What is Real?
Adam Becker
Non Fiction: Science; Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics has a problem and Adam Becker explains why
The weirdness of quantum mechanics and its implications for the world we live in, always makes for fascinating reading. Anil Anathaswamy’s Through Two Doors at Once is a recent favorite from recent years. Published a few months earlier in the same year (2018), Adam Becker’s What is Real? makes for a great companion read to Mr. Ananthaswamy’s book. The thesis of Mr. Becker’s book is that the longstanding unquestioned, or rather, unquestionable primacy of the Copenhagen interpretation has choked the quest for alternative models of the quantum world, and in turn has stymied the development of a deeper and perhaps truer understanding of our reality.
Shouldn't we question the emperor's clothes?
Mr. Becker’s book is largely a historic narrative describing in great detail, the circumstances surrounding the development of the prevailing interpretation of QM—The Copenhagen Interpretation, alongside the stories of the many physicists that worked on the subject. As Mr. Becker points out, the Copenhagen interpretation is not a single viewpoint—there is no single accepted definition. But by and large it refers to an approach best summarized in the edict “Shut up and Calculate”—one that willfully chooses to ignore the validity of the question of reality in the absence of measurement. Albert Einstein was famously deeply uncomfortable with this line of thinking.
What is Real? describes the history of how this interpretation came to hold sway, including the prevailing Logical Positivism movement/philosophy that Niels Bohr and other QM ‘Fathers’ were influenced by. The hegemony of the Copenhagen interpretation applied intense pressure on scientists everywhere to conform to its line of thinking and for a great while this made any attempts at alternative explanations, an exercise in career suicide. Despite this vitiating atmosphere, physicists like Bohm and Everett did make headway with plausible alternative theories, but these seldom received much attention from the QM cognoscenti—until recently at least—given the sway the Copenhagen proponents have had. The intellectual climate in America that prized practical success over theory also did not help.
What difference does a different underlying interpretation make if experiments can’t tell the difference?
The worldviews we get from our best scientific theories inform how we see ourselves
This question of scientific philosophy is in many ways at the heart of the book and key to the point that Mr. Becker makes. His answer is that our model about the type of universe we inhabit shapes the type of questions we ask, the experiments we propose and fund, and hence defines the future of science itself. Limiting ourselves to one deeply unsatisfying interpretation of the universe is a disservice to the causes of science and philosophy. This is convincing to a point: there is no reason exploring alternatives should be taboo. But nothing spurs progress like experimental data a current model just cannot explain. The “Shut up and calculate” camp has not been shown up in this regard. The Bohmian and Many World theories have problems of their own and are unsatisfying in their own ways, problems that Mr. Becker acknowledges.
Falsifiability no longer a premise?
But in making the case for alternatives, Mr. Becker brushes away the need for theories to be testable: the falsifiability requirement of scientific endeavors made famous by Karl Popper. He says that “Popper’s views haven’t been taken seriously for decades. That’s clearly not true. E.g. Here’s a 2015 article that questions the need for falsifiability. And the example he uses of Karl Popper’s TV remote batteries doesn’t explain the problem he has with that requirement. Falsifiability is a high bar and useful—one that should not be summarily dismissed!
Is there a lesson for us in today’s intellectual climate?
One big takeaway from this history lesson is that Science isn’t this democratized field where validity of ideas and experimental data alone rule the roost. It is subject to the same human dynamics as most other fields: slowed down by large egos, competition, and power play.
In the Cancel Culture world of today, we frequently read academics mentioning an unwillingness of universities and peers to entertain views considered conservative relative to the mainstream woke left. This ostracism isn’t fundamentally different from what Bohm and several others faced in the world of QM physicists. An environment, especially in academia, that inhibits discourse is surely unhealthy?
Overall: Recommended reading if you like non fiction science
A recommended read for those interested in quantum mechanics and curious about its colorful history.