I've been meaning to write a column about a problem I have with current quantum theory or, more specifically, with the current public understanding of it. And, yes, quantum phenomena are still largely not understood, but there is a paradigm reigning at the present time with which I don't agree. And the basis of my disagreement is that it is treated as the only paradigm when, in fact, since the dawn of quantum theory in the 20th century, there have been two prevailing views, both in contention (although there are actually now more than two.) A recent article from Science News saves me the trouble to write that column as it describes the issue very well (ref).
Discussions between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, which did lead to developments in quantum theory, were actually an argument. Einstein did not accept what he was hearing about quantum theory from Bohr and was working very hard to refute it. He saw that the implications of quantum theory would describe a universe where cause-and-effect did not hold, which led to his famous "God does not play dice" quote. He was not successful in refuting Bohr, but the world view he espoused, that the cause-and-effect must hold and the universe is therefore deterministic, is the prevailing view today.
Which leads to my problem. The current view is only one view. And it is founded on a basis (Einstein) that was trying to disprove the claims of quantum physics, even as quantum results continue to prove Einstein was wrong. The famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox was Einstein's attempt to disprove quantum theory by showing that "spooky" actions at a distance could occur. These interactions do occur with entangled particles, not to Einstein's credit but to his chagrin were he alive.
So, being heretic enough in this day and age to say Einstein was wrong ( he was and more than once, as he himself admitted about the cosmic constant), let me continue to state a few more quantum heresies against the prevailing paradigm of quantum beliefs:
1) At the quantum level, photons, electrons and other atomic particles exhibit both particle and wavelike properties. These are mutually exclusive properties in the large scale world but at quantum dimensions, things can be both one thing and its opposite. They are not one thing because I think they are and another thing when I think that they are the other thing. They actually in themselves both and contain their opposites.
2) Similarly, at quantum dimensions, "here"and "now" are not precise, but are fuzzy. Things are mostly in some location but to some vanishingly small degree everywhere else to. And they travel through that fuzzy location with some approximate momentum but with small percentages also travel at all possible momentum values. This is not a consequence of what I know, but intrinsic to that object. Measuring its location down to zero precision increases the fuzziness in its momentum to have any value from zero to infinity. Really. And not just that I can't know it. Each particle at a quantum level is a fuzzy location/momentum ball and you can squeeze it as much as you want in one property but you will only cause it to extend in the other property to keep the ball's "volume" greater than Planck's constant. More on the basic math behind this here. (ref)
3) When you move away from quantum lengths (on the order of Planck's constant) the fuzziness gets collective and things average out to the deterministic universe of the classical world we perceive. You can calculate the quantum wavelength of a baseball (I have) but it is meaningless not because it is a such a small number, but because the fuzziness of the particles making up the baseball have already been averaged into the classical properties. Think of a single wave on the surface of the ocean. The "fuzziness" my equations might show in trying to describe the motion and location of that individual does not translate to the "motion of the ocean" which exhibits the collective motion of all the waves in the sea.
4) Which leads to my last bit of heresy. Screw Schrödinger's cat! It's dead. Or alive. But without me knowing it or not knowing. Because either it died or didn't (yet.) Quantum causes do not command classical effects. The interference of the measuring mechanism which either kills or does not kill the cat has already removed the fuzziness. Don't believe me? I give you a roomful of sealed containers into which you cannot see, full of Schrödinger cats. As you walk through that room, you naturally smell what? Dead cats. Which ones, you don't know, so you can't claim your "mind"collapsed the quantum state. The measuring mechanism did that and full half those poor cats are dead. THAT'S quantum probabilities tied to the classical world in statistics, not through my knowing or not knowing.
Am I right? I sincerely believe so. But so do the other guys. I just object to the world subscribing to only the one view. And that view being one that denies quantum theory while trying to explain it at the same time. Maybe it's just another example of bringing the realm of quantum fuzziness into the classical realm where it just doesn't apply.
Discussions between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, which did lead to developments in quantum theory, were actually an argument. Einstein did not accept what he was hearing about quantum theory from Bohr and was working very hard to refute it. He saw that the implications of quantum theory would describe a universe where cause-and-effect did not hold, which led to his famous "God does not play dice" quote. He was not successful in refuting Bohr, but the world view he espoused, that the cause-and-effect must hold and the universe is therefore deterministic, is the prevailing view today.
Which leads to my problem. The current view is only one view. And it is founded on a basis (Einstein) that was trying to disprove the claims of quantum physics, even as quantum results continue to prove Einstein was wrong. The famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox was Einstein's attempt to disprove quantum theory by showing that "spooky" actions at a distance could occur. These interactions do occur with entangled particles, not to Einstein's credit but to his chagrin were he alive.
So, being heretic enough in this day and age to say Einstein was wrong ( he was and more than once, as he himself admitted about the cosmic constant), let me continue to state a few more quantum heresies against the prevailing paradigm of quantum beliefs:
1) At the quantum level, photons, electrons and other atomic particles exhibit both particle and wavelike properties. These are mutually exclusive properties in the large scale world but at quantum dimensions, things can be both one thing and its opposite. They are not one thing because I think they are and another thing when I think that they are the other thing. They actually in themselves both and contain their opposites.
2) Similarly, at quantum dimensions, "here"and "now" are not precise, but are fuzzy. Things are mostly in some location but to some vanishingly small degree everywhere else to. And they travel through that fuzzy location with some approximate momentum but with small percentages also travel at all possible momentum values. This is not a consequence of what I know, but intrinsic to that object. Measuring its location down to zero precision increases the fuzziness in its momentum to have any value from zero to infinity. Really. And not just that I can't know it. Each particle at a quantum level is a fuzzy location/momentum ball and you can squeeze it as much as you want in one property but you will only cause it to extend in the other property to keep the ball's "volume" greater than Planck's constant. More on the basic math behind this here. (ref)
3) When you move away from quantum lengths (on the order of Planck's constant) the fuzziness gets collective and things average out to the deterministic universe of the classical world we perceive. You can calculate the quantum wavelength of a baseball (I have) but it is meaningless not because it is a such a small number, but because the fuzziness of the particles making up the baseball have already been averaged into the classical properties. Think of a single wave on the surface of the ocean. The "fuzziness" my equations might show in trying to describe the motion and location of that individual does not translate to the "motion of the ocean" which exhibits the collective motion of all the waves in the sea.
4) Which leads to my last bit of heresy. Screw Schrödinger's cat! It's dead. Or alive. But without me knowing it or not knowing. Because either it died or didn't (yet.) Quantum causes do not command classical effects. The interference of the measuring mechanism which either kills or does not kill the cat has already removed the fuzziness. Don't believe me? I give you a roomful of sealed containers into which you cannot see, full of Schrödinger cats. As you walk through that room, you naturally smell what? Dead cats. Which ones, you don't know, so you can't claim your "mind"collapsed the quantum state. The measuring mechanism did that and full half those poor cats are dead. THAT'S quantum probabilities tied to the classical world in statistics, not through my knowing or not knowing.
Am I right? I sincerely believe so. But so do the other guys. I just object to the world subscribing to only the one view. And that view being one that denies quantum theory while trying to explain it at the same time. Maybe it's just another example of bringing the realm of quantum fuzziness into the classical realm where it just doesn't apply.
No comments:
Post a Comment