Well, must of those who are today interested in quantum mechanics are interested in it for its implications-namely that not everything in the universe follows the laws of causality (cause and effect), and there is room in our view of the universe for apparently random, or at least uncaused events. People have been latching onto this idea lately as a means of showing how freewill operates in a world where everythings already seems to be determined by physics and chemistry, or how other wills may operate in our otherwise causally-closed universe.
It is interesting to consider that quantum physics is not the only model which has been proposed to describe the data at had- there are other models, such as the Bohmian model, which makes many of the same predictions, yet also integrates other variables with allow physicists to save the idea of causation. There have been some developments lately, such as some interesting anomolies in the microwave radiation patter, which may potentially allow physicists to pit quantum mechanics against other therioes:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.829.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.829.html)
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/wharton/causation_with_qm.pdf (http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/wharton/causation_with_qm.pdf)
Interesting stuff. I don't at all think the answer to these questions has anything to do with whether or not people have freewill, etc., but I do think they seriously affect the explanation for how freewill might be exercised, and how responsible we may or may not be for looking to quantum mechanics for explanations of philosophical questions, as many have done as of late.
I would be glad to hear what you guys think :-D
Quantum mechanics and quantum physics are merely tools to better our understanding of the universe.
Freewill allows us to use our thoughts to effect our realty. The effects of this may take some time, maybe seconds, minutes, or even years.
Understanding the truth behind space/time and energy/consciousness is what I believe we are here to learn.
I agreed with this feedback on the page:
QuoteWhile I appreciated the article itself, I felt that the title was somewhat sensationalist and not a little misleading. If it turns out to be the case that Bohmian mechanics (also known as the Bohm or ontological interpretation) is verified, then we could certainly make the case for throwing out the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. But to say that "quantum mechanics might be wrong" is like saying that "Schroedinger's equation might be invalid", which, I think it's safe to say, is getting into the realm of the ridiculous. To be sure, the Bohm interpretation discards the vigorously defended concept of locality, but this is only a problem if you disallow CFD as well. Bohm clearly upholds CFD. While the title of the article is safely qualified with a "might", I would like to think that nature.com is above hysterical hyperbole more befitting a supermarket tabloid.
Certain theories of quantum physics may be beat out by a new theory, but quantum mechanics itself includes demonstrated phenomena like entanglement, which has been reproduced and verified.
The first link gave me this:
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
I'm not ready to give up nonlocality. I know, a purely emotional reaction.
Aren't you glad I'm not a scientist?
Fascinating, I didn't finish reading it, but have bookmarked it for future digesting.
QuoteCertain theories of quantum physics may be beat out by a new theory, but quantum mechanics itself includes demonstrated phenomena like entanglement, which has been reproduced and verified.
That is true, but that doesn't prove that quantum mechanics as a whole is true. A theory can give correct predictions for most situations we encounter, but still be innaccurate on a deeper level, just as Newtonian physics makes all the right predictions until you get to situations near the speed of light, etc. Bohmian mechanics, one of the pet rival theories being considered now, also makes predictions about entanglement, and also offers solutions to problems which some feel quantum mechanics answers, but in a very awkward fashion.
QuoteFreewill allows us to use our thoughts to effect our realty. The effects of this may take some time, maybe seconds, minutes, or even years.
It definitely seems to be the case that we have some form of freewill, but there is also a question of showing how we can exercise freewill when the world seems to be causallly closed, and every material event seems to happen merely as a result of past material states and physical laws. People are still searching for ways in which we can explain how freewill operates under these circumstances- where the "insert" point is in the the chain of cause and effect for our wills to function.
Quantum mechanics seems to offer a solution to that problem, since at the subatomic level, things are not directly caused to happen, but have a certain probability to occur- some people feel our will might effect which of the probabilities are realized. That is why theories like quantum mechanics is relevant to discussions of freewill.
QuoteI'm not ready to give up nonlocality.
I know, it seems to fit so well. Sometimes reality is much stranger than you might have supposed, and other times, it is far more simple and prosaic. It is obvious from apologetic concepts like multiple parallel universes to explain the probability doctrine that quantum mechanics makes some ontologically expensive claims, and so maybe some of them may have been too unrestrained. But whatever the real solution is, I think it is safe to say that is probably far beyond our current understading.
Non-locality is something I've already integrated into my life and learned to recognize and love. It pops up as "synchronicity" all the time. It just seems to make total sense to me, that if everything is ultimately mind/consciousness (very high focus level in phasing), then that is not really moving. It's just ideas and sensations that move around it perpetually. Which is what we are all doing right now. This is all just a bunch of jumbled cosmic nonsense here. The center of it is both (a) everywhere (really small, makes up everything), and (b) not moving, as beautiful and sensual as this confused experience outside of it that IS moving may be.
Hi Stillwater.
I know what you mean and am in general agreement here. It is hard to believe in something as strange as quantum physics. Quantum physics started out as an odd way to explain the mivco subatomic world and gets weirder with each new 'discovery'. It has also spawned many bizarre theories like the many minds theory (which was inspired by Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation).
I do believe in 'entanglement/nonlocality And the possibility of faster than light travel. But I just can't fully endorse the craziness of quantum physics.
Regards 8-)
Grey
Richard Feynman explains why it works, and that it just is impossible to understand, even for him. He does explain it in this priceless 4 part video series:
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 (http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8)