Natural Philosophy: Some Random Thoughts

There’s nothing too controversial about the idea that other universes in a Multiverse could have differing laws, relationships and principles of physics than our own. It’s one way of explaining why our Universe is a Goldilocks Universe. If you have billions and billions of universes each with a unique or differing set of laws, relationships and principles of physics, well probability suggests that one universe should just right for life – a Goldilocks Universe. Since we can only exist inside a Goldilocks Universe, well that explains that. But what if the laws, relationships and principles of physics in our Universe changed over time, or over space, or both! Then it’s probably time to turn out the lights, shut and lock the lab door and go home. It’s time to find a new career. But amazingly, there is (controversial) evidence that that is just that. Physical constants aren’t. 

oooooOOOOOooooo

If whatever powers-that-be are simulating our universe, then they could be simulating others as well – a simulated Multiverse! And each and every simulated universe of that Multiverse could have simulated parallel universes. That’s a simulated Megaverse!

oooooOOOOOooooo

One of the 64,000 $64,000 questions: Can you pour stuff down a Black Hole indefinitely, or does the Black Hole have a finite capacity and ultimately or eventually will have to spew stuff out the ‘other side’ (i.e. – producing a White Hole) as you keep pouring in more and more and more? I’d wager the conservation relationships and principles of physics and chemistry hold sway here. What goes in ultimately comes out. That doesn’t mean there’s not a temporary holding vessel. Or, in more human terms, you fill what’s empty; you empty what’s full, but in-between those two there’s storage in the stomach and the intestines; the lungs and the bladder.

oooooOOOOOooooo

You are all no doubt well aware of the General Theory of Relativity which holds that light (in a pure vacuum) always travels at constant velocity (300,000 km/sec), no matter what frame of reference you are viewing that light in – totally contrary to experience and expectations, but true nevertheless. That translates into length and mass and rate-of-change (time) all being variables, variations depending on what frame of reference you are in. Light of course is one manifestation of the electromagnetic force. That suggests to me that magnetism must also propagate at 300,000 km/sec. Two north magnetic poles or one north and one south magnetic pole, suddenly brought into existence, 300,000 km apart, won’t feel any mutual repulsion or attraction respectfully until one-half of one second after-the-fact, when the two forces meet in the middle and start doing their thing.

But that constant speed of a force, must equally apply to gravity. If the Sun were to suddenly in a split of a split of a split second vanish, it would be eight minutes before Planet Earth would be rudderless, or rather orbitless. No matter what your frame of reference, you’d ‘see’ gravity propagate outwards at 300,000 km/sec. The same must apply to ‘dark energy’, that anti-gravity force. I imagine the same would apply to the propagation of the strong and the week nuclear force as well.

Of course one cannot turn on and turn off gravity (or the strong and weak nuclear forces) like you can a light (or radio, UV, IR, etc.) beam or magnetic field, which is a bit of a bummer in testing the relativistic properties of a gravity beam.

oooooOOOOOooooo

Quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger had a lot of trouble accepting some of the weirder philosophical concepts inherent in quantum physics. Specifically, that something, a fundamental particle like an electron, could both be, and not be, at the same time – in a state of superposition – that was only resolved when an observation or measurement was made. Schrodinger decided to replace the electron with a cat-in-a-box that was in a superposition of states being both dead and alive at the same time, the resolution of either/or decided when an observer actually observed the cat-in-the-box.

Now my idea is to replace the cat-in-the-box with you-in-a-sealed-room in a 50/50 dead/alive state of superposition. To someone not in the room, you are both dead and alive at the same time – until they take a peek in your room and at you. The question is, you know perfectly well you are not both dead and alive at the same time; you are your own observer. Presumably the cat is its own observer, and by extension an electron is its own observer. But how can an electron be self-aware? 

oooooOOOOOooooo

Gravity; it’s what holds you firmly to Terra Firma. If I ask you what holds you firmly to Terra Firma you’d answer “gravity”. But if then asked to explain exactly what it is and how it works you’d be stumped. Giving the Newtonian equations makes predictions but doesn’t give explanations.

However, there are two explanations for gravity if I read the textbooks correctly.

Gravity Is Just Another Force: Firstly, there are in this worldview four fundamental forces: the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. Forces have accompanying elementary particles witch convey the force. In the case of the electromagnetic force, the particle is the photon. The particle associated with gravity has been dubbed the graviton. Unfortunately, it has never (to date) been detected. Now the central issue here is try as they might, physicists cannot unify the four forces into one whole, called a Theory of Everything or TOE*. Since everything should be related to everything else, gravity should be, if not a brother or sister to the other three force-related siblings, at least a kissing cousin. Alas, it’s an unrelated hermit that wants no ancestry with the other three.

Gravity Is Just the Geometry of Space-Time: The second is that mass ‘tells’ space-time how to warp, and warped space-time ‘tells’ mass how to move – seemingly experimentally verified more than several times over. The movement of mass in warped space-time is what we interpret as the ‘force of gravity’, but gravity is actually the actions of mass moving in space-time geometry. If gravity is just geometry and mass deviates from the straight and narrow path because lots of other mass has warped space-time from the flatland Great Plains to the peaks and valleys of the space-time Rockies, then there’s no apparent need or reason that I can see to unify gravity with the other forces and their particles. There is no graviton. If there is no causality link with the other three (quantum level) forces, there’s no need for a TOE. There’s no need to reconcile the 98 pound of weakling gravity with the Atlas physiques of electromagnetism, etc. 

Gravity is highly anomalous. Apart from the fact that gravity is the 98 pound weakling of all the forces (you can pull a paperclip up into the air with just a tiny magnet even though the entire Planet Earth’s gravity is tugging back); and that the graviton hasn’t been spotted anywhere, anytime, anyhow; and that TOE is a no-go; but lastly there are those cosmic twin anomalies, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

We can’t see, or even detect directly, 96% of the Universe! We have no idea what 96% of the Universe is composed of. If that’s not anomalous, I don’t know what is. Both however have revealed themselves indirectly via their gravity (in the case of Dark Matter) or their antigravity (in the case of Dark Energy). Some of that ‘missing’ part of the Universe is matter of unknown composition, but like all good matter, has gravity. It’s the gravitational effect on matter we can see that gives the game away. Some more (way more) of that ‘missing’ part of the cosmos is Dark Energy which is that unknown stuff which is accelerating the expansion rate of the Universe and if that’s not anomalous, I don’t know what is since by rights the expansion rate of the Universe should be decelerating under the force of gravity. The fact that it’s accelerating suggests that Dark Energy is a form of antigravity, a repulsive force driving things apart at ever faster and faster rates. Though antigravity is really outside the accepted realm of physics (though not sci-fi), there is a symmetrical parallel with the electromagnetic force, which is both attractive like gravity (north pole to south pole) and repulsive (north pole to north pole, or south pole to south pole).

So, gravitational anomalies abound.

*The exception is that the highly theoretical (read purely mathematical) String Theory, Superstring Theory or M-Theory can produce a TOE. The downside is that it takes a whole potful of highly theoretical (read purely mathematical) extra dimensions of which we have no awareness of and can’t (yet) detect. That’s just a bit too ad hoc for me, though many a theoretical physicist goes to sleep by counting their strings instead of their sheep.

The Quantum Perils of Schrodinger’s Cat

How can you have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time? Such was the question quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger posed in rebuttal to the weirdness of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, an interpretation that he in fact through his theoretical research contributed to. He ultimately rebelled!

When debating the nature of quantum physics, you question what does it all really mean? One of the central points requiring pondering features a thought experiment by physicist Erwin Schrodinger. He, along with Albert Einstein, didn’t agree with the idea that probabilities rule the quantum universe, and that observations or measurements were central to turning a probability into a certainty. By linking a quantum uncertainty event, with a macro outcome, Schrodinger hoped to show the absurdity of the former.

Schrodinger’s Cat has got to be one of the strangest thought experiments ever conceived, but it was conceived with the idea of putting the boot into the Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum.  The Copenhagen Interpretation basically means that everything is in a state of probability until, and only until, an actual observation or measurement is made; then, and only then, probability morphs into reality and certainty. Prior to that observation or measurement, the various possibilities are said to be in a state of superposition. Translated, if you throw a dice and it rolls under the sofa out of sight, the top value of the dice is in a state of six superpositions. The top of the dice is at the same time simultaneously one, two, three, four, five and six. That superposition of state, that combination of all possibilities is called the wave function of, in this case, the dice. Only when you remove the sofa and look will the six probability superpositions collapse (the collapse of the wave function) into one actual value. The point is, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, prior to looking, the top face of the dice actually, in reality, has a value of one, two, three, four, five and six - simultaneously.

Okay, now back to the cat. The idea is that you have some unstable (radioactive) atom, and there’s a 50/50 chance that it will go ‘poof’ and give off a decay particle within one hour. That’s the quantum or micro bit. Now you have a box that contains a Geiger counter or some radioactive decay particle detector (that’s part of the macro part). You also have a hammer in the box poised over a glass vial of poison gas (also part of the macro part). If the Geiger counter detects a decay particle, it triggers a switch which releases the hammer which smashes the vial, releasing the poison gas. Oh, there’s also a cat in the box (the really essential macro part). After one hour, there’s a 50/50 chance that the cat is either alive or dead. That’s what rational people would say. Some, those of the Copenhagen Interpretation School, would argue that the cat exists in a dual state of both 50% aliveness and 50% deadness until such time as an observer looks into the box and measures the cat’s 100% aliveness or 100% deadness. Then, and only then, does nature make up her mind (in quantum theory, the wave function – a measurement of probability – collapses to an exact value) and you find either a dead cat or an alive cat, which tells you whether or not the radioactive substance did, or did not, emit a radioactive decay particle. In a way, the cat itself serves as a sort of Geiger counter!

This thought experiment was to illustrate the apparent absurdity that in quantum theory some ultimate outcome can have before-the-fact equal but mutually exclusive possibilities (something can both be and not be at the same time – the upper dice face can be all six values at the same time) or that in quantum physics, there’s no definite state of existence until there is a measurement or observation (same difference).

The idea is that if in the micro or quantum world something can have equal but mutually exclusive possibilities (again, an outcome can both be, and not be at the same time - wave-particle duality comes to immediate mind), yet the macro or classical world is made up of micro or quantum bits, then that suggests that macro objects (like a cat) can simultaneously exist in two mutually exclusive states or possibilities (the cat can both be, and not be, alive at the same time). In this case, the cat is both alive and dead until such time as someone looks!

Perhaps a better analogy is in showing how probability remains probability until an observation is made is in a hand of cards. All possibilities are equally probable, all possibilities are realised in actuality, but you don’t know the specific outcome, your precise hand, until you look and the probability wave function, that superposition of all possible outcomes, collapses to one, and only one certainty. The observer is the be-all-and-end-all.

On that point, does it have to be a human that does the measuring or observing if all it takes is an observer to collapse the wave function in order for Mother Nature to decide either this or that? Could any observer do? I mean the cat itself is an observer! So if after only one minute a decay particle is given off, the cat will observe the results (hammer falling; vial breaking) just prior to dying, and there will be a dead cat in the box for the next 59 minutes. What if an insect crawled into the box and observed the cat. What about a bacterium in the box. Would nature, via the bacterium then decide that the cat is to be declared really dead and act accordingly? What if a computer, or some form of artificial intelligence or a robot did the observing? Of course it doesn’t have to be a visual observation. I mean if you hear the cat meow, the cat is alive. If you smell the rotting corpse (or the poison gas), then obviously the cat is dead. If you feel the cat and it’s moving, then it’s obviously alive, and so on.

However, back in the macro world of the relatively very large, to me it’s obvious that there’s no bloody way from a human perspective of knowing after one hour if the cat is alive or dead without observing (via one sense or another). One thing the cat most certainly isn’t is both alive and dead at the same time and I think it’s absurd to suggest otherwise – yet that remains one valid interpretation of quantum physics. Is there a way of knowing, without peeking, whether or not that unstable (radioactive) atom emitted a decay particle?

I suggest replacing the vial of poison gas with nitro-glycerine, or for even greater effect, say a thermonuclear bomb (and leave the cat out of it). After the one hour is up (if not before), there will be no doubt, no need for debate, no need to even look, about whether there was, or was not, a radioactive decay particle emitted. There cannot be simultaneously both an intact and unexploded, and an exploded vial of nitro (or a thermonuclear bomb). It’s either/or time.

What this thought experiment actually tells us about quantum physics remains a bit of a philosophical puzzlement to me I’m afraid, and the fact that it’s discussed in nearly every book on quantum physics suggests that it has lost none of its strangeness.

There’s another aspect to this that’s equally as strange. Both the radioactive atom and the cat are entangled. What that means is that if you know the state of one, you know the state of the other. Say you observe the radioactive atom and note that it hasn’t decayed; it hasn’t gone ‘poof’, then you know, instantaneously, that the cat must be alive. If you note that the atom has gone ‘poof’, you know the cat is dead – instantaneously.  Ditto, if you observe that the cat is alive, the atom didn’t go ‘poof’; if you find a dead cat, the atom did decay. Again, if you know one outcome, you know the other outcome – instantaneously. That’s true even if the cat and the radioactive atom were on opposite sides of the observable universe. You have received a bit of information faster than the speed of light! When you think about it, information usually has to travel from a source (say from a computer screen or a flash of lightning or the sound of a gun going off) through to your senses hence to our brain. That takes a finite amount of time. It’s not instantaneous. Because in an entangled situation you can receive information instantaneously – faster than light speed – Einstein was not at all amused. He’s quoted entanglement as being a case of ‘spooky action at a distance’. The more usual thought experiment is the creation of a matter-antimatter pair of particles that go their separate ways across the cosmos. Millions of years later, they are on opposite sides of the Universe. If someone ultimately observes one of the pair, then that observer instantaneously knows the state of the other particle even though that particle is so far away that it normally would take millions of years for that state-of-the-particle information to reach the observer: spooky action indeed. 

Still, when it comes to the nitty-gritty of trying to pin down the specifics of quantum activities, all is probability, and things can both be and not be at the same time with equal probability, only becoming either/or when the observer struts her stuff and observes. [The observer can be an instrument, but ultimately that instrument transmits the observation to the human that operates the instrument.] But what if there is no observer? Would the cat remain in a limbo state for all eternity? Clearly that’s not, and can not be, the case. The cat is either alive, or it is dead, and the observer be damned! The observer is irrelevant. There seems to be a philosophical if not an actual physical contradiction here. That was Schrodinger’s point.

There is one other fly in this ointment. You have the cat-in-the-box experiment. After one hour an observer enters the room and looks into the box. The wave function collapses and as far as that observer is concerned, the cat is now dead, or alive. But now what about the state of the cat to people outside the room? As far as they are concerned, everything is still in a superposition of state. The cat is still in limbo. Extend that to people in another building, in another suburb, in another city, state, or country. Even if everybody on Earth knew the state of the cat after one hour, what about an astronaut on the Moon? Is the cat still in limbo because an extraterrestrial light years away hasn’t received the news? As far as that extraterrestrial is concerned, the answer has to be ‘yes’, even though all Earthlings know that the state of the cat is no longer the subject of speculation.

Perhaps when all is said and done, quantum paradoxes, well weirdness anyway, explains the most popular interpretation of quantum physics. It’s called the ‘shut up and calculate’ interpretation. In other words, just do the experiments; just crunch the numbers; just apply the technology, and don’t worry about what it all means! 

Addendum: Consider the following real and verified experiment – send one photon at a time, say one per minute, at a beam splitter – a half-silvered mirror. The important bit is that one photon starts and ends its journey between the device that emits the photon and the device that detects the photon, before the next photon is released. The photon has a 50-50 chance of going straight through the half-silvered mirror towards a fully reflective mirror, which then reflects off that and heads back towards the half-silvered mirror where it will be further reflected towards a photon detector. Or, the photon when originally emitted will be reflected off the half-silvered mirror. If the photon is reflected, the photon would then again meet a fully-silvered mirror and be reflected, heading back towards the beam-splitter (the half-silvered mirror) to be directed to the photon detector. Thus there are two possible pathways – call them the ‘alive’ path and the ‘dead’ path. The two pathways are identical in length. What happens is, the upshot of the experiment is, at the photon detector, the detector detects a classic wave interference pattern, against all possible expectations. That means the lone photon interferes with itself, which means the photon took both pathways, and thus was in two places at the same time, and thus was both ‘alive’ and ‘dead’ at the same time! Now if you peek, the lone photon’s wave function, the superposition of states, will collapse and you’ll find the lone photon either on the ‘alive’ path or on the ‘dead’ path – either/or, not both. No wonder Schrodinger invented his hypothetical dead-alive cat to illustrate the absurdity of it all. Alas for Schrodinger, the photon experiment has been done, and the dual state of alive-dead verified. 

The Quantum Mess: Part Three

Are observers really necessary in order for reality to have reality? Is the realm of the quantum really spooky? Is causality doomed? Welcome to the world of the quantum mess!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

THE QUANTUM MESS - SCHRODINGER’S (QUANTUM) CAT:

How can you have a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time? Such was the question quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger posed in rebuttal to the weirdness of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, an interpretation that he in fact through his theoretical research contributed to. He ultimately rebelled!

When debating the nature of quantum physics, you question what does it all really mean? One of the central points requiring pondering features a thought experiment by physicist Erwin Schrodinger. He, along with Albert Einstein, didn’t agree with the idea that probabilities rule the quantum universe, and that observations or measurements were central to turning a probability into a certainty. By linking a quantum uncertainty event, with a macro outcome, Schrodinger hoped to show the absurdity of the former.

Schrodinger’s Cat has got to be one of the strangest thought experiments ever conceived, but it was conceived with the idea of putting the boot into the Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum.  The Copenhagen Interpretation basically means that everything is in a state of probability until, and only until, an actual observation or measurement is made; then, and only then, probability morphs into reality and certainty. Prior to that observation or measurement, the various possibilities are said to be in a state of superposition. Translated, if you throw a dice and it rolls under the sofa out of sight, the top value of the dice is in a state of six superpositions. The top of the dice is at the same time simultaneously one, two, three, four, five and six. That superposition of state, that combination of all possibilities is called the wave function of, in this case, the dice. Only when you remove the sofa and look will the six probability superpositions collapse (the collapse of the wave function) into one actual value. The point is, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, prior to looking, the top face of the dice actually, in reality, has a value of one, two, three, four, five and six - simultaneously.

Okay, now back to the cat. The idea is that you have some unstable (radioactive) atom, and there’s a 50/50 chance that it will go ‘poof’ and give off a decay particle within one hour. That’s the quantum or micro bit. Now you have a box that contains a Geiger counter or some radioactive decay particle detector (that’s part of the macro part). You also have a hammer in the box poised over a glass vial of poison gas (also part of the macro part). If the Geiger counter detects a decay particle, it triggers a switch which releases the hammer which smashes the vial, releasing the poison gas. Oh, there’s also a cat in the box (the really essential macro part). After one hour, there’s a 50/50 chance that the cat is either alive or dead. That’s what rational people would say. Some, those of the Copenhagen Interpretation School, would argue that the cat exists in a dual state of both 50% aliveness and 50% deadness until such time as an observer looks into the box and measures the cat’s 100% aliveness or 100% deadness. Then, and only then, does nature make up her mind (in quantum theory, the wave function – a measurement of probability – collapses to an exact value) and you find either a dead cat or an alive cat, which tells you whether or not the radioactive substance did, or did not, emit a radioactive decay particle. In a way, the cat itself serves as a sort of Geiger counter!

This thought experiment was to illustrate the apparent absurdity that in quantum theory some ultimate outcome can have before-the-fact equal but mutually exclusive possibilities (something can both be and not be at the same time – the upper dice face can be all six values at the same time) or that in quantum physics, there’s no definite state of existence until there is a measurement or observation (same difference).

The idea is that if in the micro or quantum world something can have equal but mutually exclusive possibilities (again, an outcome can both be, and not be at the same time - wave-particle duality comes to immediate mind), yet the macro or classical world is made up of micro or quantum bits, then that suggests that macro objects (like a cat) can simultaneously exist in two mutually exclusive states or possibilities (the cat can both be, and not be, alive at the same time). In this case, the cat is both alive and dead until such time as someone looks!

Perhaps a better analogy is in showing how probability remains probability until an observation is made is in a hand of cards. All possibilities are equally probable, all possibilities are realised in actuality, but you don’t know the specific outcome, your precise hand, until you look and the probability wave function, that superposition of all possible outcomes, collapses to one, and only one certainty. The observer is the be-all-and-end-all.

On that point, does it have to be a human that does the measuring or observing if all it takes is an observer to collapse the wave function in order for Mother Nature to decide either this or that? Could any observer do? I mean the cat itself is an observer! So if after only one minute a decay particle is given off, the cat will observe the results (hammer falling; vial breaking) just prior to dying, and there will be a dead cat in the box for the next 59 minutes. What if an insect crawled into the box and observed the cat. What about a bacterium in the box. Would nature, via the bacterium then decide that the cat is to be declared really dead and act accordingly? What if a computer, or some form of artificial intelligence or a robot did the observing? Of course it doesn’t have to be a visual observation. I mean if you hear the cat meow, the cat is alive. If you smell the rotting corpse (or the poison gas), then obviously the cat is dead. If you feel the cat and it’s moving, then it’s obviously alive, and so on.

However, back in the macro world of the relatively very large, to me it’s obvious that there’s no bloody way from a human perspective of knowing after one hour if the cat is alive or dead without observing (via one sense or another). One thing the cat most certainly isn’t is both alive and dead at the same time and I think it’s absurd to suggest otherwise – yet that remains one valid interpretation of quantum physics. Is there a way of knowing, without peeking, whether or not that unstable (radioactive) atom emitted a decay particle?

I suggest replacing the vial of poison gas with nitro-glycerine, or for even greater effect, say a thermonuclear bomb (and leave the cat out of it). After the one hour is up (if not before), there will be no doubt, no need for debate, no need to even look, about whether there was, or was not, a radioactive decay particle emitted. There cannot be simultaneously both an intact and unexploded, and an exploded vial of nitro (or a thermonuclear bomb). It’s either/or time.

What this thought experiment actually tells us about quantum physics remains a bit of a philosophical puzzlement to me I’m afraid, and the fact that it’s discussed in nearly every book on quantum physics suggests that it has lost none of its strangeness.

There’s another aspect to this that’s equally as strange. Both the radioactive atom and the cat are entangled. What that means is that if you know the state of one, you know the state of the other. Say you observe the radioactive atom and note that it hasn’t decayed; it hasn’t gone ‘poof’, then you know, instantaneously, that the cat must be alive. If you note that the atom has gone ‘poof’, you know the cat is dead – instantaneously.  Ditto, if you observe that the cat is alive, the atom didn’t go ‘poof’; if you find a dead cat, the atom did decay. Again, if you know one outcome, you know the other outcome – instantaneously. That’s true even if the cat and the radioactive atom were on opposite sides of the observable universe. You have received a bit of information faster than the speed of light! When you think about it, information usually has to travel from a source (say from a computer screen or a flash of lightning or the sound of a gun going off) through to your senses hence to our brain. That takes a finite amount of time. It’s not instantaneous. Because in an entangled situation you can receive information instantaneously – faster than light speed – Einstein was not at all amused. He’s quoted entanglement as being a case of ‘spooky action at a distance’. The more usual thought experiment is the creation of a matter-antimatter pair of particles that go their separate ways across the cosmos. Millions of years later, they are on opposite sides of the Universe. If someone ultimately observes one of the pair, then that observer instantaneously knows the state of the other particle even though that particle is so far away that it normally would take millions of years for that state-of-the-particle information to reach the observer: spooky action indeed. 

Still, when it comes to the nitty-gritty of trying to pin down the specifics of quantum activities, all is probability, and things can both be and not be at the same time with equal probability, only becoming either/or when the observer struts her stuff and observes. [The observer can be an instrument, but ultimately that instrument transmits the observation to the human that operates the instrument.] But what if there is no observer? Would the cat remain in a limbo state for all eternity? Clearly that’s not, and can not be, the case. The cat is either alive, or it is dead, and the observer be damned! The observer is irrelevant. There seems to be a philosophical if not an actual physical contradiction here. That was Schrodinger’s point.

There is one other fly in this ointment. You have the cat-in-the-box experiment. After one hour an observer enters the room and looks into the box. The wave function collapses and as far as that observer is concerned, the cat is now dead, or alive. But now what about the state of the cat to people outside the room? As far as they are concerned, everything is still in a superposition of state. The cat is still in limbo. Extend that to people in another building, in another suburb, in another city, state, or country. Even if everybody on Earth knew the state of the cat after one hour, what about an astronaut on the Moon? Is the cat still in limbo because an extraterrestrial light years away hasn’t received the news? As far as that extraterrestrial is concerned, the answer has to be ‘yes’, even though all Earthlings know that the state of the cat is no longer the subject of speculation.

Perhaps when all is said and done, quantum paradoxes, well weirdness anyway, explains the most popular interpretation of quantum physics. It’s called the ‘shut up and calculate’ interpretation. In other words, just do the experiments; just crunch the numbers; just apply the technology, and don’t worry about what it all means! 

To be continued…

Exterminate the Observers: Exterminate Them! Part Two

Quantum physics is a world where we’re told that probability and uncertainty rule and causality is thrown to the winds. However, I think it’s the observer that’s the real fly in the quantum physics ointment. Left to its own devices, the micro (quantum physics) would (certainly should) mirror the macro (classic physics) and thus causality rules both realms. Whatever applies to the micro must apply to the macro since the macro is made up of the micro (and thus I feel free to sometimes use more familiar macro examples in the following text). It’s the observer who is interpreting, albeit through no fault of her own, things as being in a state of uncertainty or as just probability.

 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

To repeat, it is claimed by some that it is nonsense to talk about the existence and properties of anything in time and space until such time as an actual observation or measurement is made. (I assume here that previous observations/measurements recorded in some manner or other, by observers who no longer exist, is taken as valid.) Anyway, everything is just probability until that measurement/observation happens. The old quandary that revolves around that tree in a forest falling – if there is nobody around, is there any sound? Well, claimants of the no observation – no reality philosophy would have to conclude ‘no’ because the tree doesn’t exist in the first place (neither does the forest) because nobody is observing it!

Okay, lets say that’s true and say, as a thought experiment that nobody (human anyway) has even seen, measured, recorded, photographed, etc. the Moon (there was no Apollo program and no lunar landings). Some theorist speculating about a Moon could only say it existed with such and such probability. Mother Nature may, or may not have blessed us with a Moon. Since nobody has observed a Moon, the probability is probably close to zip and our theorist is headed towards a career meltdown!

What about indirect observations? Are they sufficient to prove the Moon exists and save the theorist’s bacon? I mean observers have observed such things as how the Earth is highly stable in its revolving about its axis. Observers have noted that sometimes at midnight it’s pretty bright outside (full Moon) yet two weeks later it’s pretty dark at midnight (new Moon). Observers have noted that sometimes when it’s very bright outside at midnight, for a few hours that brightness dims and turns a reddish colour (lunar eclipse). Observers have noted that sometimes it gets partially, sometimes totally dark during broad daylight (solar eclipse). Observers have noted lots of phenomena that have a 27 to 28 day cycle without any apparent reason(s). Observers have noted and measured the tides and tidal cycles. From all this indirect evidence, sceptics have concluded our theorist is right and that a Moon must be orbiting Earth with such and such properties. Those being the case, direct observations of the Moon are irrelevant in terms of proving its existence. The Moon exists without being stared at**.

In real life the existence of many unobserved objects has been proven to exist – indirectly – without any direct observation. Black Holes are a case in point. The nature of the Earth’s core is another. Now if something can exist with just indirect observation, then things can exist without any observation at all. A planet hasn’t just popped into existence around a distant star just because our technology has reached a certain degree of sophistication, sophistication now able to detect (observe/measure) it.

To take a more everyday example familiar to us all, throw a dice. Examine the five sides visible to you – you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to deduce the value of the unobserved (face down) side!

There’s another quantum category that suggests that observation is not always necessary. That’s the phenomena of quantum entanglement. Okay, it’s necessary to observe one thing, but in doing so you don’t have to observe something else in order to know something about it. Its phenomena where by two things are entangled and knowing the state of one thing tells you the properties (some of them at least) of the other.

Actually I quite love this idea of entanglement and to know the properties of something without ever having to actually observe or measure it. Let’s return to my favourite imaginary couple, Jane and Clive, who, as we all know, are a bit weird. So, I can imagine this hypothetical macro example from the Jane and Clive archives, where Jane and Clive agree that on any given day, whatever colours Clive wears, Jane won’t (or vice versa). So, if Clive is dressed in a blue suit, with white shirt and red tie, grey socks and hat, with black shoes, I can be sure, without observing, that Jane’s outfit will consist of nothing that is black, white, blue, red or grey. So, I know something about Jane’s properties without any observation because in this case Jane and Clive were entangled! In actual fact it is way weirder than that. If this were a real quantum  entanglement example, then if Clive and Jane were on opposite sides of the Universe, and Jane had on a green outfit and Clive had on a red outfit, and Clive changed outfits to one of green, then Jane would have to also change – instantaneously. Now that’s really spooky!

Or, say Jane and Clive are expecting company, but don’t know when that company will arrive. Therefore, one or the other of them has to be home at all times – in case. So, if I see Jane shopping, I know, without observation, that Clive is home. Now let’s take a micro example. The vacuum energy spits out a matter-antimatter particle pair, but they separate and escape and head off in opposite directions. Jane captures one in her particle trap (box); Clive gets the other one in his particle trap (box). Jane peeks into the box and sees a positron. That alone spoils the surprise for Clive, for without any need to look; he now knows his box contains an electron.

So classical (macro) reality, as well as quantum (micro) reality (IMHO), is the same reality whether or not there is an observer around, so I repeat, it’s nonsense to say that they – observers – are the be all and end all of what’s real.

Still, when it comes to the nitty-gritty of trying to pin down the specifics of quantum activities, all is probability, and things can both be and not be (the technical phrase is superposition of state) at the same time with equal probability, only becoming either/or when the observer struts her stuff and observes. [The observer can be an instrument, but ultimately that instrument transmits the observation to the human that operates the instrument.] The case of Schrodinger’s Cat is the best known example. A Rube Goldberg device is constructed and operated by a probabilistic quantum process that will subject a cat to a life or death fate with a 50/50 probability of either life/or death after a fixed interval of time has passed (then the device turns off). The idea is that all remains probability until such time, and only until such time, as an observer actually looks and sees an animated cat, or a dead cat. Until that observation, the cat is in a limbo state of being both alive and dead simultaneously. But what if there is no observer? Would the cat remain in a limbo state for all eternity? Clearly that’s not, and can not be, the case. The cat is either alive, or it is dead, and the observer be damned! The observer is irrelevant.

When an electron is emitted (A) we know the details. When the electron hits its target (B), we know the details. Where is the electron in-between? Who knows? It’s all probability. But, does that mean that the electron has actually taken all possible pathways between A and B, or just one? The observer is hapless in such an experiment because observing the electron in mid-path not only changes that path, but says nothing about what path the electron took between A and the in-between observation.

This is weird. In one case, trying to observe an electron (which I’m certain had a precise set of coordinates at the time the observation was made) results in the observer only being able to conclude that the electron’s location is only just an observation of probability; while observing the cat changes probability to certainty.

Smite the observer! Off with her head! In Dalek-speak, “Exterminate!” At all times the electron is at certain fixed place and moving at a certain velocity and interacting with other things, like the little billiard ball it is, much like a real billiard ball that’s at a fixed set of coordinates, moving at a certain velocity as a result of interacting with other things, like the cue ball. From the electron’s point of view, there’s no probability or uncertainty. Screw the observer – she’s an uninteresting and unnecessary complication that has no bearing on reality, even at the quantum level. Ditto the cat. The cat is alive, or the cat is dead, and the cat ‘knows’ what state it is in even if the observer hasn’t a clue because she hasn’t yet made the relevant observation.

To be continued…

**In another way, quite a valid way I might add, you do constantly observe the Moon – just not with your eyes (or ears that hear, or a nose that smells, or mouth that tastes for that matter). You ‘feel’ the Moon (and the Moon ‘feels’ you too). You have mass and therefore gravity – ditto the Moon. So, you and the Moon are attracted gravitationally to each other, albeit it’s a very tiny attraction, but it is not zero, and tiny doesn’t negate the reality of that dual attraction. You have directly observed the Moon! Therefore the Moon exists. It’s observation via gravitations instead of photons. Since everything with mass has gravity and since gravity extends its influence out to infinity in theory (in theory because it travels at a finite velocity – the speed of light) and since gravity acts on all other masses, all objects with mass ‘observe’ all other masses. Now electrons, protons, neutrons, in fact all fundamental particles have mass, therefore gravity, and therefore participate in this universal ‘observation’ process because gravitational attraction is a universal ‘observer’! Therefore, to exterminate all observers means exterminating the entire Universe! Of course this use of the word ‘observer’ is probably somewhat outside the usual and traditional meaning of the word ‘observer’ and that’s why I’ve consigned it to this footnote. But, I suggest the argument isn’t trivial and is a valid one. 

Even In Copenhagen, the Moon Shines

Quantum physics is schizophrenic to say the least. On the one hand, it’s been experimentally verified to incredible precision and much of our modern technology and the economic benefits of that technology have roots in quantum physics. On the other hand, it makes little if any philosophical sense and it can not be reconciled with classical physics. Physicists don’t understand quantum physics; they just tend to shut up and calculate and don’t worry about deeper meanings. The Copenhagen Interpretation revolves around some of those deeper philosophical meanings. 

The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics is so named because the main centre where it was developed in the 1920’s under the leadership of Neils Bohr was based in the city of Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum states that’s it is inappropriate to speculate on the existence and properties of any object until such time as the object in question (it’s wave function) is actually observed and measured. Then, and only then, has the probability of such-and-such existing and what properties it possesses become certainty. That’s termed the collapse of the wave function. The classic example is that an electron might be here, it might be there, it might be anywhere. The electron might be in a spin-up state, or maybe a spin-down state. Only a measurement or observation will resolve the issues. Ultimately, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the observer (taken as evident to be human) is the be-all-and-end-all; the supreme umpire, judge, jury and executioner.

The counter classic example, proposed by physicist Erwin Schrodinger as a putdown to the Copenhagen Interpretation, illustrating the absurdity of it all, was Schrodinger’s cat. The gist of this thought experiment (no animal was ever actually involved, so animal lovers can breathe easy) was that there would be some sort of quantum event (like a radioactive decay event) that had a 50-50 chance of happening in one hour. If the event happened, it would trigger off a chain of events that would cause the demise of a cat trapped inside an opaque sealed box. If the quantum event didn’t happen, the cat would be alive inside the sealed box. The question is, after one hour, is the cat alive or dead? Without an observer, the Copenhagen Interpretation says that in lacking an observer, there exists a superposition of states. In one state is the cat is dead; in the other state the cat is alive. In other words, the cat is dead-alive until such time as an observer observes, and the 50-50 probability becomes 100% certainty.

There’s an interesting variation on that cat thought experiment. Say the cat-in-the-box is in a room and I’m also in the room, and after one hour I peek in the box and determine the aliveness or deadness of the animal. But, say you are outside the room when I do that. As far as you are concerned, the cat’s wave function hasn’t collapsed and the cat is still dead-alive. So you have got to look too! But then what about a third party in another room in the house, then the neighbour next door, and hence other residents of the town, then state, hence country and then the entire world. Of course the cat would be in a limbo dead-alive state to extraterrestrials on another planet until they looked, and so on. In fact, taken to a logical extreme, nothing has reality until the entire Universe observes, which is again (IMHO), absurd seeing as how it could take billions of years for that cat observation to reach the farthest regions of the cosmos!

In the quantum world, there can be a superposition of state. Something can both be, and not be, at the same time (like wave-particle duality) – only measurement or observation can decide whether it’s to be or not to be. Since the macro (like a cat) is composed of the micro (the realm of the quantum), then until observed, the cat can both be (dead) and not be (dead).

In a similar way, for those who argue that nothing is real unless that something is observed they’d argue for example that the Moon dissolves into quantum uncertainty, the Moon both is and is not, if nobody is actually looking at the Moon! As soon as someone looks at the Moon, it solidifies back into physical reality – it is. The absurdity (again IMHO) of that is that if the Moon faded away into quantum uncertainty that would play havoc with the tides and be noticed.  Perhaps observing the tides is sufficient to give the Moon reality without actually observing the Moon! I’ll return to that point shortly.

The Copenhagen Interpretation, translated, and taken to its logical conclusion is that if nobody is looking at the Moon, does it exist? Can the Moon be in a superposition of states – having existence and having non-existence simultaneously? That was a quasi-question poised by Albert Einstein when he – also in opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation - pondered that he’d like to believe or think the Moon existed even if nobody was looking at it. [Presumably the memory of a prior observation doesn’t count.] Well Professor Einstein, it does!

That the Moon doesn’t exist if nobody is looking at it is nonsense from several points of view. Firstly, common sense: can anyone really doubt that something you’re infinitely familiar with, let’s say your partner (or the Moon) doesn’t exist or doesn’t have the properties you associate with him/her (or the Moon) just because you’re not observing them/it?

It’s reasonable that anything that’s biological and alive observes itself. So, even if you’re not observing your partner and therefore could deny your partner’s existence, your partner is observing him/herself and therefore would argue very strenuously that s/he exists. That renders that point mute.

No one has defined exactly what constitutes an observer. Can it be anything that’s alive like a plant or bacteria, or does it have to have a sophisticated nervous system (higher sensory capacity)? Maybe there has to be a complex brain within. Maybe an observer is only a bona-fide observer if it has intelligence, but what degree of intelligence? A one day old baby or someone who is brain damaged might look in the box and see Schrodinger’s cat but has no capacity to understand what they are seeing. Does it have to be human? What about an artificial intelligence?  So, what’s an observer? Can it be less than human, but still an organic life form – say your dog - or what about a fish; or an insect; or a microbe? Can something inorganic be a bona fide observer? What about an inorganic things like a Geiger counter or thermometer? I’d argue that an electron can be as bona fide an observer as a human being.

For example, say a photon is emitted by the Sun, heading our way. Unfortunately, the Moon is in the way (solar eclipse) and so the photon is thwarted, it’s pathway to Earth blocked. From the point of view of that photon, the Moon exists, even if nobody on Earth were observing the solar eclipse (rather unlikely, but possible for sake of argument).

The curveball in all of this is that there’s more than one way to observe. The assumption is that by observing we’re using one or more of our five senses – usually sight. I suggest that in fact, every particle/object in the observable universe is observing every other particle/object in the observable universe, 24/7. Translated, even when your partner (or the Moon) is out of sight (and hearing, etc.) you are still observing him/her (or it), even though you’re not aware of it!

Why? How? Does the Moon exist if you’re not observing the Moon, but you are observing the rising (or falling) tide? There’s causality between the two. So, observing the tides is in effect observing the Moon, or at least one of its properties – gravity. And therein lays the solution to Einstein’s quasi-question.

You have mass. The Moon has mass. Any two masses attract each other via the gravitational force. Therefore, you ‘feel’ the gravitational attraction of the Moon; the Moon ‘feels’ the gravitational attraction of you. Therefore, even as you read these words, you are ‘observing’ the Moon. You have observed the Moon 24/7 since the moment you were conceived.

The observer problem, the Copenhagen Interpretation, is a furphy since everything that has mass observes everything else that has mass, all the time - gravitationally.

This explains how the Universe got along and evolved very nicely, thank you very much, for all those eons before biological observers happened upon the scene. The Universe existed and had properties prior to the origin of any life, anywhere, since observers don’t have to be living! However, there are those who believe and would argue that the entire Universe exists (has reality) only because there are observers to observe or measure it.  Clearly the Universe was in a lifeless state and evolved in a lifeless state from Day One (the Big Bang event) through several billions of years at least. That is, there were no biological observers at all. The Universe had to exist in a pre-biological observers stage in order to evolve the complexity required to produce biological observers. An early Universe consisting of only hydrogen, helium and radiation doesn’t hack it as far as being a suitable environment for biological observers. So, in terms of this chicken-or-the-egg question, the Universe-or-the-biological-observer question, the answer must clearly come down on the side of the Universe. The Universe can exist either with or without biological observers; biological observers exist only because there is a Universe.

So, the resolution to Schrodinger’s cat is as follows (and no human observers are required). While the cat is alive, the cat observes itself. If the cat is dead, those bits that make up the cat’s body are observers in noting that the organism is now dead because the interactions they participate in have altered. Further, interactions between the dead cat and all the particles that surround the dead animal can also be considered bona-fide observers. 

Conclusion: The ultimate observer, that be-all-and-end-all; that ultimate umpire, judge, jury and executioner reside within that abstract phrase, ‘Mother Nature’ – that is anything and everything, anywhere and everywhere, at anytime and every time; at all times. I believe that observers and measurements have bugger-all to do with reality, existence and how things work on either a macro or micro scale. The proof of that pudding, if any were necessary, is that radioactive substances decay with a measured half-life. The entire science of radioactive dating depends on this. And radioactive elements decay whether or not observers are present – they have; they do; they will.