New Physics and New Age?
Why have I written this
page? Since
1975, many popular "mystical physics" 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 — have
claimed that the New Physics (especially quantum physics, which
is also called quantum
mechanics) lends scientific
support to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating
your own reality." These claims are based on implausible speculations
that are rejected by most scientists. The
views in this page are in the mainstream of conventional quantum
physics. I'm
criticizing mystical
physics, not conventional physics.
I've written
three pages about quantum physics:
One page is about The
Joy of Science that we see in letters between two prominent scientists
who were pioneers in the history of quantum physics.
The second page is a non-mathematical
introduction to The
Basic Principles of Quantum Physics that is intended "to
help you combine creativity and critical thinking so you can be freely imaginative
(which is
necessary for understanding
the radical ideas of quantum physics) without getting silly and illogical,...
to convince you that things really are strange."
The third page, which you're now
reading — but check the notice above, about the condensed/revised page — shows
that "things
are not as strange as some people say
they are." Why not? Here is a brief introduction to a few
of
the
many reasons:
Authors of books promoting mystical
physics mix conventional physics with speculative metaphysics, without telling
a reader where the science ends and speculation begins. These authors
imply that a reader who rejects the metaphysics is also rejecting the physics,
or
just
doesn't understand
the physics. This will
mislead a reader who is not scientifically confident, who will not
challenge the conclusions of an author that is perceived to be an expert in
this area. 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: active
human intervention (by designing and doing an experiment), physical
interaction (as when a quantum wave/particle interacts with an inanimate
measuring device, which produces data that can be observed by a human), passive
human observation (to take information in through the senses)
and human consciousness (to process
this incoming information). All scientists agree that the first two
meanings play an important role in quantum experiments, and that passive observation
is irrelevant; almost all scientists think that human consciousness does
not play any role in quantum phenomena and experiments. Authors can confuse
readers by 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.
QUANTUM
Common Sense is not EVERYDAY Common Sense
In order to understand reality,
we must recognize that quantum common sense is
not everyday common
sense. There is a connection between these levels — quantum
and
everyday — but the connection is not what the 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.
In this page, most links (all
that are italicized)
are inside-the-page
and are very fast; non-italicized
links open a new page in a new window.
1A.
Wave-Particle Duality
Here is a quick summary of quantum
physics history: In 1900, Planck
proposed that energy is emitted in amounts that are quantized, not continuously
variable. In 1905, Einstein proposed that light (which we previously
had considered to be a wave) is composed of photons that have characteristics
of both a wave
and a particle. In 1923, DeBroglie generalized this logic and proposed
that electrons (which we previously had considered to be particles) also have
a
dual nature,
with both wave and particle characteristics. In 1925, Schrodinger wrote
the wave-equation for an electron. Within a few years, scientists were
using quantum physics for a wide variety of physical phenomena, including
the details
of atomic spectra, formation of molecules from atoms, structure
of the chemistry periodic table, and more.
The dual wave-and-particle nature
of photons and electrons (and protons, neutrons,...) is unfamiliar and seems
very strange, but it has been confirmed
by many experiments. And all experimental observations have been consistent
with predictions based on the principles and equations of quantum physics.
To cope with the weirdness of quantum
physics: First you must recognize that, based on the way reality is described
by quantum physics, "yes,
things really are strange." 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.
In a standard illustration of the Uncertainty Principle, we shine light photons
on a moving electron to determine the electron's location, but
the interaction between 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 the location, the less precisely we can know the
momentum, and vice versa. { note: The uncertainty
principle also applies in other situations and for other combinations of
attributes. }
This limitation is caused by the
interaction between photon and electron, which will produce changes of momentum
(for electron and photon) whether or
not these changes are "observed" by a human and thus become a part of human
knowledge. It
is the interaction, not human consciousness, that is important in a cause-effect
analysis based on quantum physics.
But wave/particle duality, and
the associated Uncertainty Principle, is always an essential characteristic
of
nature, even when we're "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,
our universe would be boring and lifeless. But
this doesn't happen because clinging would confine the electron to a very small
space, so
it would have a very precisely determined location but thus would have (as
described in the uncertainty principle) a very large momentum, and thus a large
velocity,
which is incompatible with it clinging to the proton. Instead,
the electron gets "close to a proton, but not too close" in
a simple hydrogen atom.
Small-scale strangeness produces
large-scale normality. Yes, the normal
behavior that we see in our everyday level of experience is produced by strange
behavior at the quantum level. Without wave/particle duality you would
not be reading this web-page, because you would not be alive.
1C.
A Two-Slit Experiment
The diagram below is a simplified
sketch of an experiment in which electrons pass through two slits in a
thin barrier
and then hit a wall.
If the wall is a detector that records
where each electron hits, we find that when a large number of electrons have
hit the wall their hitting-locations
form an interference pattern that is characteristic of waves. This
pattern occurs due to the wavelike nature of electrons.
Although the equations of quantum physics do not predict where an individual
electron will hit the wall, they do predict the probability of an electron
hitting at each location on the wall, and thereby predict the pattern that
will form when a large number of electrons have hit. The pattern predicted
by quantum physics is the pattern that is observed.
electron as a wave: When
an electron is traveling through the barrier-slits and toward the wall, it
behaves like a wave. This lets a single electron,
somewhat amazingly, "go through both slits" simultaneously, and these two
parts of the electron will interact with each other to produce the wave-interference
pattern predicted by quantum physics. But this self-interference (due to the
electron's wavelike character) is not accompanied by the self-repulsion (due
to the electron's
charge) that we would expect if the electron was actually "smeared out" as
it "goes through both slits" at the same time. Yes, it's very
strange.
electron as a particle: When
an electron hits the wall — when it interacts with atoms
in the wall — it behaves like a particle, and
what hits the wall is always a whole electron. By contrast, when an
electron "goes through both slits" as
a wave, it seems to be "split apart" although it isn't really split
(in the way that we would visualize this) since
there is no self-repulsion.
Obviously, our concepts of waves and particles —
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.
For more about the strangeness
of quantum physics, check my first page, about The Basic
Principles of Wave-Particles and Quantum Physics Theory.
2A.
Schrodinger's Cat #1 (Electron and Wall)
We can use a slits-and-wall setup,
as
described in 1C, to run a variation of the famous thought experiment proposed
by
Erwin Schrodinger in 1935, which produces the Schrodinger'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.
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. }
A Cat Question
Everyone agrees that, based on
quantum calculations, for two weeks we
don't know if the cat is dead or alive.
Here is the controversial question: “During these two weeks, is the cat dead, or alive, or neither, or both?” This strange question is necessary because Mystical Physics challenges a claim that the cat IS either dead or alive.
And here are two answers:
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. / Those who claim that "knowledge creates
reality" don't understand the difference between epistemology (what
we can know and how) and ontology (what exists and occurs).
Quantum Nonsense – Mystical Physics with Consciousness-Created
Reality: 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.
Anyone who avoids common sense and adopts a mystical "mind creating reality" perspective is faced with tough questions: Will peeking (or just a quick sniff) produce the previous two weeks of eating or rotting? If so, what is the mechanism? Does something “go out” from the eyes (or nose or mind) of the human, time-travel back two weeks and cause the observed result? If B occurs after A, can B cause A? Or, as in quantum common sense, did the wall-interaction make the electron's probabilistic wave-function "collapse" to a specific location on the wall, thus triggering the detector and determining the cat's fate?
2B. Schrodinger's Cat #2 (Dice and Table)
To more clearly illustrate what is
and isn't important in this experiment and its interpretation, we can imagine
another
way to determine whether a cat
lives or dies, based on the roll of two standard six-sided dice. If
the sum of the dice is 4, 5, 6, or 7, the cat lives. But it's equally
probable that the sum will be something else (2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12)
and the cat
dies. After
the dice land on a large flat table, an electronic device detects the numbers
on
each
die,
adds
them
together,
and
either protects or executes the cat.To insure randomization, we let the dice fall from a height of 10 meters, past thousands of closely spaced plastic pegs that cause the dice to continually roll and tumble, thus making it impossible (in practice) to calculate, based on the initial motions of the dice, how they will land. Thus, our prediction about the dice-sum, which determines the cat's fate, is only probabilistic.
2C. Comparing the Cats
When we compare the experiments in 2A
and 2B, we find many similarities in each of the two sequential phases.
Phase 1: For awhile the electron
[or dice] is in a state where it has potentiality: while it is moving
toward the wall [table], the electron [dice] might hit anywhere on the
wall [might have any sum from 2 to 12]
and the cat has a 50% chance of survival, since it will die if the electron
hits the bottom half [if the dice sum is 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12]. During
the decisive interaction with the wall [table] the many potentialities
of the electron [dice] are converted into one actuality, and this outcome
determines which action — execution or protection — is carried
out by the detector.
Phase 2: In each thought-experiment,
the appropriate theory will not predict an outcome for the electron-hitting
location [or dice-roll sum] but will
calculate only probabilities for the various possible outcomes. Therefore,
until a human observes the primary outcome for the hitting location [dice
sum] and its secondary manifestation as a live cat or dead cat, we won't know the
outcome or the cat's fate. There will be a "delayed knowledge" of
two weeks — a time period in which the primary outcome and secondary
manifestation already have occurred, even though we don't have knowledge of
this outcome
— until someone observes the overall result, which is a cat that has
been
eating for two weeks, or rotting for two weeks.
In a quantum common sense view,
in each experiment we distinguish between Phase 1 and Phase 2, between the
outcome-event (electron
hitting wall, or dice coming to rest on table) and our
knowledge of the outcome-event.
Basically, there is one difference between
the experimental outcomes:
2A occurs at a small-scale "quantum" level, while
2B occurs at a large-scale "everyday" level.
In some ways this difference is significant, but what difference does it make
for the cat-question? A mystical interpretation —
which assumes that observation of the electron's wall-hitting
location by the detector, which determines the cat's fate, is not caused by
interaction (between
the electron and detector) but by human consciousness —
claims that in 2A we cannot say that Phase 1 precedes Phase 2, although the
two phases are
sequential
in
2B.
2D. Schrodinger's
Non-Cat
In an effort to answer potential
objections to
a quantum
common sense interpretation
of the electron-and-wall
experiment in 2A — such as claiming that "observation by the cat's
consciousness
completes
the quantum
event" — and to illustrate the foolishness of a mystical interpretation,
we can make two changes: 1)
replace 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 2) have the typewriter, at the
same time it types, send a signal that turns on an external light bulb (which
is outside
the box) for 5 seconds. But 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. }In this experiment, knowledge reaches an external observer in two phases: immediately there is confirmation that the electron has been detected, when the external light flashes and we hear the typewriter key hit the page; two weeks later the location of the electron-hit, either Top or Bottom, is observed, when we see T or B on the paper. Let's look at two interpretations.
Quantum Common Sense: As
in 2A with the cat, in 2D the paper's fate (will it show a T or B) was determined
when the electron and wall-detector interacted.
Mystical Physics: I'm not
sure what mystics can say, based on scientific logic, about this
experiment.
Will they still claim a Consciousness-Created Reality, despite the fact that
the typewriter is programmed to type and light at the same time, and they
observe the light (and typing sound) two weeks before they observe the paper? During
the two weeks of waiting the quantum outcome is still unknown, as in 2A, and
the
wave-function
for the paper (which is calculated in Quantum Physics and is the basis for
statistical prediction)
is still in a mixed state of half-T/half-B, since it has not yet been "collapsed" by
knowledge. Does the consciousness of an observer "create the reality" in
2A and 2D, only 2A, only 2D, or neither?
Experimental Variations
Will a Mystical Physics interpretation
change if, after observers simultaneously see the light and hear the printer
strike the paper, they then disconnect the
typewriter's power for two weeks? What if the light is disconnected,
but they hear the strike? What if the light and strike occur, but
nobody is there to see or hear, but soon afterward they disconnect the power? What
if they make a video/audio film of the event, but nobody sees-and-hears it
until one week later? two weeks later? What if nobody is there, and
they leave the printer's power on for the next
two
weeks?
The Return of Schrodinger's Cat: What
if we put both cat and paper in the box, and the detector is programmed
to perform
three
actions: if
there is a top-half hit, it protects the cat, types T, and turns the light
on; with a bottom-half hit, it executes the cat,
types B, and turns the light on. Will the initial presence of an organism
that "has consciousness" change the interpretation? Will the combination
of cat-and-paper change the fate of either?
3. Is everything
connected?
One aspect of mystical physics
is a claim, based on the fact that in quantum physics 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 also mean that each part of the universe is
physically connected with and affected by every other part? Maybe. But
even if everything is physically connected, we should just say "so
what?" because, if the effects are extremely small, a quantum-connectedness
isn't significant.
Consider 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 — like
analogous tiny quantum effects — quickly neutralized by random
collisions with other water molecules. If the grain and splash are
extremely small, the effects will vanish in an extremely small distance. And
even if the effects were transmitted without decrease, only a tiny splash
would
be felt in Hawaii.
Near the end of Section 2A, I
ask "if B occurs after A, can B cause A?" Some
advocates of mystical physics will say YES. They point to the possibility
of nonlocality and faster-than-light transmission of information (which may
be implied by the experiments inspired by EPR and Bell)
and the possibility of influencing the past (as in experiments involving delayed
quantum-experiment choices). Although these possibilities are interesting,
they don't provide any evidence for the effects of human consciousness. In
these experiments the effects are very small and are caused by physical
interactions (like changing a dial-setting on a machine), not human consciousness. By
contrast, mystical physics interpretations claim
that the effects are large and are due to human consciousness.
Sections 4A-4E describe scientific
reasons for thinking that human consciousness is irrelevant in quantum physics,
and 4D explains why a shift from very small to very large is important.
note: Half of the original section — about the strangeness of
EPR & nonlocality, and asking whether "no man is an island" because
of social relationships or quantum connections — has been moved into the
appendix.
4A.
Passive Observation
If you look at a tree, does
your "act
of observation" affect the tree?
No. 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 button on a flashlight,
which could be done by a trained dog or mechanical robot) has affected
the tree. Or if you walk up to the tree and use your fingers to touch
its surface, this is directly interactive observation-probing and the tree
will
be affected by the contact with your fingers, but this has nothing to do
with human consciousness.
passive visual observation: When
you see, you do not "send something out" from
your eyes. Instead, you see an object because photons that come from
the object, either by emanation or reflection, enter into your eyes. Of
course, your mind is actively involved with processing and interpreting what
you
see, but
the
flow of information is in one direction, from the external world into
your eyes and mind; during your visual processing of an event, the
event is not affected.
an application: In each
cat experiment (2A, 2B, and 2D) everyone agrees about the irrelevance of
passive visual observation, in which
photons and information enter the
human in a one-way flow. When we ask another question
— During a "time-delayed Schrodinger's Cat experiment"
is the role of human consciousness passive or active? — advocates of
a mystical interpretation, claiming an active reality-producing consciousness,
must
explain how something "goes
out" from
the mind of a human, time-travels back two weeks and causes the observed
result. { Is this possible? What causes the "direction" of
time? } / The cat experiment is a minor variation,
with one extra step added, of the typical situation in which a person
observes a large-scale measuring
device (which produces data in the form of a meter reading, printed report,
photograph,...)
instead of a small-scale quantum particle, so a
person does not really observe the quantum
event, even with passive observation. Instead, an unconscious device "observes" the
event,
then a human
observes
the large-scale device, so a human is not really
involved
at the quantum
level.
What
does "observation" mean?
During the 1920s, scientists
constructed the language of quantum physics. Unfortunately, they
chose a term that has encouraged
nonscientific speculation about the role of human consciousness in nature. Instead
of saying observation (which implies a conscious
human observer) they should have called it observation-allowing interaction —
i.e., a
physical interaction (usually with a large-scale unconscious measuring
device that may or may not then be observed by a human) — because this
more accurately
describes what
is
happening.
As emphasized in Section 1B, a photon-electron interaction causes
the momentum changes that are described in the Uncertainty Principle. These
changes, which are caused by the interaction, are independent of human consciousness; yes,
they will occur when there is observation by a human, but they also occur
when there is no human consciousness and no increase in human knowledge. And
the wave-particle duality that is the essence of quantum behavior will cause
a proton and electron to form a hydrogen atom, not a simple +- clump, whether
or not there is an observer. Similarly, in Section 1C
an electron changes from traveling (as a wave) to hitting the wall (as a particle)
due to interaction between itself and electrons in the wall. Again, this
physical interaction can happen with or without a human observer, so calling
it "interaction" rather than "observation" is
more accurate.
Calling it interaction would
also be less
confusing, since observation is
a
term
overpopulated
with
meanings: it
can be interpreted to mean active
human intervention (in designing an experiment), observation-allowing
interaction, passive human observation,
or conscious human knowledge. In
an effort to communicate more clearly, with precision and accuracy, we should
always distinguish between these four potential meanings. In Quantum
Physics, what is the meaning of observation? All scientists agree that
the first two meanings play an important role in quantum
experiments,
although there is some debate about the
nature of this role — for example, when we ask "Does an electron
have intrinsic values for its attributes, independent of observation?" — as
explained in Section 4C. The
third meaning, passive observation, is based on misunderstanding and is incorrect; and
almost all scientists think that human consciousness does not play any role
in quantum phenomena and experiments.
4B.
Unobserved Events
The focus of Sections
2A-2D is a question: Is the cat's fate determined when
an electron interacts with the wall-detector or when
a human
looks
into the box? When
we're thinking about this, we should ponder the similarities between The
Fate of Schrodinger's Cat and The History
of the Universe, and the fact that almost all events in the history
of nature (99.99999...%) have not been observed.
Anyone who advocates a mystical
interpretation of the cat-experiments faces a tough question: If
nothing really happens until a human observes it, then how did a wide variety
of important processes
(involving galaxies, stars, organisms,...) occur for billions of years
before the existence of intelligent life capable of making quantum observations? Human
observation of non-photonic subatomic "quantum events" began in the late
1800s, so it has been occurring for only about a hundred
years, for 1/100,000,000 of the history of the universe. Without
human observation, how did nature operate smoothly for billions of years? How
did billions of galaxies form? In each galaxy, how did nuclear reactions
occur in billions of stars? How did biochemical processes occur in
trillions of organisms? And even during the short time in which
humans have been observing quantum events, almost all quantum processes
— occurring in distant galaxies and stars, on earth, and in our own
bodies
—
have been unobserved.
We should be appropriately humble
about the importance of humans, since
the universe does not need us to "observe things and make them happen." { Amazingly,
the evangelists of mystical physics do arrogantly claim — in the Participatory
Anthropic Principle — that the universe could not exist without us. Wow. }
4C.
So what? (re: attributes and small effects)
In experiments,
scientists can measure some attributes of
an electron: its location, momentum, spin,... Despite the claims
of mystical physics,
however, scientists do not "create the reality" of
an electron during experiments. In quantum physics, a wave/particle
has wave characteristics and particle characteristics, and both are
important. In
a two-slit experiment, for example, 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 its behavior is best represented
as a particle or a collapsed-wave).
While an electron is moving
toward the wall, does it have the attribute of a "future location" where
it will hit the wall? Probably not. Although hidden
variable interpretations (proposing that quantum physics theory
is incomplete, that some attributes of an electron are specified by
variables
which
aren't
included in the theory) say yes, most scientists say no. According
to conventional interpretations, not only are we unable to know exactly
where a moving
electron will hit the wall,
the electron does not even have a definite value for this attribute
until there is an interaction (when the electron hits the wall)
that causes one outcome to manifest; before
this interaction, the attribute (re: future location) has only potential
probabilities — which can be calculated in quantum physics
by using the mathematical wave-function that
is appropriate for the particular experimental context — instead
of a
definite value. But even in the absence of a specific
value for this attribute, the moving electron is a real electron.
In carefully controlled situations,
such as a two-slit experiment, scientists can make an electron attain
values for attributes (location, spin,...) that previously
it didn't have. But
the human action is indirect, since it is limited to arranging a situation
in which an interaction will directly cause the attribute to manifest. Almost
all scientists think the "collapse" of an electron's probabilistic
wave-function, which produces a specific value for an attribute, occurs
due to physical
interaction, not consciousness. A scientist just arranges the
experimental situation where a particular interaction occurs.
In experimental design, the main
function of humans is to make decisions — to design an experiment,
set up the equipment, and push a button that makes it run. These are
ordinary decisions, with an impact that is not necessarily greater than in
other decisions: for
example, a physicist decides to measure an electron's location, not
a photon's energy; 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
(or E
and F, or...); an astronomer who gets drunk at a departmental
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 decision, because it results in an experiment
at the level of quantum
phenomena, than
for the other decisions?
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 mechanism of action is biochemical (due
to hormones,...) rather than quantum.
a summary: In quantum experiments, the effects are extremely small and the role of humans is even smaller.
4D.
Quantum Normality in Large Systems
As explained in Sections
1A-1C,
we should not insist that concepts from our large-scale everyday experience
will be 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."
In a
carefully controlled quantum experiment, the context is small-scale and simple. In
everyday situations, the context is large-scale and complex. Although
this difference in context is important, it is usually ignored in mystical
physics.
In the context of biochemical
reactions in a living cell, for example, 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. In the uncontrolled environment of
an everyday biochemical context (in a "wild state")
an electron experiences frequent interactions that produce attributes, in the
same way that scientists make an electron attain an attribute in a simplified
experimental context. An absence of observation does not hinder
the effective practical functioning of electrons in a biochemical context.
In terms of
quantum physics, there is a significant difference between small-scale (electrons)
and medium-scale (biomolecules) or large-scale (cats). But
this difference is blurred in mystical physics. The
first scholar to propose a mystical view was John von Neumann, a highly respected
mathematician who in 1932 wrote a book in which he analyzed the process of
quantum measurement by assuming that — since everything, including the
small-scale wave/particle (photon,
electron,...) and the large-scale observing device, is governed
by quantum principles — the quantum effects do not disappear when moving
from the small-scale to large-scale levels. Because he could imagine
constructing a continuous chain of interconnected mathematical wave-functions,
from observed
particle
through observing device to observing human, he concluded that anything composed
of
mere quantum-matter
cannot "collapse the wave-function" but human consciousness can do
this. Basically his argument was that, since there is no obvious place
to draw a line between small-scale and large-scale behavior, 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 brain (which
produce "mind")
to be in a different category, not governed by quantum principles, so this
is where he
drew the
line.
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 events (such as an un-spreading of color) will be extremely
improbable, although not impossible.
Probability is also the basis for
the
directionality of time that is accepted by scientists
and nonscientists, with time moving "forward" because events
occur in the direction that is most 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 are thermodynamically
irreversible because
a time-reversed process, violating the Second Law, would be extremely improbable. Things
that are possible (and probable) on a small scale become practically impossible
(i.e.,
extremely improbable) on a large scale. Scientists cannot prove that a
reversal of the color spreading is impossible, but they can show that betting
against
it is an extremely
good way to bet.
Using similar logic, based on similar
principles of probability, scientists can show that strange small-scale behaviors
(at the
level of quantum wave/particles)
produce normal medium-scale behaviors (at the level of biochemistry) and normal
large-scale behaviors (at the level of everyday experience). They cannot
prove this, but can show that it's an extremely good way to bet.
For example, strange behavior (perhaps
with
information traveling faster than light, or time-reversed causation, or...?)
might occur in EPR experiments involving
a single pair of particles, but not in normal situations involving
large
numbers
of particles.
An experiment
with Schrodinger's
Cat (or a Non-Cat) illustrates "the
statistics of large numbers" with
the strange wave/particle behavior of a single electron becoming 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 randomness, probabilities, statistics,...)
shows
what
happens when a huge
number of interactions 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!"
How and why
do weird quantum behaviors decohere and disappear? In my opinion,
the best 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. {more about where
the weirdness
goes}
A brief review of Sections
4A-4D will
put human powers in perspective: Almost everything in the history of
nature has occurred (and is occurring) without human observation. In
quantum experiments, observation effects occur due to physical interaction,
not human
consciousness. The
strange effects that do occur in quantum experiments are extremely small,
disappear for systems with a large number of particles, and seem irrelevant in
everyday
situations — except, of course, for the fact that strange quantum behaviors
are the cause of normal everyday behaviors.
Other useful ideas are Schrodinger's
Cat (in 2A-2D) — because what we know about the
cat does
not determine what the cat is — and four
meanings of observation: experimental
design (this produces real effects but occurs at the everyday non-quantum level),
observation-allowing interaction (this is the key to quantum behavior, and
it occurs with or without
humans), passive observation (with a one-way flow
of information into a person, so this doesn't do anything), and human consciousness
(in quantum physics this is
not the meaning
of "observation" and it seems irrelevant).
4E.
Quantum Common Sense
Section 2A includes a quantum
common sense interpretation of Schrodinger's
Cat. To minimize misunderstanding, this section explains what "common
sense" does
and doesn't mean, beginning with a review of ideas from earlier in
the
page:
As explained in the review of 4A-4D
above, in conventional quantum physics (which isn't mystical physics) the power
of humans
is
very
limited.
At the small scale of wave/particles, quantum common
sense is not everyday common sense. As
explained in the introduction, quantum behavior is strange and unfamiliar,
so "being
freely imaginative is necessary for understanding the radical ideas of quantum
physics." Because "things really are
strange" we
must drop our preconceived ideas about the way we think nature should
be, and use
our imaginations to understand the way it really is.
At a medium scale,
quantum behaviors (of electrons,...) produce the atoms (H, C, N, O, P,...)
and molecules (water, proteins, DNA, ATP,...) involved in the biochemical
reactions of life. Although observation may affect quantum behaviors
in a simplified experimental context, "an
absence of observation does not hinder the effective practical functioning
of electrons in a non-simplified
biochemical context."
And at a large scale, "the
normal behavior that we see in our everyday world is produced by strange behavior
in the quantum world." {quotes are from Sections 4D and 1B}
When applying quantum concepts
to everyday life, we should be cautious and humble. For most scientific
theories, my view is critical realism: I
think the
goal of scientists is to construct a theory that is true (that corresponds
with reality), and we should use critical thinking to logically evaluate a
theory's claims for truth. But for Quantum Physics, my view is semi-instrumentalist: although
the math of Quantum Physics seems correct (since all of its predictions
have been correct!) and is useful, it is difficult to know for certain which
aspects
of various "pictures
of the world" based on interpretations of Quantum Physics" are
true, which is why we have so many different interpretations; therefore
we should be cautious in making QP-based claims for
truth, although non-mysical interpretations seem more justifiable (for medium-scale
and large-scale situations) because they more closely correspond to (are more
consistent with) the science of QP when we move from small-scale to
medium-scale and large-scale situations; but
certainly QP is useful for letting us make "instrumentalist" predictions that
agree with observations. {definitions
of realism and instrumentalism}
In the
introduction, I said that my views are approximately those of conventional
physics, that I'm criticizing only mystical
physics. Regarding correspondence
and realism, for example, my views are similar to those of Niels Bohr (who
was influential in shaping the interpretations of scientists in conventional
quantum physics) but his views are very different from those proposed in
extreme
mystical
physics. {Bohr's
views}
My general view of "common
sense for living" includes a desire for clear communication by everyone,
for ideas being carefully expressed in ways that
lead to
an accurate understanding of the ideas, for avoiding fuzzy language that can
be misinterpreted. For
example, in a claim that "observation
creates reality," the precise meaning should be clarified. Does "observation" refer
to experimental design, physical interaction, passive observation, or human
consciousness? Is
a claim about "creating reality" limited to small effects (as in
a quantum experiment in which an attribute is converted from potentiality into
actuality
due to
a physical
interaction)
or does it extend to major effects in large-scale everyday situations? Unless
ideas are expressed clearly and accurately, we won't be able to logically evaluate
their plausibility.
5. Implications for Theism
For a Judeo-Christian believer, the
religious implications of quantum physics are minimal, since all basic
quantum interpretations can be integrated into a Bible-based monotheistic
worldview.
But a Quantum Physics interpretation
can be expanded, using nonscientific speculation, into a worldview that is
not
consistent
with Bible-based theism. And
this is happening. For example, mystical interpretations of quantum
physics — claiming
that everything is quantum-connected (this is probably true, but the
appropriate response is "so
what?") and that human consciousness influences quantum behavior
outside our bodies (we can conclude, based
on science, that this almost certainly is not true) — can be extended
into a pantheistic worldview claiming that "everything
is a single unified whole and this is god" and a New Age belief that "each
of us is part of the whole so each of us is god" and "we can create our own
reality that is independent from God." This
pantheistic worldview is not compatible with theism. But
without speculative nonscientific expansion, all
interpretations of quantum physics are compatible with theism.
In pantheism, the universe creates god. (and the universe is god) / In theism, God creates the universe. (and God designed the universe with quantum behaviors)
Divine
Design of Nature?
It seems clear that wave/particle
duality, which is the foundation of quantum physics, is one of the many properties
of nature that are necessary for life-allowing solar energy and the
biochemistry of carbon-based life. The unfamiliar strangeness
of quantum physics — with
quantum behaviors differing from everyday behaviors — is probably just
a byproduct of a universe that has been designed to support our existence. {but
design cannot be proved: Three
Explanations for a Just-Right Universe}
In my Non-Mathematical
Introduction to Quantum
Physics I say: The strange wave-nature
of electrons... produces things that we consider
normal, that allow life. Victor Guillemin says "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
without history, plan or purpose." This is a good description of
why quantization is necessary for life. But to make a non-quantum universe
seem even less desirable, think about what would happen to protons (with positive
electric charge) and electrons (with negative charge) if there was no wave-particle
duality and quantization: these charged particles would attract each
other until they came into contact and formed +– clumps that would be useless
as
building
blocks
for
life.
It seems that quantum strangeness,
which causes everyday normality, is necessary for a universe that allows intelligent
life.
The strange quantum behaviors of wave/particles produces the normal behaviors we observe in everyday life. But perhaps our everyday reality isn't as normal as it usually seems, and most of us (including theists) usually assume. According to the Bible, there are supernatural beings (God, loyal angels, and rebel angels) who can interact with humans and with other parts of the natural realm. Maybe the quantum structure of nature plays some role in the interactive relationship between the natural and supernatural. Or maybe not.
Divine
Knowledge of Natural Process: By definition, the knowledge capabilities
of an omniscient being would not be constrained
by the quantum limitations on human knowledge, as in the Uncertainty
Principle. For
humans, there are natural limitations in observing (due to quantum uncertainties)
and predicting (due to quantum uncertainties plus the "amplifications of
small initial differences to produce divergent histories" that are described
in chaos theory). But
imagine that a natural event is being observed by an all-knowing God who
is not constrained by these limits on observation and prediction, who therefore
can predict what will occur if natural process continues in an unguided "random
roll of the dice" mode.
Divine Guidance of Natural
Process: Or,
instead of remaining a passive observer, God might influence natural process
and thereby convert one natural-appearing result (the one that would have occurred
without any divine guidance) into another normal-appearing result (that actually
occurs). Although this is only speculation, it seems that one possible
mechanism for natural-appearing theistic action 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,
God could influence (or determine) natural events by controlling some (or all)
uncertainty at the quantum level, which could be done in a way such that events
appear normal and statistically random during this theistically guided natural
process. / Since quantum interactions occur constantly, not just
during "observations" by humans, God could control everything that
occurs. God can control everything, but does God control
everything? This difficult theological question — regarding the
frequency of 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) — is examined, but without reaching any "answers",
in pages about Theistic
Action (with my views) and (looking at the views of others) Theistic
Guidance of Natural Process.
a summary: Nothing
in quantum physics, including its probabilistic foundation and lack
of
physical determinism, is
a problem
for
God or
for theists.