From: aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Date: 12 Oct 1992 18:21:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu () says:
 
>In article <1b9fngINNfon@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
     aa387@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jim Kutz) writes:
 
>> One  reads all  kinds of  horse manure  these days  from magazine
>> writers  about how  a quantum  event doesn't  really exist  until
>> observed by  a *conscious* entity.  They invariably cite  quantum
>> physics as an 'authority' on this. Then they go off on some flaky
>> 'mind over  matter' tangent about  how supposedly one  can choose
>> which  reality  to  recognize,or  even  just  shut  your eyes and
>> 'refuse  delivery'  on  whichever  aspects  of  reality you don't
>> happen  to like,  supposedly forcing  reality to  conform to your
>> expectations.
>>
>> [very good discussion deleted to save space]
>>
>>           - Jim Kutz (aa387@cleveland.freenet.edu)
>>
>> --
>>
>> A Fair Witness is one who, if asked:
>> "Is that house over there white?",
>> answers: "Well it's white on this side."
>
>This was a wonderful discussion. However I think a much simpler explanation
>that will convince people much more quickly is to examine the method of
>"observation" directly. For example, you wish to set up a photon detector
>to detect photons. How can this be accomplished? You must have the
>photon interact with something else, as you cant detect a particle that
>doesnt interact with it's surroundings. It is this interaction that
>collapses the wave function. (the photon can't react with a detector if
>the photon is in the far slit :) Now it is easy to point out that what
>we normally call an observation is by definition an interaction. And then
>to simply observe that an interaction can collapse the wave function,
>and observation is a form of interaction, should quickly dispell the
>idea that a sentient observer is responsible for the wave collapse.
>
>But then again, never underestimate the power of human stupidity :)
>
>                 -Hans H Hjort
 
The problem is that most  flake writers who prattle about quantum
mechanics  wouldn't grasp  the implications  of that.  Most flake
writers  cling for  dear life  to some  *general* statement  by a
physics authority,  such as "the observer  affects the observed",
or "the act of observation changes the quantity being observed."
 
You're  quite  correct  that  the  misinterpretation  of the word
"observe" is what's causing the  problem. What I'm saying is that
maybe  there's an  alternative (clearer)  way to  make statements
about quantum uncertainty, without referring to an "observer" ?
 
For example,  would there be any  inaccuracy or incompleteness in
stating:
 
          "The act of interaction with a measuring apparatus
           affects the quantity observed at the quantum level."
 
Alternatively, why not say:
 
          "The observer's *apparatus* affects the quantity observed
           via interaction."
 
Getting  rid of  the word  "observer" would  be a  heck of  a lot
easier than trying to educate  the entire flake community that an
"observer" doesn't  really make the  "observations". To you  (and
probably  to most  others familiar  with physics)  it's Perfectly
Obvious that only *instruments* can witness events at the quantum
level.  However  that's  *never*  obvious  to  the scientifically
illiterate.
 
Every definition in Webster's  Unabridged Dictionary (at least in
my old edition)  refers to an "observer" as  a human being. Every
definition of "observation" *implies* a  human being. So where is
the reader (or the writer) of  a magazine article supposed to get
the idea that an "observer" is actually an apparatus?
 
The point is that when a  physicist talks to a magazine writer in
"layman's  terms", the  lay writer  (or reader)  has a reasonable
expectation  that  the  words   correspond  to  their  dictionary
definitions.
 
All I'm  really suggesting is  that physicists who  deal with the
public may want to make sure that this distinction is understood.
Speaking  as a  sigop of   a skeptical  forum on  Free-net,, it's
become clear to me that this point is *not* getting across.
 
What *really*  bothers me is  the way quantum  mysticism provides
flake writers  with renewed faith in  their own bullshit (whereas
previously they were  acutely aware of being in  the same camp as
the flat earthers). Some of these characters might have thrown in
the towel if  they hadn't been given a  new lease on credibility,
once again elevated to prophets  of the Outer Reaches of Reality.
Much of the paranormal hokum that was debunked in ESP labs is now
sneaking back in the back  door, this time as *theoretical* mumbo
jumbo less easily disproven by experiment.
 
Quantum  flakery also  provides these  writers with  a large  new
market, because a lot of science buffs (and sci-fi/fantasy buffs)
are  snowed  by  'quantum  mysticism',  shopping  for  a matching
philosophy, or belief system, or  'meditation method' by which to
channel this  supposed power of  mind over matter.  Unfortunately
they tend to follow whichever guru makes the most educated noises
while telling them what they want to hear.
 
Let's  not forget  that each  new discovery  in science  has been
mimicked  by  a  highly  successful  fringe 'science'. Metallurgy
begat alchemy.  Astronomy became astrology.  Mathematics fostered
numerology. When  magnets became commonplace,  "animal magnetism"
became a powerful  placebo ( "Hey, you can't  see it because it's
*invisible* - that's how you know it's *genuine*." :)
 
Immediately after the discovery of wireless, mediums began wowing
the gullible with  talk of waves, vibes, ether,  and "tuning in".
Crystal  radios were  succeeded  by  crystal 'channeling'  of all
sorts  of supposed  psychic energies.  The idea  of a transmitter
turned into 'remote sending'. "Just put  your hand on the set and
*BELIEVE* enough to write that check."
 
Television  triggered  a  craze  in  'remote  viewing'  (  a.k.a.
clairvoyance ).  The EEG and the  polygraph became the "E-meters"
of  L.  Ron  Hubbard.  Computer  science  became his 'Dianetics'.
Statistical  analysis  begat  statistical  divination  and voodoo
economics. Radiation  therapy was followed by  the 'orgone energy
therapy' of Wilhelm Reich. Laser surgery brought a resurgence in
'healing colors'.
 
In  each  case,  the  credibility  of  a  related science added a
major 'placebo enhancement' to the pseudo-science.
 
Quantum mysticism  is an unusually  powerful 'totem', perhaps  as
potent  a mystic  symbol  as  Einstein. Like  relativity, quantum
mysticism is  perceived as a  power of the  mind to unlock  great
potentials which  somehow exist relative to  the observer. Unlike
Einstein,  quantum  mysticism  has   far  greater  potential  for
personal flakery.
 
It's  as  if  the  credibility  of  physics  had been extended to
endorse the ultimate placebo, strong  juju rooted in the strength
of the atom, a suitably vague cosmic connection that reaches from
the inner mind to... The Outer Limits.
 
I think that closing this loophole would take a major bite out of
the Great  Crock, especially since  the most recent  additions to
the Crock are held together by  'quantum glue' at key points :)
 
I'd like  to see some  of the Heavy  Hitters of Physics  come out
with  quotable (and  above all  *understandable* statements about
the nature of 'observation', so that people will realize that the
universe *does*  still exist independent of  the consciousness of
the observer.
 
 
                      - Jim Kutz
                        (aa387@cleveland.freenet.edu)