Thursday, September 28, 2023

Quantum Physics and Psychology

[Airlie's essay on]
Quantum Physics and Psychology

— Online (bonus) appendix (with help from Marti Ward) to her story in




Quantum Science

Once upon a time, we believed that Physics was simple: what we could see at an everyday level was the same as what happened at the level of atoms and electrons which was the same as what happened at the level of stars and planets.

Then Einstein came along, and General Relativity. And Heisenberg came along, and Quantum  Mechanics. But we still don’t quite know how to make these theories play nice with each other.

General Relativity limited velocities (of objects and information) to the speed of light, but also allows the possibility of Einstein-Rosen bridges (postulated by them in 1935), that is to say wormholes from one part of the universe to the other, and between different times. These come about as potential solutions to the various equations.

Quantum Mechanics limited how accurately you could measure location and velocity at the same time, with Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen proposing (also in 1935) an experiment where a pair of particles is entangled, so that when the quantum state of one is determined, the quantum state of the other is also determined — irrespective of how far apart they are.

These problems lead not just to the time-travel paradoxes but expose apparent internal inconsistencies within Quantum Mechanics, which can be resolved by adding the assumption that the wormholes take you between different universes, parallel universes, different dimensions.

So these theories provide plenty of ammunition for Science Fiction writers. And periodically we discover that things we thought were Science Fiction might actually be true.

The funny thing about Science is that it is actually all Fiction: that is we don’t know that any of it is true: all we have is theories with varying degrees of certainty. And occasionally theories we though were (almost certainly) true turn out to be (quite obviously) false.

In Science, we can never really prove a theory, but we can find contradictions, and indeed Karl Popper’s (1932) definition of good science and good theory, is one that involves developing refutable theories — that is making predictions into the unknown and then constructing experiments to test those predictions. 

If the prediction is false, then it is back to the drawing board. If the prediction is true, all that that does is give us a bit more confidence and push us to find and test other predictions. Of course, in practice people don’t like their theories being disproved: Thomas Kuhn (1962) noted that in reality a whole lot of tension and invalidation has to build up, and usually the original proponents and defenders of the theory have to die off, and only then can there be a ‘paradigm shift’.

One quantum prediction that does seem to be borne out is that of quantum teleportation (which is really more like quantum telepathy). This is precisely what Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were concerned about in 1935, because this is instantaneous and nothing — not even information — is meant to go faster than the speed of light according according to relativity. With the teleportation entangled particles are taken as far apart as possible, then probed. The act of observing a particle actually affects it according to quantum mechanics, and for entangled particles, the statistical distribution for the twin predicted by quantum mechanics is different from what is predicted by classical physics (Bell, 1964) — and these differences have now been verified. But still, we are talking about creating a twin of the particle rather than teleporting the same physical entity — but still it is a bit like Star Trek's transporter which recreates things/people in a different location.  Though the information still has to be sent by conventional means, limited by the speed of light.

Quantum Dimensions

The idea of different dimension arises in a number of ways in Physics. For example, the hypothesis that there are ten dimensions arises from SuperString theory — to be precise five different versions of SuperString theory. Rather than trying to try to identify which of these theories are right (impossibly hard) or wrong (slightly easier), another approach is to consider that they form another dimension.

This then leads to the idea that they could all be instances or limiting cases of a higher order theory, Edward Witten’s (1995) 11-dimensional M-theory (M for membrane, as in a 2-D plane like object that exists within 3 dimensions, and generalizes as p-planes which sweep analogously through p+1-dimensional space – jokingly, Witten also said it could stand for magic or mystery).

Theories of supergravity also suggest 11-dimensions as maximal, and in some sense optimal or parsimonious, in generalizations of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, in which time (measured in seconds) acts like an imaginary dimension analogous to the three spatial dimension (measured in light-seconds, the distance light travels in a second in a vacuum). The key equation is D² = X² + Y² + Z² – T², which itself generalizes the normal Euclidean idea of distance.

In essence, in these “Kaluza-Klein” theories, dimensions thus correspond to mathematical variables or physical constants that could potentially be different in another universe. But the supergravity idea suggests a way of testing for these orthogonal dimensions by looking for the missing gravitational force of higher order Euclidean generalizations. 

For this missing component to be unobserved, it would seem the dimensions must be very small, compactified dimensions. For example, we can conceive of circles or mini-spheres (with 1D length resp. 2D surface) at each point in 4D spacetime, giving us 5D or 6D. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle also means it is difficult for us to measure accurately in all dimensions simultaneously, so that small differences can be swamped by errors.

Whereas Kaluza (1919/1921) sought to extend Einstein’s theory of Gravity to include Maxwell’s model of electro-magnetism (in which electrical and magnetic fields are orthogonal), Klein (1929) related it to the new Quantum Theory, generalizing Heisenberg’s particle-wave work and Schrödinger’s equation, and interpreting its solutions as particle-like waves moving gravitational and electromagnetic fields through 4D spacetime.

Be warned: many theories of multiple dimensions are pure mathematics, with the dimension corresponding to variables, while others are pure speculation. But once we see orthogonal dimensions we can see the possibility of other set of dimensions similar to ours, except probably much much smaller. Finally, there is the quantum many worlds idea that every choice point spawns a new universe.

A good starting point for understanding Quantum Dimensions is the Scientific American article by Freedman and and van Nieuwenhuizen (1985), followed by the two part sequence of Plus Maths articles by David Berman (2005).

For a more imaginative look at different kinds of possible Parallel Universe, see Max Tegmark’s (2003) Scientific American article and his Crazy universe website at https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html along with the rather speculative descriptions in Matt Williams’ (2014) Universe Today and Phys.org article of what the 10 dimensions could represent.

Quantum Computing

Recently, the credibility of Quantum Mechanics has received a boost from quantum computers being able to compute things faster than a conventional computer. These rely on the idea of superposition, that quantum bits (qbits) can be in an indeterminate state that is not yet true of false, and that normal logical (and hence arithmetical and algorithmic) operations can be performed with these superimposed states, adding constraints on what the actual solution state can be until, if enough constraints are added to make it unique, we have the answer – computer in a linear amount of time (n steps) rather than an exponential because we don’t have to explore the two possible states of each bit/qbit, i.e. Ω(2^n) steps to explore the full tree of possibilities.

This gives rise to the idea of quantum probability, and it also changes the game in terms of the time taken for problems like factorization of large numbers, or related tasks like breaking encryption. Except our quantum computers are still relatively small compared with current encryption keys.

Quantum Psychology

In a BBS treatment of quantum probability as a new direction for Cognitive Modeling, Pothos & Busemeyer (2013) argue that quantum probability provides a descriptive model of behavior and can also provide a rational analysis of a task.

The underlying question here is whether quantum effects actually play a role in the brain, in thinking. In trying to formulate this as a refutable theory, it comes down to whether classical or quantum probability provides a better model for the observed data, and can make more accurate predictions. In particular can it provide a better model for human decisions that don’t fit with conventional ideas of probabilistic reason.

Quantum entanglement has been proposed as potentially allowing some form of telepathy, and there are some interesting observations about similarities between quantum processes and cognitive process, in the mathematical equations again, that have led people to suggest that quantum processes play a role in every day cognition, including in particular free will and decision making.

If quantum effects do play a role in cognition, as quantum psychologists suggest, then this opens the way for entangled particles to explain psychic phenomena (Roll, 2010).

Particle Accelerators

Exploring the predictions of Quantum Science is very expensive. 

Quantum Physicists tend to be looking at very small things, like subatomic particles (and maybe the Higgs bosun), or very large things, like stars and black holes (and maybe an Einstein-Rosen bridge). Large or small, large energies are involved — and it takes a lot to accelerate even the tiniest particles to close to the speed of light, not to mention the electricity budget of a small country.

The particles we are trying to discover are also very small and very fast and very penetrating.

There are a few accelerators and colliders around. Most people have probably heard about the Large Hadron Collider on the Swiss-French border (which is internationally funded). Most people have probably not heard of the one built in Texas, south of Dallas (which was cancelled when it got too expensive for the national budget).

Sometimes the aim is to create entangled particles of various kinds — the kind that leads to so-called quantum teleportation or perhaps quantum telepathy.

Further Reading

  • Behavioural and Brain Sciences, Target Article by EM Pothos and JR Busemeyerand.  Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 255 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001525
  • New Scientist, Thomas Lewton, 16/23 December 2023, pp47-49. The mystery of the quantum lentils. https://www.newscientist.com/issue/3469/
  • New Scientist, Michael Marshall, 16/23 December 2023, pp44-46. In their dreams. https://www.newscientist.com/issue/3469/
  • New Scientist, Editorial, 9 September 2023, pp32-39. The Amazing Theory of Almost Everything. https://www.newscientist.com/issue/3455/
  • New Scientist, Michael Brooks on 25 August 2021. Beyond quantum physics: The search for a more fundamental theory.  https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133493-300
  • Phys.org, Universe Today’s Matt Williams on December 11, 2014. A universe of 10 dimensions. https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html       AND     https://www.universetoday.com/48619/a-universe-of-10-dimensions/
  • Physics Central on 21 July 2013. Migration via quantum mechanics. https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/pia-entanglement.cfm now archived at
    https://web.archive.org/web/20201112034950/https://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/pia-entanglement.cfm
  • Plus Maths, David Berman on 10 October, 2012,  Kaluza, Klein and their story of a fifth dimension. https://plus.maths.org/content/kaluza-klein-and-their-story-fifth-dimension
  • Plus Maths, David Berman on 9 October, 2012, 10 Dimensions of String Theory. https://plus.maths.org/content/10-dimensions-and-more-string-theory
  • Plus Maths, Chris Budd and Cathryn Mitchell on 7 September 2023, Maths in a minute: Inverse problems.  https://plus.maths.org/content/maths-minute-inverse-problems
  • Scientific American, Daniel Z. Freedman and Peter van Nieuwenhuizen, The Hidden Dimensions of Spacetime, Vol. 252, No. 3 (March 1985), pp. 74-83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24967594
  • Scientific American’s George Musser on The Strangeness of Physics and Telepathy. https://bigthink.com/hard-science/george-musser-on-the-strangeness-of-physics-and-telepathy/
  • Scientific American, Space.MIT’s Max Tegmark, Parallel Universes and Welcome to my Crazy Universe http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html
  • Universe Today, Jean Tate on November 11, 2009. Parallel Universe.  https://www.universetoday.com/44769/parallel-universe/
  • Universe Today, Nancy Atkinson on September 16, 2009. What! No Parallel Universe? Cosmic Cold Spot Just Data Artifact, https://www.universetoday.com/40413/what-no-parallel-universe-cosmic-cold-spot-just-data-artifact/
  • Universe Today, Nancy Atkinson on October 15, 2009. If We Live in a Multiverse, How Many Are There?  https://www.universetoday.com/42696/if-we-live-in-a-multiverse-how-many-are-there/

References

  1. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics Physique Физика 1 (3): 195–200. 
  2. Fuss IG, Navarro DJ (2013). Open Parallel Cooperative and Competitive Decision Processes: A Potential Provenance for Quantum Probability Decision Models. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (4), pp.818–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12045
  3. Freedman, DZ, van Nieuwenhuizen (1985). The Hidden Dimensions of Spacetime, Scientific American, 252 (3) pp.74-83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24967594
  4. Kaku M (2006). Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. Anchor.
  5. Kuhn TS (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.
  6. Kuhn TS (1970). Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? In Lakatos, Irme; Musgrave, Alan (eds.). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–24.
  7. Popper K, (1934/1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2 ed.). Martino Publishing.
  8. Roll WG, Williams BJ (2010). Quantum theory, neurobiology, and parapsychology. In Krippner S & Friedman HL (Eds.), Mysterious minds: The neurobiology of psychics, mediums, and other extraordinary people. Praeger/ABC-CLIO. Pp.1–33.


Availability of Time for PsyQ

Time for PsyQ is available from your favourite bookseller:

 

Awards for Time for PsyQ

Time for PsyQ won the Silver medal for Teen and Young Adult Sci-Fi Action & Adventure in the 2023 Global Book Awards.


Reviews of Time for PsyQ

4.7/5 Amazon
5.0/5 Emerald
4.8/5 Goodreads 
4.0/5 OnlineBookClub
5.0/5 Reedsy


OBC

★ ★ ★ ★ 

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=376706  Gerald Stewart

★ ★ ★ 


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)