Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Quantum nonsense
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And the existence of observers today will select a subset of those histories which will inevitably, by definition, lead to the existence of life. Now, I don't think anybody would really dispute that fact."
It really annoys the hell out of me how someone of Paul Davies' repute and caliber can make this absurd extrapolations about quantum mechanics. This is something I'd more expect from the likes of Gary Zukav ('Dancing Wu Li Masters') or Michael Talbot ('The Holographic Universe')
Totally absent from Davies' reply here is the fact (as Richard Schlegel correctly noted in his Superposition and Interference) that the collapse of quantum wave functions vis-a-vis observations do NOT require human observers. A detector or machine can make the observations just as well. Which brings up the question: When the quantum detector sans human "observes" the eigenvalue or outcome will it also "select a subset of those histories" that leads to life? Somehow I think this is a moot question, which shows - of course - that merely asking questions is no assurance they have meaningful answers.
In a way, there is nothing fantastic or meaningful about this. Since it all follows from the mathematical structure (using Hilbert spaces) of QM. Thus, the fact of superposition (which is really behind the Heisenberg Principle) imposes on all quantum phenomena an inescapable 'black box'. Thus, no information other than statistical can be obtained before an observation is made. Whatever the entity observed, it exists in a superposition of states, e.g.
U = U1 + U2 + U3 + ........UN
The late physicist Heinz Pagels, also one of the most insightful -noted that quantum information theory is really an information theory, and the whole quantum world is embedded in what we observers can know about it (e.g. The Cosmic Code, Bantam, 1982, p. 162).
Pagels went on to (wisely!) endorse the best policy in such matters as simply being a 'fair witness': absolutely withholding embellishment of results, including projection of pet fantasies or spurious conclusions - such as that "observations" by humans change the state of the universe. (This probably surfaced years after Eugene Wigner tried to investigate changes of quantum states using animals. He concluded a cat may be able to do so, but not an amoeba!)
In effect, if one insists (like Davies) in reading more into quantum measurement results than their statistical significance allows, rank self-dellusion ensues.
And - next thing you know - one will argue that amoebas and inanimate detectors also change quantum states, "select for histories" and whether human life exists in a fine-tuned cosmos.
What I'm suggesting -- this is where things depart from the conventional view -- is that the laws of physics themselves are subject to the same quantum uncertainty. So that an observation performed today will select not only a number of histories from an infinite number of possible past histories, but will also select a subset of the laws of physics which are consistent with the emergence of life
This is yet another piece of codswallop that follows on from the above. As Pagels has noted (see above reference) the collapse of the superposition of states can only occur in the quantum (micro-microscopic) domain, and is inapplicable to the macroscopic. (since the quantum wave phase difference is so minuscule).
Thus, since not all "laws of the universe" are sub-quantal or even quantal, it is gibberish to assert all can be affected by a "quantum uncertainty". They can't! For example, the laws of celestial mechanics wouldn't be.
Even if one were to look soley at celestial mechanics in terms of the Newtonian constant of Gravitation G, on the order of 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2, the introduction of QUANTUM uncertainties wouldn't change this by more than 1 part in about 10^29. Thus, we are looking at a change to G of about 10^-30 for its 6.7 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2 value. This is NOT enough to affect the outcome of the law for Newtonian gravitational attraction in any significant way.
It seems to be that Davies may be trying to use this to sell more books, along the lines of what he sold before. We will have to wait and see what comes out of it. But one thing we do know, as Pagels rightly points out, is that erroneous and egregious over-extensions of quantum measurement theory do not provide a basis for purpose or any special existence of humans in the cosmos.
-
My point
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]island01 wrote:
"Not that I don't agree, but it's at least as plausible as a multiverse is... and the stringers are going wild over that pseudoscience, so what's you're point?"
My "point" is that we've gotten far away from the reductionist- positivist basis of most good physics. Whether it's "multiverses" or "26-dimensional cosmic stings" or wild extensions of quantum measurement theory - ALL suffer from a dearth of empirical support.
I have nothing against speculations and conjectures - especially when backed by sophisticated mathematics (like the Euler equation for string theory) - BUT at the end of the day we will want to see solid predictions made from said theories, or at least tangible evidence that can be replicated (in a lab, if need be) or beheld by one and all, provided they have the requisite observational paraphernalia.
THIS is what I am getting at! Davies is merely the most recent of a parade of physicists (especially) who have extended the basis of one physical proposition or conjecture or other to extravagant lengths.
This is what I am against. "Multiverses" and what not are fine as far as it goes, they even rival some of the best science fiction. But WHERE is the hard evidence for these, or is it just a matter of who can come up with the most exotic mathematics for the support role?