Quantum Mechanics and Mind Games: Part I

Quantum Mechanics and Mind Games: Part I

In my investigation of Quantum Mechanics, I found several bizarre passages in popular books such as Stephen Hawking’s books and in the more specialized, and mathematically oriented, books such as Roger Penrose’s book, “The Road to Reality.”  

I will assert in these essays the following: 

• In science, we are not allowed to violate the Laws of Logic under any circumstances. 

The corollary is that,

• When theories violate the Laws of Logic, the theories are defective.

In any serious conversation, the above two bullet points are the basics for any discussion.  Without these two points, there is no hope for rational debate or discussion.  Furthermore, without these two points, anything goes, which we will get to later on.

Christopher Norris, in his book, “Quantum Theory and the Flight from Reality” points out several problems with the Orthodox interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, referred to as the Copenhagen Interpretation.  In summary, it is a debate about the nature of Ontology and Measurement.  Ontology deals, in part, with “questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist.”  Measurement is simply the observation of a physical quantity, i.e., I have 12 gallons of gasoline in my car.

Einstein does not like Dominoes

Albert Einstein famously objected to the Copenhagen Interpretation by saying something along the lines of “God does not play dice” when Niels Bohr interpreted the results of Quantum Mechanics as some mysterious theory that violated the basics laws of logic and mathematics, but was highly successful in predicting what would happen in a particular experiment.  Most physics books suggest that Einstein was wrong.  However, no book shows the chain of reasoning necessary to show Einstein was wrong.  Perhaps they refer to some mysterious consensus of witch-doctors who got together and issued a pronouncement against the heretic Einstein.

Multiple Universes just in front of your Nose

Some physicists have since then taken absurdity to a new level and have posited multiple universes for every possible state of a particle that exist in some realm alongside our present universe (whatever the hell that means).  So, in the next several seconds, for every possible future state of my being, it splits off into an infinite amount of universes of possibilities in the cases, such as, I both had coffee and did not have coffee this morning – and every other option in between.  Needless to say, but this is pure stupidity, and completely inappropriate for anything calling itself science.  This is not science; this is astrology or perhaps some LSD induced wild trip.

Electron’s Doppelganger messing with your head

One famous piece of nonsense is that the famous two-slit experiment of shooting photons or electrons through a couple of slits with a screen behind them suggest that the particle passes through both slits at the same time.  Almost every book or course on Quantum Mechanics uses this example, but we are never told why they think this is so.  Apparently nobody forces them to justify this with a solid chain of reasoning.  We are back to astrology where Mercury and Mars conspire to mess up your day when the moon is not watching out for you.  Now, one electron is out to get you, and uses his doppelganger to threaten you with a complete experimental screw-up.

Philosophy of Science

There is this strange idea among many scientists that metaphysical speculation is not part of what science does.  The idea is that science is to stick to the results of observable experiments and leave metaphysical speculation alone.  However, in the case of Quantum Mechanics, the following ideas are purely metaphysical:

• One particle passes through both slits at the same time in the double slit experiment

• Multiple universes exist as a result of the conclusions of Quantum Indeterminacy

So, these two conclusions are a direct violation of the principle of sticking only to the observable measurements of an experiment.  These two points are metaphysical claims.

So, we are in the realm of metaphysics.  We are now doing philosophy.  Thus, the rules of philosophy apply.  Physicists cannot, contrary to Stephen Hawking, claim that philosophy is dead.  They are doing philosophy.

Laws of Logic

What are the rules when doing philosophy?  There are many.  But, the basic ones are the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle. 

• Everything is either A or not-A (contradictions are not allowed)

• The case of something being A and not-A is impossible (middle is excluded)

Other powerful tools of philosophy, mathematics, and even engineering are the use of logic gates.  For example, to have a fire, we must have all of the following three conditions:

• Sufficient heat
• Fuel
• oxygen  

If you are investigating a fire, you can consider these conditions one big AND gate: Fire = (sufficient heat) AND (fuel) AND (oxygen).  Without any one of these three, we have no fire.  In the investigation, you must trace the events leading up to the fire and plug them into this AND Gate to determine the logical sequence of events.

Double Slit Conclusion is Wrong

So, in the double slit experiment, nobody is allowed to logically say that one particle passed through both slits at the same time without a solid chain of logical justification, which seems impossible.  Any arguments to the contrary prove that the arguments are wrong, not that basic logic is wrong, or that Quantum Mechanics is just “weird.”  The logical setup is as follows:

Event A = (Particle A passed through slit X at time t) OR (Particle A passed through slit Y at time t)

I will grant the following: that if one claims that the particle passed through both slits at the same time, the claimant must provide a logical explanation of the claim without violating the laws of logic.  Perhaps time can be redefined locally, or space can be redefined locally.  But, the claimant must provide logical justification in any case, and not stop at a whimsical or “weird” claim that things just “don’t make any damn sense here!”

Arguments from Authority are Wrong

Nobody is allowed to say, “The overwhelming majority of physicists agree with the conclusion of the double slit experiment.”  This is a logical fallacy – the Argument from Authority, which is bogus.  One has to explain themselves with a logical chain of reasoning.  If they cannot do this, they have not made their case.

Conclusions

To make a logical, mathematical, or scientific claim, one must build a chain of reasoning going backward from the conclusion to the premises without any violation of the Laws of Logic.  We will be investigating some of the more bizarre claims and conclusions on Quantum Mechanics in this series of essays in the upcoming weeks and months.  We will find that the experiments themselves are usually straightforward, but some of the interpretations, claims and conclusions are not necessarily connected to the experimental results.  Quantum Mechanics needs a scientific clean-up crew to polish up the findings.

Freddy Martini