Last September I wrote my first column for Scientific American, and this September marks my last one. In writing on science issues relevant to our culture and society, there is an inevitable tension between sticking just to science issues and commenting on potentially hot-button social issues. I have tried during the past 12 months to strike some balance, but without fail those issues that stir the greatest outrage also stir the greatest interest.
Nothing seems to stir more discussion than pieces about science and religion, an observation that reminds me of the comment that Henry Kissinger reputedly made about academic disputes: they are so vicious because the stakes are so small. After all, science will continue irrespective of religious opinions, and I expect organized religion will continue to be a part of the cultural landscape, too, largely unaffected by the ongoing march of human knowledge, as it has been for centuries.
Probably my greatest surprise came from the column on my favorite elementary particles, neutrinos. Several notes of thanks came from scientists who have devoted their lives to studying neutrinos’ properties; perhaps they feel underappreciated, even by their colleagues, for studying such ephemeral objects.
Among topics I didn’t get a chance to write about, one stands out, so I will take advantage of this last opportunity to elicit hate mail (and to shamelessly plug my new book about the late physicist Richard Feynman, which is relevant because of its title, Quantum Man).
No area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics—and with good reason. No one intuitively understands quantum mechanics because all of our experience involves a world of classical phenomena where, for example, a baseball thrown from pitcher to catcher seems to take just one path, the one described by Newton’s laws of motion. Yet at a microscopic level, the universe behaves quite differently. Electrons traveling from one place to another do not take any single path but instead, as Feynman first demonstrated, take every possible path at the same time.
Moreover, although the underlying laws of quantum mechanics are completely deterministic—I need to repeat this, they are completely deterministic—the results of measurements can only be described probabilistically. This inherent uncertainty, enshrined most in the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle, implies that various combinations of physical quantities can never be measured with absolute accuracy at the same time. Associated with that fact, but in no way equivalent to it, is the dilemma that when we measure a quantum system, we often change it in the process, so that the observer may not always be separated from that which is observed.
When science becomes this strange, it inevitably generates possibilities for confusion, and with confusion comes the opportunity for profit. I hereby wish to bestow my Worst Abusers of Quantum Mechanics for Fun and Profit (but Mostly Profit) award on the following:
Deepak Chopra: I have read numerous pieces by him on why quantum mechanics provides rationales for everything from the existence of God to the possibility of changing the past. Nothing I have ever read, however, suggests he has enough understanding of quantum mechanics to pass an undergraduate course I might teach on the subject.
The Secret: This best-selling book, which spawned a self-help industry, seems to be built in part on the claim that quantum physics implies a “law of attraction” that suggests good thoughts will make good things happen. It doesn’t.
Transcendental meditation: TMers argue that they can fly by achieving a “lower quantum-mechanical ground state” and that the more people who practice TM, the less violent the world will become. This last idea at least is in accord with quantum mechanics, to the extent that if everyone on the planet did nothing but meditate there wouldn’t be time for violence (or acts of kindness, either).
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentI will will bet against the man playing his cards in a quantum mechanical manner every time. The overall odds would be in my favor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice! Thanks Mr. Krauss!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI get that quantum mechanics does not in any way deny objective reality, and share a disdain for those who would weave hokum from poorly-understood science. But the suggestion that quantum mechanics is "deterministic" is new to me. Since the equations themselves can't predict a precise future from a precisely specified past (unlike classical physics), in what sense are they deterministic? Is Krauss suggesting there must be underlying deterministic laws that are beyond our reach? If so, why does he think that? (I'd always understood there was substantial theoretical work to the contrary.) Would love at least a reference, to learn more about what (to me) is a startling claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter a quick peek at Wikipedia, I'm assuming Krauss is not advocating the existence of hidden variables, but is simply pointing out that the wave function itself is deterministic. That's fine, but it doesn't really address the spookiness that gets folks like Chopra in a twist. Because though the equations themselves may be deterministic, they do not imply (as far as I understand them) that reality unfolds in a deterministic manner. That is, nothing in quantum mechanics can determine (or even account for), say, the time it takes a particular uranium atom to decay. And if not, Krauss' confidence that "effects...require causes" seems misplaced, or at least not a necessary implication of quantum mechanical determinism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve you that the electrons should be located in orbital atomic as the quantum mechanics indicates it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI indicate this because the orbital atomic ones stem from a differential equation and even his royal existence has not been demonstrated.
Believe you that the electrons should be located in orbital atomic as the quantum mechanics indicates it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI indicate this because the orbital atomic ones stem from a differential equation and even his royal existence has not been demonstrated.
Lawrence, I am terribly disappointed that you will no longer be writing for SI! I have enjoyed and looked forward to your essays everytime the mail person brought me my new issue. Your wit, intellect and humor will be dearly missed. Best wishes to you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStacy
Mr Krauss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOpen-minded readers of SA have tolerated your philosophically one-sided and scientifically ambiguous opinions for an entire year. Your writing degraded! It doesn't excite and stimulate young minds, or tell mature readers anything new and substantive. These last two columns show the kind of inconsequential jabber that illustrate your decline. I truly hope that you return to real science and stop this opinionated, politically loaded war on religion.
Good bye.
Good luck.
Good riddance.
First, to M. Tucker: you are correct.. I was talking about the wavefunction. Indeed measurments are spooky, but people need to know the wave function evolves deterministically
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo gamt67: Thanks very much. Maybe enough readers will lobby for it to be reinstated sometime.. after I finish my new book.
To solspot: Thanks, and the fact that you think the articles were all about religion suggests to me you might want to read another magazine.
lawkrauss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... the articles were all about religion ..." . ????
Well thanks for misquoting me; but that simply highlights my point: it was all about the degraded writing. However, perhaps your comment gives away the reason for your departure. It's all about religion. That's just sad. Why did you have to go there anyway?
Well, Scientific American seems to be more focused on science now, so I'll continue to read it just fine, and I won't miss YOUR religious war.
Mr. Krauss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is saddening that we won't be hearing from you via SI in the future. It is always a great pleasure to be able to read essays written by great scientists, especially when they tackle social or philosophical issues concerning science, as you've been doing quite admirably for the last year. I do hope you come back in not too distant future.
I would add to the list of 'Worst Abusers of Quantum Mechanics for Fun and Profit' a man called Jay Lakhani, director of the Hindu Council, who in May/June issue of New Humanist (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2303/its-immaterial-jay-lakhani-mayjune-2010) argued that quantum physics helps to reinforce his belief in esoteric Hinduism.
Mr. Tucker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarrying out the discussion on determinism a bit further, you suggest that it is impossible to determine the time it takes a uranium atom to decay. From this you draw the irrational conclusion that determinism must be false. However, for one, it is possible to determine, quite accurately, the half-life of uranium atoms (and other radioactive elements). This suggests there is some unknown deterministic laws effecting the atom though not necessarily the hidden variable hypothesis.
Second, just because an effect cannot be predicted it doesn't follow that there are no causes for it. We cannot predict earthquakes or the weather either but from that it doesn't follow there are no causes behind them! All science is predicated upon determinism and insofar as the causes of some events cannot be known with any accuracy, science will have come to an end. This is sometimes called a regulative or heuristic principle of science of which a few more are known.
Paul
To M. Tucker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the discussion about determinism and your claim that " . . .nothing in QM can determine . . .the time it takes a particular uranium atom to decay" may be technically true but the half-life of a uranium atom (and other radioactive elements) can be known quite accurately and is different for each radiactive element. This indicates to me that determinism is operating at a deeper level of reality than QM can take us, as Prof. Krauss has suggested, regardless of whether or not we attribute this to the hidden variable thesis.
More importantly, it doesn't follow that simply because some event cannot be predicted it isn't determined. A very common mistake made by those who would attack the principle of determinism. After all, just because we can't predict earthquakes or specific weather data doesn't mean they have no causes; I don't think many would take that view.
Reality does seem to unfold in a deterministic manner though this is not an assumption of science itself but simply, as some would term it, a regulative or heuristic principle. Without that principle science would come to an end and I certainly would not want to make that conclusion (yet).
Whether at the level of quons (sub atomic particles) determinism applies or not, we do know that at the macro-cosmic level of reality, all is quite determined so those who want to use QM to bolster their religious or philosophical beliefs by what happens at the sub-atomic level will get no relief as Prof. Krauss suggests with Deepak Chopra.
Quantum nonsense: clarification of some words might shed light on the silly stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have often read that an observation, a measurement, breaks down that weird quantum state of all-possibilities-exist-at-once. To shed light on some of the quantum silliness that has been floating around, I very much would like a clarification of what is meant by "observation", "measurement".
Are "observation" and measurement" shorthand for "any physical occurrence that can possibly lead to an observation." Or, is there ANY INDICATION WHATSOEVER that an actual observer is required? In other words, do the possible consequences of a quantum event interfere with each other until some scientist or some cat has a look? If Schroedinger's famous kitty is confined in the chamber, and - cruelty free - suppose that she is fertile and the setup is rigged to release a tomcat into the chamber if a quantum event occurs - might Dr. Schroedinger, when he observes, find his puss all by herself and pregnant?
If a photon strikes a rock, causing a chemical event that that will not be observed for a thousand years, can the affected-by-a-photon and not-affected-by-a-photon states possibly interfere with each other? Does the observer have anything whatsoever to do with it, or is it the physical event that makes an observation possible which does the trick. If the observer is crucial, even if there is no evidence that the observer's mind can influence the outcome, one might well wonder.
My guess has been that the actual observer has nothing to do with it, that the physical circumstances that allow an observation are responsible. Am I wrong?
Of course, if the observer is required, that does not necessarily mean that the observer's mind can influence the outcome. (Conversely, if the observer is not required, that does not DISPROVE the possibility of occult powers we can't explain.)
C'mon folks.... is there any evidence at all that physical reality would not exist without ourselves and our cats to observe it?
Quantum nonsense: clarification of some words might shed light on the silly stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have often read that an observation, a measurement, breaks down that weird quantum state of all-possibilities-exist-at-once. To shed light on some of the quantum silliness that has been floating around, I very much would like a clarification of what is meant by "observation", "measurement".
Are "observation" and measurement" shorthand for "any physical occurrence that can possibly lead to an observation." Or, is there ANY INDICATION WHATSOEVER that an actual observer is required? In other words, do the possible consequences of a quantum event interfere with each other until some scientist or some cat has a look? If Schroedinger's famous kitty is confined in the chamber, and - cruelty free - suppose that she is fertile and the setup is rigged to release a tomcat into the chamber if a quantum event occurs - might Dr. Schroedinger, when he observes, find his puss all by herself and pregnant?
If a photon strikes a rock, causing a chemical event that that will not be observed for a thousand years, can the affected-by-a-photon and not-affected-by-a-photon states possibly interfere with each other? Does the observer have anything whatsoever to do with it, or is it the physical event that makes an observation possible which does the trick. If the observer is crucial, even if there is no evidence that the observer's mind can influence the outcome, one might well wonder.
My guess has been that the actual observer has nothing to do with it, that the physical circumstances that allow an observation are responsible. Am I wrong?
Of course, if the observer is required, that does not necessarily mean that the observer's mind can influence the outcome. (Conversely, if the observer is not required, that does not DISPROVE the possibility of occult powers we can't explain.)
C'mon folks.... is there any evidence at all that physical reality would not exist without ourselves and our cats to observe it?
Krauss's arrogance is not justified by the science. The issues raised by quantum entanglement and nonlocality in general are deep, unresolved, and not yet well understood. Many of the scientific greats involved with the development of quantum physics--including Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, Bohm, Von Neumann--thought that the full understanding of quantum physics will involve questioning our deepest assumptions about the nature of reality. Including questions about the relationship between consciousness and the "external" world. Krauss's use of epithets to dismiss the views of those who think differently from him is deeply offensive to any seriously open-minded scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantumPhysicist,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) quantum physics DOES question our deepest assumptions about the nature of reality;
2) I don't quite see the connection between open-mindedness and dismissing obviously absurd views.
"2) I don't quite see the connection between open-mindedness and dismissing obviously absurd views."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me explain the connection. Ask yourself:"Is it the role of a scientist to question or to ridicule?" A logical question is open-minded and awaits a logical response. Ridicule is a judgement, which is closed to any answer. Therefore, a dismissive attitude that caracterizes others as "obviously absurd", is a judgement, which is the sign of a closed mind.
That said, I disagree that Krauss is arrogant; he poses a few questions that should be answered by the subjects of the article, especially the way they spawn confusing terminology. But his article suggests that he is closed-minded to any answer except that the subjects are foisting a con-job for "fun and profit".
Just for comparison, Krauss' "Worst Abusers" award comes across like politicians, e.g.Sarah Palin, who may mistakenly ridicule certain research funding out of ignorance of things that they don't understand or beleive. OK, maybe Krauss and Palin know things that we don't know; so ask yourself: "Why don't they tell us, or at least refer us to someone who can?" If they don't give the whole story, their opinions remain unsubstantiated. There are much better writers in SciAm, who need not resort to ridicule to make a point. In fact, the best scientists and science writers stick to facts and avoid opinionated judgements completely. The good news is that this factual style seems to be flourishing under the new SciAm editorial leadership.