Physical Reality in the eyes of Einstein and under Quantum Mechanics
The strife about whether reality in the last analysis is deterministic or random has in the famous phrase of Einstein “God does not play dice with the Universe” the essence of what is at stake. The dispute between Einstein and Schrodinger, who was published and widely documented, places them as the main actors of this contention. But there are other actors and specially one, Max Born, who also exchanged letters with Einstein about the subject which for one of those things, never was quite well recognized and can be seen at The Root of All Evil. The objections Einstein had against the statistical nature of the Quantum Physics predictions were the following:
Einstein had several objections to the statistical nature of quantum mechanics predictions, particularly as encapsulated in the Copenhagen interpretation, which was one of the prevailing interpretations of quantum mechanics during his time. Some of his main objections included:
- “God does not play dice“: Einstein famously expressed his discomfort with the idea that fundamental physical processes, such as the behavior of subatomic particles, could be inherently probabilistic. He believed that there must be underlying deterministic laws governing the behavior of particles, even at the quantum level.
- The incompleteness of quantum mechanics: Einstein was troubled by what he perceived as the incomplete nature of quantum mechanics. He argued that the theory did not provide a complete description of physical reality and that it relied too heavily on statistical probabilities rather than offering a deterministic account of particle behavior.
- “Spooky action at a distance“: Einstein, along with collaborators Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, formulated the famous EPR paradox to highlight what they saw as the nonlocality inherent in quantum mechanics. They argued that the theory seemed to allow for instantaneous correlations between spatially separated particles, which contradicted Einstein’s theory of relativity and raised questions about causality.
Einstein’s objections to the statistical nature of quantum mechanics were rooted in his philosophical and scientific beliefs about the nature of reality, determinism, and causality. While his objections did not undermine the empirical success of quantum mechanics, they sparked important debates and led to further developments in our understanding of the foundations of quantum theory.
Quantum mechanics arose gradually from theories to explain observations which could not be reconciled with classical physics, such as Max Planck‘s solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem, and the correspondence between energy and frequency in Albert Einstein‘s 1905 paper which explained the photoelectric effect. These early attempts to understand microscopic phenomena, now known as the “old quantum theory“, led to the full development of quantum mechanics in the mid-1920s by Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Paul Dirac and others. The modern theory is formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms. In one of them, a mathematical entity called the wave function provides information, in the form of probability amplitudes, about what measurements of a particle’s energy, momentum, and other physical properties may yield.
Under Born, Göttingen (details at the Wikipedia entry) became one of the world’s foremost centres for physics. In 1925, Born and Werner Heisenberg formulated the matrix mechanics representation of quantum mechanics. The following year, he formulated the now-standard interpretation of the probability density function for ψ*ψ in the Schrödinger equation, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1954. His influence extended far beyond his own research. Max Delbrück, Siegfried Flügge, Friedrich Hund, Pascual Jordan, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Lothar Wolfgang Nordheim, Robert Oppenheimer, and Victor Weisskopf all received their PhD degrees under Born at Göttingen, and his assistants included Enrico Fermi, Werner Heisenberg, Gerhard Herzberg, Friedrich Hund, Pascual Jordan, Wolfgang Pauli, Léon Rosenfeld, Edward Teller, and Eugene Wigner.
Born would win the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics for his “fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially in the statistical interpretation of the wave function“.[1]
In his Nobel lecture he reflected on the philosophical implications of his work:
“I believe that ideas such as absolute certitude, absolute exactness, final truth, etc. are figments of the imagination which should not be admissible in any field of science. On the other hand, any assertion of probability is either right or wrong from the standpoint of the theory on which it is based. This loosening of thinking (Lockerung des Denkens) seems to me to be the greatest blessing which modern science has given to us. For the belief in a single truth and in being the possessor thereof is the root cause of all evil in the world.”
He exchanged letters with Einstein telling him about his interpretation long before Einstein would have his famous dispute with the letter which I introduce the subject with the other side opposite to Born and those who had the same idea and that Einstein contradicted with the famous phrase, which I explore in detail.
In a way perhaps somewhat long and perhaps confusing, the conclusion I arrived and that I want readers to arrive, was that Max Born is right, not only objectively from the mathematical point of view, but by the very nature as we form Our point of view, which I present in detail.
Reality and Randomness
On the other hand, I also believe that it is impossible to achieve true randomness in reality, only in theory and There is no proof (in the mathematical sense) of real randomness. I discuss this issue separately in the posting “Is Randomness for Real?“
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment (hypothetical situation in which a hypothesis, theory or principle is laid out for the purpose of thinking through its consequences) proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete.
The discussion can be seen in detail at Wikipedia, from where I quote and add the following, which is embedded and taken for granted, but for the discussion I have in mind it is needed to be clarified:
René Descartes gave us the basic map which enabled Galileo to format Science in the way it would become the gold standard. He also is the author of an axiom which we are going to need here: Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am).
Before discussing the implications of these two contributions of Descartes, let’s summarize the quest between Einstein and Quantum Mechanics:
Niels Bohr replied that it was a fallacy, as it can be seen in detail at Wikipedia, and Einstein replied that the crucial part of the argument was the demonstration of nonlocality, where the choice of measurement done in particle A, either position or momentum, would lead to two different quantum states of particle B. He argued that, because of locality, the real state of particle B couldn’t depend on which kind of measurement was done in A, and therefore the quantum states cannot be in one-to-one correspondence with the real states.
Either Bohr and Einstein were reacting to what their sensorium was telling them, obviously with the benefit of a first rate mind but is an excellent example to understand how we think, although not as deeply or creatively or as intelligent as it was their case.
Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am.
What is to think?
It is direct one’s mind toward someone or something; use one’s mind actively to form connected ideas to have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.
How do we do it?
Empirically or conceptually.
A concept is the object of a thought, not something that is present to the senses. The word “empirical” means “gained through experience.” Scientific experiments and observation give rise to empirical data. Scientific theories that organize the data are conceptual but can also be the product of imagination and become scientific after evidence by confirmation empirically as it is clearly the case of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Both scientists were aiming to figure out reality which is the object of our discussion.
How we assess reality empirically?
Through our senses, which are: Sight, Sound, Smell, Taste, and Touch: How the Human Body Receives Sensory Information.
Each sense functions through:
- interface or sensory tips;
- conduction link from the interface to the brain,
- physical brain and, more importantly,
- how the involved brain “processes” the stimulus, based on
- in what has been learned, is stored, is managed and the
- Idiosyncrasy, or intelligence, of the bearer of the whole set
The sensory tips for each sense are:
- Sight Main organ involved: Eye
- Sound Main organ involved: Ears
- Smell Main organ involved: Nose
- Taste and Main organ involved: Tongue
- Touch Main organ involved: Fingers
You can see a more detailed explanation at
Sensory and perceptual processes
You can have for each sense something like that, but it is not the objective here to discuss that and let’s see how it looks such kind of definition for consciouness and reality perception.
Psychologists define consciousness as our awareness of ourselves and our environment. Consciousness includes not only alert wakefulness, but also altered states, such as sleep and dreaming, daydreams, and states induced by hypnosis and drugs.
Nature and nurture of behavior
.
How we assess reality conceptually?
From Physics the example is the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox), a thought experiment ( or a concept in a hypothetical situation in which a hypothesis, theory or principle is laid out for the purpose of thinking through its consequences) proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete.
From Philosophy, Critique of Pure Reason of Immanuel Kant is one of the best concepts available to put the subject in perspective.
How do we assess the reality of our sensorium to perceive reality?
The best notion of empirical analysis of psychology is the Experimental Psichology, based on what is generally known as “Hard Science”, i.e. “how it works” physically or physiologically, including taking into account physics, chemistry, electricity and whatever is available. Experimental Psychology is opposed to Traditional Psychology, “soft science”, which is the daughter of Philosophy, especially the one that creates “Systems”, based on assumptions for what “seems” to be evidence of what is ahead. The best example of soft science in psychology is Psychoanalysis and the best example of hard science in psychology is Neuropsychology. Psychoanalysis is an old acquaintance and I did a blog site where I discuss it extensively. I didn’t created something equivalent for the explanation of Neuropsychology, but the two examples above, if done for all the senses and the main concerns involved would be equivalent. Actually I did it for Perception and sound, especially in terms of Sensation and what you hear, but it is in Portuguese and eventually I will translate it. Theories of Knowledge, Intelligence, States of Consciousness or Alert should also be touched and eventually I will, but for the purpose of Reality Perception, Drugs are specially indicated, since you can paradoxically understand what is at stake when you mess with it.
Reality perception changes wheter if you are in a visual or oral culture
Marshall McLuhan’s essence is to explore how visual culture and oral culture define our perception of reality and add to it the effect which technology, especially computers, television, the Internet and the smart phone, which despite having emerged after his demise, not only were they foreseen by him, but they can be understood according to his conceptions.
In addition to the possibilities listed in the post
Other possibilities of perception on what we see
check also
Why visual acoustic cultures do not have perspective
I call special attention to the case of the Africans and the chicken because, to my knowledge it is the most powerful evidence of the difference between oral culture and print culture I came across.
I call also special atention to the MGM motion picture “At First Sight”, which was based on the real-life story of Shirl Jennings, which in the movie is called Virgil, whose sight was restored after forty years of blindness. Val Kilmer and Mira Sorvino portrayed the main characters.
What happens when an adult who has been blind since childhood suddenly regains his sight?
The experience of Virgil, a 50-year-old man who has regained his sight after being blind 45 years raises questions about perception that has haunted philosophers and scientists for centuries.
This is very difficult to understand, and for that, see the sequence at the 58th minute of the movie, when he regains his sight after surgery, shown at 61:08, in this movie, when Virgil seeing (but not knowing what is on the street, in the middle of cars and traffic, going through a door and into a building, even seeing the glass door and the movement of cars, can’t relate to what that means, getting literally lost, including almost injured, until he closes his eyes and is located by touch and hearing, perceiveing in his old blind fashion, where he is and how he is, as he did when he was blind. He seeks a therapist to learn to see and understand what it is and what to do with it.
The notions exposed here should be compare with the notions exposed at “Time subjectively” and both are the frame to the notion of “Block Universe”.
Last but not least, remember that when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe, we should point out that the human brain was optimized to survive and reproduce in an environment we outgrew long ago, not to decipher the laws of nature. Since we imagine ourselves as the absolute kings of creation it is easier to think about these limitations with our fellow animals.
To that it should also be added that when interpreting the laws of physics, perhaps the architecture of the human brain imposes a bias towards eternalism.
Conscience and Consciousness and animals
Perhaps this should be a separate entry, but as it is a piece of a major puzzle and not the main focus, I will summarize it here unexplained psychic powers of animals, to whom, we belong to the same category and what is found on them, is also found on us, or is it the other way around?
Remember that Descartes, with his quintessential Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I exist, denied that hability to the animals following a long religious tradition, specially in the Abrahamic religions, which I do not have intention to discuss, but only point out that it is not the case, as it is analysed in the excellente entry of Wikipedia: Animal consciousness from which I quote the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness and tell the following stories from my experience:
1-Rats
I once cornered a mouse in a corner of my yard, with a broom in hand and before attacking him, to my surprise he dropped dead, probably with a heart attack. How was he aware that he could or would die? Or rather, what happened to the “alert state” or his “rat consciousness” that provoked something as blunt as death? I remember here a curious thing that Freud’s entire arsenal is based on Libido, which is the motivating and generating energy of life, especially motivation and which has or would have as a counterpart Thanatos, the death instinct. There’s nothing about it that spans more than a page in his entire work. All you have to do is load the complete works on your computer, which I did, and do a search on Thanatos or death instinct and it’s very easy to confirm. This mouse had an unbearable flaw for dying prematurely or without physical collapse, the only really valid one. Scientifically, if fright killed, both human and animal species would already have disappeared from the face of the Earth… the heart stops because it is defective, not because the fright created the impossibility of functioning… This mouse already suffered from the heart and the fright evidenced this and his perception did the rest…
2-Dogs
In the 70’s we came and go to the United States, in the several times we went to live there. When a trip approached, we didn’t reveal anything to the children, for obvious reasons, leaving everything close to the event. From the dogs we had, the one that lasted the longest was a mongrel she dog bitch, Neguinha, who lasted from 81 to 93. Well, on those ocasions, weeks before we left, without the children noticing, neguinha clearly understood that she would be abandoned and completely changed her behavior, going into depression. How did she perceive the change that was going to occur?
This same dog died in a very painful way in 93. I was already in the United States for some time, I arranged with my wife for us to meet at JFK airport gate. When I saw her and looked at her expression, I instantly asked: “Who died and why you didn’t they tell me?” We went to the usual breakfast spot after the trip towards where we had lived and were going to visit, in a restaurant called Panther, whose name will never be forgotten. Over there, while having breakfast, we both cried in the midst of those confused gringos and all that snow which was pouring, while my wife told me the last moments of Neguinha. My wife reported that Neguinha had serious heart problems and refused to die and had realized that my wife was going to travel far away. My wife convinced her to die by talking to her on her lap and explaining what was happening. She died in her arms peacefully after much conversation.
My youngest son is totally into rationality and has an excellent mind for things involving science, having subsequently graduated in Computer Engineering.
In other words, he has absolutely nothing to do with the paranormal. Some time after the dog died, he dreamed that Neguinha had reincarnated in Australia, which he told us happily, as he was very young (7 or 8 years old) which released everyone’s heavy feeling for the loss.
I ask: all this blah blah blah I’ve written so far, where is it some explanation for that?
How did I see the death of a loved one in my wife’s expression?
How was Neguinha aware that we would travel away?
Why did Neguinha agree to die?
Why hasn’t the name Panther left our mind, even today, almost 50 years later?
How did the dream of reincarnation in Australia release everyone’s feeling since on a conscious level none of us believe in reincarnation, etc.?
I would have several other stories with dogs, but I think it’s enough for those who like to think they know what’s good for orientation in reality through our “Consciousness” system…
3 – Tigers
In a California zoo, a tigress had 3 cubs, but they were premature and sick, and they died soon. The tigress then began to show signs of depression. The vets knew that the loss of the puppies was the reason for the problem, and they decided to try to find other puppies for her to raise and cheer up. After checking several zoos across the country, they didn’t find any cub tigers available.
The vets then decided to try something different, which had never been done before: sometimes a female takes care of puppies of animals of other species. The only orphans they were able to locate were little pigs, who were wrapped in tiger skins and placed next to the mother tiger. Check out the photos: she IS a tigress, but her heart is of a mother.
4-Penguins
Each winter in Antarctica, the most uninhabitable place on Earth, thousands of Emperor Penguins leave the safety of the ocean and climb onto the frozen land, intending to begin a long journey inland. In single file, the penguins march to the species’ traditional breeding ground. The females remain in place only as long as necessary for breeding, starting shortly after their return journey across 200 kilometers of ice towards the sea full of fish. Male emperors remain to guard and hatch the eggs. After 4 months, in which the males eat nothing, the eggs begin to break and the young are born. However, they can only survive for 48 hours without food, depending on the return of female emperors, who need to bring food from the ocean.
Let’s proceed:
“Is Randomness for Real?
Where is discussed the implications of free will
Critique of Pure Reason
A classic from Kant
Man & Time J B Priestley 