Occam's Donkey: Mind Myth 8: What about quantum physics!?

Much quacking mischief has been caused in the names of a trio of scientific impostors, pop-neuroscience, postmodernism and quantum quackery. From pop-neuroscience the idea that the brain is as easily manipulable as a yo-yo on a string; from post-modernism the idea that there is no objective reality and that any viewpoint is as valid as any other; from quantum quackery the idea that our thoughts can influence the physical world and change our destiny (without behavioural intervention).

Much of pop-neuroscience has been exposed comprehensively as pseudoscience, as documented on this blog in the previous mind myth posts. Scientists such as Alan Sokal in the famous Sokal affair exposed post-modernism as an emperor with no clothes and it has been on the wane, except in pockets of academia. Quantum quackery has also been exposed as nonsense by scientists such as Robert Park and Victor Stenger, but because of the very complexity of the science of quantum physics it claims to be based upon, and the support of guru quacks such as Deepak Chopra, continues to deceive many. It's often said that even physicists struggle to understand quantum physics. I'm not a physicist, but based on the work of others more knowledgeable than I am, I'll try to demonstrate that the science of quantum physics offers no scientific basis for various nonsensical ideas of mind-matter interaction.

I have often experienced the following scenario, as I'm sure have most skeptics who sometimes find themselves engaged in arguments with people espousing "alternative" views of scientific reality. After all the person's arguments had been exposed as lacking evidence and scientific credibility, he (or she) would get a faraway in his eyes, then pose the clinching question: "But what about quantum physics?" My typical exasperated response would be: "Quantum physics has nothing to do with it!" A useless response, because normally his mind's been made up and arguments about the irrelevance of Heisenberg, the measurement problems, entanglement, and so forth (half of which I did not understand in any case, and most of which I am sure he did not understand), would have made no difference.

What is quantum physics and how is it different from (or rather, how does it complement) classical Newtonian physics (which is a special case of Einsteins general general theory of relativity). These are not simple questions and on a brief Google search I could find no succinct answers, possibly for the simple reason that there are none. Let me, however, for present purposes and at the grave risk of oversimplifying it, try:

Newtonian physics, primarily characterised by Newton's laws of motion, is mathematically precise and deterministic. It is applicable mainly to macroscopic objects, from golf balls to planets.

Quantum physics, primarily characterised by paradoxes inherent in the dual nature of light as particle and wave, is best described mathematically as probabilistic. It is applicable to the very small, the universe of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

So, how does this tie in with quantum quackery? Wikipedia offers a useful definition:

"Quantum mysticism is the claim that the laws of quantum mechanics incorporate mystical ideas similar to those found in certain religious traditions or New Age beliefs. It is descended from the measurement problem – the seemingly special role which observers play in quantum mechanics. The related term quantum quackery has been used pejoratively by skeptics to discount claims that quantum theory might support mystical beliefs, while quantum mysticism has been used as a more neutral description of ideas that blend the ideas of eastern mysticism and quantum physics."

while an astrophysicist writing under the pseudonym Moonflake in the blog Smoke & Mirrors, described its origins:

"Historically, all this quantum flapdoodle began with Niels Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, the famous Copenhagen Interpretation, and Erwin Schrodinger’s response to it, the even more famous Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment. Most people interpret these to mean that all reality is interconnected, including the human mind, and that the conscious observer is able to affect reality by will alone. Some take it even further and take it to mean that we actually create reality with our thoughts."

So, what about quantum physics makes quacks and New Age fluffy bunnies (Dave Snowden's term) so excited? First is the so-called measurement or observation phenomenon.

The measurement problem

Stephen Hawking in his book (with Leonard Mlodinow) A Briefer History of Time (Hawking Light so that even I can understand), explains this well. In order to predict the future state (position and velocity) of a particle, its initial state has to be known. The initial state can be determined by shining light on it. Light being both particle and wave, will limit the accuracy of the measurement to not better than the distance between its wave crests. You cannot use a small arbitrary amount of light, at least one packet of light (one quantum as determined by Planck's quantum hypothesis) has to be used. As predicted by Heisenberg in his famous Uncertainty Principle, the packet of light will disturb the particle being measured. The more accurate the position of the particle is measured, the less accurate can its speed be determined and vice versa. The speed or position becomes a matter of probability.

How do you get from the firing of a quantum of light to determine the position of a subatomic particle to the notion of conscious thought influencing reality? Surely an individual thinking about or observing a subatomic particle, does not emit a quantum of light in the process? The idea that the eyes emit rays when seeing dates back to Augustine and before. If anyone still believed it today, it would surely be on par with belief in a flat earth. Yet, that is exactly the implication of quantum quacks' belief that thoughts influence reality, based upon the measurement issue in quantum physics. There is is to my knowledge no scientific evidence to support such ideas.

This post is work in progress. I'm writing out of my area of expertise and with time limits due to work commitments. I'll welcome any expert comments (even comments for true believers in quantum mysticism).

For now I close with a quote from the physicist Robert Park from his book Voodoo Science: