Feb 3/2009

I visited my sister and her lovely family this weekend. It was my niece’s 16th birthday, and in a few days she flies off to France for a three-month student exchange program where she will learn the name of 3,412 French cheeses. Actually, she’s vegetarian, and the French have a very French disdain for vegetarians. They actually eat them in a cream sauce. So cheese may be all she eats, while keeping a low profile.

On her birthday morning, we went out for breakfast and I started talking about the nature of reality, which of course could not be a more subjective topic, and utterly useless in terms of advice for her trip. Ironically, subjective is sort of the point with quantum theory, which is where the conversation had led as we glanced at the menu.

QUANTUM THEORY AND SIXTEEN TRIPS AROUND THE SUN

“The recognition that physical objects and spiritual values have a very similar kind of reality has contributed in some measure to my mental peace.”
—Physicist Eugene Wigner (1902-1995)

Even before the breakfast burrito and the oatmeal arrived, it had become clear that I was unable to give this A-student a description of quantum theory that would at least be worth her concentration. Heck, she had to tell me what valence electrons are (the outside electrons), which was instructive to how hopeless I was. In fairness to me, quantum theory isn’t easy to even intimate. Taken to any kind of conclusion, it defies all logic, as does being human, let alone being a human teenager.

RELATIVELY BORING UNCLES

Sharing the burrito, I rapidly threw out a few old Quantum theory adages, paraphrasing some of the great physicists: “If anyone thinks they understand quantum physics, they don’t understand quantum physics…” and “Quantum theory is not only more queer than we suppose it’s even more queer than we can suppose…” etc.

Truth is, I was scrambling. In shame I could have drowned myself right there in my chai tea, but I happened to be wearing water wings. Still, my excuses were useless—not to mention I live in a dream world that has very little connection to reality, whatever that may be. As an example, I occasionally wonder if I am a shoe.

As breakfast came to a close, I swore to myself that I would damn well do a little more research and clarify a few aspects of quantum theory—if only to stop me from being a totally boring knob to my niece.

So here I am riding the bus back to Vancouver, rewriting my first kick at the quantum.  Let’s begin arbitrarily—or rather where all Eurocentric physicists seem to start, ignoring the remarkable yogis of India, the subtle Taoists of China, and quoting the similar-skinned Greeks.

ARISTOTLE

To begin, there was the precocious Greek, Aristotle (384-322 BC), who was a student of Plato, who was a student of Socrates, who was a student of Gary, who lived up on Miller Road. Now Aristotle said a bunch of insightful things resembling science, but proved you don’t have to prove much to become legendary. It’s who you know.

Also, he was the teacher of Alexander the Great, who should actually have been called Alexander the Macedonian, who should actually have been called Alexander the Very Pig-Headed,  Moody, Murdering, Rotten Son-Of-A-Bitch (although a hell of a polo player). But for not being able to influence Alexander towards having a code of ethics or decent oral hygiene, Aristotle has to lose some marks as a great thinker.

GALILEO

Almost two thousand years later, after the discovery of zero, the Dark Ages, the Low Watt Ages, a plague or two and endless waves of Barbarians, there came the brilliant Tuscan, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), who said, and I quote: “Aristotle, you’re an idiot.”

By using actual testing, like spitting multi-weighted gobs on the heads of unsuspecting friends walking beneath the Leaning Tower of Pisa, Galileo proved all kinds of scientific things contrary to what both Aristotle and the Church believed. For example, Galileo proved testicles dangle asymmetrically regardless of their weight. He also proved that the Pope, due to the ridiculous size of his hat, almost certainly wore very large granny bloomers beneath his robe, just to relax.

And for his brilliance, the Church gave Galileo a free tour of their torture chambers. Galileo gratefully recanted this-and-that, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest well aware of the consequences of friction. But didn’t he have the coolest name ever?

THE BIG APPLE

Then came the Englishman Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who is the reason you will have to battle through calculus in the next couple of years.

The first thing you need to know about the Big Fig Newton is that he was very moody and in his entire life he almost certainly never got laid. The fact that he didn’t see the connection between those two outcomes tells us just how little he really understood life—his dexterity with the Laws of Nature notwithstanding. And nobody could make more out of a falling apple than ol’ Sir Isaac—although my friend Gary’s grandmother was a close second with her to-die-for apple strudel.

The word strudel, incidentally, was stolen directly from the German language by MI5 double agents disguised as frumpy Englishwomen, and actually means “whirlpool”, “eddy” or “concentration camp”.

Here’s the rub: Newton’s Classical Physics—the laws of motion and barbecuing—seem in every way to be the way the world actually works. However, according to countless Quantum experiments, they are shockingly and utterly not the way the world actually works. That said, for almost all practical purposes and observations, Newton’s Laws get us through the day.

As an example, to fall off the roof of your house while shoveling snow (my dad, circa, 1971) and, while falling (and yelling) coming to truly understand that Newton’s Physical Laws are not actually how the world works, will not help you in the least. In fact, while falling, you should believe deeply in Newton’s Laws (mostly gravity), and also Gray’s Anatomy, 9-1-1, allopathic medicine and visiting hours.

GET TO KNOW YOUR RELATIVES

It was that pesky, uniform-hating Albert Einstein (1879-1955) who really brought Newton’s uptight Classical Physics into question. Einstein’s groundbreaking Theory of Relativity states that: “relatives are annoying only according to how much time you spend with them.” This describes much more accurately how the world works—despite the theory being astronomically more counter-intuitive than Newton’s Laws of Falling.

Still, even non-physicists and psychologists can somewhat grasp how all things are relative depending on “where you’re at,” because this fact applies to our own lives. For example, the same relationship breakup may be brutal when observed as it happens, barely conceivable due to ignorance before it happens and even amusing, years after it happens.

So what does that say about a break up and what does that say about ourselves?  God knows, but I’m now relatively depressed and unable to get out of bed.

NOT ON MY WATCH

Relativity also says that time slows down when moving—or when having a very fast movement. Weird but true. In fact, if you put a precise clock on a very fast plane and that plane circles the globe, when that plane lands, the clock in the plane will be behind the time of the clock that remained at the original airport. Plus your tea will be cold, your hair will be a mess and it might be difficult to book a hotel.

But even with Einstein hoisting Newton on his shoulders, it wasn’t enough to explain how the world really worked, or what it might be trying to say to us, other than “Get a job.” Al’s back eventually gave out to both a slipped disc and this inconceivable quantum mystery. Physicist Brian Greene writes that:

“…as quantum mechanics has been verified through decades of fantastically accurate experiments, the Newtonian cosmic clock, even with its Einsteinian updating, is an untenable metaphor; it is demonstrably not how the world works.”

QUANTUM PHYSICS

Yes, quantum physics. Although not necessarily the complete picture, now we’re talking—or observing, anyway—and it leads us to where no physicist wants to go, and I don’t mean gym class.

Get this. Ultimately, quantum theory says—and it has been tested countless times through something called interference experiments—that it is the observation of a microscopic particle that actually creates or produces its reality.

I think this means that the so-called objective existence of material phenomena is actually not as certain as we would have ourselves believe. It is dependent on an observer. Now we have to understand what exactly is meant by ‘observer.’

Either way, consider this ‘observer creates the reality’ the next time you’re paying your taxes or stepping in doggie-doo. Does this mean we make up our own universe? I doubt it, because I can’t even find my keys, and decisions involving leaving the house leave me catatonic.

SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL

And to be fair, if not clear, quantum theory is generally qualified by physicists saying these laws apply to physical things at the microscopic level, ie photons, electrons, atoms and very small second helpings of dessert.

Unfortunately, that qualification is only there to keep us lunatics sane, and away from the bloodless and beautiful revolution of self-reflection. Because the truth is, supposedly only technology and budget keep us from testing these theories on much bigger items like, as Bob Barker once shouted, “a washing machine and a new car!”

From Rosenblum and Kuttner’s highly practical Quantum Enigma (pg 101-102):

“…in principle, quantum mechanics applies to everything—to baseballs as well as atoms. It’s just our present day technology that limits us to displaying quantum phenomena only with small things.”

You see, quantum theory, despite its name, is not simply theoretical. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. Take economics. Quantum theory is directly relatable to practical tools worth millions of dollars, from MRIs that could take a fantastic picture of Einstein’s herniated disc to computer transistors that are a size so puny it’s an embarrassment we have to pay for them at all.

IT’S IN THE STARS

Quantum theory also says that a microscopic particle with the right attitude and wearing sensible shoes can be in two places at the same time. If you have one microscopic particle, and a walnut shell broken in half, with one of the two (unknown) halves covering that microscopic particle, and you are asked to pick which half it’s under, quantum theory says it is actually under both shells.

What?

Yeah!

It will only be under the shell you predicted upon observing it to be under that shell, and not until you’ve observed it to be there. Until then, it’s probably across town, sneaking out of the experiment to watch a matinee.  I know that’s incredibly counter-intuitive, but it’s true, and matinees are cheaper. Hey, the only reason gravity and, say, digestion aren’t mind-bogglingly weird is because we’re so damn used to them. But observation, science says, produces the outcome.

AN EXPLANATION

Now if I understand this being-in-two-places-at-the-same-time correctly, this is known as the superposition state, which is different than the Evergreen State (Washington) but similar to a state of anxiety (Washington D.C.). I think this superposition state can also be called the particle’s wave function, which is considered no different than the particle itself— like the sun and her rays, perhaps. Or me and my morning breath. Different but the same, if you know what I mean.

To repeat, Quantum theory states that no little thing has an actual position or existence until it is observed. Until it is observed it has its superposition state. Upon observation by anything, this superposition state utterly collapses into a singular position. Yeah. Weird. One can hang many a crazy projection on that existential hat rack, and then start a new religion. What it means for you, for me, for all of us, is unclear, but watch your back.

And back to those yogis: Caitanya (Shay-tanya), the great Bengali mystic, hinted towards this kind of thing some 500 years ago when he said: "We [beings] are inconceivably, simultaneously one and different." He's not talking about a team player who's quirky.

Rosenblum and Kuttner add, referring to [John] Bell's Theorem (pg 139) and experiments since:

"There is a universal connectedness. Einstein's "spooky interactions" do in fact exist. Any objects that have interacted continue to instantaneously influence each other. Events at the edge of the galaxy influence what happens at the edge of your garden. Though these effects are completely undetectable in a normally complex situation, they now get attention in industrial laboratories because they may also make possible fantastically powerful computers."

I knew the mystery would come down to cold, hard cash.

COMPLEMENTARITY/ENTANGLEMENT

Yes, Quantum theory says that what happens in one place is directly related to something happening somewhere else, far, far away, even China. This takes place without anything known being sent between the two places, not even a thank you card.

And this has nothing to do with New Age crapola. This is not the Butterfly Effect, or Pay It Forward. It is the more suspicious Moth-Eaten Effect, and it leaves our intuition and our worldview, not to mention our lunch plans, in tatters. Scientists call this effect karma. No they don’t, but I just like to tease them.

I think what Brian Greene says is related, or the same, or maybe not, but sort of sums things up:

“…a class of experiments performed during the last couple of decades has shown that something we do over here (such as measuring certain properties of a particle) can be subtly entwined with something that happens over there (such as the outcome of measuring certain properties of another distant particle), without anything being sent from here to there.”

And these simultaneous, identical property changes (say, polarization with photons) don’t actually change until one of the changes is observed. It gets better. Rosenblum and Kuttner write (pg 134):

“It’s not the fact that twin-state [entangled] photons [even galaxies apart] exhibit identical [simultaneous] polarization that is weird [with nothing between them]. The weird thing is quantum theory’s explanation of the fact: that there is no physical reality to any property until it is observed.”

For physicists Rosenblum and Kuttner, this wreaks of consciousness, which makes them—like Martin Luther King with the FBI in 1965—Public Enemy One among many of their peers, and courageous. Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner (1902-1995) writes:

“It is at this point that the consciousness enters the theory unavoidably and unalterably. If one speaks in terms of the wave function, its changes are coupled with the entering of impressions into our consciousness.”

Only a moron would say that consciousness isn't intelligence. The complexities of a universe unfolding? And right in the middle of it eating a tomato and cucumber sandwich, while watching the sun set and the mind race? Wow.

DICEY AT BEST

This benign split-personality condition of being in two places at one time is the ultimate excuse for having a nap while telling your boss you’re working like a dog (and maybe even deserve a raise).

Observe only the nap, and so it is. In fact, you’re probably napping while you read this.

Einstein hated this two-things-in-one-place idea, because he believed the world had to make sense, at least to him; that the world had to exist even if he hadn’t observed it, and that one thing simultaneously in two places is just downright spooky.

When he said: “God doesn’t play dice with the universe,” the great Niels Bohr asked him who he was to tell God how to run the universe. That’s funny, but for saying it, Einstein would spend years both trying to debunk Quantum Theory and fantasizing about spanking Bohr’s bare bottom (which came to be known as Bohr’s Bare Bottom Theory, or BBB).

Some theorists (and old time yogis, who never get a wisp of credit) go even further. For example, the great German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), who was relentlessly teased as a child as ‘Werner the Weiner,’ took all this quantum intrigue and developed his Uncertainty Principle, and paid those bullies back when he speculatively wrote:

“…atoms or elementary particles themselves [and even teasing] are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts [and all of you have no potential whatsoever].”

This is why one should never open an overdue bill. I mean why look at it and make it real? This, unfortunately, does not apply to a jail sentence, which is real unless you have a lot of money.

THIS ENDING DOESN’T EXIST

To finish (and repeat, due to its absurdity), quantum physics says that eensy-weensy phenomena are actually and only created by the observation of that phenomena. I’m cereal!

And the paradox in this enigma wrapped up in a quandary—and physicists tend to hate this—is that observation by definition requires some sort of consciousness, or at least a TV remote control and a good set of headphones.

Or as the legendary Physicist Erwin Schrödinger put it: "Can that which takes place inside a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?"

Sweetie, you figure out the rest. It’s your worldview.

And either way, you’re beautiful and full of unlimited possibilities and potentialities. No physicist or yogi worth his Alpha Waves would deny that. And if they do, I’ll punch ‘em right in their random illusion, and they’ll be glad it is one.

I must say it can't be easy being an honest scientist these days. Three hundred or more years of remarkable research and startling discovery has led to not only a vision of a world more mysterious than we'd imagined, but perhaps more mysterious than we can imagine, to paraphrase an old physicist.

In a sense, scientists have come face-to-face with what may seem like an enemy, but isn't—and never should have been in the first place. But not unlike the colonization of indigenous people, Inquisitions against knowledge-seekers tend to cause a lot of damage—long term. This is life, we are here, and we'll still be hungry in the morning. Who knows what the next move will be?

In the meantime, may that other mystery we can't qualify or quantify—love—continue to shine its endless wavefunction, for life is a cold, hopeless machine without it.

This concludes the lecture on Quantum Theory. If you are like me, you are no farther ahead, yet pretty close to where you think you might be. Now go on, Paris awaits.

Main References:

Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness, Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner, Oxford University Press 2006.

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality, Brian Greene, Random House, 2005.

Images of Twentieth Century Physics, N Mukunda, Universities Press, 2000.

Jeffrey Armstrong, personal communications and lectures.