Quantum Physics
Introduction:
Of all the diverse fields I researched on the subject of the nature of reality this one was the most divergent and the most scientifically sound. Information provided in this genre sets the stage early for whether or not a skeptic should even consider plausible, anecdotal or less scientifically sound evidence discussed in the rest of this book. The reader will also note through the later chapters that topics highlighted here are then repeated in so many other genres of evidentiary study, ideally lending weight to such evidence given their consistency of agreement. Therefore it made sense to me to place this weighty chapter at the front.
In order to aid understanding and enjoyment of this chapter, I will include virtually no mathematical equations so as to try not to lose anyone’s interest or compromise their full understanding. I caveat this endeavor with a warning that this amounts to a matter of translating one imprecise language – mathematics – for another: English. Translating reality as scientists have observed it at subatomic levels into mathematical formulas is imprecise in itself and may never achieve what Einstein had proposed was the ultimate goal of physics: an equation that defined all of reality. Unfortunately, without the perfect equation that defines all of reality, the process of translating pieces of observed reality into mathematics results in an inexact representation of that reality. Therefore, translating those imprecise mathematical equations into simple English for the common reader’s enjoyment further clouds that reality but provides a close approximation that should help most people understand the implications of this astounding field.
As I compiled my thoughts on the nature of reality, aimed at eventually winning over skeptics like myself, it was clear that some of the most important evidence for that goal would be found in quantum physics, a highly technical field contributed to by such eminent personalities as Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and many others. As might be expected, none of these celebrated personalities embarked on their groundbreaking work as physicists with any intention their efforts would be utilized to forward a theorem on the existence of a universal spirituality. Indeed, some among them were ardent atheists who could not conceive of a God-personality or even life after death. It is quite ironic, therefore, that some of the best proof on the true nature of reality derived of quantum physics would end up, decades later, leading others in their field to acknowledge an unexpected truth – that there must be something behind that which mankind perceives in the physical world that allows ‘reality’ to function. Indeed, there is.
Modern physics is not the sterile, boring discipline some might perceive it to be. It is a rich, profound venture that has become inseparable from philosophy; an amalgamation blending the hardest of hard sciences with the softest science of academia. However, delving into the philosophical tenets underlying the meaning of some modern discoveries of physics is not generally encouraged in the field of hard sciences like physics. A pseudo-agreement known as the Copenhagen Interpretation provided the interpretation of Quantum Theory accepted by the bulk of the scientific community in the early 20th century. This agreement stated the proper goal of science was to provide a mathematical framework for organizing and expanding life’s experiences, rather than seeking to provide a picture of some reality that could lie behind those experiences.(1) From the Copenhagen point of view, quantum theory was satisfactory as it was; i.e. as impersonal mathematical equations concerning the behavior of subatomic structures. Thus, the Copenhagen Interpretation found the effort to understand the philosophical and spiritual implications underlying hard science theories was not productive for the betterment of science. My aim herein is to show that an understanding of quantum physics is an integral beginning for setting the stage for the philosophical and spiritual basis of the nature of reality.
Classical Physics:
Quantum mechanics is important because it took cutting edge research in physics from a literal dead end, following Newton’s classical ideas of mechanical physics, to a nearly boundless new field with findings that have eerie similarities to statements by spiritualists, mediums, and Eastern and new age religions. In the age of Newton, physics was seen as a field of defining life’s processes as cogs within a massive machine. If one could understand how or why the smallest parts functioned as they did, then – the theory presumes – it should be possible to extrapolate how all the larger parts of the universe, seemingly connected to it directly through physical, chemical or gravitational connections, would function in turn. Thus, like Einstein, they hypothesized it might be possible to create a physics equation that would define not only how everything in the universe functioned, but to extrapolate that function forward to determine what would occur at any point in space and time in the future. They saw life, thus, as preordained, following a regimented course that was begun as required by the ‘equation of life’ since the Big Bang initiated the forward movement of time. Every future event thereafter was predestined to occur.
Newton’s great work showed that the Earth, moon and planets were governed by the same laws as falling apples – gravity. The French mathematician, Rene Descartes, invented a way of drawing pictures of relationships between different measurements of time and distance, known as analytical geometry. Analytical geometry is a wonderful tool for organizing a wealth of scattered data into a meaningful pattern; for example, combining huge tracts of apparently unrelated experience into a rational framework of simple concepts like the laws of motion. The starting point of this process was a mental attitude that initially perceived the physical world as fragmented and different experiences as logically unrelated. Newtonian science, then, was the effort to find the relationships between these pre-existing separate parts.(2)
The problem with Newtonian, classical relativity, physics was that exceptions to the rules kept popping up in the equations. Mercury’s cycle around the sun, for example, did not follow the standard equations defining other planets’ gravitational relationships with the sun. Classical physicists also followed Newton’s line of thinking in that matter could be broken down into its smallest constituents – essentially small, indestructible ‘balls’ or atoms – and therefore there either was matter or there was a void. The Newtonian model of physics also provided for the conservation of matter, and claimed matter was essentially passive.(3) These classical assertions were contradicted, however, by new discoveries in quantum physics. Thus 19th century physicists were reaching a dead end trying to make old theories fit modern observations of both macroscopic and sub-atomic reality.
Newton’s mechanistic worldview – i.e. the classical laws of physics – was appropriate for most macroscopic observations of the world, but became completely insufficient and contradictory at the sub-atomic level. This forced twentieth century physicists like Albert Einstein, Neils Bor, and many others to create new laws, theories and mathematical languages in order to explain their observations of these new phenomenon. These laws became known as quantum theory.
Whereas classical science started with the assumption that separate parts worked together to constitute physical reality – thus the parts determined actions and events of the whole – quantum mechanics was based on an opposite epistemological assumption: the whole could influence actions and events of the smallest parts.(4) Indeed, the ‘smallest parts’ – the void – was not a void at all, but rather constantly in a state of flux of sub-atomic particles coming into and going out of existence in microseconds, based on mathematical probabilities.
A fundamental difference between Newtonian physics and quantum theory was that Newtonian physics predicted events and quantum mechanics predicted the probability of events. According to quantum mechanics, the only determinable relation between events was statistical – that is, a matter of probability, but those events could not be stated with absolute certainty as Newton had tried to claim.(5) These observations showed another surprising truth about sub-atomic particles: they could not be isolated as independent entities. They may exist for a period of time, but they could not be isolated or confined to a specific location at a specific point in time. Rather, scientists found probability relationships that certain sub-atomic phenomena might occur within a given set of parameters, but they could not be definitively described as having an independent reality with a specific energy at a given time and location, as will be further described shortly. For centuries, scientists tried to reduce reality to indivisible entities. Imagine how surprising and frustrating it must have been for them to come so close, only to discover that elementary particles did not have an existence of their own! Thus, there were profound differences between Newtonian mechanics and quantum theory.
These generalities may seem confusing in a broad brush stroke, so we will spend a little more time considering each of these points in isolation.
Quantum Mechanics:
A quantum is a specific amount of energy or action, and first entered the physics lexicon when Max Planck discovered a specific amount of energy was realized depending on the amount of light that hit photographic plates. The amount of energy could never be divided into fractions smaller than that amount provided by a single photon, but always presented itself in whole numbers, or specific amounts – i.e. quanta – of energy. This discovery further led to Einstein’s discovery that light photons displayed characteristics of both waves and particles. The problem with this association was that previously items were either waves or particles, but they could not be both. Waves seemingly lacked physical mass, and particles seemingly had no reason or ability to move as waves. And yet a photon apparently had both energy and mass but still moved like a wave, providing it a duality characteristic that would extend into the realm of sub-atomic particles and help reshape physicists’ understanding of the nature of reality.
Quantum theory would demonstrate that subatomic particles were not the indestructible particles of classical physics: they also exhibited both wave and particle characteristics – similar to light. Rather than being permanent entities or independent particles with definite and enduring mass, sub-atomic matter reacted according to waves of interconnectedness; spider-web-like relations where the part was dependent upon and connected to the whole. Thus, nature was impossible to break into its constituent parts to consider how it might react according to the behaviors suggested by its building blocks but rather must be considered as a whole where the whole directed the manner in which the ‘building blocks’ would behave. This was the exact opposite conclusion suggested by classical physics.
The wave phenomenon added another aspect to modern physics, identified by Einstein as probability waves. An atomic event could never be stated or anticipated with any certainty but rather could only be predicted as a probability wave that showed how likely something was to occur. When given a beam of electrons, for example, quantum theory can accurately predict the probable distribution of those electrons over a given area in a given amount of time, but quantum theory cannot predict, even in principle, the course that a single electron will take along that path.(6) Because they are not tangible or permanent particles, subatomic particles demonstrate only tendencies to exist and probabilities to behave, move or be located in any particular area at any point in time. The idea that matter might wink in and out of existence in microseconds or less was certainly not a concept considered by Newton.
When two subatomic particles collide with high energies, they generally destroy themselves by breaking into pieces, but these pieces are not smaller than the original particles; nor are they components of the original from which the original is always made! The new particles are merely different sub-atomic particles based on the energies available during the collision. In this way, matter can be divided again and again, indefinitely, but we never obtain smaller pieces because we just create new particles out of the energy involved in the collision process. Subatomic particles are thus destructible and indestructible at the same time.(7)
Sub-atomic particles should not be thought of as basic building blocks, but rather as waves that exist as stable entities based on probabilities of the ‘quanta,’ or amount of energy present in the wave. Excited states may exist for short periods of time before excess energy is released and a more enduring, stable probability state is then realized. Expanding upon these ideas, Louis de Broglie dropped a bomb on the physics community that demolished what was left of the classical view of physics. He showed that not only were waves particles as Einstein had proven, but he claimed that particles were also waves!(8) De Broglie’s equation determined the wavelength of ‘matter waves’ that corresponded to matter. It says simply that the greater the momentum of a particle, the shorter is the length of its associated wave.
This explains why matter waves are not evident in the macroscopic world. De Broglie’s equation tells us that matter waves corresponding to even the smallest object that we can see are so incredibly small compared to the size of the object that their effect is negligible. However, when we get down to something as small as a subatomic particle, like an electron, the size of the electron itself is smaller than the length of its associated wave. Under these circumstances, the wave-like behavior of matter should be clearly evident, and sub-atomic particles should behave different than ‘matter’ as we are used to thinking about it.(9) Only two years after de Broglie presented this hypothesis, Clinton Davisson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories verified the hypothesis experimentally. Both were awarded Nobel Prizes for their work.
Atom:
In Newtonian physics matter was understood as being physical objects which could be broken down to ever progressively smaller items until the smallest solid, physical component was finally realized. A mountain, for example, might be composed of boulders, composed of rocks, composed of dust, composed of silicate molecules, composed of silicone and oxygen atoms, etc. As scientists came to understand atoms, they realized atoms were not the solid particles envisioned by classical physicists. Atoms, measuring on the order of a billionth of an inch in diameter, are composed of a nucleus and outer electron shells. Protons, neutrons and electrons comprise the main subatomic particles that make most stable atoms, and in turn are a hundred thousand times smaller than the atom itself.
Imagine a baseball blown up to the size of the Earth. Each of the baseball’s atoms would then be about the size of a grape, each placed snuggly against the others. In order to better understand an atom’s structure, one would need to imagine that grape-sized atom further blown-up to the size of a football stadium. As such, the nucleus of the atom would measure no larger than a grain of rice and electrons would be dust particles flying around the stands at unimaginable speeds near the speed of light. Matter is indeed mostly empty, ghostly space, as the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington characterized it. Or to be a little more precise, it is closer to 99.9999999 percent empty space.(10)
One might wonder then why it is not possible to walk through a wall if it is in fact almost purely empty space. The answer lies in the powerful atomic attractions that keep electrons moving in a stable 3-dimensional orbit around the nucleus of the atom at near the speed of light. Imagine a fan spinning its blades, creating the impression of a circle. One realizes logically it would be impossible to stick your hand through the spinning fan without getting cut even though there is more open space than solid fan blades between oneself and the goal of the other side. Similarly, the speed at which electrons are spinning around the nucleus creates an impenetrable shell through which most other particles cannot normally pass. Atoms may be tightly packed against one another, but they are not intermingled and do not pass through one another. Their electron orbits behave as if they were solid objects.(11)
Inside the atom are the three primary sub-atomic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. Scientists had theorized that these sub-atomic particles would in turn be comprised of other sub-atomic particles but the surprising answer to this theory caused the field to develop an entirely new line of study within quantum physics. Scientists learned how to smash these sub-atomic particles against one another in such a way that they divided into yet new sub-atomic particles. Interestingly, different sub-atomic particles were created after each collision based on probabilities, and not because a proton was comprised of distinct, ever smaller sub-atomic pieces. Indeed, collisions between a proton and another sub-atomic particle always create even larger particles. For example, a collision between a proton (mass 1836) and a negative Pion (mass 273) may create a neutral Kaon (mass 974) and a Lambda Baryon (mass 2183). These two new particles are each larger than the original particles from which they were derived, and are themselves highly unstable; each existing for less than a billionth of a second before decaying into more stable forms: the neutral Kaon into positive and negative Pions (mass 273 each); and the lambda decays into the original two particles, a negative Pion and a proton(!), thus creating more mass out of nothing but the energy of the original collision.(12)
It is evident here that one of the first classical physics laws broken in this Feynman Diagram, which describes the evolution of sub-atomic particles through collision and eventual decay, is the law concerning conservation of mass. In the above example, two lighter particles created two heavier particles, which in turn created four lighter particles, all of which were heavier than the two originals. Some mass was seemingly created from thin air for the first transformation, and then lost into the nothingness again for the ‘final’ decay. The answer to this conundrum is that matter is not actually made of matter!(13) Any search for the ultimate ‘stuff’ of the universe from which all other ‘stuff’ is derived ends with the discovery that there isn’t any. What we’ve found is that if there is any ultimate ‘stuff’ of the universe, that ‘stuff’ is pure energy. More specifically, subatomic particles are not actually made of energy they simply are energy. This amazing find was already apparent to Einstein when he theorized it in 1905.(14)
Einstein’s famous equation, e=mc², where e stands for energy, m stands for mass, and c stands for the speed of light, shows that there is a direct relationship between energy and mass. As an item’s energy increases, so does its mass and vice versa. How could this be possible, if atoms were made of ever-smaller pieces and somehow gained even more of those pieces as they increased their energy? Remember, it is possible to increase one’s energy in a variety of means, most commonly visualized by moving faster. Quite simply, the old Newtonian physics could not account for this observation. Realizing that everything is made of energy because everything simply is energy – in some form of stabilized state – made sense to Einstein. It also helps to explain how mass changes can occur with impacts between sub-atomic particles. Protons moving at a high rate of speed acquire more energy with their increasing rate of speed, thus providing sufficient energy needed to create heavier, albeit unstable, subatomic particles upon impact. When the heavier particles seemingly lose mass to decay into smaller particles, they may actually be shedding energy to reach a more stable form; energy that may be in another form altogether, such as light or heat.
What we have termed matter is actually constantly being created, annihilated and created yet again. This occurs both as particles interact and, quite literally, out of nowhere. Within a vacuum, particles may appear and vanish again in nanoseconds and faster. Thus, in particle physics there is no technical distinction between empty, as in the vacuum of space, and not empty, or even between something and not-something. The world of particle physics could be described as a world of sparkling energy forever dancing with itself as particles twinkle in and out of existence, collide, transform and disappear yet again.(15)
Newton’s void was summarily rendered all but obsolete. What one might perceive as the great emptiness of outer space was merely a perception, albeit a false perception.
Perceptions of physical reality:
Our life is full of false perceptions, but those perceptions are designed to help us deal with life in a physical reality. As a quantum physicist-philosopher might note, physical objects observed by a human may or may not exist as perceived by the human conscious. A simple example of this philosophical challenge would be to consider colors. Colors are simply an impression made on the human eye, relayed to the human consciousness, but are actually a subjective quality of a light-wave’s specific frequency. There is no color green for example – simply a light-wave which is translated in the human conscious to help humanity deal with the physical world surrounding it. Thus, the color green exists as a subjective experience perceived only in one’s mind.(16)
This provides the barest impression that there is some level of disconnect or separation between physical reality and human consciousness. One could note we never actually see light itself. When light strikes our eye we only become aware of this fact through the energy that is released on contact. This energy is then transmitted to the brain and is in turn translated into a visual image in the mind. Although the image our mind interprets appears to be composed of light, the light we ‘see’ is actually an interpreted quality, appearing in our consciousness. However, because of this disconnect we can never actually directly see or know what light is.(17)
Returning to the earlier discussion about sub-atomic particles moving into and out of existence based on probability factors and wave functions, one could extend the implications of this observation. Particles also do not seem to have an independent existence. Particles are represented in mathematical theory only by wave functions, and the meaning of the wave functions lie only in their correlations with other macroscopic things.(18) This idea is astounding because it implies that seemingly ‘solid’ objects like chairs and tables are macroscopic objects that are simply organizations of energy that merely provide some means by which our consciousness gains an impression of what physical reality must be like.
These impressions are such that we can believe that physical objects have a persisting existence in our reality, and have a well-defined location in space-time that is logically independent of other physical objects. Nevertheless, the concept of independent existence disappears when we zoom down to the level of individual particles. The limitation of the concept of independent existence at the level of particles emphasizes that even chairs and tables are, for us humans, but tools for correlating our experience in physical reality.(19)
The problem can be rectified by understanding the simplicity of the human mind when interpreting life in physical reality. In other words, the real problem is that humans are used to looking at the world in the simplest terms possible. We are accustomed to believing that something exists or doesn’t simply because we can or cannot see it, touch it, hear it, taste it, smell it, etc. Whether we can look at it or not, for example, we immediately reach a conclusion in our mind that it is either there or it is not there based on the results of our physical senses. Our experience in this regard has taught us that the physical world is solid, real, and independent of us. However, quantum mechanics asserts that this conclusion is simply not so.(20)
Indeed, the implication that colors do not exist is expanded by quantum mechanics to imply that even light photons themselves do not exist independently. Rather, all that exists in physical reality is an unbroken Unity that presents itself to us as webs of relations, according to quantum mechanics. Individual entities become idealizations, which are then correlations made by us to better experience the illusion of physical existence.(21) The implication here is that nothing can exist without consciousness to intend and then realize a physical reality wherein independent entities are then perceived. The implication could be further expanded such that what consciousness expected to perceive might then be realized as a result. The Cartesian partition between one’s self and the surrounding world, between the observer and the observed, or the scientist and the observed particle, cannot be made when dealing with atomic matter.(22) One interacts with and affects the other! These ideas have been proven in the lab by quantum physicists, and will be further described shortly. In the meantime, we will continue our discussion on perceptions.
Geometry, or more specifically, Euclidean geometry was developed by Greek mathematicians more than two thousand years ago to help describe relationships in space. Geometry was considered a proven mathematical discipline, but unfortunately its rules do not translate to a “real” three-dimensional world. Consider the rules of a square or parallelogram: four 90-degree angles connecting straight lines. Now consider a person standing at the North Pole and beginning a trek south. At the equator the person turns right ninety degrees and walks westward some distance. The person then turns right ninety degrees and walks north again. Eventually that person will reach the North Pole again, thereby creating a triangle, though the “rules” of a triangle prevent it from having two ninety-degree angles, and the ‘rules’ of a paral