Trinh Xuan Thuan - "The Quantum and the Lotus" - Part II

 I am continuing the previous post: Trinh Xuan Thuan - "The Quantum and the Lotus" - Part I. My aim is here the same: to demonstrate how easy it is to criticize (especially with some authors). But, in addition, the content of these posts has also a pedagogical function.

Thuan and Heisenberg

To start with, let us consider this statement of Thuan:

Heisenberg demonstrated that there is a fundamental limitation to our ability to know the microscopic world.

Yes, that is true. Heisenberg derived a certain mathematical inequality, known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and he proposed, in a particular example, one way of understanding it. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle deals with statistical averages, not with individual events. As Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points it out: “The interpretation of these relations has often been debated. … The debate between these different views has been addressed by many authors, but it has never been settled completely.” Moreover, Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations are based on the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, and these may well change in the future, when quantum theory will be replaced by another theory.

Cartoon by John Richardson for Physics World, March 1998

Therefore, contrary to what Thuan is saying, Heisenberg did not demonstrate that there is a fundamental limitation to our ability to know the microscopic world. Heisenberg simply presented some particular arguments that this may, indeed, be the case, but he did not demonstrate it!

Suggestion vs. Truth

But Thuan interprets Heisenberg’s suggestion as if such a limit has been accepted as unquestionable truth, beyond any doubt, probably because such an interpretation fits the Buddhist philosophy that he has arbitrarily chosen. In short: Thuan, in his statement about Heisenberg, distorts the truth. But then it gets even worse (or better, depending on your point of view). Thuan writes:

There is thus a basic limitation to our knowledge of the atomic and sub-atomic world. There is no hope of ever measuring both the momentum and the position of a subatomic particle at the same time with any arbitrary accuracy.

The problem with what Thuan is writing above is that no basic limitation can follow from a theory that has been tested only in certain circumstances and the applicability of which is doubtful in other circumstances. And, moreover, while some people give up and abandon any hope, some others are still working on it – for instance there are alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, and to the orthodox, textbook version of quantum theory itself.

Thuan Neglects Scientific Logic: Gets Religion

The reasoning of Thuan shows neglect of scientific logic. From “Heisenberg tells us” he deduces that what Heisenberg tells us - must be accepted without any questioning whatsoever. That sounds more like a religion than Science. And that seems to be the point: Thuan is trying to prove Buddhism with science!

Thuan writes:

Quantum mechanics states that when an electron is in this wave state, we can never predict where it will be at any given moment; all we can do is evaluate the probability of its being in a particular position.

Quantum mechanics cannot “state” anything. A physicist can state one thing, another physicist can state something else. They may disagree with each other. The formulation “when an electron is in this wave state” does not make any sense at all.

According to what we find in the textbooks, an electron’s state is represented by a “Hilbert space vector” or by a “density matrix”. Thuan may call it a “wave state” – that is not important. What is important is that, strictly speaking, an electron always “appears as a wave” – which can be well localized, or not so well localized. The term “probability of its being in a particular position” also makes no sense at all. Since “a particular position” is a set of measure zero, the probability of finding the electron at “a particular position” is always zero. I see no excuse for such clumsiness and carelessness of expression, especially in an article written for philosophers. Should scientists teach philosophers (one of the contributors to the volume is a professional philosopher) and theologians how to reason in a clumsy way?

Thuan, Max Born and Schrödinger

Thuan writes:

The German physicist Max Born showed that this probability is equal to the square of the amplitude of the wave function given by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger.

This is another clumsy and misleading sentence. Max Born did not “show” the above, not to mention that the term “probability” should be replaced by “probability density”. Max Born, in his often quoted paper, “proposed”, and even proposed it wrongly; he omitted “the square”, and only in a footnote, added later, did he suggest that it should be the square of the amplitude, and not the amplitude itself – as he erroneously stated in the text of his paper.

A Suggestion, A Proposal, is Not a Fact!

Once again Thuan takes someone’s proposal and treats it as if it was God Himself who said that, and everybody is supposed to accept it – otherwise Hell is beckoning with open arms!

Thuan continues:

The chance of finding the electron is highest at the crests of the wave function and lowest at the troughs. But even at the crests, there is never complete certainty that the electron will be found there. The chances may be 80 percent or 92 percent, but never 100 percent.

Completely misleading! The distribution of chances depends on the wave function, and these come in all kinds of shapes.

Probably, because of his lack of experience with quantum theory, Thuan assumes a bell-shaped distribution. But then, again, the chance of finding the electron exactly at the crest is always zero. On the other hand the probability of finding the electron “in the vicinity of the crest” depends on how large this vicinity is assumed to be. Depending on that size, the probability can be “almost zero” or “almost one”. If, instead of a bell-shaped Gaussian wave function, we take a wave function that is also “bell-shaped”, but strictly localized (non-Gaussian) in a bounded region of space, then the probability of finding the electron in this region will be strictly 100% (at the moment when the wave is so localized) – contrary to what Thuan tells us.

Are these just unfortunate expressions, or is Thuan actually thinking in such a muddled and misleading way? (I am asking myself.)

Thuan’s Religion of Science and Quantum Theory

Thuan presents Science in general and quantum theory in particular as though it was a religion. He starts with “According to Niels Bohr”, or “According to Bohr and Heisenberg”, but then he goes on as though what Bohr or Heisenberg once said was a religious creed that must be accepted by everybody, without any discussion. He states that “quantum mechanics reinstated the observer to pre-eminent status”, as if he knew nothing about the long and serious discussions among physicists and philosophers about the foundations of quantum mechanics.

To be continued...

P.S.1.  More Confucius quotes:

P.S.2  À propos the comment left below by Bjab (Thank you Bjab!): here is my animation of the Dzhanibekov effect:

Dzhanibekov effect (эффект Джанибекова ). Or tennis racket. Animation with Mathematica using explicit solution (elliptic functions).

My Mathematica code can be downloaded from this link.

P.S.3. I am working on a review of a publication about the beauty of Aristotle's physics (and logic). The Author sent me the link to this funny lecture by Carlo Rovelli:

The St Cross Centre for the History and Philosophy of Physics held a lecture by Professor Carlo Rovelli (Aix-Marseille University) entitled 'Scientific Thinking Across the Centuries and the Foundations of Physics' on Friday 4 June 2021.

Carlo Rovelli: "ignore science in political and social decisions leads to disaster"

 ... Despite being a pioneer in the research of what is known as quantum gravity - a field of physics that seeks to integrate Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics - this professor at the University of Aix-Marseille abandoned anonymity in 2014 with the short but poetic book Seven brief lessons in physics. Since then, Rovelli's name has emigrated from the scientific microcosm to sneak among those of literary celebrities and step on Dan Brown, Umberto Eco and Michel Houellebecq in the best-selling book rankings. Without anticipating or believing it, it became an international bestseller, surpassing in sales Fifty shades of Grey Italy. More than in his charisma or histrionics in front of the cameras, the root of his success lies in his style. Halfway between a poet and a myth narrator, this 62-year-old researcher - who tried to change the world as a student through politics in the 1970s and now does so with a chalk and a blackboard - weedsing his description of disciplines that touched him esoteric and exhibits the biography of the cosmos as what it is: an epic of knowledge. No wonder so, rightly, compare the general theory of relativity with the Requiem of Mozart, the Odyssey Homer and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel.

P.S.4. Yet another deep proverb to keep in mind:

P.S.4. Accidentally found: Interesting concept:

"A conversational narcissist is someone who constantly turns the conversation toward themselves and steps away when the conversation is no longer about them. They are generally uninterested in what other people have to say. "

"Unless the conversational narcissist is talking, or someone else is talking about them, they are not interested. According to Durvasula, they will appear visibly uncomfortable, bored, contemptuous, or distracted when other people are talking." 

P.S.5. Another find:

You Are Not the Center of the Universe. Admit It and You'll Be More Confident Than Ever, According to Science 

P.S.6. While reading Penrose's “Road to Reality” I am seeing traces of “Mannerism”.

Common Characteristics of the Art of Mannerism

Tell me about Mannerism

For instance he writes (for instance p. 533)

|| ψ || = < ψ | ψ >

while everybody else, both mathematicians and physicists, writes

|| ψ ||² = < ψ | ψ >.

And he is doing it on purpose, consequently. I appreciate the tendency of being original, but is it really necessary in such cases?

P.S.7. I can't help it!!! Back to photons! A. Neumaier - Classical and quantum aspects of light

P.S.8. 

Anti-photon 

W.E.  Lamb,  Jr. 

Optical Sciences Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA 

Received: 23 July 1994/Accepted: 18 September 1994 

"Abstract.  It  should  be  apparent  from  the  title  of  this  article that  the author does not like the use  of the word  "photon", which dates from 1926. In his view, there is no such  thing  as  a  photon.  Only  a  comedy of errors  and historical accidents led to its popularity among physicists and optical scientists. (...)"

And there:

"Photons cannot be localized in any meaningful manner, and they do not behave at all like particles, whether described by a wave function or not."

Is that the case? Is it true?

P.S.9 No comment:

P.S.10. What the heck? In fact I was trying to post THIS!!!!

And a comment from Twitter:

Imagine being her husband. You fuck up once and she reminds you of all your sins in a DD:MM:YYYY HH:MM:SS format 

P.S.11

Sir Denys Wilkinson "Our Universes", p. 200

Can you spot a contradiction? 

"There is no unique "real world" that pre-exists and is independent of human mental activity..."

at the beginning

and

"The first of all is the lesson of humility."

at the end. The contradiction here is evident to me.