Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physics Today

Science Miseducation in A Private Universe

Michael Riordan

Published Feb 1, 2004• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Riordan replies: The question of what is “real” has been debated—and will continue to be debated—by philosophers for centuries. If nothing is real except for observations, as Richard Henry states in his last sentence, then quantum mechanics itself must not be real or true. Therefore, his strict empiricist conclusion rests on very shaky ground.© 2004 American Institute of Physics.

DOI
10.1063/1.4796373

Related papers

Getting Real about Quantum Mechanics

Laura Ruetsche

Scientific realists believe, of successful scientific theories, that they’re at least approximately true. Quantum mechanics (QM) lays credible claim to being the most successful theory in the history of human science. But what does a scientific realist believe when she believes QM? And what can we learn about the scientific realism debate from the fact that that debate, conducted in abstraction, appears incapable of settling what a realist about QM should believe when she believes QM? This contribution explores both questions.

Routledge eBooks•Nov 22, 2017•5 citations

Uncertain for a century: quantum mechanics and the dilemma of interpretation

Adam Frank

Quantum mechanics, the physical theory describing the microworld, is one of science's greatest triumphs. Remarkably, however, after more than 100 years it is still unclear what quantum mechanics means in terms of basic philosophical questions about the nature of reality. While there are many interpretations of the mathematical machinery of quantum physics, there remain no experimental means to distinguish between most of them. In this contribution, I wish to consider the ways in which the enduring lack of an agreed-upon interpretation of quantum physics influences a number of critical philosophical debates about physics and reality. I briefly review two problems affected by quantum interpretations: the meaning of the term universe and the nature of consciousness.

arXiv:1604.06488•Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences•Dec 1, 2015•5 citations

What is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics

Adam Becker

The untold story of the heretical thinkers who dared to question the nature of our quantum universeEvery physicist agrees quantum mechanics is among humanity's finest scientific achievements. But ask what it means, and the result will be a brawl. For a century, most physicists have followed Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation and dismissed questions about the reality underlying quantum physics as meaningless. A mishmash of solipsism and poor reasoning, Copenhagen endured, as Bohr's students vigorously protected his legacy, and the physics community favored practical experiments over philosophical arguments. As a result, questioning the status quo long meant professional ruin. And yet, from the 1920s to today, physicists like John Bell, David Bohm, and Hugh Everett persisted in seeking the true meaning of quantum mechanics. What Is Real? is the gripping story of this battle of ideas and the courageous scientists who dared to stand up for truth.

•Jan 1, 2018•41 citations

Pseudoscience versus science

Sadri Hassani

► Hassani replies: Mario Beauregard, Gary Schwartz, and Natalie Trent associate several notable physicists with the integration of consciousness in quantum theory. History is filled with great scientists who held unscientific, even antiscientific beliefs. Lord Rayleigh believed in ghosts; J. J. Thomson believed in dowsing and psychics; William Shockley and James Watson sponsor racialism and eugenics. But these ideological mistakes, sometimes referred to as Nobel disease (see Physics Today, September 1998, page 29), are not made right because of the science of their makers, and the science is not made wrong because of the ideological mistakes of its discoverers. It is the message that counts, not the messenger.One person who can authoritatively judge the role of mind in quantum theory is John Bell, who proved its nonlocality—a concept that pseudoscientists have deformed into their own commodity. Bell stated,I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics…. The only “observer” which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus … once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference … whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such “observing” to computers.11. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Experiments that demonstrate our mental ability to influence physical objects would be as revolutionary as experiments that demonstrated the existence of the electron, the atomic nucleus, and gravitational waves. Why don’t the authors submit their results to mainstream journals so that the larger community of experimenters could verify them? Yes, mainstream journals—that is where all the aforementioned experiments were published and where all science revolutionaries disseminate their ideas.There are essentially three categories of scientists: mainstreamers; those mainstreamers who bend the mainstream; and those who leave the mainstream and become pseudoscientists.All true scientists are in the first category. If they are exceptionally creative, they may end up in the second category. Pseudoscientists, being rejected by the mainstreamers, misinform the public with assertions that “science revolutionaries have also been rejected by mainstreamers, as we have.” Nothing is further from the truth. Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, and other great scientists were mainstreamers who made it to the second category.22. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015).Larry Dossey calls consciousness “science’s greatest mystery.” For centuries, biology was “science’s greatest mystery” because of the manifestation of life in living organisms. Many biologists believed in vitalism, the idea that a “vital force” regulated the activity of animate objects but could not “be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic,” as the “Manifesto for a post-materialist science” states about mind.33. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008 However, with the discovery of DNA, “vital force” is no longer needed to explain the electrochemical reactions taking place at the subcellular level. Since the source of consciousness is the brain, the scientific answer to its nature will come only from the molecular investigation of neurons, not from near-death “experiments.”Mysteries always exist in science, and there are two ways to deal with them. One is to wait and give science a chance to resolve them. The other, the age-old strategy of pseudoscience, is to exploit the limitation of science and inject speculative and unproven conjectures as answers. While biologists have abandoned vitalism, the idea has not died out. It has been disguised and taken up by modern pseudoscientists: Consciousness is the new face of vitalism!Tim LaFave raises a good point regarding debates between science and pseudoscience. Unfortunately, the outcome of such debates would be enormously in favor of pseudoscience, as the Nye–Ham debate demonstrated. When the listeners are scientifically illiterate, the snake oil vendor wins. That’s why, in my Commentary, I proposed that pseudoscience be challenged in the classroom, where science is not drowned in the rhetorical charm of pseudoscience.Philosophy, despite “its utter charm,” as Hans Christian von Baeyer suggests, has been at odds with science ever since their separation. Democritus, the ancient scientist, said about philosophy: “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.” Modern physicist Richard Feynman was more blunt:Here’s this great Dutch philosopher [Spinoza], and we’re [Feynman and his son] laughing at him…. You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can’t tell which is right. Sure, people were awed because he had the courage to take on these great questions, but it doesn’t do any good to have the courage if you can’t get anywhere with the question…. [Philosophers] seize on the possibility that there may not be any ultimate fundamental particle, and say that you should stop work … [because] “You haven’t thought deeply enough, first let me define the world for you.” Well, I’m going to investigate without defining it!44. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Google Scholar2. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015). Google Scholar3. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008, Google Scholar4. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195. Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Nov 1, 2016•0 citations

Quantum mechanics and reality

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?

Physics Today•Sep 1, 1970•678 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Reality

Bryce Seligman DeWitt

Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?

Princeton University Press eBooks•Apr 24, 2015•11 citations
Riordan replies: The question of what is “real” has been debated—and will continue to be debated—by philosophers for centuries. If nothing is real except for observations, as Richard Henry states in his last sentence, then quantum mechanics itself must not be real or true. Therefore, his strict empiricist conclusion rests on very shaky ground.© 2004 American Institute of Physics.
Scientific realists believe, of successful scientific theories, that they’re at least approximately true. Quantum mechanics (QM) lays credible claim to being the most successful theory in the history of human science. But what does a scientific realist believe when she believes QM? And what can we learn about the scientific realism debate from the fact that that debate, conducted in abstraction, appears incapable of settling what a realist about QM should believe when she believes QM? This contribution explores both questions.
Quantum mechanics, the physical theory describing the microworld, is one of science's greatest triumphs. Remarkably, however, after more than 100 years it is still unclear what quantum mechanics means in terms of basic philosophical questions about the nature of reality. While there are many interpretations of the mathematical machinery of quantum physics, there remain no experimental means to distinguish between most of them. In this contribution, I wish to consider the ways in which the enduring lack of an agreed-upon interpretation of quantum physics influences a number of critical philosophical debates about physics and reality. I briefly review two problems affected by quantum interpretations: the meaning of the term universe and the nature of consciousness.
The untold story of the heretical thinkers who dared to question the nature of our quantum universeEvery physicist agrees quantum mechanics is among humanity's finest scientific achievements. But ask what it means, and the result will be a brawl. For a century, most physicists have followed Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation and dismissed questions about the reality underlying quantum physics as meaningless. A mishmash of solipsism and poor reasoning, Copenhagen endured, as Bohr's students vigorously protected his legacy, and the physics community favored practical experiments over philosophical arguments. As a result, questioning the status quo long meant professional ruin. And yet, from the 1920s to today, physicists like John Bell, David Bohm, and Hugh Everett persisted in seeking the true meaning of quantum mechanics. What Is Real? is the gripping story of this battle of ideas and the courageous scientists who dared to stand up for truth.
► Hassani replies: Mario Beauregard, Gary Schwartz, and Natalie Trent associate several notable physicists with the integration of consciousness in quantum theory. History is filled with great scientists who held unscientific, even antiscientific beliefs. Lord Rayleigh believed in ghosts; J. J. Thomson believed in dowsing and psychics; William Shockley and James Watson sponsor racialism and eugenics. But these ideological mistakes, sometimes referred to as Nobel disease (see Physics Today, September 1998, page 29), are not made right because of the science of their makers, and the science is not made wrong because of the ideological mistakes of its discoverers. It is the message that counts, not the messenger.One person who can authoritatively judge the role of mind in quantum theory is John Bell, who proved its nonlocality—a concept that pseudoscientists have deformed into their own commodity. Bell stated,I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics…. The only “observer” which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus … once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference … whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such “observing” to computers.11. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Experiments that demonstrate our mental ability to influence physical objects would be as revolutionary as experiments that demonstrated the existence of the electron, the atomic nucleus, and gravitational waves. Why don’t the authors submit their results to mainstream journals so that the larger community of experimenters could verify them? Yes, mainstream journals—that is where all the aforementioned experiments were published and where all science revolutionaries disseminate their ideas.There are essentially three categories of scientists: mainstreamers; those mainstreamers who bend the mainstream; and those who leave the mainstream and become pseudoscientists.All true scientists are in the first category. If they are exceptionally creative, they may end up in the second category. Pseudoscientists, being rejected by the mainstreamers, misinform the public with assertions that “science revolutionaries have also been rejected by mainstreamers, as we have.” Nothing is further from the truth. Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, and other great scientists were mainstreamers who made it to the second category.22. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015).Larry Dossey calls consciousness “science’s greatest mystery.” For centuries, biology was “science’s greatest mystery” because of the manifestation of life in living organisms. Many biologists believed in vitalism, the idea that a “vital force” regulated the activity of animate objects but could not “be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic,” as the “Manifesto for a post-materialist science” states about mind.33. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008 However, with the discovery of DNA, “vital force” is no longer needed to explain the electrochemical reactions taking place at the subcellular level. Since the source of consciousness is the brain, the scientific answer to its nature will come only from the molecular investigation of neurons, not from near-death “experiments.”Mysteries always exist in science, and there are two ways to deal with them. One is to wait and give science a chance to resolve them. The other, the age-old strategy of pseudoscience, is to exploit the limitation of science and inject speculative and unproven conjectures as answers. While biologists have abandoned vitalism, the idea has not died out. It has been disguised and taken up by modern pseudoscientists: Consciousness is the new face of vitalism!Tim LaFave raises a good point regarding debates between science and pseudoscience. Unfortunately, the outcome of such debates would be enormously in favor of pseudoscience, as the Nye–Ham debate demonstrated. When the listeners are scientifically illiterate, the snake oil vendor wins. That’s why, in my Commentary, I proposed that pseudoscience be challenged in the classroom, where science is not drowned in the rhetorical charm of pseudoscience.Philosophy, despite “its utter charm,” as Hans Christian von Baeyer suggests, has been at odds with science ever since their separation. Democritus, the ancient scientist, said about philosophy: “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion.” Modern physicist Richard Feynman was more blunt:Here’s this great Dutch philosopher [Spinoza], and we’re [Feynman and his son] laughing at him…. You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can’t tell which is right. Sure, people were awed because he had the courage to take on these great questions, but it doesn’t do any good to have the courage if you can’t get anywhere with the question…. [Philosophers] seize on the possibility that there may not be any ultimate fundamental particle, and say that you should stop work … [because] “You haven’t thought deeply enough, first let me define the world for you.” Well, I’m going to investigate without defining it!44. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. J. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, Cambridge U. Press (1987), p. 170. Google Scholar2. S. Hassani, Skeptical Inquirer 39(5), 38 (2015). Google Scholar3. M. Beauregard et al., Explore 10, 272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2014.06.008, Google Scholar4. R. P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman, Basic Books (2005), p. 195. Google Scholar© 2016 American Institute of Physics.
Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?
Despite its enormous practical success, quantum theory is so contrary to intuition that, even after 45 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed?