On March 2,
2015 the Physics Department of Columbia University held a colloquium
that had the title “We Are Quantum Fluctuations: The Cosmic
Microwave Background and the Quest for the Origin of All Structure in
the Universe.”
An interesting idea, that we are merely
quantum fluctuations. Is there any truth to it? No, there isn't.
Goofy nonsense courtesy of Columbia University
To explain why there is no truth to
this idea (either literally or metaphorically), let me explain the
idea of a quantum fluctuation. According to quantum mechanics,
things called virtual particles are constantly popping into existence
for tiny fractions of a second, according to a largely chance
process. Such appearances are related to Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle, which says there is a certain amount of fuzziness,
foaminess or uncertainty at subatomic scales. A very rough analogy
might be that if you zoomed in with a microscope on your TV screen,
you might see tiny pixels popping into existence very briefly, and
then popping out of existence – rather like the flickering static
that you used to see on old-fashioned TV sets when you turned to an
empty channel.
When one of these virtual particles
pops into existence, it is called a quantum fluctuation. One
important thing about these quantum fluctuations is that they never
result in the sudden appearance of a visible object lasting even a
second. There is a precisely measured fundamental constant of nature
called Planck's constant that limits how big a quantum fluctuation
can be, and Planck's constant only allows the appearance of tiny,
invisible “virtual particles” that last for a tiny fraction of a
second.
Now clearly you and me are not quantum
fluctuations, in the sense that we did not originate through any
process like a quantum fluctuation. We arose through biology
processes rather than physics processes. But is it true, at the very
least, that the particles in our body arose through quantum
fluctuations? No, it isn't.
Let's look at the modern scientific
account of the origin of the atoms and subatomic particles that make
up your body. Your body is made up of molecules which are made up of
atoms which are made up of subatomic particles. According to modern
science, the hydrogen in your body dates back from shortly after the origin of the
universe in the Big Bang, but the Big Bang theory says carbon and
oxygen were not produced in any significant amounts by the Big Bang.
According to astronomers, the carbon atoms and oxygen atoms in your
body originated in one or more distant stars. The idea is that more
than four billion years ago, your carbon and oxygen atoms formed in
some distant star or stars, and after that star or stars died
(possibly in an explosive supernova), such carbon and oxygen atoms
eventually found their way to our solar system.
This is a plausible and fascinating
thesis – an idea that is sometimes expressed by saying, “We are
all star stuff.” But it does nothing to support any claim that we
are quantum fluctuations, or that any particle of our bodies arose
because of quantum fluctuations.
Let's take things back further in time
to account for the origin of the hydrogen in our bodies. What exactly
was it long, long ago that produced the hydrogen that is part of the
water (chemical symbol: H20)
that is a large part of your body?
Hydrogen is made up of protons and
electrons, as are other elements (and all other elements are also
made up of neutrons). According to modern science, all of the
protons, electrons, and neutrons now in existence arose from
high-speed energy collisions occurring after the Big Bang. Back near
the beginning, everything was so densely packed that matter was
constantly converting to energy, and energy was constantly converting
back into matter. Eventually when things got less dense and hot, we
were left with the subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, and
electrons) that make up all atoms.
Such a process is fascinating to
consider, but it does not significantly involve quantum fluctuations.
The basic equation behind the process is not Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle (involved in quantum fluctuations) but instead Einstein's
famous equation E= mc2.
So you are not a quantum fluctuation,
and none of the particles in your body appeared because of a quantum
fluctuation. The heavier atoms in your body formed because of stellar
processes, and the particles that make up such atoms are the products
of high-speed energy collisions in the incredibly dense and hot
conditions following the Big Bang.
So literally it is completely false to
say that any of us are quantum fluctuations. It is true that
cosmologists think that quantum fluctuations were important in the
origin of cosmic structure, but such a fact does not justify any such
claim as “we are quantum fluctuations.” Bricks are important in the
origin of the structure of our cities, but that would not at all justify
a claim such as this to city residents: “You are all bricks.”
But is it true to say “we are quantum
fluctuations” in some metaphorical sense? One can imagine things
that might be metaphorically described as quantum fluctuations –
but only things that lasted just for an instant. For example, if a
husband looked with sexual interest at an attractive blonde passing
by him on the street, and his wife complained, the husband might say,
“Don't worry, honey – that lust was just a fleeting quantum
fluctuation.” But it is not at all appropriate to metaphorically
refer to people living for about 75 years as quantum fluctuations.
So it was neither literally nor
metaphorically correct for some physicist at Columbia University to
make the claim that “we are quantum fluctuations.” How can we
account for such a goofy statement?
The only way I can account for it is by
using an explanation of what I might call “stochastic mania.”
Many physicists seems to suffer from
this strange affliction, in which they seem to worship chance like
some besotted schoolgirl who declares her undying love for a rock
musician. Stochastic mania may be described as what happens when some
person enthrones chance, thinking that almost everything is the
result of chance, even in cases when it makes no sense to believe
that chance is an appropriate explanation. By claiming “we are
quantum fluctuations,” someone at Columbia University seems to have
taken this mania to a particularly ridiculous extreme.
No comments:
Post a Comment