Quantum
Physics and Reality
All
of the current cosmological theories also depend upon quantum
mechanics, which defines the activity of atomic and subatomic
particles. Quantum physics differs in fundamental ways from classical
Newtonian physics. Classical physics concerns itself with the behavior
of solid matter, but quantum physics is concerned only with
mathematical expressions of observations and measurements. Solid
material reality evaporates. Nobel-laureate physicist Werner Heisenberg
declared, "It turns out that we can no longer talk of the
behavior of the particle apart from the process of observation. In
consequence, we are finally led to believe that the laws of nature
which we formulate mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with
the particles themselves but with our knowledge of elementary
particles."17 In addition to the experimental apparatus, the observer
had to be brought into the analysis as an explicit element distinct
from the apparatus.
But
there are fundamental problems in applying quantum mechanics to the
universe. By definition, the universe includes all observers, so you
cannot have an outside observer of a universal physical system. In an
attempt to formulate a version of quantum mechanics that does not
require an outside observer, eminent physicists such as John Wheeler
have proposed that the universe continuously splits into innumerable
copies. Each parallel universe contains observers to see that
particular set of quantum alternatives, and according to this theory
all of these universes are real.
Reacting
to this, Bryce D. Witt, writing in Physics Today, states, "I still
recall the shock I experienced on first encountering the multiworld
concept. The idea of 10 to the 100th plus slightly imperfect copies of
oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately
become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense. Here
is schizophrenia with a vengeance."18 If scientists want a big bang
theory of the origin of the universe that can be consistent with
quantum mechanics, this is one of the bizarre hypotheses they are
forced to come up with.
But
even more problems lie ahead on the path of materialistic reduction
that most scientists are treading. It's bad enough that both general
relativity and quantum mechanics lead to bizarre and unrealistic
consequences when applied to cosmological questions. But these
difficulties are compounded to an exasperating degree by the fact that
scientists' hopes to properly describe the universe and its beginning
depend upon combining both theories. The proposed result would be a
Grand Unified Theory (GUT) capable of describing all the forces at work
in the universe by a single comprehensive mathematical expresssion.
General relativity is required to explain the basic structure of
space-time. Quantum mechanics is needed in order to explain the
behavior of subatomic particles. Unfortunately these two theories
apparently contradict each other.
The
first step toward this mathematical integration is quantum field
theory, which attempts to describe the behavior of electrons by a
combination of quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of special
relativity. This theory has scored some remarkable successes. Yet
P.A.M. Dirac, the Nobel-prize-winning English physicist who
invented the theory, confessed, "It seems to be quite impossible to put
the theory on a sound mathematical basis."19 The second and much more
difficult step would be to combine general relativity with quantum
mechanics, and no one has the faintest idea how to do this. No less an
authority than Nobel-laureate physicist Steven Weinberg admits that it
may take a century or two to get the mathematics together.20 The
cosmologists say they need the GUT to describe the origin of the
universe, and they don't have it yet. So that can only mean their big
bang and inflationary models are without solid foundation.
Since
the days of Newton and Galileo, the program of physical science has
been to express everything in mathematical terms. Furthermore the
mathematical description must be confirmed by observation and
controlled experiments. We have shown that the big bang theories fail
to conform to these requirements. Simplicity has also been stressed as
a requirement of physical theories, and the big bang theories also fail
in that respect, for they are becoming, as we have seen, progressively
more outlandishly contorted with each new formulation. They are just
what Galileo and Newton would have disliked--storytelling to fill in
the gaps of knowledge.
The
big bang theories would therefore appear to be something less than
actual scientific explanations of the origin of the universe.
Nevertheless, in popular magazines and television specials, as well as
in the classroom, scientists deliberately give the public the
impression that they have already succeeded in demonstrating exactly
how the universe originated simply by physical laws. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
We
have seen that the cosmologists' attempt to comprehend the universe
within the narrow bounds of their narrow materialistic conceptions has
failed to explain its origins. Moreover, we have seen that their
theories do not even account for what they say is present in the
universe now.
For
instance, the big bang theory does not account for the existence of
galaxies. Imagine a scientist of great genius who had knowledge of the
current cosmological theories but no knowledge of observational
astronomy. Would he be able to predict that galaxies would form? The
answer is no. A universe made up of a uniformly distributed cloud of
gas is the only result consistent with the standard formulations of the
theory. This cloud would have a density of perhaps one atom per several
cubic feet, making it little better than a perfect vacuum. To get
anything else requires special modifications of the initial conditions
of the universe, and scientists find such modifications difficult to
justify. Traditionally, a scientific theory is considered acceptable if
starting from the initial framework you can straightforwardly predict
things. A theory that has to be monkeyed around with to a considerable
degree to obtain valid predictions is of questionable value.
As
Steven Weinberg says in The First Three Minutes, "The theory of the
formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems in
astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution."21 Then
without skipping a beat he says, "But that is another story." But no,
wait a minute--that is exactly the story! If the big bang theory can't
explain the initial cause of the universe or major features of the
universe such as galaxies, then what does it explain? Not very much, it
would seem.
The
big bang theory is supposed to explain the universe, but a major
problem is that many features of the universe are not understood
clearly enough to be the subject of such explanation. One big mystery
is the problem of missing mass. Physicist David Schramm of the
University of Chicago explains, "From all the light being emitted by
the Milky Way, we can estimate that our galaxy contains the mass of
about one hundred billion suns. But once we take this same object [the
Milky Way] and see how it interacts with another galaxy, such as our
neighbor Andromeda, we find that our galaxy is gravitating toward
Andromeda as though it had a mass almost ten times as great."22 It thus
appears that over 90% of the mass of the universe is missing. Ghostly
subatomic particles called neutrinos have been put forward as the
solution. Originally, however, the invisible neutrino was assigned no
mass by physicists, but now it has suddenly been assigned mass
sufficient to account for the missing matter in the universe as a
whole. How convenient.
So
even when we leave aside the questions of primal origins and get down
to the picture of the universe as it is today, there are still many
unanswered questions. The scientists will assert to the public with an
air of absolute conviction that they know the universe extends x
millions of light years and that it has existed for a total of y
billion years. They say that they have identified all the major bodies
in the universe for what they are--distant stars, galaxies, nebulae,
quasars, and so forth. Yet even the local Milky Way galaxy is not
clearly understood.
For
example, in Scientific American noted astronomer Bart J. Bok wrote, "I
remember the mid 1970s as a time when I and my fellow [Milky Way]
watchers were notably self-assured ... we did not suspect it would soon
be necessary to revise the radius of the Milky Way upward by a factor
of three or more and to increase its mass by as much as a factor of
10."23 If such basic measurements recently had to be drastically
revised after so many decades of observation, then what might the
future hold? Will there be even more drastic revisions?
Even
when we get down to our own solar system, we find there are fundamental
problems. The traditional account for the origin of planets--that they
have condensed from clouds of cosmic dust and gas--is on very shaky
ground because the equations for the interactions of the gas clouds
have never been satisfactorily solved. William McRae, professor of
astronomy at England's Sussex University and past president of the
Royal Astronomical Society, states, "The problem of the origin of the
solar system is perhaps the most notable of all unsolved problems in
astronomy."24
It
should be clear at this point to any impartial onlooker that the
strategy of materialistic reduction followed by cosmologists has not
allowed them to arrive at firm conclusions about the origin and nature
of the universe, despite their public posturing. There is certainly no
compelling reason for anyone to insist that the ultimate answers to
cosmological questions must be contained in simple mathematically
expressed physical laws. Indeed, the quantitative method has proved
inadequate for explaining many phenomena very close at hand, what to
speak of explaining the vast universe. Therefore it is certainly too
early to exclude alternative approaches, approaches that may involve
nonphysical explanations--explanations involving principles that go
beyond the known laws of physics.
There
may in fact be nonphysical causes at work in the history of the
universe, and there may even be nonphysical regions of the cosmos as
well. Physicist David Bohm admits, "The possibility is always open that
there may exist an unlimited variety of additional properties,
qualities, entities, systems, levels, etc., to which apply
correspondingly new kinds of laws of nature."25 Thus it is quite
possible that as our understanding of natural laws continues to evolve,
a picture of reality quite different from the one most people now
accept may emerge.
As we
have already seen, with infinitely rebounding and infinitely splitting
universes, some of the models and concepts proposed by the cosmologists
already challenge our commonsense conception of things. Do not think
that these strange ideas are out of the mainstream of scientific
thought. All the notions we have considered so far are actually the
most staid and respectable speculations.
Let
us now look at some even more outlandish ideas currently running loose
in the world of modern cosmology. Scientist John Gribbin, author of
White Holes, a book summarizing these topics, admiringly calls them
"the latest series of imaginative leaps made by the creative thinkers
today we call scientists--rather than prophets, seers, or oracles."26
One is the white hole--a quasar that pours out galaxies in a cosmic
gusher. Gribbin says, "Could the white holes actually fragment
themselves so that galaxies would reproduce themselves like amoebas, by
parthenogenesis? That sounds so unlikely in terms of our everyday
experience of the behavior of matter that it's worth looking at the
standard theories of galaxy formation to show just how hopeless they
are as explanations of the real Universe. Fissioning white holes might
seem like a solution of last resort, but when no other theory provides
any kind of satisfactory solution, that solution is surely the one we
must accept."27
Another
idea seriously entertained by cosmologists is space-time tunnels or
"cosmic wormholes." First seriously discussed in 1962 by physicist John
Wheeler in his book Geometrodynamics, the idea has entered into popular
consciousness through fantasy movies such as the Star Wars series,
where starships hurtle through hyperspace, thus making intergalactic
journeys that would normally take millions of years at the speed of
light. Some versions of the wormholes see them as entrances to the past
and future, or even to other universes.
In
the early part of this century, Einstein posited a fourth dimension;
now, as the implications of his gravitational field equations are being
more fully explored, extra dimensions are being added. Paul Davies, a
theoretical physicist, writes, "In addition to the three space
dimensions and the one time dimension we perceive in daily life, there
are seven extra space dimensions that have hitherto gone unnoticed."28
The
point of these descriptions is to show that even the material
scientists are being compelled to put forward explanations of the
universe that stretch the mind to an incredible degree. But must we
stretch our minds' only in the directions pointed out by material
science? Perhaps minds can be stretched in even other directions. If we
can contemplate higher material dimensions, then why not dimensions of
an entirely different sort? There is a definite need for new categories
of ideas, ideas that will undoubtedly challenge the currently held
reductionistic scientific strategy for understanding the universe .
That strategy includes the idea that the universe is ultimately simple
and can be exhaustively described in terms of quantitative laws.
But
suppose this is not so. It certainly appears that the universe is
unlimitedly complex and has aspects that may not be approached by
quantitative methods. If so, what strategy can be used to gain
knowledge about it? The many complex and orderly features of the
universe suggest that its cause is an intelligent designer. This idea
brings to mind the following possible strategy. If the underlying cause
of the universe is a supreme intelligent being, then there is hope that
we can understand the ultimate nature of reality by obtaining
information from this being. That there is such a being is certainly a
bold proposition, but no more so than the proposal that everything can
be explained by simple, mathematically expressed physical laws. And
just as in the case of the quantitative strategy, the value of this
alternative strategy can only be judged by how successfully it can be
applied. It would be unfair to reject it without seeing how well it can
be used to gain practical knowledge about reality.
To
many the idea of a supreme intelligence will bring to mind the world
view of Christian fundamentalism, to which people will have varying
reactions. But alternatives to the current theories of cosmologists are
not limited to the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Genesis.
Just as there are many possible materialistic explanations of the
origin of the universe, there are many possible explanations involving
a personal creator.
For
those seeking to broaden their intellectual options, one very rich
source of ideas for understanding the cosmos and our place in it is the
Vedic knowledge of ancient India. The Vedas include an extremely
sophisticated cosmology. Some of the concepts will be radically
different from those now being propagated; others will be surprisingly
complementary with current scientific findings. For example, Carl
Sagan, while in India filming a segment for his Cosmos television
series, said, "The most sophisticated ancient cosmological ideas come
from India. Hinduism [based on the Vedas] is the only religion in which
time scales correspond to scientific cosmology." He noted that the
sages of ancient India held that the universe undergoes progressive
cycles of creation and destruction over time scales lasting billions of
years.
As in
modern science, a basic unit of matter is the atom (in Sanskrit, the
anu), but the Vedas also include particles of consciousness called
jivatmas as well as an integrated superior conscious principle called
the paramatma (Supersoul). The Supreme Being, seen as the source of a
variety of physical and universal energies, is described as a
personality simultaneously omnipresent and localized, in whom the
universe exists and who exists within every atom of the universe. As we
shall see throughout this website, such ideas may give a more complete
and coherent understanding of the origin and nature of the universe.
Consciousness in particular is a fundamental aspect of reality that
cannot be ignored in theories that attempt to comprehensively explain
the cosmos.
At a
time when scientists are proposing such things as multiply-splitting
universes, cosmic wormholes for traveling from one space-time region to
another, universes in which time reverses, an eleventh dimension of
space-time, etc., the ancient transcendental conceptions found in the
Vedas should not be dismissed without due consideration. The big bang
and inflationary models, which rest on the shakiest of mathematical and
theoretical foundations, have certainly failed to provide adequate
answers to fundamental questions about the the universe and the
galaxies and planets and life forms we find within it today. Perhaps a
superconsciousness, a supremely intelligent designer--and not a set of
impersonal mathematical equations--is the ultimate explanation for the
universe that now seems so inexplicable.
1.
Erwin Schrodinger, What Is Life? and Mind and Matter (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 68.
2.
Richard Wolkomir, "Quark City," Omni, (February 198,4), p. 41.
3.
Kenneth E. Boulding, "Science: Our Common Heritage, Science, Vol. 207
(February 22, 1980), p. 834.
4.
Sir Bernard Lovell, "The Universe," The Random House Encyclopedia (New
York: Random House, Inc., 1977), p.37.
5.
Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam, 1977), p.
94.
6.
S. W. Hawking
and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 362--63.
7.
S.W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of
Space-Time, p. 364.
8.
Sir Bernard Lovell, "The Universe" The Random House Encyclopedia, p. 37.
9.
S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of
Space-Time, p. 360.
10.
Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, p. 143
11.
Alan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe,"
Scientific American, (May 1984), p. 127.
12.
Mitchell Waldrop, "Before the Beginning," Science 84 (January/February
1984), p. 51.
13.
Alan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe,"
Scientific American, p. 128.
14.
S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of
Space-time, p. 1.
15.
Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
and Co., 1980), p. 20.
16.
Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming, p. 20.
17.
Werner Heisenberg, "The Representation of Nature in Contemporary
Physics," Daedalus, Vol. 87, No. 3 (1958), pp. 95--108.
18.
Bryce D. Witt, "Quantum Mechanics and Reality," Physics Today
(September 1970), p. 33.
19.
P. A. M. Dirac, "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature,"
Scientific American (May 1963), pp. 45--53.
20.
David Hunter, "The Grand Unification of Physics" Softalk (March 1984),
p. 91.
21.
Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, p. 68.
22.
Marcia Bartusiak, "Missing: 97 % of the Universe," Science Digest
(December 1983), p. 53.
23.
Bart J. Bok, "The Milky Way Galaxy," Scientific American (March 1981),
p. 94.
24.
William McRae,
"The Origin of Earth, Moon, and Planets," in The Encyclopedia of
Ignorance, ed. Ronald Duncan and Miranda Weston-Smith (New York:
Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1977), p. 48.
25.
David Bohm, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1957) p. 133.
26.
John Gribbin, White Holes (New York: Delacorte Press. 1977), p. 9.
27.
John Gribbin, White Holes, p. 107.
28. Paul Davies, "The Eleventh Dimension," Science Digest (January
1984), p.72
