaos theory). But an all-knowing
God, whose observing and predicting are not constrained by these human
limitations, could predict and therefore know what will occur.
Divine Guidance of Natural
Process: Or, instead of remaining a passive observer, as proposed
in deism, God could influence natural process by converting one natural-appearing
result (the one that would have occurred without any divine guidance) into
another natural-appearing result (that actually occurs), as explained in Divine
Guidance of Natural Process. One possible mechanism for natural-appearing
guidance is for God to convert potentialities into actualities: from
the multitude of quantum possibilities that might occur, God chooses to
make one of these actually occur. In this way, and in other ways,
God could influence (or determine) natural events by controlling some (or
all) uncertainty at the quantum level, which could be done in a way that
makes the guided events appear to be natural and statistically random.
Scientific Humility about
Theological Questions: Because quantum interactions occur constantly,
God could control everything that happens. God can control
everything, but does God control everything? Throughout history,
people have wondered about the frequency of divine guidance (does it happen
always, usually, seldom, or never) and the degree of control (is it partial
or total, for situations, thoughts, and/or actions). These questions,
and many others, cannot be answered using quantum physics.