A few things I remember about quantum mechanics
A post on the
ASP.NET forums recently went a little crazy by shifting from a perfectly
normal question on how to get the response object from a
class that doesn't derive from Page or Control (to which
the answer is to use HttpContext.Current.Response) to
quantum mechanics and the multiverse theories.
I happen to know a few things on quantum mechanics, dating
back from my PhD, so I can shed some light on these subjects
(or make them even more obscure, we'll see).
Here are a few things that have been said in
this thread
and a few comments:
"Light will act like a wave until observed, at which time it
collapses to a point."
It would be more precise to say a photon, or quantum of
light, that is, the minimum quantity of light you can get.
"wherever an elemental "decision" is made (whether the light
went through the top or bottom hole of the twin-hole
experiment; or whether Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead),
the universe splits to accommodate both decisions."
That was the original idea of the multiverse, but we'll see
that there may be a much better and simple explanation.
"Another "solution" to the riddle proposed by Schrodinger's
cat is the idea that light travels backwards in time, just
as it travels forward."
For that to solve any problem, all particles would have to
be able to travel back in time: light is not the only way to
transmit information. As a matter of facts, virtual
particles are able to travel faster than light, but there's
no way to observe these directly, so they can't convey any
information. As far as we know, no faster than light
phenomenon can transport any information. Another way to say
that is that no signal can travel faster than light. If it
travels faster than light, it's not a signal. One example
uses a pulsar as a beacon: the pulsar sends a jet of
particles in some direction which rotates with the pulsar
(like a beacon). Imagine now some enormous projection screen
(interstellar gas clouds play this role very well) that is
able to emit some light when the particle jet hits it. If
the screen is far enough from the pulsar, the spot of light
it projects on the screen can move well above the speed of
light (its speed is the angular rotation speed of the pulsar
times the distance from it to the screen). The explanation
is that the spot of light you see at one point in time was
not created by the same particles as a little later. In
other words, what you see is not an object moving, what you
see is a succession of different objects that give the
illusion of movement (the real movement is perpendicular to
the screen, whereas the one you think you see is parallel to
it). A similar phenomenon gives the illusion that a particle
can quantum-tunnel through a barrier faster than light. It's
a little trickier to explain but in this case too, no faster
than light signal can be transmitted.
"I know that the multiverse theory has moved on from that,
and rather than splitting universes there are now bubbling
multiverses and virtual multiverses"
True, now it's a completely different theory, based on
string theory. It states that there is only one universe
(which is the definition of the universe after all) that has
different, causally disconnected regions in which the laws
of physics are different. These new "bubbles" can appear
when a region of an existing bubble tunnels into a state
with a lower vacuum energy, which results in the rapid
expansion of this bubble as the extra energy is transformed
into space, so fast that it disconnects it from the bubble
that formed it. There's
an excellent article
about that in the
September issue of
Scientific American.
"I mean Schrodinger was trying to explain the role of the
observer in deciding the quantum state of a particle. In his
experiment he assumed that the only observer was the
experimenter that opened the box - until the box was opened
the particle was 'in' a state of quantum uncertainty. But,
what I always say when someone mentions the experiment -
what about the cat???!!! Surely, it knows whether it is
alive or dead!"
Absolutely, this is what makes Schrödinger's cat thought
experience completely bogus as it's usually told: the cat is
an observer and is classic enough to collapse the particle's
state. It's never half-dead, half alive.
But there are real Schrödinger's cats that actually fulfill
exactly the original prediction. The difference is that they
are not cats, but rather small lumps of matter. Scientists
are now able to make these lumps bigger and bigger, but it
will always be impossible to do the experiment with an
actual cat.
What happens when you measure a quantum phenomenon has been
fascinating since it was discovered, more than any other
aspect of quantum physics. The reason is clearly that it is
the only case in modern physics where pure chance seems to
have a role: it looks undeterministic. Of course, this has
been hastily interpreted by many as the finger of God, or as
what enables us to have free will. I'll get back to that as
soon as I've exposed a more modern theory of quantum
measurement that seems to give very good results while
making it all deterministic again. I can't find the
references of papers about this so I'll rely on my memory
here. If someone reads this and knows where to find the
relevant papers, please drop me a note.
The idea is that a measurement device is a quantum system
(like everything) that has many degrees of freedom and that
a measurement is actually a complex interaction with such an
object. What happens is that this interaction results in the
quantum object to collapse into a classical state. This
theory is able to predict the time that it takes the object
to collapse, and how complex an object has to be to cause
the collapse. Experimental data seems to confirm this theory
(I think the experiments were done at the Ecole Normale
Supérieure de Paris).
So according to this theory, there is nothing strange or
random in a measurement, it's just one quantum interaction
like everything. In a way, the chaos of the state of the
device replaces chance. And everything is deterministic
again.
Including the human brain.
So where does that leave our freedom of choice? Well, we
would have none, obviously, if we are made of quantum
particles like the rest of the universe. But that's not a
problem, the illusion of it is enough.