Minime Physics

Quantum Mechanics

These are the features that make quantum mechanics fascinating, and exasperating – accurate, and fuzzy – interesting, and disheartening – quantitative, and ambiguous.  Quantum mechanics is literally fuzzy in that atomic particles do not have a fixed position in space and are everywhere all at once, in a cloud of locations.  And the overall theory is figuratively fuzzy since it is neither crisp nor clear – there are many sub-interpretations of Copenhagen, with different viewpoints, shades of gray that vary from person to person and from place to place.

We need to consider one last general point about terminology, which applies to quantum mechanics and other areas of science as well.  There are four elements to consider: mathematics, theory, mechanism, and experimentalism.  An argument made here is that all four are essential to making progress in understanding nature, both individually and collectively.

To keep things simple, we will use the four terms loosely and generally.  Let’s define them as:

Mathematics is the study of numbers and quantities.

Theories seek to explain and predict nature’s forces and behaviors, sometimes with an intensive use of mathematics.

Mechanisms are nature’s underlying physical structures, the ‘how it works’ of processes, the engineering ways and means.

Experimentalism is a philosophy for finding truth in nature, which emphasizes testing of equations and theories against real world data to support or refute them as accurate models of the universe.

A discussion of the intricacies of how these elements interact and intertwine is more complicated than you might think.  They are distinct entities, yet there is much overlap, for example the sub-discipline of mathematical physics, or the sometime indistinct boundary between theory and mechanism.  Moreover, the intersection among the four elements varies from scientific discipline to scientific discipline, including different ways in which the four elements are integrated, depending on the subject matter and investigators.

For example, in quantum mechanics the mathematics and the theory are closely related, the theory itself is numerical and abstract, and the role of physical mechanisms in the universe, the stuff we see and touch, ranges in different versions of Copenhagen from some, to only a little, to essentially none.

Conversely, in biomedical science, theories on cancer formation as an example are less mathematical and more mechanistic, with an emphasis on the parts (genes) and physical alterations (mutations) that drive tumor formation and progression.

Although biology is becoming more mathematical – ‘omics and bioinformatics

Regardless of the way in which they are mixed and matched, each of the four elements individually, and all of them collectively, can generate new ideas and scientific directions, providing key hints on where to look next.  Moreover, the four elements, within the overall scientific process, serve as guardrails on the validity of our understanding of nature.

Aesthetics

The second general point to make about Copenhagen beyond terminology is this – the city is beautiful, but its atomic namesake is ugly, at least to me and many folks.

The great Albert Einstein himself called the implications of Copenhagen, “An orgy of epistemological crap.”

Epistemology = theory of knowledge

I had to look it up

In the interest of full disclosure let me alert you to a personal bias of mine (and many other scientists) so you can factor it into your assessment of the information provided in this subsection.  I am especially fond of beauty and simplicity in nature, it touches my soul like little else can.  I love to see theories, equations, and technology evolve to ever-simpler forms, with a smaller number of elements, or more concise equations, or fewer moving parts.

Scientific parsimony

Ockham’s razor

I love when the world makes intuitive sense.  When the pieces fall together, click into place, and a wonderfully crisp and beautiful mathematical and mechanistic picture emerges.  One can feel this deep inside their being; it is just so pleasing.

So, you should know that my personal feelings about science predispose me against quantum mechanics due to its ugly, vague, and fuzzy character.

But of course, nature doesn’t care about my feelings

The universe will be what it will be

Hickam’s dictum

Copenhagen was cobbled together by various people and groups about 100 years ago, using both old and new lines of scientific evidence and mathematics.  And in truth, saying it was cobbled together is being kind.  In reality it was born ugly and became uglier with age.

The inventors of quantum mechanics did not paint a pretty picture.  Compared to a simple, intuitive, non-weird, and elegant ‘theory of everything’ that we all hope is invented someday, Copenhagen is, quite frankly, ugly.  Stitched together, disjointed, weird, not unifying, and incomplete. In the big picture, from 20,000 meters above, the many versions of Copenhagen are complicated and obtuse, raising an important issue.

This is a non-trivial point

The proliferation of concepts, arguments, and opinions around Copenhagen can make those who are not theoretical physicists or mathematicians, even other scientists and experimental physicists, feel intimidated, as naïve outsiders, crushed by an avalanche of theories, sub-theories, alternative theories, alternative theories to the alternatives, and a litany of which physics luminary said what and when and where and why.

“Gosh, the interpretations of Copenhagen are so complicated and difficult to follow – there are many different sub-versions – there are lots of opinions from confident and accomplished professors – the implication of the mathematics is smothering – the sub-theories are complicated and abstract – it is so problematic – there are many vague and moving parts – yet so many esteemed people treat the theory with such awe and reverence – surely then, it must be true.”

It makes one want to give up and give in

But one should not give up or give in

In the study of quantum mechanics there are both individual trees and a forest to consider.

Physicists who study or utilize the theory primarily wrestle with the trees, the individual pieces, which are a set of hard problems to solve, very hard problems – the essence of the fundamental elements of our universe.  It gets no more important or challenging than that.  This aspect is indeed impressive and majestic.  Deep dives into focused areas of basic science or mathematics are incredibly important, the primary engine that drives progress and creates essential knowledge.

Irreplaceable

If you ever want to be awed and reminded that human beings are capable of spectacular accomplishments, then ask a physicist, engineer, or mathematician about their work, ideas, or technologies.  You will be impressed, more than impressed.  And not just by the pure science, numbers, or technology, which are wonderful, but impressed by the investigators, too.  Curious, ambitious, dedicated, smart, honest, and relentless.  This is fantastic stuff, and they are fantastic people, a bubbling and boiling creative scientific cauldron of ideas, data, equations, and debates – a place where progress is made and our understanding of the trees continues apace – physicists, engineers, and mathematicians are to be applauded, for sure.

However, we don’t just live among the trees.

There is another level of nature to consider, the forest.  And here is where the ugliness and jagged edges of Copenhagen run afoul. When we view the theory from 20,000 meters above the ground we don’t see much of the forest, we see mostly fog, from dense cloud cover obscuring our vision, to regions of mist making the forest somewhat visible, although not too clear.  Instead of a deeper understanding of the structure and function of the forest, how the flora and fauna change regionally and with elevation, how the streams and rivers cut through the land and alter the geography and plant life along the riverbank, we only see bits and pieces – glimpses and shadows – here, there, and gone again.  A beautiful forest never emerges.  The glorious features of nature remain obscured from our vision.

A beautiful image hidden in a dense mist

From this viewpoint, the big picture, Copenhagen appears neither impressive nor majestic – it appears ugly, incomplete, and wildly off track – it does not crystallize or unify, it disjoins and complicates.  As one tries to understand and interpret the theory outside of ultra-focused analyses and calculations or attempts to connect the dots inside and outside of atomic physics, the edifice falls apart, or at least falls into disarray.  Nothing is crisp, clear, or unified, not at the atomic level and not with other features of nature.

Some presentations and writings around quantum mechanics seem to emphasize the wrong currency; the faux value of “I know more than you,” or “look at my calculations,” over the priceless scientific currency, the apposite value of, “Here is the simple and unified way nature works in the real world.”  There are often tiresome, grandstanding debates about who knows more than whom.

If you’ve been on internal medicine rounds, you know what I mean

The inner response I await when learning about a new theory, or playing with technology, or analyzing data, the intuitive sense that tells me we are on the right track is, “Oh, that is so simple and clear.”  And if the theory, equation, or data interpretation is not just good but great, the intuitive feeling is, “Oh, that is so simple and clear, why didn’t anyone think of that before?”

To put an exclamation point to this notion, I recommend you perform some quick explorations of quantum mechanics on a computer or phone, just easy stuff like examining Google searches, Wiki entries, Quora debates, dictionary definitions, and so on.  Try searching terms like quantum mechanics, Copenhagen Interpretation, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, superposition, quantum coherence, eigenfunctions, and Hilbert spaces.  And then search additional physics concepts such as the real world meaning of quantum mechanics, the direction of a single photon (particle of light) after it is created, or the position of an electron in an atom.

From the information you retrieve, ask yourself this – do you have a sense that the interpretation of quantum mechanics and its elements are one simple and straightforward theory?  Are the central components and implications clear?  Is the theory crisp?  Does it synch well with the rest of the universe’s laws?  Does everything click into place?  Does it unify nature?

If so, please send me your book, URL, or article

In the context of science history, the inherent big picture fuzziness of Copenhagen, its ugliness, the shroud, in many ways says all that is needed.  There is an argument to be made that one can stop here and needn’t go further.  If science past is science prologue, then the theory is traveling down the wrong track.  History suggests concepts that prove true in nature coalesce, clarify, and connect dots – they do not continually add more disconnected dots.  From 20,000 meters above, the mere existence of the many quantum mechanics interpretations suggests one doesn’t need to chase down all the sub-theories or go down all the rabbit holes.  This says enough.  Copenhagen is on the wrong track.

Done

So, just to crystallize this key point, and as a forewarning if you are hoping quantum mechanics is a beautiful theory where all nature’s pieces fit together nicely and make sense, you will be disappointed.  Aesthetically, Copenhagen is not simple or beautiful or crisp.

Of course, that said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

To some, the weirdness and maddeningly vague character of Copenhagen are the beauty, the attraction.  Becoming an acolyte of the theory can be like joining the cool kids club, a special sect with knowledge that few others possess, unique insight into a strange world known only to the members.

In the club, simplicity, beauty, and realism are outdated.  Crisp and intuitive theories are too old-fashioned.  And mechanisms are passé.  Mysteriousness, abstract mathematics, calculations, spookiness, and deep philosophical conundrums are the true elements of science, the components of a new worldview that is exciting and fashionable to venture into with quantum mechanics.

I get this.

Been there, done that.

Mea culpa

Irrespective of whether one is drawn to beauty or not, there are positives in quantum mechanics, lots of positives, no question about that.  I want to keep a balanced perspective.  The theory is unique, imaginative, shockingly novel, and challenges basic concepts about the natural world.  There were inspired and inventive ideas and concepts that emerged during its development and much of the mathematics is in fact beautiful and useful.

With incredibly accurate predictions

And in all fairness, Copenhagen was invented in response to troubling data that were percolating up from laboratory experiments and observations of nature that did not fit the principles of classical physics, the laws of Newton and others.  The new theory was a legitimate attempt to make sense of it all.  Quantum mechanics added significantly to our knowledge base and permitted wonderful new calculations and predictions to be made.  There is tremendous scientific value and important hints about nature within the theory, thus one needs to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

But what is the baby and what is the bathwater?

To many, to me, the baby in the theory, the beauty, is waves.  And the bathwater is the weird stuff, especially an anti-realist view that the atomic world cannot be studied, or does not even exist, or only exists when we look at it.  The essential beauty in Copenhagen is waves, hidden beneath the fuzziness, ugliness, and weird claims.  The theory emphasizes, repeatedly, regardless of which flavor one adheres to, a key element that is central to nature – waves.

Waves, again and again, they are everywhere.  So, it will come as no surprise that the key equation in Copenhagen, the Schrodinger equation, is a wave equation, and that an important competitor to Copenhagen, shadow/pilot wave theory, is also based on waves.  There is a hidden gem involving waves and their fundamental role in physics.  Many elements of quantum mechanics are up for debate, but pretty much everyone, from the card-carrying mathematicians and theoreticians to the experimental physicists and engineers, to legitimate scientists outside of physics, to the kooks and cranks, agree that waves are involved in nature’s smallest elements in a most fundamental way.

So, my recommendation as you ponder the information in this subsection, and books on the subject you are hopefully inspired to read, is to address the ugliness of quantum mechanics head on, but then to look for the hidden beauty underneath, the waves.

Predictions

Some argue forcefully that Copenhagen as a scientific theory and philosophical anti-realist worldview must be true because it produces such incredibly accurate predictions about atomic behavior.

Be careful here

The predictive power of Copenhagen raises the third general issue about the theory you should know at the outset, beyond its terminology and ugly duck character.

This is another non-trivial point.

Quantum mechanics does in fact make predictions about atomic behavior to an amazing degree of precision.  These predictions are impressive and a good reason to take the theory seriously.  And in fact, the mathematics and calculations around Copenhagen are often relatively straightforward when applied to focused, technical problems.  The equations work well.  Moreover, the accuracy of the predictions does not depend on opinion, or on whom you ask, or vary from place to place – the analyses are solid and reproducible, a hint from nature there is something important here.

However, some people will then jump from the predictive power of the theory to imply because the equations work, all the stitched together components of Copenhagen must be true, including the spooky and anti-realist implications.

Excellent predictions = Copenhagen is true = Atomic world is weird.

Some will say, “Case closed.  Equations work with an amazing degree of precision.  Done deal.  The world is weird.  Atoms change when we look at them.  Just accept it.  Over.”

Others will say, “Quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of science so nature must be bizarre and spooky.”

Please define “successful”

The excellent predictions that come from the equations of quantum mechanics can be turned into a weapon and used as a shut-down argument against skeptics of the theory.  A weapon against those who would dare question iconic dogma.

The youngsters

Copenhagen’s predictions are interesting and compelling to be sure, but accepting the whole theory hook, line, and sinker is a jump we need not necessarily take, no matter the level of precision.  The theory depends upon and steals from multiple scientific disciplines to make predictions and is tied together using many old and new puzzle pieces.

The predictions rely on old-fashioned science, classical atomic physics, probability, quantization, basic chemistry, the Bohr atomic model, the Pauli exclusion principle, the Schrodinger wave equation, field theories, and other mathematics.  Accurate predictions can indeed be made based on waves, equations, and the cobbling together of several sub-theories of chemistry and physics.

But leaping to the conclusions that the predictions mean Copenhagen and its anti-realism and other weird features must be true is a non sequitur.  One does not logically follow from the other.  There are other non-weird atomic theories that make equally good predictions.

Do not be misled

Copenhagen is not a done deal.  Beware of shut down arguments.  The weird elements may in fact be true.  And the predictions will work.  Or they may not be true.  And the predictions will still work.

There is a narrative that lives out in the ether, a worldview that permeates much of the physics community and the public, too.  “Copenhagen is pretty much true.  Yeah, there is some murkiness here and there, but we got this.  Look at the accuracy of the predictions and calculations.  The atomic world is weird and strange.  Done.”

Be very careful here

This narrative needs to be skeptically challenged and questioned as it has not been proven true.  The widespread misunderstanding that foundational issues in atomic physics were solved long ago by Copenhagen inhibits the next generation of young theoretical and experimental physicists, mathematicians, and engineers from pursuing them, questions around exactly what atomic physics is comprised of, and the implications for the real world.

We need the next young Isaac or Isabella Newton to come along, fly above the ground at 20,000 meters, and make measurements of the atomic forest with a wide field detector set to a novel wavelength, so we can peer through the clouds and mist and finally know the beautiful landscape below.

Skepticism

Challenge.  Challenge.  Challenge.  Always challenge dogma.

This is the heart and soul of science and the scientific method.  Science demands this.  Science demands skepticism with all ideas, notions, theories, proposed mechanisms, and equations.

However, let’s aspire to be skeptics, not cynics.

A skeptic offers a healthy and open-minded questioning of the status quo and of new concepts, with a willingness to follow the science wherever it leads, whether they personally like the direction or not.  This is a good thing.

In contrast, a cynic usually starts with a fixed bias, a deep distrust of people and institutions, and their attitude devolves from there, often into snarky ad hominem assaults, with less focus on the real issues at hand: truth, data, and the scientific method, and more focus on people, gossip, and maligning others.

This is not scientifically interesting, nor helpful

Certainly, the men and women of science deserve better than cynical attacks on their work or character.  Based on my personal experience, the people of science, mathematics, and engineering, across all disciplines, from theoretical to experimental, from basic to applied, are wonderful folks.

I consider myself lucky to be among them

Since humans perform science, the process is of course imperfect; however, very few if any investigators are purposefully trying to mislead or stifle progress.  Most everyone who struggles with issues around quantum mechanics or other scientific, medical, or technological challenges longs for better theories and solutions.

So, let’s be respectful and appreciative of the people of science.  But let’s also be steely-eyed and skeptical when confronting ideas, especially those that are complicated or vague – science insists we do so – it is not optional.

The former First Lady of the United States, Eleanor Roosevelt, said famously, “Small minds discuss people.  Average minds discuss events.  Great minds discuss ideas.”

Let’s focus on ideas

To me, there are legitimate theoretical, experimental, and cultural red (and white) flags that exist around the various concepts and ideas in Copenhagen.  This is a skeptical view rather than a cynical one.

The disjointed characteristics and incompleteness of the theory raise a red flag to start.

The vague and murky foundations are a second red flag.

The spectacular, universe-altering claims are a third red flag.

The stunning silence on unresolved fundamentals are a fourth red flag.

Exact definition and meaning of uncertainty

Interpretation of the wave function

Measurement problem

Quantum versus classical behavior

Real world mechanism of particle attraction in quantum field theories

The ardent defense of Copenhagen by some of its supporters, with a dismissive, contemptuous attitude toward skeptics raises a particularly large red flag; “you just don’t understand” or “you are not even wrong” as examples.

Perhaps the skeptics know all too well

Many of today’s highly complex technical experiments/equations raise a red flag.  Often only people immersed in these experiments/equations understand them.

Inaccessibility can produce error, over-interpretation, or mischief

And a cultural issue raises a white flag, a surrender of a sort.

Silos in the Dark

To be a skeptic with quantum mechanics it helps to have been around the block a few times, to have some experience in the scientific ecosystem.  With experience, one learns to mix just a dab of cynicism into their morning bowl of skepticism.  This can be manifest in several ways.  Over time, one realizes all is not as it should be.  Human motivations, personal biases, politics, power, influential leaders, money, egos, incentives, and administrative structures dramatically affect which experiments and which people are supported in the laboratory, championed in the community, published in scientific journals, have career development potential, or receive funding from patrons, governments, or institutions.

Dramatically

Orchestra members >>> Jazz musicians

I’ve seen this first-hand, for many years now.

I've probably seen and heard it all, or at least most of it, by observing many cycles of hype and disappointment, young scientist star risings and settings, and concepts that everyone agreed were true, until suddenly they weren’t.

I've fired many lasers, evaluated magnetic fields, took measurements, worked closely with the theorists and mathematicians, and fully understand there are several interpretations to highly technical experiments; we need to be humble, cautious, and tentative in our conclusions regarding fundamental physics.

I've heard impassioned lectures by esteemed professors on their ideas that later proved completely wrong.

I gave impassioned lectures on my ideas that later proved completely wrong.

Mea culpa, too

I heard college kids offer up brilliant new analyses during lab meetings that none of us folks with advanced degrees ever thought of; best idea wins, they won.

I saw iron clad camps of orthodox thinkers around this idea or that, in a world that is supposed to treasure independent thought and saw the negative career consequences for those who thought outside the camps.

I was privileged to work with some of the finest minds in my business; wow, very impressive, but they do not perform magic, all the same rules (scientific method) apply.

So, let me say that I am fascinated by quantum mechanics, but not too easily persuaded, nor too easily convinced, nor too easily intimidated.  Especially the latter, when an ardent proponent of the theory tries to shut down skeptical questioning with confusing terminology, recitation of obscure literature, or complicated mathematics.

I believe it was the noted natural philosopher T.S. Twain who said it best. “That don’t impress me much.”

But a simple, beautiful, and unifying theory of atomic physics – now, that would impress me much.

Very much