The purpose of this part of the book has been to sketch a new, and in our opinion quite promising, attempt to understand parts of quantum theory and general relativity theory from a common basis. One important background for us is that relativity theory is developed by the mind of a single person, while quantum theory, in the way that it has existed up to now, is a patchwork of contributions from many different persons. Empirically, both theories have been verified to an impressive degree, but the foundation of and interpretation of quantum theory has been the source of much confusion. The book [ 5 ] is an attempt to develop the epistemic side of a new foundation, and from this propose a new interpretation: In every application, but also more generally, it is connected to the mind of a single actor or to the joint mind of a group of communicating actors.
The purpose of this part of the book has been to sketch a new, and in our opinion quite promising, attempt to understand parts of quantum theory and general relativity theory from a common basis. One important background for us is that relativity theory is developed by the mind of a single person, while quantum theory, in the way that it has existed up to now, is a patchwork of contributions from many different persons. Empirically, both theories have been verified to an impressive degree, but the foundation of and interpretation of quantum theory has been the source of much confusion. The book [ 5 ] is an attempt to develop the epistemic side of a new foundation, and from this propose a new interpretation: In every application, but also more generally, it is connected to the mind of a single actor or to the joint mind of a group of communicating actors.
In the Preface of this book, we have mentioned several approaches [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] to the problem of connecting quantum theory and general relativity theory. In our opinion, before a final thinking around this problem, it is vital to make some efforts to find a new and less formal foundation of quantum theory. This has now been done by the first author in a process starting with the book [ 5 ] and further developed in a series of articles. A summary of the theory is now given in [ 6 ]. Central to the theory is a simple model of the mind of an observer, a model which may be generalized to the mind of any person. It first relies on what is called theoretical variables , which may be physical variables, but in the process of planning, doing, or interpreting experiments, the variables are also assumed to exist in the mind of a relevant actor. From a mathematical point of view, our only requirement for the theoretical variables is the following: If λ is a theoretical variable and θ = f ( λ ) for some fixed function f , then θ is also a theoretical variable.
In the Preface to this book, we started with Alice and Bob having very different views of their observations. Alice used an optical telescope and reported nothing unusual about a distant galaxy that she could see. Bob, on the other hand, detected intense radio activity in that galaxy. Our question was: who has the true view of that galaxy? We advised the reader that the answer is not Alice . Neither is it Bob . The answer is not both of them , nor is it neither of them . It is not a trick question either. So what is the answer that this book would supply? Our answer will come presently. While this book has set forth a definite mathematical perspective on empirical physics, it has contained quite a lot of commentary that might be disparaged as metaphysics or philosophy. Such commentary is generally frowned on in science, because it has no empirical content. It is vacuous. In our defense, we point out the obvious: science is not a robotic activity; it is carried out by humans and these are driven by their metaphysical, philosophical, and emotional imperatives. For instance, the hard-core scientific view that quantum theory needs no interpretation but only application is itself a philosophy. It is no more than a conditioned response, based on opinion and subscription to current scientific norms. It is, indeed, a philosophy of how to do quantum mechanics. So we all do it, in one way or another. Our concern in this book is that the way that we do it should be based soundly on scientific principles. The quantized detector approach that we describe and use in this book is our attempt to do just that. There is an excellent paper on all of this that has the provocative title “Quantum Theory Needs No Interpretation,” by Fuchs and Peres (2000). It seems on the face of it to dismiss any sort of “interpretation” of quantum mechanics. In fact, close reading of it confirms (to us at least) the agenda that we have set out in this book. Yes, quantum mechanics needs no interpretation, when it is being applied to processes that take place in the information void .
No scientific theory has caused more puzzlement and confusion than quantum theory. Beginning in 1900, the theory developed in fits and starts and found a consistent mathematical framing only when John von Neumann published his Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik in 1932 [12]. But even today, we struggle to understand the world as pictured by quantum theory. Physics is supposed to help us to understand the world, and yet quantum theory makes it seem a very strange place. One might be tempted to push aside our puzzlement as the result of our clinging to a primitive worldview. But our puzzlement is not merely a psychological obstacle; it is also an obstacle to the development of physics itself. This obstacle is encountered primarily in our attempts to unify quantum theory and the general theory of relativity. As argued persuasively by Chris Isham (who is represented in this volume), Lee Smolin [10], and others, the primary obstacle between us and future physics is our own failure to understand the conceptual foundations of current physical theories. How, then, are we to make conceptual progress? What is the process by which we find a new perspective, a perspective in which previously puzzling phenomena find a place in an intelligible—and perhaps beautiful—structure? I do not wish to make prescriptions or to claim that conceptual progress can be achieved in only one way. But this book begins with the Ansatz that conceptual progress might be achieved through free creations of the human intellect.
Quantum theory was not the work of one person. During a period from ca. 1900 to 1927, a collection of highly talented minds worked toward a communal understanding of the new theory and experimental results. ere were many wrong turns and not everyone who made decisive contributions fully agreed with the end result. Figure 14.1 attempts to summarize the chain of in uences in terms of ideas leading to the end products, at least as far as 1927 is concerned. Not everyone is represented here (Wolfgang Pauli, made several important contributions). I have focussed on people whose ideas will be helpful to us in understanding the nature of quantum theory. Inevitably, not everyone will agree with my choice. Figure 14.1 is only an outline at best, and the number of arrows connecting a person to the rest of the group is not an entirely fair representation of how in uential they were, as it takes no account of the importance of the ideas involved. However, as we work our way through this outline history, you might nd it useful to refer back to the gure from time to time to check your bearings.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.