Quantum Interpretations - Relevance to New Ideas

Even if you don’t know (nor care) about quantum mechanics, this blog might still be interesting in understanding how/why change doesn’t happen easily in any prevailing system of any kind – science, philosophy, politics… Try and see the parallels of many of the things described in this blog into other areas.

 

The maths of quantum mechanics is unparalleled and unquestioned. But what is the underlying reality that the theory describes? This is the “interpretation” question that Adam Becker explores in What is Real?

 

The ruling interpretation is called the Copenhagen interpretation. Why despite so many unanswered, contradictory, and vague aspects does it still remain Number One? Why didn’t any of the alternative interpretations catch on for so long?

 

For one, John von Neumann, the great mathematician, had come up with a proof very early that a certain class of alternative interpretations was impossible:

“The mere name of ‘von Neuman’ and the mere word ‘proof’ silenced the detractors.”

Name dropping happens in all fields.

 

But von Neuman’s “proof” was wrong! Grete Hermann pointed the flaw out very early, but she was ignored. Why?

“Partly because she was an outsider to the physics community – and partly because she was a woman.”

Sound familiar?

 

Another reason was that the Copenhagen interpretation aligned with the popular belief system of the time – logical positivism. It basically said that:

“Any statement that made reference to something unobservable was not only bad science, it was literally meaningless.”

This too is true for most ideas – if they align with the general governing value system of the time, they stick.

 

And then World War II happened. Quantum mechanics had unleashed the power of the atomic bomb:

“Damned by their success in building the bomb, military research dollars poured into physics.”

Soon miniaturized electronics came up, all of which was based on the behavior of the quantum world. Who then was interested in touchy-feely things like “interpretation”, when there were real benefits to be had from the theory? This mindset is famously captured by the line:

“Shut up and calculate.”

Don’t think about what it means; after all, it works. Besides, one had to show concrete output for all that money poured in. Careers could be (and were) ruined if they drifted into interpretation. Even without malice, things can end up in certain ways.

 

But of course, alternative interpretations still came up. David Bohm came up with one – but he got caught in the American paranoia (and witchhunt) of the 50’s of anyone who showed communist sympathies. He ended up fleeing first to Brazil, and then Israel. Inevitably, his interpretation never got a fair hearing:

“Bohm’s geographical and ideological isolation was taking a serious toll on his scientific work.”

 

Hugh Everett III came up with yet another alternative interpretation. But he had no interest in academia –he had other career prospects. He wasn’t a bitter, frustrated or persecuted man – he just wanted to have a good (and peaceful) life. That too is true for so many people, isn’t it?

 

But even as Copenhagen continues to rule, why has Everett’s interpretation (Many Worlds) caught on in recent times? Becker says one reason is that the governing value system (logical positivism) had passed its expiry date. Its replacement system could be aligned with Everett’s idea. Another reason is that David Deutsch had shown that quantum computers could, in theory, solve problems way faster that classical computers:

“Suddenly, entanglement and Bell’s theorem weren’t just (an interpretation question)… practical questions of computing technology and cryptography were at stake.”

As in all fields, sometimes, the stars have to line up for an alternative to be taken seriously.