news

more

Chaos theory eliminates quantum uncertainty

Quantum uncertainty has to do with us, not reality

13th October 2022
| Royal Society Research Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Oxford. He has written a popular science book The Primacy of Doubt (Oxford University Press, 2022) on the science of uncertainty.
1,828 words
Read time: approx. 9 mins

Two of the key founders of quantum physics, Einstein and Schrödinger, were deeply sceptical of its implications about uncertainty and the nature of reality. Today, the orthodox reading is that uncertainty is indeed an inherent feature of quantum systems, not a reflection of our own lack of knowledge. But Oxford physicist Tim Palmer now argues that chaos theory shows that quantum uncertainty is in fact down to our own ignorance, not reality itself. This could have far-reaching consequences for our ability to marry quantum mechanics with general relativity.

 

Everyone knows that long-range weather forecasts are uncertain. It’s because of those pesky butterflies. Unobserved, they flap their wings, causing unpredicted storms to appear weeks later. This is the metaphor used to describe the unpredictability of chaotic systems:tiny uncertainties in the initial conditions of a system grow and grow until they completely destroy the accuracy of any forecast. In this metaphor, the butterflies themselves aren’t uncertain about the state of their wings, it is us humans that are uncertain about them. Philosophers call this “epistemological” uncertainty – uncertainty to do with lack of knowledge.

Quantum Measurement Problem2 SUGGESTED READING We still don't understand the measurement problem By Sabine Hossenfelder

But according to the orthodox view about quantum mechanics, our most successfully tested theory of physics, uncertainty is not always of this epistemological type. Quantum mechanics is usually described as a theory of atoms and sub-atomic particles, but in truth it is believed to be a theory that underpins everything in the world, including the weather and the galaxies – all of reality. According to orthodox view, there is an inherent uncertainty about what happens to a quantum system when we attempt to observe it. At the moment of observation, the quantum state of a system collapses randomly from a superposition of possible states to some definite outcome. According to this account, randomness is incorporated into the basic equations of quantum mechanics. This in turn implies that quantum uncertainty is not purely epistemological, but is additionally “ontological”, meaning that reality is in itself inherently uncertain. But this orthodox view rests on a rarely questioned assumption. Chaos theory provides strong motivation for questioning the assumption. Rejecting it means that the uncertainty of quantum mechanics could, after all, be of the same epistemological type as that of chaos theory.

___

Standard discussions about Bell’s inequality end by concluding that quantum uncertainty is not fundamentally due to our uncertainty about the quantum world, but due to the way quantum reality itself is.

___

 

Two of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics thought the idea that reality was uncertain was ludicrous, and as a result refused to believe that quantum mechanics, in its current state, was the final word on the subject. Erwin Schrödinger devised his famous cat experiment to show that this interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to nonsensical cats which are half alive and half dead, and Albert Einstein famously remarked, in exasperation, that surely God does not play dice. And yet, despite this, most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is the final word as far as quantum physics is concerned and that there is therefore an element of inherent ontological uncertainty about the world around us. Quantum uncertainty, these physicists would argue, has nothing to do with the butterfly effect: quantum uncertainty is much more radical.

Tim Palmer
13th October 2022

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Latest Releases

The psychology behind the culture wars

Therapy, psychedelics, and why the body keeps the score, with Bessel van der Kolk

The man who mistook reality for a fantasy

Join the conversation

Alex Kubiesa 23 October 2022

Very interesting! It reminds me of Sabine Hossenfelder's video on Superdeterminism, which argues that Bell's Theorem assumes that the experimenter's choice of measurement is independent of the particle's behaviour. Dropping this assumption sounds very similar to your statement that certain counterfactuals are inconsistent with the laws of physics.

Xinhang Shen 17 October 2022

Quantum mechanics is a result of misinterpretation of the particle-wave duality because pioneers can't figure out how a particle in the vacuum possesses a wave and thus use a mathematical concept "probability" to represent the wave because mathematical concepts do not have material properties and won't conflict the meaning of vacuum. But the concept of "probability" creates all the troubles: for example, particles can appear anywhere in the universe instantly. The culprit is special relativity which has denied the existence of aether which fills up all the space in the visible part of the universe and the vacuum space is not empty at all. It is the wave of aether that always accompanies a moving particle to make the particle-wave duality. Now the problem can be solved as special relativity has been disproved:

The mistake of special relativity is so apparent that everybody can understand: in a real clock, time is determined by a fixed period which is the same observed from all reference frames, but in special relativity, time is determined by Lorentz Transformation which is different observed from different reference frames; they are totally different but special relativity simply equate them without proof. We can use special relativity itself to show their difference (let’s call the space and time satisfying Lorentz Transformation “relativistic space and relativistic time”, and the time measured with a physical clock “clock time”):

For a physical clock, the clock time is always counted as the number of cycles divided by a constant k (for the cesium clock, k = 9192631770). In special relativity, the number of cycles is the product of relativistic time and frequency:

N = tf = t/T
Tc = N/k
N’ = t’f’ = t’/T’
Tc’ = N’/k

where N, N’ are the counted numbers of cycles of the clock stationary relative to the observer and the clock moving relative to the observer respectively, f, f’ are the frequencies of the corresponding clocks, t, t’ are the relativistic times of the corresponding reference frames, T, T’ are the periods of the corresponding clocks, Tc, Tc’ are the clock times of the corresponding clocks.

According to Lorentz Transformation, the relationship between t and t’ is:

t’ = γ(t – vx/c^2) = γ[t – v(vt)/c^2] = γt(1 – v^2/c^2) = t/γ < t

where x = vt is the coordinate of the moving clock in the stationary frame. This is called relativistic time dilation: the relativistic time of the moving frame becomes shorter than the relativistic time of the stationary frame, from which mainstream physicists directly jump to the conclusion that a moving clock ticks more slowly than a stationary clock. That's totally wrong because a period is an interval of relativistic time and should follow Lorentz Transformation as well:

T' = T/γ < T

That is, the period of the moving clock becomes shorter than that of the stationary clock and thus the frequency of the moving clock as the reciprocal of the period becomes faster than that of the stationary clock, i.e., special relativity tells us that the moving clock ticks faster than the stationary clock, not more slowly. Thus, we have:

Tc' = N'/k = t'f'/k = (t'/T')/k = [(t/γ)/(T/γ)]/k = (t/T)/k = tf/k = N/k = Tc

which means that the clock time of the moving clock is always the same as the clock time of the stationary clock no matter from which reference frame you observe them. Therefore, clock time is independent of the reference frame, absolute, completely different from relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not clock time but an artificially defined meaningless time. Based on such a fake time, special relativity is wrong.

Some people may argue that special relativity has been proved by numerous experiments, but they just don't understand special relativity. We know all relativistic effects have to be shown through the changes of physical processes, which in special relativity are the products of relativistic time and relativistic changing rate. The relativistic changing rate is similar to the frequency of a clock shown above that becomes faster in the moving frame so that the relativistic effects of the relativistic time and relativistic changing rate of a physical process on the moving reference frame cancel each other in the product to make the product always the same as the corresponding one on the stationary reference frame. That is, special relativity itself tells us that the relativistic effects can never be observed in any physical process, and all so-called experimental proofs of relativistic effects are misinterpretations of other effects, nothing to do with special relativity.

spyroe theory 16 October 2022

D