Mirror Moves: Is Reality Simply A Quantum Game?
Consider the following: you plop down on the sofa and pick up your favorite book. As you flip through the pages, you take in the image on the front cover, run your fingers across the smooth book sleeve, and inhale that familiar book smell. To you, the book appears to be made up of a variety of different sensory appearances. The same scenario applies to Kindle devotees.
The book’s own independent existence, on the other hand, is something you expect to exist behind those appearances.
You expect the book to look, feel, and smell exactly as it did when you first picked it up off the coffee table and walked into the kitchen or out the door to go to work when you put it down on the coffee table.
Since the 17th century, this way of looking at the world has been responsible for much of our scientific progress.
In his new book Helgoland, Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli argues that quantum theory — the physical theory that describes the universe at its smallest scales — almost certainly demonstrates that this worldview is incorrect.
Instead, Rovelli argues that we should adopt a worldview that is based on relationships. Expecting objects to have their own independent existence — that is, independent of us and any other objects — is actually a deeply held assumption about the world that we have about ourselves and about others.
This assumption has its origins in the scientific revolution of the 17th century and is a component of what we refer to as the mechanistic worldview of the universe today. According to this viewpoint, the world is analogous to a massive clockwork machine, with the parts of the machine being governed by predetermined laws of motion.
What Are The Nature Of Relationships?
During the scientific revolution, the English physicist Isaac Newton and his German counterpart Gottfried Leibniz had a disagreement about the nature of space and time, which was a source of contention for both men.
It was Newton who asserted that space and time functioned as a sort of “container” for the contents of the universe. As a result, if we were able to remove everything from the universe (all of the planets, stars, and galaxies), we would be left with nothing but empty space and time. In this case, space and time are considered to be “absolute.”
Space and time, on the other hand, according to Leibniz, were nothing more than the sum total of the distances and durations between all of the objects and events that occurred throughout the world. If we were to remove the contents of the universe, we would also be removing space and time from the equation.
Space and time are viewed in this way: they are merely the spatial and temporal relationships between objects and events, according to the “relational” perspective. When Einstein was developing general relativity, he drew heavily on the relational view of space and time as a source of inspiration.
When it comes to understanding quantum mechanics, Rovelli makes use of this concept. A photon, an electron, or any other fundamental particle according to him are nothing more than the properties they exhibit when interacting with or in relation to other objects, according to quantum theory.
The position, momentum, and energy of a quantum object are all determined through experiment, and these properties include things like the object’s speed and energy. The state of an object is formed by the combination of these elements.
Those properties, according to Rovelli’s relational interpretation, are all that the object possesses: there is no underlying individual substance that “possesses” the properties.
What This Means For Understanding Quantum Theory
Consider the well-known quantum puzzle of Schrödinger’s cat, which has been around since the 1920s. Close the lid on the box and put the cat inside, along with some lethal agent (such as a vial of poison gas) that has been activated by a quantum process (such as the decay of an unstable radioactive atom).
The quantum process is a coincidental occurrence. Even though there is no way to predict it, we can describe it in such a way that it tells us the different chances of the atom decaying or not over the course of a given period. Because the decay will result in the opening of the vial of poison gas and, consequently, the death of the cat, the cat’s life or death is also a purely coincidental circumstance.
As far as orthodox quantum theory is concerned, the cat is neither dead nor alive until the box is opened and the entire system is observed. There is still some ambiguity about what it would be like for the cat to be neither dead nor alive in the exact same moment.
However, according to the relational interpretation, the state of any system is always in relation to the state of another system (or sets of systems). As a result, the quantum process in the box may have an indefinite outcome in our eyes, but a definite outcome in the eyes of the cat.
As a result, it is perfectly reasonable for the cat to be neither dead nor alive in our eyes while also being either definitely dead or alive in its own right. One fact about the situation is true for us, and another fact about the situation is true for the cat. When we open the box, the cat’s state becomes definite for us, but the cat has never been in an indefinite state for the cat himself or herself.
There is no such thing as a global, “God’s eye” view of reality in the relational interpretation.
What This Tells Us About Reality
Rovelli argues that, because our world is ultimately a quantum one, we should take these lessons into consideration. In particular, objects such as your favorite book may only have their properties in relation to other objects, including you, rather than independently of one another.
The good news is that this also applies to all other objects, such as your coffee table. So, when you finally get to work, your favorite book continues to appear exactly as it did when you were holding it in your hands. Nonetheless, this represents a significant shift in perspective on the nature of reality.
According to this viewpoint, the world is an intricate web of interrelations, such that objects no longer have their own individual existence separate from other objects — much like an endless game of quantum mirrors — and therefore no longer have their own individual existence. Furthermore, it is possible that there is no independent “metaphysical” substance that constitutes our reality and that underlies this web.
Conclusion
Rovelli puts it best:
“We are nothing more than images of images,” says the author. Realization, including one’s own self, is nothing more than a thin and fragile veil, beyond which… there is nothing.”
Food for thought the next time you glance at yourself in the mirror, brushing your teeth, remembering that overdue electric bill and running late for work.
