- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
Science’s Sacred Cows: Realism
In the previous post, we discussed a fiendishly clever gedanken experiment posed in 1935 by Einstein and co-workers and designed to expose presumed flaws in quantum mechanics (QM). When the so-called “EPR paradox” was finally tested experimentally in 1977 at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the results were a resounding victory for QM, while ringing the death knell for Einstein’s cherished principle of local causes. The “EPR paradox” — and Bell’s Theorem, which ultimately led to its resolution — firmly established the notion of quantum entanglement. Further experiments over the past three decades have moved entanglement from the status of novelty into the mainstream of physics. Today we discuss further experiments involving entanglement that call into question another of science’s tacit assumptions: realism.
Realism is the philosophical stance of most sane human beings, scientists included. Realism asserts: “All measurement outcomes depend on pre-existing properties of objects that are independent of the measurement.” In layman’s terms, there’s a real world out there independent of us (although we may see it differently because of variations in our measurement devices, i.e., our eyes and lenses). After all, if I ski down a slope and collide with a tree in my path, it makes little difference whether or not I believe the tree is real. Most persons — a few Zen philosophers excepted (“What sound does a falling tree make if no one hears?”) would assert that the tree has a reality all its own, independent of me. But in the microscopic world of the quantum, things are so very different than our macroscopic experiences would lead us to believe.
Recall from the previous post that the paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (hence the moniker “EPR”) involved two-particle (say two photon) systems in which twin particles are spatially separated by a vast distance. Certain implications of QM, fretted Einstein, suggested that measuring the polarization of one photon would instantaneously set the polarization of its twin, violating the principle of local causes.
Let’s carefully parse Einstein’s words when he sprang the EPR trap to conclude that QM is incomplete.
“One can escape from this conclusion [that quantum theory is incomplete] only by either assuming the measurement of [photon 1 telepathically] changes the real situation at [photon 2] or by denying independent real situations as such to things which are spatially separated from each other. Both alternatives appear to me entirely unacceptable.”
By referring to “the real situation” and “independent real situations,” Einstein explicitly assumed physical realism. Furthermore, by assuming that spatially separated particles could not instantly “communicate,” he invoked the principle of local causes. Thus Einstein made two fundamental and independent assumptions: locality and realism.
Because of the profound implications of entanglement, researchers around the world continue to propose and conduct experiments to further clarify the remarkable phenomenon. To summarize their collective results prior to 2007: experiments based upon Bell’s Theorem prove “that all hidden-variable theories based on the joint assumption of locality and realism [emphases added] are at variance with the predictions of quantum mechanics.” The logical conclusion from these results is that theories based on local realism fail to be consistent with the predictions of QM because at least one assumption fails. But which?
In 2007, a group of researchers at premier institutions in Austria and Poland collaborated to perform yet another stunning EPR-like investigation. The experiment, by Simon Gröblacher and a host of coworkers, tested a new theorem by A. Leggett (2003) that further refines Bell’s theorem. Leggett’s theorem yields a mathematical inequality that, when combined with Bell’s inequality, permits the independent testing of Einstein’s two assumptions: locality and realism. The results of Gröblacher’s team, published in Nature (April 19, 2007), once again validated quantum mechanical predictions. That was to be expected. The unexpected occurred in identifying which assumption of local realism failed. Locality or realism? Surprisingly, both. The authors concluded:
“Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are [also] abandoned.”
An independent reality, it now appears, has become the latest casualty of QM. The universe is nonlocal, nondeterministic, and apparently “unreal” as well. Haldane was right: the universe, at least at the quantum level, is “queerer” than we can imagine.
- Image: Licensed by LikeTheDew.com at 123RF.com
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
What would winning the War in Afghanistan look like? America has been at war there for 13 years and you would expect that after thousands of casualties and spending immense sums of our tax dollars something that could be deemed victory would have been achieved by now. Instead of that we are presented with soon to be retiring Rep. Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, chiding the America people and President Obama for not wanting to keep fighting the longest war in our history. In a February 24th speech to National Press Club the California Rep Read on →
In business school there is little ambiguity as to the mission, money ... profits. In art school it's a little different. The one I went to required focus, after a year of fundamentals, on one of several options: Advertising, Illustration, Industrial Design (all, you'll note, with the same point as business school) or Fine Art. Within the Fine Arts, by year three, one selected a major: painting, sculpture or printmaking. Of course everyone knew that “fine art” was a commodity, but it was considered crass to dwell too much on that area. So what, if not money, was the point? Wel Read on →
A fellow writer asked me yesterday: What do you read? Which writers do you value? Who influences your style? This knocked me for six. It’s a Big Question. I have a long history in libraries and five bookcases stacked with a lifetime’s paperbacks (cheapskate) and short of trawling the shelves for authors’ names which often escape me, I didn’t think I had time to respond. IRS accounts waiting on my dining table reproach me every time I walk past doing something more interesting. But this intriguing question slipped into my mind’s cogs as they surreptitiously rotated. First off, I admit the guilty pl Read on →
When my boys were growing up they learned rude words from their classmates (school is an education) and naturally I tried to filter out the most offensive. When a four letter word slipped out of their mouths I would always say “Please don’t say that.” After I explained that their meaning was offensive, and if it became their familiar vocabulary it would inevitably slip out when they didn’t want it to (like in front of a teacher), they were pretty accommodating. Their father however replied to my request not to swear in front of the children (without prevarication) “I’ll effing well Read on →