Professional Documents
Culture Documents
us to understand. A simple example of a quantum process is a radioactive decay where the nucleus of a certain atom suddenly bursts, emitting various particles. It is considered impossible to predict the directions of the emitted particles or the precise moment of time when a particular radioactive atom will decay. On the average, the decay process occurs after a certain time, and there is a probability distribution for the decay time which is obeyed rather precisely if many atoms are measured; but this is all we can say. It seems that atoms do not have any internal clocks or other internal mechanisms that would determine the details of the decay. No theory has been found to predict these details with any degree of precision; we possess no means of measuring or preparing an atom that could enable us to predict the exact time of decay of this atom or the direction of the produced radiation. So physicists gave up trying to build a predictive theory of the radioactive decay and started considering its randomness as a fundamental feature of the decay process rather than a consequence of our insufcient knowledge. In other words, according to contemporary physics there is nothing about the atom that constitutes the direct cause of the decay. Another example of a fundamentally random process is the motion of a single subatomic particle such as a neutron or a photon. The individual trajectories of such particles appear random, and yet these trajectories obey precisely formulated probability laws if many particles are measured. One says that quantum objects exhibit quantum uctuations and that these uctuations are inherently random and unpredictable. Quantum physics is content to predict only probability distributions for outcomes of such fundamentally random processes.
worldview is not shaken so easily. One answer to the question of who throws the dice is that there is nothing to throw. The mistake is in the expectation that every event must always have a specic cause. (If the book is on the oor, someone must have tossed it there.) This expectation is based on our ordinary everyday experience which entirely misses the quantum phenomena. Quantum physics does not require every event to have a direct cause. Some events (for example, the motion of planets) happen causally and can be predicted, while other events are actually random, i.e. are not directly caused by anything. I believe that the refutation of the quantum deism is correct and that quantum physics does not imply the existence of God. However, I would like to warn the reader against a frequently committed error of equating a physical theory and the real world. In the above example, the reasoning was that the real world is described by the quantum theory and thus we can analyze the theory to understand the world. I reject this reasoning on grounds of the following two arguments. The rst argument is that physics does not claim to describe the actual reality but only provides approximate mathematical descriptions of observed phenomena. Note that there are innitely many mathematical descriptions that t all observed phenomena. Of all possible descriptions, physicists usually only consider the simplest one as a canditate physical theory. This is a reasonable and practical approach known as Occams razor. This approach often gives workable theories. But it is clear that the resulting theories do not necessarily have anything to do with the actual reality. Even if we assume that any and all observations can be ultimately described by some theory which is the simplest and the most elegant of all discovered theories, the true reality does not have to coincide with that theory. Moreover, the perceived simplicity of a physical theory depends on the mathematical language which is invented by humans. There might be other mathematical systems in which our simple solutions appear complicated. The second argument is that physical theories may change quite radically while still keeping agreement with the available experimental facts. For example, Newtons theory of gravitation is simple and works exceptionally well. However, some relatively recent observations (such as the precession of the orbit of Mercury and the gravitational deection of light) cannot be explained by Newtons theory but agree with Einsteins general relativity. Einsteins relativity theory involves such concepts as curved spacetime and non-Euclidean geometry and is generally regarded as one of the most powerful and elegant physical theories. Nevertheless, the consensus today seems to be that Einsteins theory is, in turn, an approximation to a more fundamental theory. So it is unlikely that quantum theory as explained in a contemporary textbook will survive as the ultimate fundamental description of the Universe. Therefore I would call it a mistake to draw far-reaching philosophical conclusions from any particular physical theory as if that theory corresponds to the actual reality. 3
of any two states is the same as the superposition of evolutions of these two states. This is all we need to know about quantum mechanics at this point. Clearly, the principle of superposition makes no sense from the ordinary point of view. Suppose that X is the state of a carrot which is fresh, while Y is the state of the same carrot after it is steamed. It is impossible to visualize the superposition of the states X and Y of the carrot. Similarly, nobody has ever seen any superpositions of the same bird ying east and west, or of the same quantity of water boiling and freezing at the same time. Everybody knows that it is impossible to be at two places at once, or to do something and yet not do the same thing. Yet the principle of superposition is conrmed beyond doubt by many experiments with elementary particles, lasers, and other quantum systems. One may say that a particle such as a photon or an electron can be at two places and y in several directions at the same time. Since everything is made of those particles, the principle of superposition must hold for all objects, including carrots and birds. Any two possible states of any object can be superimposed. This paradox can be explained in the following way. Although it is physically possible (in principle) to build a quantum device that prepares a carrot in a superposition of X and Y , we humans would not be able to directly perceive the carrot in the new state. We can only see the carrot either in the state X or in the state Y . In the language of physics, this happens because the physical process of looking at the carrot is not the kind of process that could detect the superposition, but rather it is a kind of X/Y discrimination process. This conclusion can be formulated as, Our (human) reality is not the quantum reality. All that is real for us does not include quantum superpositions. Here I mean the ordinary, empirical reality all that which we are directly aware of by means of our senses and memory. There is another disturbing consequence: namely, according to quantum theory there exist states of humans doing or thinking different things at the same time. In fact, this is precisely what happens when a human looks at a quantum carrot. I shall now describe this situation in more detail. Consider an experiment in which a carrot can be either fresh (state X) or steamed (state Y ) and a human subject inspects the carrot. Let us denote by A the state of the human subject before looking at the carrot, by P the state of the human who saw a fresh carrot, and by Q the state of the same human who saw a steamed carrot. The process of looking at the carrot in the two cases can be symbolically represented by the following evolution diagrams: (carrot in X, subject in A) (carrot in X, subject in P); (carrot in Y , subject in A) (carrot in Y , subject in Q). Here the quantum system consists of the carrot and the human subject and the states of the system are denoted by (carrot in X, subject in A) etc. 5
Now suppose that the carrot is prepared in a superposition of being fresh (X) and steamed (Y ). The initial state of the system is then (carrot in X, subject in A) + (carrot in X, subject in A). According to the superposition principle, the evolution of this state is the superposition of the respective evolutions of the constituent states. After the subject looks at the carrot, the state of the system is (carrot in X, subject in P) + (carrot in X, subject in Q). The human subject is now in a quantum state that does not include a well-dened awareness of the state of the carrot. The subject will see either a fresh or a steamed carrot but it is impossible to predict which. I prefer to say that these are two parallel realities to be perceived by the human, both equally real. It is clear that the human subjects body has not been split in two by means of this experiment. Neither does it make sense to assume that the subjects mind has split in two, or that the entire world has split in two. It is merely the mathematical description of the world that now involves a superposition of two states rather than just one state. The next step is for the lab supervisor to ask the human subject about the carrot. Denote by A the quantum state of the supervisor before hearing the answer, by P the quantum state after hearing that the carrot is fresh and by Q the state of the supervisor after hearing that the carrot is steamed. Before the question, the total system consisting of the carrot and the two humans is described by the superposition (carrot in X, subject in P, supervisor in A ) + (carrot in Y , subject in Q, supervisor in A ). This state indicates that the supervisor is in a denite state A , i.e. the supervisor does not yet know what happened to the carrot. After the subject answers the supervisors question, the total system will be described by the following superposition, (carrot in X, subject in P, supervisor in P ) + (carrot in Y , subject in Q, supervisor in Q ). At this time the supervisor is not in any denite state, similarly to the subject. However, neither of them can be aware of this fact. Awareness is described by certain states such as P or Q and the principle of superposition guarantees that all physical effects of the state P of the subject are separate from all effects of 6
the state Q. Therefore all physical processes that give rise to the supervisors awareness will proceed in parallel for the supervisor states P and Q . In other words, the supervisor and the subject will never see anything funny. To summarize this discussion, let me imagine that I am the subject who looks at the carrot prepared in a superposition of states. My awareness will be either that the carrot is fresh or that it is steamed, depending on which branch of the superposition I (the real I) happen to be in. Suppose that I am in a branch with a fresh carrot. Within this branch there is no trace of the presence of the steamed carrot in the other branch, and thus I will have no other awareness but that of a fresh carrot, no matter how hard I search within myself or how I test the carrot. All subsequent experiments with the carrot will conrm that the carrot is actually fresh. In other words, I will be unable to conclude by any experiments that I am or have been in a superposition of several states. And this is exactly what the quantum theory predicts: that I am in a superposition but cannot be aware of it because the description of my states of awareness is also included into the superposition. What, then, is the actual condition of the carrot (and of myself) after the experiment? There are two possible answers. The rst view (called the Everett interpretation) is that there is no actual condition because the superposition of a steamed and a fresh carrot is a perfectly valid condition of the carrot, even though we cannot be directly aware of such a condition. According to this view, the world is always in an incredibly complicated superposition of all possible outcomes of all events, and we are also in a superposition but aware only of one branch of reality. The second view (called the Copenhagen interpretation) is that something decides what the actual condition of the carrot should be and the carrot follows this decision. The something which decides is the source of true randomness in the world. Initially almost all physicists (starting with Niels Bohr) held the second view, but now the rst view seems to gain a wider acceptance. I also prefer the rst view. However, I would like to emphasize that neither viewpoint can be supported or refuted by any experiments. These viewpoints are simply different interpretations of quantum mechanics and are selected on the basis of their logical consistency and practical convenience. There is an important detail in the description of quantum superpositions which I glossed over in this discussion. Why is it that I can see an electron or a photon in a superposition of some states (this is routinely done in physics labs) but I cannot see a carrot in a superposition of fresh and steamed states? The answer is that the carrot is made up of many billions of billions of particles and it is very difcult for so many particles to remain in the superposition state. Systems containing many interacting particles usually leave superposition states and assume statistical mixture states. The process of this transition is called quantum-to-classical transition or decoherence, i.e. losing the quantum coherence. If an object con7
sists of a huge number of particles (a carrot certainly does), it is almost impossible for it to remain in a quantum superposition state. Quantum theory gives a typical timespan for an object to remain in a quantum superposition; this timespan is called the decoherence time. The decoherence time for a carrot is extremely short in comparison with the decoherence time of an atom. A carrot prepared in a quantum superposition of being fresh and boiled quickly goes through a quantumto-classical transition and becomes a carrot that is either fresh or boiled, which is a statistical mixture rather than a superposition. (Recall that there is a difference between quantum superposition states and statistical mixture states.) An atom goes through the quantum-to-classical transition as well, but the decoherence process is much slower and there is sufcient time for us to observe atoms in various funny states.
to abandon a particular line of scientic research, philosophically this is really a rather limited statement. Firstly, there can be no experimental proof that a certain random event has no hidden cause. Secondly, science denes cause more or less as correlation, and this presupposes a possibility to repeat experiments and to collect statistics of the outcomes. However, as we all know, life is full of events that seem to cause one another but can never be repeated in a controlled fashion to scientically prove the causation. For example, I may think that I got a bad cold because I was stressed out at work and then walked for half an hour in the cold rain. But I cannot really prove this statement scientically because I surely will not repeat the experiment. Even if I started to gather statistics on myself, there are too many factors to include and a simple causation will not emerge. Astrologers, fortune-tellers, psychics, palm-readers, and other such professions exist thanks to the fact that we do not know the causes of events happenning to us. For instance, an astrologer might say that the cause of some events involves the positions of Mars and Jupiter erroneously calculated according to certain ancient star charts. MAny of use are inclined to believe the astrologers. In fact we have no better ways of nding the causes when there are no real causes. Let me give an example that illustrates the nature of this real-life causation. An astrologer might tell you that, according to the erroneously calculated positions of Mars and Jupiter, you will meet an important person early next week. A scientic approach to verifying this statement consists of recording each and every meeting this week, next week, and the following week, and then comparing the relative importance of persons met on each day, checking whether the rst three days of next week will involve a statistically larger number of important meetings. Of course nobody in their right mind would perform such statistical analyses. Either I believe the astrologer and then I will look out for important people early next week, or I dont believe the astrologer and will dismiss the prediction. Moreover, it seems clear that a detailed statistical analysis would not show anything signicant: the scientic probability of meeting an important person is statistically the same every day. In fact, the astrologer is not telling me that there is a scientically proven higher probability to meet an important person. The astrologer might be simply telling me that the meeting will happen, regardless of its probability. This is a much more important statement: a truly random event might not happen no matter how high its probability, but if we know that an event will happen, we can stop thinking about probabilities and start making the appropriate decisions. The desire to know the real causes for events is one of the central elements of the human condition, and the fortune tellers know this. We humans seem to have free will; in other words, nobody knows what causes us to think and to behave in a particular fashion. Neither has anybody managed to think and to behave in a completely predictable way throughout their life. If the basic mechanism of our brain is quantum-mechanical, it follows from our consid9
erations that physical science will never discover any material cause directly responsible for human decisions. This responsibility is upon us as we say. By this we mean that there is a certain entity or an agent called our will and this agent is the source of our decisions. From the quantum viewpoint number two, this agent is the same as the source of randomness in a radioactive decay. From the quantum viewpoint number one, there is no such agent but the randomness is shifted to the random choice of the branch of reality which we (the real we) are aware of. In both cases, it is clear that our will and self-awareness, i.e. all that which we most closely associate with our very selves, is precisely the agent responsible for the choice of our reality. The events of my life (in the branch of reality I am aware of) have been determined, at least in part, by a chain of quantum-to-classical transitions in my brain, and the clearest manifestation of this chain of choices is my awareness of my free will and of myself. What I call myself, i.e. the source of my free will, can be thought of as the sum total of these truly random choices. In brief: quantum theory tells us that our free will is one of the factors that determines our reality. As a qualication, I should add that the statement the will determines the reality does not mean that we are able to transform reality in any way we wish, or even that we are aware of the processes that underlie the phenomenon of free will. The state of affairs is surely rather different. Firstly, there exist other people (and other quantum-mechanical systems) and they have a similarly decisive effect on my reality insofar as I interact with them. Secondly, even if I were alone on an island, I would not really be a master of my own will. It is a common illusion, easily refuted by a bit of introspection, that one can wish whatever one wants. I would venture to say that we can never predict with certainty what we would feel or wish in the next second. Neither can we have a direct conscious control over the neurons in our brains. This is expressed in a succinct way by the aphorism our brains work faster than we think.
Conclusion
I would like to warn the reader that the last two sections, particularly the passages concerning the issues of free will, is entirely an amateur effort and a result of my personal musings on this subject. On the other hand, in the sections having to do with quantum physics I presented an interpretation of quantum theory which is more or less widely accepted in the scientic community.
10