I am writing a book titled Physicists at Fault: Why you don’t understand quantum mechanics, yet.
The main thrust of the book involves three things:
- I detail where pop-sci authors say wrong or misleading things about quantum mechanics and why they are wrong
- Unbelievable as it may seem, I point out the erroneous things that are taught to physics students by their professors
- To convince you why those physicists are wrong and to arm you against future falsehoods told to you, I teach you quantum mechanics as as some necessary math
But that’s not all that I had to be mindful of. When writing a book on quantum mechanics, one has to choose how to frame things because we don’t agree on how to interpret the mathematics and experimental results. There are multiple sects with their preferred interpretations. However, on a large scale, they can be grouped into two.
The schism between the camps could not be greater.
There are the realists and the anti-realists. The realists say a reality exists. Specifically, there are quantum objects that are elements of reality at all times.
On the other hand, the anti-realists say one of two things. They have the agnostic position: Reality is not fully knowable, and we can’t say what happens between measurements. They also have the more extreme denial of reality: Reality doesn’t exist on the quantum scale (but, for some reason, the macroscopic world does exist). The most well-known anti-realist position is the Copenhagen interpretation.
In the first chapter and the middle of the third chapter of my book, I deviate from the main thrust of my book to go over some of what was said in the first half of the 20th century to justify the anti-realist view. I did this because the anti-realists are the largest camp, and I wanted reader to see that the justification for anti-realism is not convincing.
Since I am unconvinced by their reasoning, I naturally fall into the realist camp. So, I couch the language in my book in a realist interpretation. My particular interpretation says that wave functions are actual things, not just math. This means that an electron is its wave function, and electric charge is spread out in space like a cloud.
For some physicists, my position will seem absurd. Some might think that way because they have been told that reality is unknowable. And because a standard physics education does not include an analysis of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, they never had the opportunity to examine the positions and choose for themselves. As for others, I think some got to their view because they start from a different philosophical position on science than a realist.
For your consideration
To see this, consider the following two statements.
- A) The purpose of science is to develop mathematical models to explain experimental data and predict the results of future experiments.
- B) The purpose of science is to explain reality, which is accomplished by developing mathematical models to explain experimental data and predict the results of future experiments.
On their own and without context, each one would seem reasonable to most people, but they are quite different. I think it’s easy to see that B) already has the realist interpretation in it.
I assume you are aware of the observer effect, the uncertainty principle, and randomness in quantum mechanics. With a modest skeptical attitude (a good trait to have in a scientist) and knowledge of quantum mechanics, it seems relatively easy to get an anti-realist stance from A).
So, I think it’s reasonable for someone to start from either philosophical position and find themselves in one of the two camps. But, I find it ridiculous to spend significant time in the anti-realist camp once one gets there.
The agnostics hold opinions like, “We can’t be sure of what happens between measurements, so we must maintain skepticism about reality. We can’t treat it like it exists.” They must give up believing in reality if they can’t 100% confirm its existence.
Where does that lead them?
I think this thinking leads to absurdities. How do you know you aren’t a brain in a vat? How do you know you aren’t in a Matrix-like simulation where all your loved ones are computer simulations? Well, you don’t.
Because you are an anti-realist, to be consistent, you might as well sit down and give up believing in the reality of anything and anyone. Nothing is knowable.
Or, you can act like the things you see are real because they certainly seem that way. The world acts consistently. The sun rises every morning. Cats act like cats. Rain falls. Wind blows.
The same goes for the quantum realm. If you don’t put your head in the sand and instead look at the evidence, it’s easy to see how the quantum realm exists. Make no mistake, you don’t need to reject the randomness and unintuitiveness of quantum mechanics when adopting the realist interpretation. It’s still fascinating down there.
If you want to finally start your journey to understanding quantum mechanics without the vague talk and misleading pictures, my book will help you. In the book, you will also see a more sober and academic analysis of the anti-realist position than what I have in this blog post. So, click here to be emailed when my book is available for purchase.