For many years the quantum theory has posed many questions about our reality and it has even gone beyond it. Many have tried to explain it and this has led to the proliferation of many views but none of which have proven to be conclusive. Quantum theory still remains one of life’s many mysteries.
The momentum began with Max Plank who was studying black body radiation which concerned the emission of radiation without light from a heated body. This started as a simple investigation but soon his findings lead to the involvement of the larger scientific community which included the likes of Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. When Plank was carrying out his experiments he assumed that light is made of rays. He soon formulated Planks constant and this would eventually prove to be the making of quantum theory. When light was not considered in terms of rays, but rather as discontinuous portions of energy, infinities began crop up when Planks constant was used in experiments. Einstein would later postulate that light travels as packets of energy called quanta and not as continuous streams as Plank had suggested. The quantum theory arose from this conundrum of continuity or discontinuity of light - did light travel as a continuous oscillating wave of energy or as particles?
After a number of years it was noted by way experiment that at a subatomic level two particles can exist as both a wave of energy or as a particle. In the experiments it was found that when radiation was considered as having properties of a wave the experimental results would show that it also had properties of an element that consisted of particles. When the radiation was then taken as an element constituting of particles the experimental results would show that it exhibited wave properties. This became known as wave-particle duality. Quantum theory was born and its wave-particle duality paradox raised many questions about our reality and how we understand it.
In Ronald C. Pine’s text – Quantum Theory and Reality – he tells us that Neils Bohr attempted to explain quantum theory and so came up with the Copenhagen Interpretation. In the interpretation Bohr argued that in the macro level world that we live in we come up with opinions and beliefs that help us define the world around us. However, at a subatomic level nature simply does not allow this, the ideas are not admissible in the micro universe. Pine explains that Bohr argued that nature is using the paradox of quantum theory to inform us that, because our ideas are not applicable at the subatomic level, there is a problem with our train of thought. We simply cannot dictate subatomic phenomena using ideas we develop and use in our macro level world.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory has numerous implications on our reality. In this interpretation we find that nature plays a role in explaining quantum theory. Let us scrutinise this interpretation. To do this we have to ask ourselves what the constituent parts of nature are and what defines nature as a whole. Also, we have to look at the distinction between the subatomic and macro level world made by Bohr when he explains that our knowledge of the macro level is not applicable at the micro level.
We begin with an analogy. As humans we are multicellular organisms. These cells are our basic building blocks; they come together to form organs and tissue. These organs and tissue work together in a coordinated manner and thus allow us, the human organism, to function. This is a form of heirchy which starts at the smallest level, the cellular level, and moves up a series of levels up until it reaches the final level of the hierarchy which is us - the functional organism.
When we consider the human hierarchy we find that when an event occurs at any one level it affects all other levels. For example we can examine mutations. A mutation occurs in the DNA of the body. A mutation can occur at a gene in the DNA. This gene can be responsible for the formation of a specific protein. In turn, this protein can come together to form a particular enzyme. This enzyme can then be responsible for catalysing the synthesis of a particular bodily product that helps sustain the normal functioning of the body. If a mutation occurs on the said gene - for example if it is replaced by a gene that is inactive - this has a domino effect on the whole system. This means that the protein that is coded for by the gene may no longer be produced. In turn the enzyme formed from this protein will also not be produced and the product of the reaction catalysed by this enzyme will no longer be formed. Because the body is lacking this product it may experience difficulties in functioning normally. Not all gene mutations are harmful but some may be damaging. This example illustrates how an occurrence in one level of a hierarchy can affect all other levels.
Now let us go further by taking this gene. If we scrutinise this it we find that it consists of atoms. These particles come together to fulfil the function of DNA. What we see when we do this is the subatomic level of DNA which is another level of the human body’s hierarchy. What we note is that everything that makes up the human body is interlinked. From the smallest particle to the largest organs and limbs, none can exist nor function without the other. Also, if at all a disturbance occurs in any one level of the heirchy it will affect all other levels.
In essence nature is an interlinked system in the form of a heirchy similar to that of the human body. Bohr’s interpretation of the quantum theory argues that the paradox of quantum theory is nature’s way of telling us that our ideas are not relevant at a subatomic level. This level can be compared to that of the atomic level of DNA. Also his stating that our ideas are not applicable at this level can be compared to a disturbance in the DNA such as a mutation; a mutation that moves through each level of the human heirchy and affects the final level which is the functional organism. In the same way saying that our ideas are wrong at the subatomic level means that this statement will pass through natures very own hierchy. Eventually this idea reaches the final level which is the macro level - the level in which we interact with the world around us. The implication of this is that, due to the interlinked structure of nature, if our ideas are not applicable at the microlevel then it may also be true that they are faulty and not applicable at the macro level.
However,this may not be the case. When we are applying our knowledge while attempting to explain phenomena that occurs around us what we are essentially doing is describing a universal hierarchy, a wholesome combination of subatomic and macro level processes which bring about all we see and experience. This tells us there is yet a way in which our thoughts and knowledge can be applicable in the subatomic world. However, the fact that the quantum theory has been a theory that has been largely debated for many years shows us it is not that easy to impose our ideas at any level of this universal hierarchy.
There are many barriers to overcome when trying to rationalize the quantum paradox and one very big obstacle in trying to explain this paradox is ourselves. We as humans are the authors of nature’s laws. Before we assign these laws we have our own ideas of what attributes define nature. The Oxford online dictionary [1] gives the following definition of nature: “The physical force regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the world”. This definition tells us that there is a certain element out there that governs the world around us. It cannot be seen yet we believe this entity has some control over us and the world around us. We try to understand this entity by observation of the phenomena it causes. We then reach a conclusion that gives us meaning and reason for why the specific phenomenon occurs in a particular way. This conclusion is a law that describes this force we call nature.
As we continue to make more observations and carry out more and more experiments we assign more laws to nature. In essence, what we are doing is building up an image of this force called nature using our intellect and as a result our reality becomes a metaphysical representation of our thoughts. However, we sometimes encounter obstacles when trying to reach a conclusion about certain phenomena in nature. This means we struggle to use our intellect to assign laws to nature as is the case with the quantum paradox. Pine tells us that Einstein argued that we can only know as much as our intellect allows us to know. We simply do not possess the right amount of knowledge to explain certain phenomena. In this case we can then say that in certain situations we fail to come up with a metaphysical representation of our thoughts.
The problem here is not that nature uses paradoxes such as quantum theory to signal us that our ideas are flawed, the problem, rather, lies within our intellect. As previously stated - We assign these laws of nature using our thoughts. When we struggle to assign meaning to reality what is essentially happening is that this metaphysical representation of our thoughts, i.e. nature, is contradicting with our intellect. One representation of our thoughts is fighting the other. We are basically fighting ourselves in the struggle for enlightenment.
Pine’s text later goes on to tell us that Bohr’s idea of quantum theory was influenced by two experiments, Bell’s inequality and the Aspect experiment. In the Bell experiment, he argued that in quantum physics; prior to measurements, particles exist in all possible states. When two particles are measured the results show that their states are analogous to a very high degree. The Aspect experiment, however, violates Bell’s inequality and shows that there are forces which regulate and direct paradoxical measurements. These forces are found within an unknown micro level. Based on these two experiments Bohr argued that wave-particle duality is an indication of how an event can only exist once an observation or measurement is made. Prior to the observation there is nothing in existence.
Einstein was opposed to this idea. Instead he argued that the world around us works in an orderly manner; everything is already sprawled out for us in such a way that all we have to do is become critical enough and carry out observations and experiments in order to find out more about our universe.
We can draw some interesting concepts from both Bohr and Einstein’s arguments. First off there appears to be some sort of contradiction in Bohr’s argument. Recall the definition of nature given earlier. It told us that nature is some kind of dynamic power that drives and manages the marvels in our world. When we apply this force to Einstein’s argument of how the world is laid out for us we can say that this force we call nature is out there and is waiting for us to explore its many mysteries. Nature is pre-existent. Now, if we take nature in this form we can note that Bohr is using a force that already exists prior to observation to explain his argument about phenomena only existing only after an observation or measurement is made. This is done when he disputes that the quantum paradox is NATURE’s way of informing us of how our macro level ideals are not relevant in the subatomic realm; and when he reasons that a particle can only come in being once measured. There is a contradiction of ideas here and Bohr’s interpretation begins to seem a bit more unrealistic.
However, we can view Bohr’s argument from an alternate perspective. If we take the definition of nature and apply it to his argument we note something different. If the case is that particles only come into being after a measurement is taken then perhaps nature must work in the same manner. Nature only comes into action when we take notice of it with our senses. We can then go further and argue that our reality has no real meaning to it until we actually observe certain events. In the quantum theory it is argued that prior to observation a particle does not really exist in a definite state; it takes up all possible states until it is measured and all these states fall into one well defined state. Taking this into account, we can say that nature itself exists in all possible states before we actually note it in action - our reality only begins to appear as what it is once all its possible states prior to observation come together into one state which we can clearly distinguish. For instance gravity only becomes gravity once we experience it. We are constantly experiencing gravity here on Earth, or so it seems. We wouldn’t really be going out of our way if we suggested that we only think of gravity as being a continuous force because at any one moment our ever active senses are aware of its actions. Gravity may not be a continuous force, rather a force that is repeatedly coming into existence at a fast rate due to the continuous action of our senses. Take Bohr’s intepretation and we can say that if we were to switch off our senses Gravity would not exist, rather, it would be in a continues state of limbo where it occupies all possible states. The moment we switch on our senses it would come into play.
This, however, may not be the case. If we take the argument posed by Einstein, gravity may actually be a continuous force that is already out there and we are able to watch it in action and discover more and more about it once our critical minds decide to know more about this force.
We can attribute the struggle to overcome the quantum paradox to an established way of thinking. It has developed from basing our ideas on past experiences. This way of thinking has helped us in assigning many laws to nature and our reality. However, we have become so accustomed to it and its resulting laws for many years leading to the belief that nature operates in a particular way and order. If, according to quantum theory, at any one time a particle exists in two locations we consider this as unnatural. We then try to explain this phenomenon based on the knowledge gained from our experiences with different events from the past. These past experiences may have occurred on a regular basis and we became accustomed to them and eventually biased towards the reasons behind why they happen. When a phenomenon such as the quantum paradox is suggested we do not view it with an open mind, rather, we view it with our biased ideas. Because of this it is difficult to establish new ideas and if we decide not to follow some of the established ideas when trying to explain certain phenomena it is often met with great opposition.
Such is the case with the many theories that try to explain the quantum paradox. Some theories have been more adventurous in nature and hold some kind of truth behind them; such as part of the Mysticism and Convergence thesis that is described by Pine. Part of this thesis argues that ontologically we as humans are self-delusional in the sense that we consider ourselves to be superior to all other beings. The result of this is that we do not consider ourselves as part of reality, but as separate entities that have some kind of authority over it. When it comes to explaining quantum theory we do not consider ourselves to be part of it. We consider ourselves to be above its paradox thus resulting in us thinking of quantum theory as a portion of the reality we supposedly rule over. This egotistical nature is what is holding us back from understanding more about this quantum paradox.
I agree that we need to let go of ourselves and embrace nature as though we are part of it in order to better understand it. We are not as superior as we tend to think, the quantum paradox shows that nature still has an upper hand. We cannot figure out some of its workings. If we are supposedly superior beings then surely we would understand some of nature’s concepts such as evolution. We cannot battle nature to gain new insights into reality. In this battle nature will always to prevail.
To conclude we have noted that for many a year the paradox of quantum theory has proven to be problematic. Neils Bohr attempted to explain this theory using the Copenhagen Interpretation. We have seen that Albert Einstein was opposed to Bohr’s view. Taking into account both their arguments we have observed the different ways in which our reality could be perceived due to the paradox of quantum theory. Our reality appears to be constructed through our intellect and instead of distinguishing the macro level and subatomic levels of our reality we see it as one in the form of a hierarchy.
The ways in which the forces that govern our reality may differ – Perhaps, as Einstein had suggested, these forces are already existent throughout our world and in order to appreciate their workings we must examine them with a critical mind. On the other hand these forces may only come into existence once our senses become aware of them.
Nevertheless, to better understand these forces we have to let go of our biased ideas that are formed and established from different experiences. In this way we can approach the quantum paradox from all angles. When we think of the paradox itself we must release our false sense of superiority and think of ourselves as being in the same realm in which the puzzling quantum paradox occurs. We cannot fight nature and its many wonders. It is a battle we cannot win. Instead we must become part of its hierarchy if we are to become unstuck and move further forward in our quest for enlightenment.
