Quantum Mechanics and Indoctrination
Quantum mechanics, as we know it from books, is a form of indoctrination for our minds. It’s fascinating how easily we are indoctrinated. We even derive pleasure from it—a kind of intellectual masochism. A psychologist or sociologist could likely base an entire PhD on this phenomenon. By allowing ourselves to be bombarded with slogans and rituals, we feel as though we are being inducted into the mysterious world of a Secret Society of Quantum Mechanics Adepts. And who among us doesn’t want to be a part of such an organization? One that possesses secrets unknown to those outside the circle? However, like in many secret societies, as we climb higher on the ladder of initiation, we eventually discover that everything is based on the belief in the existence of secrets, rather than in actually knowing them.
From Theoretical to Practical: The Concept of Measurement
Enough theorizing—let’s dive into the evidence. Let’s take the concept of measurement as our example. During a discussion about the ideas of Henry Stapp, a physicist from LBL, Berkeley, California, Laura asked her friends—communicating via Cassiopaea—an intriguing question:
"Is quantum theory, as it stands, about knowledge or about physical units?"
The reply she received was simple:
"It is about measurement."
Yes, I think so too. (After all, those Cassiopaeans might as well have been me.) So, let's examine how measurement is treated in quantum theory today. Referring to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Measurement in Quantum Theory," the discussion begins with Bohr’s Postulate, which is stated as:
(P) If a quantity Q is measured in system S at time t, then Q has a particular value in S at t.
Interesting, isn’t it? But there’s more. The statistical interpretation of Born is added (don’t worry if you don’t fully understand this—it's not crucial). Let me quote a longer passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for context, as it contains some humorous elements:
"... the second stage of the measurement, with its radical, non-linear discontinuities, has been the source of many of the philosophical difficulties that have plagued quantum mechanics, including what von Neumann referred to as its 'peculiar dual nature' (417). Indeed, Schrödinger foreshadowed such difficulties even before the formal development of measurement theory. For example, during a visit to Bohr’s institute in September 1926, he remarked, 'If all this damned quantum jumping [verdamnte Quantenspringerei] were really to stay, I should be sorry I ever got involved with quantum theory' (Jammer 1974, 57)."
The Dilemma of Quantum Measurement
Quantum mechanics offers no definitive explanation of the measurement process. Specifically, using quantum mechanics alone, we cannot predict the exact value of Q that will be recorded during measurement. What quantum mechanics does provide, however, is additional information of a statistical nature, through what is known as the Born statistical interpretation:
The probability of qi being registered is |ci|², where ci is the coefficient of fi (the eigenvector of Q corresponding to the value qi) when the initial measured state of S is expressed as a linear superposition of eigenvectors of Q.
In short: quantum mechanics does not predict the measured value, but it does give us the probability distribution of the possible outcomes.
Schrödinger was furious—and rightly so. He just didn’t fully understand why he was right. He wasn’t upset simply because quantum jumps are inherently problematic; they only become problematic when Bohr and his Copenhagen colleagues treat them as events that happen instantly, without any dynamics. Such instantaneous events belong in the realm of miracles and spirits, not in the world that physics deals with.
Bohr's Postulate and the Problem of Time
Here’s the crux of the issue: Bohr’s postulate (P) speaks of "measurement at time t." However, such a thing as an "instantaneous" measurement never actually occurs. Every measurement takes time—some longer, some shorter. We expose photographic film to radiation and wait patiently, sometimes for hours or days, for a proton to leave its mark. We set up our laser, nanoprobe, or magnets over an electron and wait (today, for hours—tomorrow, perhaps, for mere fractions of a second) for our "resonant system to resonate" and give an answer: spin up or spin down.
In classical physics, where particle trajectories are smooth and continuous, the distinction between instantaneous measurement and measurement over time wasn’t necessary. The idealization of instantaneous measurement was harmless and without consequence. But in quantum mechanics, where we have the Planck constant and the uncertainty principle, measuring "at time t" implies infinite uncertainty in the energy transfer, which inevitably leads to contradictions. I believe Erwin Schrödinger might have been more optimistic about quantum mechanics and its jumps—perhaps even excited about them—if he had known what I am about to reveal.
Quantum Jumps and the Nervous System
Let’s take the ancient adage "as above, so below" and apply it to quantum mechanics. Electrons, protons, and such are at the bottom; we, as beings of flesh and blood, are at the top. Neurology teaches us a bit about how the nervous system functions, and measuring the action potential of a neuron provides a prototype for the quantum jump.
The potential rises, rises further, exceeds a certain threshold, and the neuron "fires." Depending on the degree of stimulation and other factors, these firings happen more or less frequently (of course, I’ve simplified the mechanism drastically). Could quantum jumps work in a similar way? Yes, they could—and I’ll demonstrate why. Another question is whether this mechanism truly occurs in quantum mechanics—but that’s a different problem, equally important, but not the focus here.
In this analogy, a detector plays the role of a neuron. It’s stimulated by the "wave function" (also called the "state vector"). When the detector is sufficiently excited, it fires, and the wave function "discharges." The detector then rests for a while, ready for the next firing. There are also single-use detectors, but I won’t delve into them, as they are just a special case of reusable detectors with adjustable efficiency.
More to Come
But I’ll leave the details for the future notes.
