Science, Reality, and I

When he published his Principia Mathematica in 1687, Isaac Newton revolutionized the way science thought about the world. Before, the world had been a mysterious place. People had no real idea why things happened the way they did. They could not explain the how, so they had no idea about the when. They could not predict when events would occur, so they attributed events to supernatural forces. The world was open. God and other non-terrestrial forces could and did influence everything on the earth. Newton and his mechanics changed all of that. Newton explained that there were causes for everything that we see and that we could understand what those causes were. He also showed the vast similarity between events that were thought before to be of very different nature. His mechanics tells us, for example, that apples fall to the earth for the same reason that the planets orbit the sun. There was no need to bring in outside forces to explain how things happen. Newton closed the world. The supernatural was a crutch that had been discarded.

During the beginnings of this century, physics underwent another series of revolutions. First there was Albert Einstein's theories of relativity. Soon after that came quantum mechanics and the work of Erwin Schrödinger, Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, among others. Not only did all of these developments change our understanding of the universe, they have also changed the very role of science and science itself.

First, I will take a look at Einstein's theory of special relativity. Before Einstein, when the universe was Newtonian, everything was absolute. Distances, time intervals, and constants were the same for everyone, everywhere in the universe, no matter what they were doing, how fast they were going. If I was on the earth and measured the distance between Moscow and Pullman to be eight miles, you would too if you were screaming by in a rocket at near the speed of light. Einstein claimed the opposite. He basically made two postulates (Rohrlich, 59): that all laws of mechanics and electrodynamics were valid in all inertial frames and that the speed of light was a constant for all observers, no matter their velocity or acceleration. From these two postulates, he developed his own version of mechanics, since the laws of electrodynamics functioned correctly under these principles. His version of mechanics became the special theory of relativity.

The most fundamental change that special relativity made to physics was to show the basic relativeness of everything. Newton had said, as I mentioned, that everything was absolute. Now, nothing was absolute but the speed of light. Therefore, the distance I measure between Moscow and Pullman will in general not be the same that you measure (unless we are traveling at the same speeds). Time intervals between two different events are not the same for different observers. An object's size is relative. Even simultaneity is relative. If I measure two events to have occurred at the exact same time, you might not. Everything depends on the observer's frame of reference. Everything is relative. We all see things differently. This has some very strong philosophical implications. If everything is relative in science, might not the same be true elsewhere? Might not moral values, ideas of good and evil, and even perceptions of reality all be relative? In addition, where as before space and time were completely separate and independent entities, now we have space-time, a continuum in which time and space are dependent upon each other. Relativity has also allowed us to approach questions that were once thought to belong only to the realms of philosophy and religion: is the universe finite or infinite? did the universe have a beginning? and other similar questions.

As much as relativity changed our ideas of what the universe really is like, these changes seem minor when compared to those that came with quantum theory. Where as Newton's mechanics can be thought of as an approximation of Einstein's mechanics for velocities that are small compared to the speed of light, it can also be thought of as an approximation of quantum mechanics for large systems of quantum particles. Near the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, there were many observed phenomena that could not be explained by classical mechanics. These all dealt with subatomic particles. Through the work of Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and others, quantum theory was developed to explain these phenomena. Quantum theory itself is very difficult to understand and I do not claim to completely understand it myself, but I think a mentioning of the important aspects might be prudent. There are two features that set quantum mechanics apart from classical mechanics. Quantum theory is based upon probabilities, not definite values, for such quantities as position, momentum, energy, and time. You cannot say that a particle has a given position and momentum exactly at any time. You can measure the particle's position exactly, but then you will not know anything about its momentum. Second, quantities are quantized. The energy levels in an atom are not a continuum, they occur in steps, meaning that only certain values for the energy are allowable. Other values are just physically impossible.

Quantum theory tells us some strange things about reality. However, there are many people who seem to feel that quantum theory is a nice mathematical description of something that occurs in the subatomic realm, but really is not a physical description of reality. Quantum theory seems to be something strange and distant since it does not describe phenomena on a macroscopic scale, the scale we are used to interacting with. Thus, quantum theory may be viewed in the same way that Copernicus' work was viewed by the Church: it gives accurate results, but it really does not describe what is happening (Burke, 136). However, there are macroscopic phenomena that can only be described by employing quantum mechanics. Two examples are superconductivity and superfluidity (Rohrlich, 185). Superconductivity describes the behavior of certain metals when the are cooled to a certain temperature (which depends on the metal). At that point, the behavior of the metal changes dramatically and it no longer has any resistance against electrical conduction. Thus, a current set up in a superconductor will last forever. In the laboratory, currents have been set up in superconductive materials that have flown for many years without any detectable loss of strength. Superconductivity cannot be explained classically. It requires quantum theory to get an understanding of what is going on. The same is true of superfluidity. When helium is cooled to about 2.2 degrees Kelvin, it becomes a superfluid known as He II. He II has some surprising properties, such as it can flow out of jars that can easily contain normal liquid helium. It also has a huge heat capacity, so that He II is always of a uniform temperature. Thus, quantum theory is relevant to our everyday lives. There are macroscopic phenomena which require a quantum theory for understanding. Hopefully, this is enough of an incentive for one to at least begin to accept that there might be more to quantum theory than just an abstract mathematical model.

There are some classic paradoxes that I will describe to elucidate some of the strange features of quantum mechanics. I will also try to explain what these features might be telling us about reality. First of all, a particle in a quantum system is described by a wave function. This wave function contains all of the information about the particle that can be known. If a system contains more than one quantum particle, then the entire system is described by its own wave function, which is the sum of all of the individual wave functions for all of the particles. Thus, all of the particles are interconnected. If, through some process, two electrons are created, they will be linked by their combined wave function. Now, let us say that they both fly off in opposite directions for a very long time, so they are separated by a large distance. They could be separated by light years. Now, each electron has a spin and, since they were created together, their spin is in opposite directions. At the same time, the spin of any given electron is given as a superposition - a combination - off all possible values for spin, weighted by the probability that the electron can have that spin. When we measure the electron's spin, we pick one of the possible values and basically force the electron to possess it. So, we measure the spin of one of the electrons in our electron pair. We force it to have some particular value of spin. At the exact same time, the other electron has to have the opposite value of spin. Instantly, the second electron "knows" what value of spin we forced upon the first and assumes the opposite value. Somehow, the information of what spin the first electron has travels instantaneously across vast lengths of space. This might seem to break Einstein's postulate that nothing can travel faster than light, but it does not because this system cannot be used as a way of sending information, so relativity is not violated (relativity seems to stipulate that information cannot travel faster than light). Thus, there is a non-local connection between the electrons, and maybe all of space as well. That is, the particles are not interacting with one another, but there is still some connection there. In classical mechanics, if the particles were not interacting, they would be completely independent of one another. This is not true of quantum theory. Therefore, there seems to exist a realm of reality that is outside of relativity. I will come back to this later.

Probably the most famous quantum paradox is that of Schrödinger's cat. Here is the situation. A cat is placed in a box with a vial of poisonous gas and a detector. There is also a radioactive atom. If the atom decays, the detector will detect it and break the vial, killing the cat. If it does not decay, the cat will live. The atom is a quantum system. By the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, formulated by Bohr and Heisenberg, the quantumness of the atom extends to the measuring apparatus (Goswami, 198). If there is a 50% probability that the atom decays in an hour, then an hour after the cat is placed in the box, there is a 50% probability that the cat is dead and 50% that it is alive. However, since the cat becomes part of the quantum system, this is not simply a probability, but rather the cat is described by a superposition of two states: a live state and a dead state. The weighting of each state is 50%. The cat is the sum of these states. When we observe the cat, its wave function - its quantum mechanical description - collapses into either an alive or a dead state and we find that the cat is either alive or dead. Until then, however, it exists as a combination of the alive and dead states.

Now, we can ask the question: What caused the collapse? Was it your observation, my observation, the "observation" of the detector? If you look, does the cat's wave function collapse for me as well? Can you just tell me the result or do I have to look myself? If we set up a video camera, will that be adequate? Goswami has a detailed discussion of these questions in his text (199, 517). Since everything is, ultimately, a quantum system - even you and I - he says that we also assume the cat's quantumness. We are a combination of an observer that knows that cat is dead and one that knows the cat is alive. However, we know from experience that we see things as either alive or dead; we do not see things as a superposition of quantum states. As Goswami says, "We know that an observation by a conscious observer ends the dichotomy (of a half alive/half dead cat)" (205). This train of thought led John von Neumann to claim that it is consciousness acting from outside the system that collapses the cat's wave function, that reduces the superposition of quantum states to one actuality. Eugene Wigner continued this idea by suggesting that consciousness and matter form two different realities are that independent of one another.

Thus, we have the action of consciousness being a critical part of the process of measurement in a quantum system. The question now arises, who's consciousness collapses the wave function of that cat? Goswami examines this question via the paradox of Wigner's friend (519). Let us say that both you and I look in on the cat simultaneously. Whose consciousness causes the cat's wave function to collapse? Is it yours or mine? How does the particle decide which consciousness is more important, which one will determine its reality? Goswami says that this was regarded as a fatal blow to Wigner's ideas. However, he also describes a way around this paradox. The paradox arises from the fact that there are many consciousnesses out there and there is no reason one should have precedence over another. But, are there really many consciousnesses? Is this really a fact? If there was only one consciousness, if there was only one observer, there would no longer be a paradox. This leads to a unitive subject-consciousness. There is only one consciousness out there that we all share that exists in some other level of reality from the material realm. It is not the same reality as the material reality, otherwise it too would be unable to escape the quantumness of the cat's state. It is in this same manner that idealistic philosophy portrays consciousness.

There is still a small problem with this interpretation of quantum mechanics. If consciousness is unitive, then it must be omnipresent. Then we have the question: If consciousness is always looking, when is a quantum measurement complete? The answer Goswami gives is this (520): "The measurement is not complete without the inclusion of a self-referential mind-brain-awareness!" This leads to a causal circularity in that "awareness is needed to complete the measurement, but without the completion of measurement, there is no awareness" (520). Goswami says that this is crucial for self-reference, something we all experience when we introspect. Thus, it seems that there might be some validity to this interpretation.

Henry Margenau also has something to say about consciousness (373). He says that it cannot be a human consciousness that observes - collapses - the wave function of a system. His reasoning is somewhat confusing, and I will not go into it here, but his conclusions are worth noting. He concludes that there are basically two different forms that consciousness can take, according to quantum theory: one, every physical system has some degree of consciousness. This gives us, as I understand it, the unitive subject-consciousness I mentioned before. The second postulates a superhuman consciousness and leads directly to religion. I think it prudent to mention that religion appears in a great deal of the literature dealing with quantum theory and its meaning and generally not in a negative sense.

This interpretation of quantum mechanics delves deeply into a new understanding of reality. Of course, it is not the only interpretation, but it seems to me that it is the one that has the fewest "cheap ways out." The basic tenets of quantum mechanics are taken as far as they can go here. Most of the other interpretations seem to stop at some point and say that "things now behave classically," or some other statement that seems somewhat inconsistent. If you are going to start with quantum theory, it seems that you should keep with it all the way. I think that is what Goswami has done. On page 522, he gives a summary of this interpretation of quantum theory - the idealistic interpretation. Here is his summary:

1. What is being measured? A quantum object that exists as a coherent superposition in a transcendent domain of potentia.

2. What collapses the quantum wave function? A nonlocal, unitive consciousness.

3. When is a measurement completed? The measurement is completed only when a conscious being (presumably a mind-brain) looks with self-referential awareness at the macroapparatus involved with the event of measurement.

4. What is the role of the measurement apparatus? The macro measuring apparatus is needed to amplify and record a quantum event. ... A measuring apparatus is classical only in the sense [that] ... although ultimately quantum in nature, through its complexity it loses the practically instant regenerativity that a simple quantum object has. Because of this long regeneration time, a measuring apparatus can make a record (although only temporary) after its wave function is collapsed and the measurement is completed.

According to statement 2, the wave function is collapsed by a nonlocal consciousness. We now have an answer to what is causing the second electron to collapse in the first paradox I described. I have not, and do not plan to, discussed the first statement. It basically says that there is a realm outside of normal space-time in which exist quantum objects in their probabilistic form. It seems, but I am not clear on this point, that this realm of existence is different from both the material realm and that of consciousness. Thus, it seems that we now have three levels of reality. That is about all I was able to extract from what I read.

As a quick note, I just want to say that most of this work has been carried out by some of the great physicist of our time and I really do not have a firm grasp on much of the philosophical ramifications of quantum theory. Therefore, what I have written is my interpretation of what I have read, so it may not necessarily follow the spirit of the original. I could have some of the ideas completely wrong. Also, up to this point, I have concentrated on the idea of consciousness so much because Goswami spends a great deal of time on it and also because I think it is one of the more interesting areas of philosophic discussion relating to quantum mechanics. There are other aspects of quantum theory that have ramifications for other areas of reality. I will mention some of these in my concluding paragraphs, but space keeps me from an in-depth discussion of them.

One last interpretation of quantum mechanics I would like to discuss is the Many Worlds Interpretation. This interpretation and the idealistic interpretation are not necessarily exclusive. This interpretation, however, has something very interesting to say about reality. Basically, it says that any time a measurement of a quantum system occurs, the universe splits into parallel universes (Goswami, 202). In the case of Schrödinger's cat, the universe splits into a universe in which the cat is alive and another in which it is dead. These parallel universes are completely independent of one another. If you are in one, there is no way to tell that the other exists. I think this is a very interesting idea. As Goswami mentions, it is a bit science fictiony in flavor, but it has a certain appeal. Anything that could happen, does happen and we experience it all (although, they might be different "us'es").

Quantum theory has not only changed the way we view reality, it has also changed the way scientists look at science itself. Before quantum mechanics, there was a basic assumption in science that "one can describe the world without speaking about God or ourselves" (Heisenberg, 81). Heisenberg attributes this to the splitting up of reality into its smallest parts that Descartes advocated (81). However, as I have already described, the "I" is of central importance in a quantum measurement. The observer is just as important as the observed. One does not seem to exist without the other. Heisenberg says that quantum theory "makes the sharp separation between the world and the I impossible" (81). So, now, science cannot be concerned solely with an objective reality because such a reality does not exist. Science has to look at how we interact with our surroundings. As Heisenberg said, "Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is a part of the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning" (81).

Heisenberg also has an interesting discussion of natural language and its importance in modern physics (200). He says that the concepts of natural language are "more stable in the expansion of knowledge than the precise terms of scientific language." He bases this conclusion on his experience with quantum theory. He goes on to say that this is reasonable, since natural language is immediately connected with reality. The concepts we have in our language we get from our direct experience of reality. The concepts used in science are idealizations. He asserts that the concepts of natural language are closer to reality than those of scientific language. He thus claims that concepts that exist in natural language, concepts such as mind, soul, life, and God, might have greater import in the quantum era than they did earlier. They are more directly connected with reality than we previously considered. In the least, our ideas about them and our attitudes toward them will definitely be different. He says "modern physics has perhaps opened the door to a wider outlook on the relation between the human mind and reality" (202).

Henry Margenau echoes the thoughts of Heisenberg. Modern physics forces us to accept ideas that were once thought as contradictions. For example, it would never have been thought that light can be both a particle and a wave, yet that is the reality, as we know it. Science has had to open up, accept new truths. Margenau puts it in this way: "Science has lost its dogmatism" (334). Science now knows that its goal is not to objectively describe reality in a way that will always be true. "It knows that its principles as well as its facts are changing, and it has renounced the error of believing in the possibility of explaining all human experiences, past and future, in terms of those principles and laws which are now called science" (334).

On page 382, Margenau gives a listing of ideas that were once thought absurd but are now regarded as part of reality by modern science. He includes the relativeness of size in relativity, the absence of color for objects smaller than the wavelength of light, and the fact that very small objects may not have a definite position. This continues to show how science has been forced to accept what it once thought impossible or even held in contempt. Again, science has become a more open subject. Margenau feels that, because of this, science can now address areas of human thought than were once forbidden to science. For example, science can adjust itself to the concerns of religion.

In this paper, I have tried to analyze how modern physics, especially quantum theory, has changed our perceptions of both reality and the role and function of science. There are many other aspects that I could discuss about quantum theory that tell us a great deal about reality. For example, it seems that a quantum system exhibits those properties that we are trying to measure. If we try to measure wave-like properties of electrons, those are the ones we see. If we look for particle-like behavior, we find it. As Margenau says, "the physicist does not discover, he creates his universe" (100). In addition, quantum theory gives us a new view of free will and the nature of determinism in nature. Quantum theory strengthens the argument that humans do have free will.

I think, however, that in choosing those aspects to discuss that I have, I have given a better idea of some of the more radical and thought provoking changes in our ideas of reality that quantum theory has forced upon us. We have a new understanding of our role in the world. No longer can we view ourselves as something separated from nature, from reality. Rather, we are an intricate part of reality. We choose to see what we want and we create our reality by observing.

I do not think that this view of our world has reached the public yet. I would think that, if it did, we would have a different attitude towards our environment. I am not necessarily saying that quantum theory tells us that we must care for our environment, but science has been twisted in the past for what I would consider evil ends and I feel that if quantum theory could cause such a change in attitudes, such change would be good, whether it was justified or not. However, since quantum theory seems so removed from everyday life, I do not think that it will influence our thinking appreciably for a quite some time. Einstein's idea of relativeness has not reached the public either. I think that it would have taught us that everything is relative and depends on how you look at it. Most people, however, still view their ideas as the only correct ones. Thus, they feel justified in persecuting others. If the basic tenets of Einstein's theory reached the masses, we might all just become a bit more tolerant.

It seems that there are levels of reality besides the material one in which we live. Quantum theory suggests that there is a realm of reality in which consciousness exists, separate from physical reality. This explains the nonlocal aspect of quantum systems, as well as the collapse of a system's wave function. Thus, it seems that we are not only intricately connected to nature, but, since this consciousness is unitive, also with each other. We all have this consciousness in common. To some extent, we all share this consciousness. Because it takes awareness to complete a measurement, quantum theory leans towards a strong anthropic principle. The world not only is the way it is because we are, it exists because we exist. If we were not here to observe it, the universe would not become an actuality. It would exist in the realm of possibilities, not physical reality. Because we exist, we force the universe to exist.

Not only has our view of reality undergone major revisions (if a complete transformation can be termed a revision), our perceptions of the role of science has completely changed as well. Science used to be concerned solely with what could be observed. It only dealt with cold, objective facts. It tried to formulate laws that would describe every phenomena of the universe from the beginning to the end of time. These laws were thought to be reality, thought to be a completely accurate mathematical definition of reality. Almost everything that physics said about reality before the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics, however, has been shown to be idealizations, approximations. Science now realizes that it is trying to construct a model of reality. We may never know what reality really is, but at least now we realize this.

We also realize that science has to accept ideas that were once thought nonsensical. Science has become more tolerant, more accepting, of strange theories and views. It has become more open and there are some scientists that are trying to bring other areas of human thought and endeavor into the realm of science. The view that science is diametrically opposed to areas such as religion is no longer a firm attitude of science. There are some areas in which both science and religion might have something to say, and they just might compliment one another instead of oppose each other.

Of course, we realize that, just like classical mechanics was found to be lacking and was ultimately replaced by relativity and quantum theory, neither relativity nor quantum theory as they currently stand will be the last statement about reality. Both will change and they may even be discarded for some other theory. At this time, quantum mechanics and relativity are not completely reconcilable. Quantum theory is not applicable to fast moving particles, particles which lie in the realm of relativity. There has been some progress towards unifying the two theories, most notably in the theories of quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics, but there is still a great deal of work that needs to be done towards reconciling these two theories.

There have been few physical theories that have told us as much about the nature of reality as has quantum theory. Nor has a scientific theory completely changed our view of reality as much as quantum theory. At the same time, there does not seem to be a scientific theory that has taken so long to reach the public. I guess this is a fundamental feature of human thought: the more radical an idea, the longer it takes to be accepted. I personally do not think that quantum theory is solely a mathematical formulation that gives nice results. I do think that it tells us something about reality. I may be wrong. This is something that quantum theory has taught us: the view that science gives us of reality today might be completely different tomorrow. However, the enormous success that quantum theory has had in predicting subatomic processes makes me feel that it is more than just an abstract model with no real consequence. There is some element of truth in what quantum theory tells us. I think that as more experiments are conducted that shed more light on some of the less understood aspects of quantum theory, we will be better able to say exactly what it tells us about reality. We will be better able to answer some of the questions I have raised in this paper. The coming century should prove to be very exciting, not only because of the technological advances we will make, but also because of the advances in our understanding of reality that will come in time.

Bibliography

Goswami, Amit. Quantum Mechanics. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1992.

Heisenberg, Werner. Physics and Philosophy. Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1958.

Margenau, Henry. Physics and Philosophy: Selected Essays. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Holland, 1978.

Rohrlich, Fritz. From Paradox to Reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.