Click the arrow below to hear an audio version of this post (15 mins 37 sec).
[Posts are sequential, to be read/heard in date order - opposite to the order they’re generally displayed in. Paid-for posts have technical content. To see a full list of posts in sequential order, with a brief summary of each, click here .]
It’s generally accepted that outcomes of quantum events are intrinsically random, subject to statistical variation defined by the quantum wave function. This randomness is enshrined in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which states that quantum outcomes are intrinsically indeterminate (i.e. no deeper explanation exists for that randomness - it just is), with a statistical distribution given by the wave function for the system in question.
This view on quantum events was decided in the mid-1950s, primarily by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Einstein disagreed with this interpretation of quantum outcomes, declaring (paraphrased): “I do not believe that God plays dice”, but he was outvoted on this issue; his view that there must be some underlying reason for this apparent randomness was rejected in favour of the view that there is no deeper mechanism, things are just intrinsically random.
This picture of a probability distribution for quantum outcomes, for whatever reason, is not without its benefits. Notably, replacing the classical yes/no of certain types of outcomes with probabilities led to the discovery that certain events previously regarded as impossible have a small but non-zero probability of them happening. This has led to identification of the phenomenon of quantum tunnelling, with a wide variety of applications as well as explanations of previously non-understood natural effects. [This doesn’t, of course, require absolute randomness: it could be the result of some deeper truth.]
So what’s the big deal?
So what’s the big deal? Why all the fuss about events being described as ‘random’? We see randomness all around us, don’t we? Numbers of birds in a flock, number of blades of grass in a square metre, number of babies born in a particular year, duration of a phone call to a call centre - there are countless examples of randomness all around us.
No, actually, there aren’t - not events that are intrinsically random, without some deeper cause. Other than this proposal of quantum indeterminacy, there’s no example of such a thing anywhere. Bohr & Heisenberg invented a radically new concept, for which some real justification, and some explanation, is required. Every other form of ‘randomness’ is in fact deterministic, with clearly definable causes. All of these causes are rooted in natural effects of one sort or another.
The number of birds in a flock, for example, is the result of a highly complex combination of circumstances: degree of breeding success; weather conditions; availability of food; etc, etc - all of these factors are in turn results of natural effects, those birds just didn’t turn up spontaneously out of nowhere (the equivalent of B & H’s proposal for randomness of quantum outcomes). Number of babies born in a given year is down to: number of conceptions in the previous 9 months (we don’t need to go into details, but I think we’ll all agree every one of those conceptions is anything but random, depending on a whole host of factors); proportion of pregnancies that make it to full term (again, countless deterministic factors involved there) - in short, not just random with no determining causes, those babies didn’t just appear out of nowhere.
Even those dice, the very epitome of randomness, land completely in accordance with how they were held, how they were thrown, height of fall, prevailing air currents, elasticity (‘bounce factor’) of dice and landing surface etc: with full knowledge of all such factors and a sufficiently powerful computer the numbers shown on landing could be predicted with 100% precision, no room for any indeterminacy of the sort proposed by B & H for every quantum outcome.
By contrast, the ‘winning’ verdict enshrined in the Copenhagen Interpretation is that outcomes of quantum events are non-deterministically random - plucked out of the air with no specific causative factors. Even more strangely, those outcomes are subject to a statistical distribution defined by the quantum wave function for that event - so yes, a definable pattern, but no, no definitive reason for which outcome from that pattern actually happens.
This is taking statistics to a whole new level. Far from following the principle of randomness established across the whole realm of science (including social science) and maths, where ‘random’ events can be traced back to a portfolio of causative factors (generally far too complex to analyse, but nevertheless there), quantum randomness is ascribed to ‘think of a number’, with no rhyme nor reason for that number.
[Note that defining a probability density function for a random event, as from the quantum wave function, is a very different thing from defining - even in principle - a set of reasons why that event should have turned out a particular way. The latter makes that outcome deterministic, at a deep level; the former makes an outcome independent of any specific causative circumstances - more like magic than science.]
So let’s be very clear on this: random numbers don’t just simply ‘happen’; appearance of randomness generally involves a whole stack of deterministic events. Anyone who’s had anything to do with random number generators (RNGs) in computing knows that. True RNGs, as opposed to pseudo-random number generators, draw on naturally occurring phenomena such as atmospheric noise to introduce an element of unpredictability into their output. But note that even such phenomena are at the deepest level deterministic, depending on various natural effects which are too complex to be analysed or predicted. Genuine non-deterministic random values are darned elusive critters: they just don’t exist in nature.
Except, we’re told, in quantum outcomes. We’re asked to believe that the cosmos is turning out an endless supply of random values constantly, untold gadzillions across the universe every nanosecond. So where is the cosmic RNG? How does it operate? This blithe suggestion that nature just picks a number out of a hat, with no underlying reason, for every quantum event, is totally contrary to everything we understand about randomness. More than that, a result without a cause is totally contrary to both good science and common sense.
So what is going on??
So what is going on??
[A brief word here about MWI, the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. This proposes that every possible outcome of any quantum event does actually happen, spawning multiple whole new universes at an unthinkable rate, for every tiniest event; we just happen to be on this ‘branch’ of a constantly-splitting universe in which our observed outcome happened in each case - other ‘us’es inhabit innumerable universes where other outcomes occurred. The thorny issues relating to this proposal are, like the proposal itself, far too extensive to consider here. This topic is explored in depth in my book Atoms of Light.]
Ok, so if quantum randomness is a thing - which it is - in the same sense as any other random process, then what deterministic effect(s) underlie that randomness? What is driving the outcomes of quantum events?
The answer to that question isn’t too difficult to track down.
We know from previous posts, notably Gravity II, that the universe is suffused with the extended time-varying electromagnetic field effects from every material particle in the cosmos, as well as every free-flying photon of energy. Put simply, the whole universe is a vast ocean of those time-varying electromagnetic field effects. Every particle of matter, as well as every free photon, is immersed in that ocean and so influenced by it - and let’s not forget that those matter particles are themselves bundles of these same time-varying electromagnetic fields.
It should come as no surprise, then, that every quantum event is influenced by that ever-changing field. On the contrary, this means that the whole universe - every smallest subatomic particle, every tiniest thread of energy - is one unimaginably vast and complex wave function. In the words of the mystics: “Everything is one”.
So when we’re considering the outcome of any quantum event we should be taking account of the influence of every particle of matter, every strand of energy, in the universe. Of course that’s not possible; so we make an approximation by only taking into account those particles and energies that are immediately and obviously part of the event we’re interested in. But of course every such event is perturbed by those wider influences. This gives a result which - surprise, surprise - is defined by a probability distribution that takes account of the likely perturbation effects of those influences, depending on the amplitude of the primary wavefunction associated with each possible alternative outcome.
In other words, from a cosmic perspective there’s only one possible outcome of any quantum event. The perception of a multiplicity of possible outcomes is a result of not being able to precisely quantify the consequence of those constantly-changing background effects - which would never be possible.
So in a sense Bohr & Heisenberg were right to say it’s not possible to be more specific in terms of outcomes. But they were totally wrong to say that such outcomes are intrinsically non-deterministic; and Einstein was totally right to propose that the apparent absolute randomness is the result of some deeper truth: that deeper truth is the universal time-varying background electromagnetic field.
This means, of course, that there’s no such thing as ‘collapse of the wavefunction’; the universal wavefunction is simply flowing from one state into another, deterministically (but with an important twist - see the next post). This does, though, shed an interesting light on that ‘collapse’ when a wide-spread photon wave ‘collapses’ to a point when the photon is absorbed by an atom or molecule. That’s for next time; expect some surprises - and expect further insights into our material reality, and the broader reality Beyond Spacetime.
Next up:
The Cosmic Wavefunction - and What About Consciousness?
Time to address the elephant in the room.
In the meantime, be sure to check out Transfinite Mind for a wealth of free resources, including non-technical articles and presentations, as well as books to suit every level of scientific (or non-scientific) background.
Also, if you find these articles interesting and thought-provoking, and you know others who may find them of interest, please be sure to point those others in this direction. Thanks.