Further, that “entanglement has to do with the relationship
that exists between a pair of quantum particles whose fates are intertwined. If
for example, they were created in the same event, it would not matter if there
appeared to be any measurable distance between them as many of their properties
would be linked. The Copenhagen interpretation says that, in the example of two
spinning coins, neither of them is heads or tails. In the case of entanglement,
once one coin is stopped and becomes heads, the second coin will simultaneously
become tails. This suggested that somehow the two coins had to be communicating
instantaneously across space and time.”
And that “Einstein refused to believe this
faster than light communication as his theory of relativity said that nothing
could travel that fast, not even information. He referred to the phenomenon of
apparent communication between two quantum particles as ‘spooky action at a
distance’ and claimed that it was a flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation.
Einstein’s theory was that instead of there being any spontaneous occurrence,
somehow the destiny of the two quantum particles was already fixed long before
we were able to observe them and had instead been hidden from us. Einstein did
not view quantum particles as being anything like spinning coins that are
representative of a field of spontaneous potential or probabilities, but as
components of a larger picture of reality that we are simply becoming aware of
at any moment of observation.”
It seems that Einstein could not contend with the proposition that
the mechanics were to be understood as a probability without any causal
explanation and in a letter to Max Born in 1926, he wrote that “I, at any rate,
am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.” Einstein acknowledged that whilst
much had been accomplished, the work was not yet over and a model still had to
be developed and clarified to show the underlying causes from which apparently
random statistical methods resulted. It was not so much that Einstein rejected
the idea that positions in space-time were not knowable, but was uncomfortable
with allowing for the uncertainty principle to necessitate a seemingly random,
non-deterministic mechanism by which the laws of physics operated. He would
insist that quantum probabilities are epistemic and not ontological in nature.
It may be that Bohr was not as troubled by the same
concerns as Einstein, but was able to make his peace with the contradictions by his
proposition of complementarity, also referred to as a principle of
complementarity; this holds that objects have complementary properties which
cannot all be observed or measured simultaneously e.g. wave and particle. An
emphasis on the role of an observer over the observed is that it is not
possible to regard objects in the quantum world as having intrinsic properties
which are independent of determination with a measuring device; the type of
measurement determines which property is shown (albeit that experiments such as
the single and double-slit show that some effects of wave and particle can be
measured in one measurement).
A key aspect of complementarity is that it not only
applies to what can be measured or known of any property pertaining to an
entity but also applies to the limitations of that entity’s very manifestation
of a property in the physical world. All properties of physical entities exist
only in pairs, which Bohr described as complementary or conjugate pairs; Physical
reality is being determined and defined by the manifestation of properties
which are limited by trade-offs between these complementary pairs. An example would be of an electron being able
to manifest a greater and greater accuracy of its position only in even trade
for a complementary loss in accuracy of manifesting its momentum.
Complementarity and Uncertainty therefore dictate that all properties and
actions in the physical world manifest themselves as non-deterministic to some
degree.
The implications of this in terms of how we choose
to view our perception and experience of reality are huge, as it means that the
more we peer into any given property or facet of what is appearing before us,
the more we will lose touch with an ability to focus upon other properties
which are pertinent with regards to what is available for us to know. Clearly it
would be prudent not simply to focus upon events in isolation but to regard
them within context and as part of an ecosystem; implications being not only in
terms of how we have been interacting with the resources of the planet but of how
we are navigating in the midst of our human relationships, socio-economic and
cultural differences. Whilst self-interest remains paramount, it has inevitably
opened a doorway into the purposeful targeting of and influence of individuals,
communities and political agenda through stealth.
At this point in my narrative, it may appear as if I
am going to change tack slightly by revisiting one of the most fundamental philosophical
questions, which is ‘how did human beings get here and is there any larger purpose
for why we are here or do we determine purpose for ourselves?’ but it has
relevance to the discoveries that have been made in terms of revealing the
nature of a quantum world.
There are many who would answer that a creator
brought forth everything into existence and that this creator has a plan for its
creation, although we might never know what that is (but it could be revealed
to us when we die). This provides us with a spiritual and moral imperative to be
good citizens of our communities and to uphold particular religious doctrine and
tradition.
Others might argue that we can never know whether
there is a creator or not, so it is best to live life in the now and as fully
as possible (the level of regard for consequence will vary according to the
individual).
Others will be either outwardly hostile to the
suggestion of a creator or will express sympathy that a person who does believe
in a creator seems to have ‘a void’ in their experience of life which they are
drawn to fill with the presence of a supernatural deity.
I’d like to explore what I am able to glimpse of a worldview
of the agnostics and atheists so that I can become clearer as to their orientation
with regards to life. To begin with, how might they answer the question of
‘what can turn simple dust into human beings?’
The context from which many would begin to formulate
some form of response to this question may be appreciated as arising from a foundation of ‘chaos theory’, a theory which is regarded as accounting for the
unpredictable behaviour and tipping point of all manner of physical phenomena ranging
from the swinging of a pendulum to revolution to the stock market.
One of the pioneers of chaos theory and of a new field of science was the British mathematician Dr Mary Cartwright whose work in the 1940s, along with her colleague Professor J E Littlewood in connection with radar, contributed to the wartime defence of Britain against air attack. Cartwright and Littlewood began to explore the effect of differing values being fed into the standard equation they were using to predict amplifiers’ performance. What they were able to demonstrate with regards to oscillation was that as the wavelength of radio waves shortens, the performance is no longer regular and periodic but becomes unstable and unpredictable.
One of the pioneers of chaos theory and of a new field of science was the British mathematician Dr Mary Cartwright whose work in the 1940s, along with her colleague Professor J E Littlewood in connection with radar, contributed to the wartime defence of Britain against air attack. Cartwright and Littlewood began to explore the effect of differing values being fed into the standard equation they were using to predict amplifiers’ performance. What they were able to demonstrate with regards to oscillation was that as the wavelength of radio waves shortens, the performance is no longer regular and periodic but becomes unstable and unpredictable.
Cartwright and Littlewood’s contributions were valuable,
but it was to be another 20 years or so later before chaotic behaviour would be
recognised as vital and integral to all manner of physical systems in the
world. The physicist Freeman Dyson has pointed out that true mathematical
originality and innovation can be missed until later in time when the initial
groundwork for the work has been done. He has said that he remembers being
impressed with one of Cartwright’s lectures in 1942 and although could
appreciate the beauty and elegance of her discoveries, was unable to pick up on
its potential beyond an immediate context in which the work was being applied.
In 1961, when the mathematician and meteorologist Edward
Lorenz was running a weather simulation through an early computer and tested the
configuration a second time around, he noticed that the outcome differed
dramatically from an earlier run. He was able to track down this differential
to a small alteration that he had made in transferring the initial data.
In a paper published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences in 1963, Lorenz states: “Two states differing by imperceptible amounts may eventually evolve into two considerably different states … If, then, there is any error whatsoever in observing the present state – and in any real system such errors seem inevitable – an acceptable prediction of an instantaneous state in the distant future may well be impossible…In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”
In a paper published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences in 1963, Lorenz states: “Two states differing by imperceptible amounts may eventually evolve into two considerably different states … If, then, there is any error whatsoever in observing the present state – and in any real system such errors seem inevitable – an acceptable prediction of an instantaneous state in the distant future may well be impossible…In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”
Lorenz’ lecture entitled ‘does the flap of a
butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas’ became part of a chain
reaction in terms of a revolutionary understanding of the physical world; it drew
attention to the same kinds of unpredictability arising from small changes in
initial conditions that Cartwright and Littlewood’s work had recognised with
regards to radio waves. It turns out that there is an unexpected relationship
between order and chaos, but to be able to glimpse and appreciate this, we will
need to turn our attention towards pattern recognition.
It so happens that besides Cartwright, there was
another British scientist and mathematician whose work was of
immense value to the war effort and underpins the modern computer. His name was Alan
Turing and he worked as part of a project which was set up to crack the German
military codes. Turing had an uncanny ability to see patterns in the midst of
what appears to be chaos or of what is termed as a presence of the irregular in the natural world.
He began to explore the possibility that simple mathematical equations were
able to describe aspects of the biological world and in particular, that there
might be a mathematical basis to human intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment