Just Maybe?! by Shayna Abrams - HTML preview

Quantum Physics  - This Is The Clincher

Quantum physics is a branch of science that deals with discrete, indivisible units of energy called quanta. There are five main ideas represented in Quantum Theory:

Energy is not continuous, but comes in small but discrete units.

The elementary particles behave both like particles and like waves.

The movement of these particles is inherently random.

It is physically impossible to know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. The more precisely one is known, the less precise the measurement of the other.

The atomic world is nothing like the world we live in.

The truth is that physicists are in general agreement that no one really understands quantum mechanics.

In order to try and understand quantum theory, we need to forget everything we know about cause, effect and reality. Quantum physics has its own rules of probability that make no sense in our everyday world.  It reveals something extraordinary about our very understanding of what constitutes reality.

Quantum theory is so complex that trying to explain even a limited overview of this topic in one chapter is impossible. However, in order to grasp the basic principles involved, I found a great explanation of two vital experiments that should give you a better picture of what quantum theory is trying to tell us.  The explanation of these experiments has been provided by Mr. Keith Mayes.  You can read more of his very reader friendly explanations of quantum mechanics at www.thekeyboard.org.uk.

We will start with the famous double slit experiment as it demonstrates beautifully the central mystery of quantum theory. Quantum theory however, needs some introduction before we get too involved in the experiment.

Because of the work done in Copenhagen by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, the standard explanation of what takes place at the quantum level is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation.

In the past, physicists have imagined the electron orbiting around the nucleus. It turns out that that is not what is happening.  In fact, in quantum mechanics in order to integrate the idea of an electron having both particle and wave characteristics, you have to imagine that the electron of the atom does not travel on a distinct path like a typical particle might.  Instead of traveling on a distinct path around the nucleus, it kind of 'teleports' itself around the area of the nucleus.

In other words, imagine a “pulse” on a string traveling down the string.  Now imagine the electron “teleporting” within the region of the pulse as it moves down the string. Now imagine that the “pulse” is not a single “pulse” but a short wave train.  The electron essentially jumps from one wave to another. 

An analogy that could explain this concept slightly better would be imagining a surfer on their surfboard riding one wave then another.  The surfer (or the electron), although they are something independent from the waves (a particle), essentially becomes part of the waves if they are a really good surfer.

Because particles such as electrons behave like waves as well, it is necessary to have a different set of rules to explain the behavior of particles sub-atomically.  Physical laws for larger tangible objects, such as marbles, for example, make it possible to describe precisely where the marble is, what it is doing and what it is about to do.

The same cannot be said for particles. They are, quite literally, a law unto themselves.  The classic experiment to illustrate this is the famous double slit experiment, originally devised to determine if light travels as waves or particles.

The Double Slit Experiment

If light travels as particles, we can imagine particles of light, otherwise known as photons, as bullets fired from a rifle. Imagine a brick wall with two holes in it, each the same size and large enough to fire bullets through, with a second wall behind where the bullets will strike. After firing a few rounds you would expect to see on the second wall two clusters of hits in line with the two holes. This is, of course, precisely what you get with bullets, so if we get the same result with photons we can say they are particles.

Now imagine that instead of particles, that light travels as a wave.  Imagine a wave inside a water tank.  As the wave spreads out from its source it would reach both holes at the same time and each hole would then act as a new source. Waves would then spread out again from each of the holes, exactly in step, or in phase, and as the waves moved forward, spreading as they go, they would eventually interfere with one another. Where both waves are lifting the water surface upward, we get a more pronounced crest; where one wave is trying to create a crest and the other is trying to create a trough the two cancel out and the water level is undisturbed. The effects are called constructive and destructive interference.

If we carried out this procedure with light instead of water, and if light travels as waves, then the pattern on the second wall would appear as an interference pattern of alternate dark and light bands across the wall. Particles, on the other hand, would produce two separate areas of light (where the bullets would hit). This experiment has in fact been carried out many, many times, with the same results every time, and the results are nothing less than amazing.

Diagram provided by Mr. Keith Mayes at http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk

When the experiment is set up as shown in the above diagram, with both slits open, the resulting interference pattern clearly shows that light behaves as a wave. Now if that was all there was to it we could all fold up our tents and go home, happy in the knowledge that light travels as a wave; but there is much more to it than that. This is where the word 'weird' can become over-used.

If the experiment is set up to fire individual photons, so that only one photon at a time goes through the set up, we would not expect the same interference pattern to build up; we would surely expect that a single photon would only go through one hole or another, it cannot go through both at the same time and create an interference pattern. So what happens?

If we wait until enough individual photons have passed through to build up a pattern - and this takes millions of photons - we do not get two clusters opposite the two holes, we get the same interference pattern! It is as if each individual photon “knows” that both holes are open and gives that result. Each individual photon, passing through the set up will place itself on the wall in such a position that when enough have passed through they have collectively built up an interference pattern, when there cannot possibly be any interference!

If we repeat the experiment, this time with only one hole open, the individual photons behave themselves and all cluster around a point on the detector screen behind the open hole, just as you would expect. However, as soon as the second hole is opened they again immediately start to form an interference pattern. An individual photon passing through one of the holes is not only aware of the other hole, but also aware of whether or not it is open!

We could try peeking, to see which hole the photon goes through, and to see if it goes through both holes at once, or if half a photon goes through each hole. When the experiment is carried out, and detectors are placed at the holes to record the passage of electrons through each of the holes, the result is even more bizarre. Imagine an arrangement that records which hole a photon goes through but lets it pass on its way to the detector screen. Now the photons behave like normal, self respecting everyday particles. We always see a photon at one hole or the other, never both at once, and now the pattern that builds up on the detector screen is exactly equivalent to the pattern for bullets, with no trace of interference. As if that was not bad enough, it gets even worse! We do not need to place detectors at both holes, we can get the same result by watching just one hole. If a photon passes through a hole that does not have a detector, it not only knows if the other hole is open or not, it knows if the other hole is being observed! If there is no detector at the other hole as well as the one it is passing through, it will produce an interference pattern, otherwise it will act as a particle. When we are watching the holes we can't catch the photon going through both at once, it will only go through one. When we are not watching, it will go through both at the same time! There is no clearer example of the interaction of the observer with the experiment. When we try to look at the spread-out photon wave, it collapses into a definite particle, but when we are not looking it keeps its options open.

What the double slit experiment demonstrates is this: each photon starts out as a single photon - a particle - and arrives at the detector as a particle, but appears to have gone through both holes at once, interfered with itself, and worked out just where to place itself on the detector to make its own small contribution to the overall interference pattern. This behavior raises a number of significant problems! Does the photon go through both holes at the same time? How does a photon go through both holes at the same time? How does it know where to place itself on the detector to form part of the overall pattern? Why don't all the photons follow the same path and end up in the same place?

As a possible explanation it could perhaps be said that this is just one more example of the extraordinary nature of light, after all it does have some very unusual properties. Photons have no rest mass for example, a very odd property! Light is also unique in that it always travels at the same speed. However you move, and however the light source moves, when you measure the speed of light you always come up with the same answer. By way of comparison, two cars approaching each other and each having a speed of 30 mph will be approaching each other at a speed of 60 mph. Two light beams, both travelling of course at the speed of light, will be approaching each other at the speed of light, not twice the speed of light. Perhaps the weird behavior of photons in the experiment is due to the weird nature of light. Unfortunately, further experiments have demonstrated that this is not the case. Electrons have been used instead of photons, and they not only have mass, they have an electric charge, and furthermore they move at different speeds depending on circumstances, like normal everyday objects. The double slit experiments still gives the same result using electrons as it does using photons; electrons also alter their behavior depending on whether or not they are being observed. The experiment has even been performed using atoms, again with the same result, and atoms are large enough to be individually photographed, they are very real solid objects. This odd behavior of particles is a very real phenomenon.

The double slit experiment is not simply an oddball theory that has no application in the real world. This strange behavior of particles lies at the very heart of our understanding of the physical properties of the world. Quantum theory is used in many applications, including television and computers, and even explains the nuclear processes taking place inside stars.

One possible explanation for quantum weirdness is a theory concerning the nature of the wave that is passing through the experiment. The key concept of the theory, which forms a central part of the Copenhagen Interpretation, is known as the “collapse of the wave function.” The theory seeks to explain how an entity such as a photon or an electron, could “travel as a wave but arrive as a particle.” According to the theory, what is passing through the experiment is not a material wave at all, but is a “probability wave.” In other words, the particle does not have a definite location, but has a probability of being here or there, or somewhere else entirely. Some locations will be more probable than others, such as the light areas in the interference pattern for example, and some will be less probable, such as in the dark areas. In this theory, an electron that is not being observed does not exist as a particle at all, but has a wave-like property covering the areas of probability where it could be found. Once the electron is observed, the wave function collapses and the electron becomes a particle. This theory rather neatly explains the behavior of the particles in the double slit experiment. When we are not looking at the particle, the probability wave, of even a single particle, is spread out and will pass through both slits at the same time and arrive at the detector as a wave showing an interference pattern. When we observe the electron by placing detectors at the slits, it is forced into revealing its location which causes the probability wave to collapse into a particle. If the theory is correct, its implications are staggering. What it suggests is that nothing is real until it has been observed!

Nothing is real until it has been observed! This thought clearly needs consideration. Are we really saying that in the “real” world - outside of the laboratory - that until a thing has been observed it doesn't exist? This is precisely what the Copenhagen Interpretation is telling us about reality. This has caused some very well respected cosmologists (Stephen Hawking for one) to worry that this implies that there must actually be something “outside” the Universe (maybe the Life Force of the Universe, or, in other words, G-d) to look at the Universe as a whole and collapse its overall wave function. John Wheeler puts forward an argument that it is only the presence of conscious observers, in the form of ourselves, that has collapsed the wave function and made the Universe exist. If we take this to be true, then the Universe only exists because we are looking at it. As this is heading into very deep water, I think we will have to leave it there and move on to the next experiment.

Schrödinger 's 'Cat-in-the-Box Experiment'

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the probability wave of an electron requires the act of observation by a conscious observer to collapse it into a definite particle, and thus have a definite location. We can imagine a closed box containing just a single electron. Now until someone looks in the box, the probability wave associated with the electron will fill the box uniformly, thus giving an equal probability of finding the electron anywhere inside the box. If a partition is introduced into the middle of the box that divides it into two equal boxes, still without anyone looking inside, then common sense tells us that the electron must be in one side of the box or the other. But this is not the case according to the Copenhagen Interpretation which says that the probability wave is still evenly distributed across both half-boxes. This means that there is still a 50:50 chance of finding the electron in either side of the box. When somebody looks into the box, the wave will then collapse and the electron will be noticed in one half of the box or the other, but it will only at the moment of observation “decide” which half it will be in. At the same time the probability wave in the other half of the box vanishes. If the box is then closed, and the electron no longer observed, its probability wave will again spread out to fill the half box, but cannot spread back into the other half of the box that was empty.

The way that a quantum wave moves is described by Erwin Schrödinger's wave equation and describes the probability for finding a photon, or electron, at a particular place. Schrödinger did not however, go along with the “collapse of the wave function” theory, he thought it was nonsense, and designed “thought experiments” to prove his point. In an attempt to demonstrate the foolishness - as he saw it - of quantum theory, Schrödinger devised the cat-in-a-box thought experiment.

In Schrödinger's original thought experiment he used radioactive decay because that also obeys the rules of probability. We, however, shall use our box with the partition and electron again, as we are now familiar with it.

Imagine we have our box with the partition in place, and the electron's probability wave evenly spread between both halves of the box. We have now added a device that will, at a given time, automatically open up one half of the box to the room. There is a 50:50 chance that when opened the box will contain the electron that is now free to enter the room. The room is sealed and has no windows that would allow any outside observations to be made. Inside the sealed room there is a cat, a container of poisonous gas, and an electron detector. The experiment is so designed that if the electron detector detects an electron it will release the poisonous gas into the room, which would prove very unfortunate for the poor cat. If, on the other hand, that half of the box does not contain the electron, the poisonous gas will not be released into the room and our cat, henceforth known as Lucky, will continue to enjoy good health, providing it keeps away from busy roads.

Taking a common sense view of the situation, we would say that when the experiment has run its course, and an observer enters the room, they will find the cat either dead or alive. But we already know enough about quantum theory to realize that common sense doesn't apply here, and instead we have to turn to the Copenhagen Interpretation for an explanation.

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, when the lid of one half of the box is opened, it is not an electron, or not as the case may be, that is released into the room, but the probability wave of the electron as it has not yet been observed. This raises the question of whether or not the cat can be regarded as a conscious observer. If it can be then where do we draw the line? Would a fly or an ant count? How about a bacterium? As this is again getting into rather deep and murky water, we will skip over this problem and continue with our experiment, otherwise we run the risk of becoming seriously side-tracked. So the probability wave spreads into the room, not an electron (or no electron). The electron detector is itself composed of microscopic entities of the quantum world (atoms, particles and so on) and the interaction of the electron with it would take place at this level, so the detector is also subject to the quantum rules of probability. Taking this view, the wave function of the whole system will not collapse until a conscious observer enters the room. At that moment the electron “decides” whether it is inside the box or in the room, the detector “decides” whether it has detected an electron or not, and the cat “decides” whether it is dead or alive. Until that moment, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the cat is not either dead or alive, it describes the situation as a “superposition of states.” Only the act of observation will cause it to become one or the other. Schrödinger described the situation as 'having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts.' The Copenhagen Interpretation does not allow for the room to actually contain a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time, or a cat that is neither dead nor alive, suspended in limbo. But contains either a dead cat or a live cat, until someone looks, and it is then that the actual reality of the situation is determined.

Cat lovers please note. This experiment has never been carried out, and never will be. This is not only because it would be a very cruel thing to do, but because it wouldn't prove anything. An observer upon entering the room would find either a dead cat or a living one, but could not observe what processes preceded this event. Any previous observation would of course defeat the object of the experiment.

The problems highlighted by the cat-in-a-box experiment raise some very deep questions. What, for example, are the requirements needed to qualify as a “conscious observer?” Do the probability waves of particles spread out again when not observed and particles somehow become less “real,” as described by the Copenhagen Interpretation? Does the Universe exist only because we are here to observe it? Could a cat really be in a “superposition of states,” either dead or alive, until the moment of observation? This goes entirely against all our common sense experience of life, we would naturally conclude upon finding the cat alive that it had “obviously” been alive all the time. Quantum theory is telling us that we could be very wrong in our thinking regarding what reality really is.

What Does This Prove?

Actually, these experiments don’t “prove” anything at all.  The only thing we can really learn from these experiments is that we don’t know anything. Even scientists, after hundreds of years of studying the physical properties of the world that we live in, have been set back by these relatively new theories.

These theories cannot be explained in terms of physicality.  They can only be discussed in terms of “what if?”  That is all I want you to ask yourself.  What if?

What if there is a greater power than you?

What if this greater power wants you to survive for the sake of the rest of the Universe?

What if you could find out the secrets of the Universe?

What if everything that you think about manifests itself in some way that is hidden in your perspective of reality?  In other words, what if you actually have what you were asking for the whole time and just don’t understand that it was you were requesting?

What if you were able to analyze your life under a microscope, paying special attention to the repetitive experiences, and found that you are able to see a clearer picture as to why things happen to you the way they do?

What if you were able to learn something about yourself after you discover that you never really wanted what you thought you wanted?

What if, after figuring out that you may have been “wanting” something other than what you really want, you are able change what you want into something more valuable to yourself?

What if after you started thinking about “wanting” something else, you were able to actually experience those thoughts manifesting themselves into physicality as long as you maintained patience and faith in the Life Force of the Universe?

What if all this were true?  Would you try and work on yourself?  Would it make the work seem worth the effort if you knew in your heart that we each have a unique purpose in this world and in order to enhance our experiences here, we must first find our purpose?

If you knew for sure that there was a higher ulterior purpose to living, would you really care about some of the things you think you care about now?

Is it possible for you to reconsider any and all information that does not stand up to the criteria of being considered a “fact” and understand that they may not be actual “facts”?  This does not mean that you have to argue with everyone because they don’t know what they are talking about.  It means that you have to assume they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to your life.

Are you able to acknowledge that things that you might want to call “facts” may only be your opinion?

With regards to other peoples’ life, beliefs and opinions – are you able to understand and/or empathize, but not necessarily agree with, another perspective besides your own?

How important is world peace to you?

What can you do that would help bring a peaceful existence to our world?

This last question is, depending on how important peace is to you, the most important question you can ask yourself.  This may seem like a very loaded question, but that is because we tend to think big when it comes to this subject.  Try thinking very small this time.  Think baby steps.  What can you do to bring peace into your personal environment? 

By consistently behaving respectfully and lovingly to others that are in your personal life, you will eventually open the hearts of those people and they, maybe not even consciously, will reciprocate your behavior to others that are in their personal lives and so on.

It really does work like this.  It does take a lot of time and patience and is not a quick fix.  Everyone must do their part – even if their part is infinitesimal.  It won’t be easy, but you have already begun the process by reading about this subject.  There are many, many more books like this one, but written from a different perspective that may help you see your life that much more clearly.   I have included a recommended reading list at the end of this book for those of you who would like to explore this topic more deeply.  Encourage others to try and open their minds as well.  Live life peacefully and with joy.  This is all we really have to do in order to evolve according to the plans of the Life Force of the Universe.

You don’t have to believe anything I say, you only have to say maybe….