DOES QUANTUM PHYSICS REQUIRE DISCARDING “EVERYDAY ASSUMPTIONS”?
Author Jed Brody wrote in the Preface to this 2020 book, “I read ‘The Tao of Physics’ in high school, and it left me hungry to understand the mathematical rigor that inspired mystical statements about quantum physics. I was equally unsatisfied in college physics courses, which had plenty of mathematical rigor but no mystical statements whatsoever. I wrote a term paper about quantum entanglement, which is mysterious if not quite mystical… but the information sank into my mind no further than the level that handles paraphrasing. One reason I didn’t understand quantum entanglement is that I had never done an experiment with entangled particles… Now that I’ve done experiments with entangled particles, I hope I’m able to explain the phenomenon to anyone who’s curious.” (Pg. ix)
In the first chapter, he explains, “The purpose of this book is to empower you to deeply understand how out common-sense assumptions impose constraints---from which entangled particles burst free. In other words, this book explains what quantum physics is NOT. Our task is to paint the negative space of quantum physics, a space composed of seemingly plausible theories that cannot account for measured results… Does the mathematics of quantum entanglement say something mystifying, or even mystical, about the universe?... should we be mystified by the quantum contradiction of our everyday assumptions? … We will see that our common-sense assumptions impose simple mathematical constraints on measurable quantities. These constraints are violated by both quantum theory and measured data.” (Pg. 1-3) Later, he adds, “By the end of this book, you will understand the reasoning that forces us to discard everyday assumptions, and you will be able to draw your own conclusions.” (Pg. 5)
He states, “People like Einstein were fed up with vagueness, uncertainty, and contradictions… Surely nature itself is not guilty of doublethink. Surely quantum physics can be massaged and refined, retaining its accuracy while eliminating the fuzziness and absurdity. Einstein, uncharacteristically, was wrong.” (Pg. xvii-xix)
He explains, “Einstein insisted on realism to preserve locality: the photons must have shared properties all along---from the moment they are created in a single location. And since these shared properties can’t be predicted with certainty in quantum mechanics must be incomplete… Einstein tirelessly defended our common-sense assumptions, which were shared by many other prominent physicists. But we can no longer accept Einstein’s argument in favor of local realism. Bell showed that local realism imposes constraints that may be either satisfied or violated by experiment. In fact, experimental violates these constraints (Bell inequalities), so local realism is overthrown in the laboratory.” (Pg. 38)
He argues, “There is a way to save realism: we can discard locality… Or, we can discard both realism and locality. This permits an interpretation of quantum mechanics that I find simple and expedient: measurement creates objectively real states… this interpretation is not consistent with realism, which requires measurable properties to exist prior to measurable properties to exist prior to measurement.” (Pg. 83)
He notes, “Spooky action at a distance is consistent with even the strangest consequence of relativity: the chronological order of events may depend on who’s observing. You and I may agree that YOU measure your photon before I measure mine, but someone traveling exceptionally fast may observe, instead, that MY measurement occurs first. The speedy observer sees the measurements occur in the opposite order, but the result is the same: the outcome of the first measurement is random, and the outcome of the second measurement is compelled to be the same.” (Pg. 119)
He observes, “Some physicists have actually proposed that consciousness creates objectively real states. Before registering in someone’s consciousness, the photon is in a fundamentally undetermined and unknowable state---and so is everything it encounters on its way, in an avalanche of indeterminacy! In this view, the computer screen is in some unimaginable combination of showing BOTH MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OUTCOMES before the conscious observer comes along.” (Pg. 131)
He concludes, “According to the Qbists, there is absolutely no action at a distance. If I measure the polarization of one entangled photon and find it to be horizontally polarized, I immediately believe with 100 percent certainty that the other photon will also be horizontally polarized… I don’t permanently encamp with the QBists. But on occasion, QBism feels like an invigorating breeze that clears away a cloying miasma of confusion… we step outside of QBist science when we speculate about things that can never be directly observed. What happens to objects that no one’s looking at?... The visible universe does not completely blink out of QBist existence when we close our eyes… QBism preserves our common sense. Quantum mechanics is classified as a prediction took, not a gateway to ultimate reality. QBism sweeps the cobwebby spookiness out of quantum physics … There’s no action at a distance, and there’s no speculation… about what particles are doing when we’re not looking at them. But we can push this idea in a direction unintended by QBist’s inventors. If we really believe that direct observation is the only reality, then, looking at the night sky is a single truth; observer and observed cannot be logically separated. And the quest to preserve locality leads to unification with everything we see.” (Pg. 145-147)
This book will interest those studying creative presentations of quantum mechanics.