Quantum Interpretations
We are almost up to date but throughout this hurried history of Quantum
Mechanics, I might have given the impression that the Copenhagen Interpretation
is the only show in town. Not so. Although it remains the orthodox approach,
there are many competing interpretations. I'll mention a few here and provide
links for further reading if your interest is stimulated. Indeed, this link ...
Quantum
Reality (not to be confused with Nick Herbert's work of the same title).
... really does the job for me, although the author (Shaun O'Kane) peppers the
text with personal opinions - hell, I'm not one to complain about that because
I'm about to get very subjective about it all too, a little later. Anyhow,
here's the list of the main contenders:
In its own way, each of the above is somewhat controversial. We have already
discussed Einstein's objection to Copenhagen and many other scientists, to this
day, feel a strong affinity with Einstein's view. Nevertheless, this is still
the "textbook" interpretation.
"Many Worlds", originally proposed by Hugh Everett in the 1950's in an attempt
to resolve the much debated measurement problem and the fate of Schrödinger's
cat. According to Everett the cat would have - not nine - but as many lives as
there are probabilities arising from the measurement experiment. In other words,
if a decision can have a thousand probable outcomes, then a thousand new worlds
are created to realise each and every one of them. At first this theory was
derided as being too fantastical to deserve consideration but by 1995 this
online
Many Worlds FAQ was claiming outright support from 58% of a poll of 72
leading scientists.
I could go into a long analysis of each interpretation in turn, rehashing the
information available if you follow the links I have provided. But I won't. The
general point to be made here is that the interpretations fall into two camps:
the realist and the anti-realist (we could add another labelled "don't ask").
Those eminent scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who have what they
would call a rational, common-sense view of reality would likely opt for the
more realist interpretations such as Consistent Histories or Transactional. This
group doesn't feel comfortable with paradoxes such as nonlocality. They insist
that electrons are little lumps of matter - not metaphysical wave packets that
only achieve physical reality once an observer happens across it. They would
probably be keen to adopt Albert Einstein as their patron.
David Bohm's
Implicate Order theory is quite an odd one to box and label. Bohm
himself was a materialist and disliked the idea of dice throwing just as much as
did his mentor, Einstein. Thus, Implicate Order is a realist theory complete
with the hidden variable that Einstein suggested must be present to make Quantum
Mechanics a complete theory.
Yet it is this theory that is probably most popular among New Age thinkers - the
very people who would naturally select the anti-realist stance. In my view it is
the holistic emphasis of the theory that appeals to the more idealist among us.
Whatever the attraction may be, it is true that Bohm's philosophy has inspired
several best sellers which, according to your viewpoint, either fall into the
category of popular science or New Age (or both). These include Michael Talbot's
book
The Holographic Universe
, Gary Zukav's
The Dancing Wu Li Masters
and Fritjof Capra's
The Tao of Physics
.
Last, but not least, is the interpretation that draws the most flak from the
scientific establishment: the one which says that a conscious observer is
required to collapse the wave into a "real" particle. The argument against it is
simple and, to most, self-evident: if it has taken evolution billions of years
to produce a self-aware, sentient being, then who was around in the universe to
play the role of conscious observer while evolution was doing its thing? Well,
religious people would say that the answer to that is obvious: God. Others, such
as
Amit Goswami, hold that the universe itself is conscious or, to be more
precise, that consciousness is the prime cause; that physical reality is a
product of this primary consciousness. Elsewhere on this website I have included
an essay on the same subject by another scientist,
Donald Hoffman.
The previous paragraph inevitably leads me into another section under the
"Science" heading: the problem (to science) of consciousness.
