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

 John Archibald Wheeler vs. Thuan

John Archibald Wheeler, the renowned American physicist, is well known for his “delayed choice experiment” and “participatory universe”. The message of Wheeler can be interpreted the way Thuan would like to see it only by someone who did not really study any discussion by the experts. In his autobiographical book “Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam”, Wheeler states explicitly:

Reasoning like this has made me ask whether the universe is a “self-exciting circuit” – a system whose existence and whose history are determined by measurements. By “measurement” I do not mean an observation carried out by a human-designed instrument – or by any extraterrestrial intelligence, or even by an ant or an amoeba. Life is not a necessary part of this equation. A measurement, in this context, is an irreversible act in which uncertainty collapses to certainty. It is the link between the quantum and classical worlds, the point where what might happen – multiple paths, interference patterns, spreading clouds of probability – is replaced by what does happen: some event in the classical world, whether the click of a counter, the activation of an optic nerve in someone’s eye, or just the coalescence of a glob of matter triggered by a quantum event.

Wheeler could not have said more clearly: “Life is not a necessary part of this equation.”

John Wheeler is also known for his graphic representation of “quantum reality”:

The picture is endowed with this perplexing caption: “Does looking back “now” give reality to what happened “then”?” Certainly, looking only at the picture, and not reading the text that accompanies the discussion, it is easy to make an error. But in his written text, Wheeler states it clearly:

“The eye could as well be a piece of mica. It need not be a part of an intelligent being.”

Thuan Misrepresents Quantum Theory

Why is Thuan misrepresenting the state of affairs in his discussion of the implication of quantum theory? Again my guess is that the reason is that he is not expert in this domain, that’s why. But there are many experts that are around, and many papers and books written by experts. John Wheeler, who is a coauthor of several well-known advanced books, including “Gravitation Theory and GravitationalCollapse” (1965), “Einstein's Vision” (1968), “Gravitation” (1973), “Frontiers of Time” (1979), “Quantum Theory and Measurement” (1983), and who was awarded the Niels Bohr International Gold Medal in 1982, is certainly such an expert.

Of course I am taking into account the possibility that Thuan would disregard Wheeler’s expertise for political reasons – Wheeler, at least according to Encyclopedia Universalis – which, as we already know, may be true or may be not true - was rather actively engaged in the American war machine while Buddhists are, as a rule, though not always, of a peaceful nature. But if that is the case - one should not covertly mix politics and Science. Moreover, there are other experts that came to the same conclusion as Wheeler did.

Thuan Misleads His Readers About “The Observer”

To summarize this part of my argument: there is nothing in quantum theory that would force us to consider an “observer” as a necessary part of our description of the observed phenomena. There exists formalisms and interpretation in which no “observer” is necessary.

John Bell and Measurement

John Bell, a recognized expert, was explicitly criticizing even the use of the very term “measurement” in quantum theory. 

Note: As for myself, perhaps I should not call myself “an expert”, nevertheless I received Humboldt award for my work on one such alternative formulation.

He was stressing that it leads to confusion, and he was advocating a formalism that could serve as a possible alternative to the orthodox formulation of quantum theory. Thuan is misleading his readers by showing one particular interpretation of quantum theory without discussing in depth all the issues involved. I would not be surprised seeing this type of twisting in a paper by a theologian, but from a scientist I would expect a more objective presentation of the “lessons from quantum theory”.

Thuan is Confused

Now, before giving a final whistle to this subject, I would like to remind you, dear Reader, that I am writing all of this only to demonstrate how easy it is to criticize someone’s hard work – if one wants to. I am simply skipping all the good parts of Thuan’s popularizing work, and I am concentrating on selected points, those points that could be easily fixed by the Author or by a reviewer, but, for various reasons, were left far from being optimal.

After saying the above I will use as my last example – two statements in two different works of Thuan, one contradicting the other.

In “Quantum and the Lotus” Thuan explains the conversion of matter into energy. He writes:

Inversely, matter can be converted into energy – this is what makes the sun shine, for example. By converting a tiny fraction of its mass of hydrogen (0.7 percent) into light (photons), our star allows life to exist on earth.

It is logically implied in the above statement that, for Thuan, light (photons) represents energy and not matter. But in the article the story is different. Thuan writes there:

Thus, the particles we call photons and electrons, as well as all the other particles of matter ….

The reader who is paying attention to both of Thuan’s statements is justified in being confused. Are photons “matter”, or are they “energy”? Evidently Thuan’s is not able to make up his mind concerning this subject. When it is convenient to him, he considers photons as energy – when his aim is to give an example of an application of Einstein’s mass-energy conversion formula. But when his aim is different, then he calls photons “matter”.

Is physics so fuzzy indeed? It is supposed to be an exact science after all Don’t physicists know what matter is, and what is energy? Or is it only our unfortunate author, Trinh Xuan Thuan, who has a problem with definitions?

As is always the case, the fact that other authors of popular physics books (and, perhaps, even textbooks) may be similarly confused and confusing should not be an excuse for a scientist. Contradiction is contradiction. Scientists should avoid making contradictory statements, and when they make them – these contradictions should be pointed out – in the name of Science. Or so I think.

P.S.1. To demonstrate how Real Physicists approach the "dogmas" (in a dramatic contrast to Thuan, as discussed in my recent posts, let me quote from a paper by Willis E. Lamb, Jr  (Nobel Prize in Physics 1955). The paper entitled "Super Classical Quantum Mechanics:  The Interpretation of Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics " published in Zhizhan Xu  Shengwu Xie Shi -Yao Zhu  MarIan  O.  Scully (Eds.) , "Frontiers of laser Physics and Quantum Optics ", Springer 2000.

5  Historical Misunderstandings 

One of the advantages gained by our treatment is that one can forget  (and, or,  forgive?)  many  of the  fuzzy  ideas[15,16]'  that  cluttered  the  path  from Classical Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics.  These include:  Planck's theory of black  body radiation,  Einstein's photon and treatment of the photoelectric  effect  of  1905,  Bohr's  1913  quantization,  Bohr's  1918  Correspondence Principle, de Broglie's waves of 1924, Heisenberg's matrix mechanics of 1925, Schrodinger's  wave  equation  of 1925,  Dirac's  Quantum Mechanics  of 1926, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of 1927, Bohr's Principles of Complementarity and Wave-particle Duality,  Dirac's and von Neumann's notions of the Collapse of Wave Packets, and the excessive use of Hilbert Space.  We  might have  been  spared  much of the  agony  needlessly suffered  with the Two  Slit Diffraction Pattern Paradoxes, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradoxes,  and the  Schrodinger  Cat Paradox[17,18].  Also  unnecessary  were  Bohm's  Quantum Mechanics and Hidden Variable Theories, and Bell's Inequalities. Other variations abound in the pages of Physics Today[19]  and Physics World[20]: DH  (Decoherent Histories), with words like  "reality"  and  "non-locality", SL (Spontaneous Localization), and BQM (Bohmian Quantum Mechanics). It is widely rumored that the Editors of the Physical Review find  that papers on measurement theory are too troublesome to edit. 

Delayed Choice Experiments[21] have never been adequately discussed using any systematic theory of Quantum Mechanical Measurement.  The same can  be  said  of Quantum  Computers  and  Quantum  Cryptography[22].  The bulk of papers on these subjects lack any understanding of the intrinsic probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics.  Papers on teleportation are beneath contempt. 

As you can see, no sacred cow was spared in these paragraphs written by an expert scientist! Of course the public wants to believe that a least physicists will tell them the "truth". The public should forget it! The public should keep in mind what Bertrand Russell wrote:

The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: 

 (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; 

(2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and 

(3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement.

Sceptical Essays, Routledge 2004

It follows in particular that one should always look for the second, third, 100th expert's disclosure. Do all experts agree on a given subject? Or, perhaps, they jump to each other throats at the conferences? Relying on a journal with a reputation is not a good idea, as these journals do everything possible to avoid confrontation and to present themselves as "reliable".

Pay attention to this sentence in the above quote:

It is widely rumored that the Editors of the Physical Review find  that papers on measurement theory are too troublesome to edit. 

P.S.2. Studying now: Bernard Jancewicz, Premetric Electrodynamics (2008). 

P.S.3.  "JA, JA, JA,,,,,,, you are modest, you would never become politic...." What reminds me:

How to get rid of pride? 5 proven ways

P.S.4  Also useful to know:

How to Discipline a Child for Spitting

P.S.5. Sunday's Special - More from Confucius:

P.S.6. Jancewicz is following Hehl and Obukhov and starts with a spacetime separated into space and time, and with a twisted  3-form J of physical dimension q (Coulombs) satisfying dJ=0. Deduces from it that J=dG, where G is the excitation two-form. The currents J is the source of "excitation" G of the "medium".  Here J is active, and G is passive. While J splits into rho and j, G splits into H (magnetic excitation) and D (electric displacement/induction). Obukhov and Hehl are somewhat more clear about physical dimensions, and how they are related to a local co-frame. According to all of them G can be in principle "measured" using "perfect conductors and superconductors", though they do not immediately explain how. No metric so far. Though I am not sure about Coulomb, because when I look at the definition of Coulomb, it involves metric, unless we declare that it is, say, 6.241509×10¹⁸ e. Perhaps Hehl and Obukhow will clarify it in their paper "Dimensions and Units in Electromagnetics" (to be read later).

P.S.7. Reading now:  Hehl, Obukhov, "A gentle introduction to the foundations of classical electrodynamics: The meaning of the excitations (D,H) and the field strengths (E, B)"

and M.C. Land, "Pre-Maxwell Electrodynamics"

P.S.8. 

From Robert Mallone Sunday Strip

P.S.9. 

Bamberg, Sternberg, "A Course in Mathematics for Students of Physics: Volume 2".Here is the content of this volume:

12  The theory of electrical networks  407

Introduction  407

12.1  Linear resistive circuits  411

12.2  The topology of one-dimensional complexes  419

12.3  Cochains and the d operator  429

12.4  Bases and dual bases  431

12.5  The Maxwell methods  433

12.6  Matrix expressions for the operators  436

12.7  Kirchhoff’s theorem  444

12.8  Steady-state circuits and filters  446

Summary  451

Exercises  451

13  The method of orthogonal projection  458

13.1  Weyl’s method of orthogonal projection  458

13.2  Kirchhoff’s method  461

13.3  Green ’ s reciprocity theorem  466

13.4  Capacitive networks  469

13.5  Boundary-value problems  474

13.6  Solution of the boundary-value problem by Weyl’s method

of orthogonal projection  477

13.7  Green’s functions  482

13.8  The Poisson kernel and random walk  485

13.9  Green’s reciprocity theorem in electrostatics  487

Summary  492

Exercises  492

14  High dimensional complexes  502

14.1  Introductory remarks  502

14.2  Dual spaces and cohomology  520

Summary  526

Exercises  526

15  Complexes situated in  532

Introduction  532

15.1  Exterior algebra  535

15.2  £-forms and the d operator  539

15.3  Integration of £-forms  54115.4  Stokes theorem  553

15.5  Differential forms and cohomology  564

Summary  574

Exercises  574

16  Electrostatics in [R3  583

16.1  From the discrete to the continuous  583

16.2  The boundary operator  585

16.3  Solid angle  586

16.4  Electric field strength and dielectric displacement  588

16.5  The dielectric cofficient  596

16.6  The star operator in Euclidean three-dimensional space  597

16.7  Green’s formulas  600

16.8  Harmonic functions  602

16.9  The method of orthogonal projection  604

16.10  Green ’ s functions  606

16.11  The Poisson integral formula  608

Summary  612

Exercises  612

17  Currents, flows and magnetostatics  615

17.1  Currents  615

17.2  Flows and vector fields  616

17.3  The interior product  621

17.4  Lie derivatives  626

17.5  Magnetism  628

Appendix: an alternative proof of the fundamental formula 

of differential calculus  633

Summary  636

Exercises  636

18  The star operator  638

18.1  Scalar products and exterior algebra  638

18.2  The star operator  641

18.3  The Dirichlet integral and the Laplacian  646

18.4  The □ operator in spacetime  651

18.5  The Clifford algebra  653

18.6  The star operator and geometry  660

18.7  The star operator and vector calculus  662

Appendix: tensor products  664

Summary  674

Exercises  674

19  Maxwell’s equations  686

19.1  The equations  686

19.2  The homogeneous wave equation in one dimension  689

19.3  The homogeneous wave equation in IR3  692

19.4  The inhomogeneous wave equation in [R3  695

19.5  The electromagnetic Lagrangian and the energy­

momentum sensor  697

19.6  Wave forms and Huyghens’ principle  700

Summary  704

Exercises  7n/l20 Complex analysis

Introduction

706

706

20.1 Complex-valued functions 707

20.2 Complex-valued differential forms 709

20.3 Holomorphic functions 711

20.4 The calculus of residues 715

20.5 Applications and consequences 724

20.6 The local mapping 729

20.7 Contour integrals 735

20.8 Limits and series 740

Summary 744

Exercises 744

21 Asymptotic evaluation of integrals 750

Introduction 750

21.1 Laplace’s method 750

21.2 The method of stationary phase 755

21.3 Gaussian integrals 758

21.4 Group velocity 761

21.5 The Fourier inversion formula 762

21.6 Asymptotic evaluation of Helmholtz’ formula 764

Summary 766

Exercises 766

845

22 Thermodynamics 768

22.1 Caratheodory’s theorem 769

22.2 Classical thermodynamics according to Bom and

Catheodory 775

22.3 Entropy and obsolute temperature 780

22.4 Systems with one configurational variable 785

22.5 Conditions for equilibrium 796

22.6 Systems and states in statistical mechanics 800

22.7 Products and images 805

22.8 Observables, expectations and internal energy 808

22.9 Entropy 814

22.10 Equilibrium statistical mechanics 816

22.11 Quantum and classical gases 823

22.12 Determinants and traces 826

22.13 Quantum states and quantum logic 831

Summary 835

Exercises 836

Appendix 838

Further reading

Index 848