Quantum Facts

We hear a lot these days in the popular press about quantum mechanics.  Some articles are quite thought-provoking while others, frankly, make me roll my eyes.  There are some pretty gnarly concepts at the root of quantum mechanics, but some can be grasped by the layman—which is definitely what I am—if the explanation is clear enough.

The thought problem proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935, and referred to as "Schrödinger's Cat", is beyond doubt the most widely known illustration of the principles of quantum mechanics.  It involves a box containing a living cat, a flask of cyanide gas, a radioactive atom, and a Geiger counter.  If the atom decays and emits a particle, it will trigger the Geiger counter.  A mechanism attached to the Geiger counter shatters the flask, and the cat dies.  Yes, as a cat lover, this disturbs me, but it is, after all, a thought problem.

Since the box is sealed, it can't be known whether the atom has decayed—and thus whether the cat is alive or dead—until the box is opened (presumably after the cyanide has dissipated, or you would be dead).  Where the weirdness of quantum mechanics comes in is that until it is observed, the cat must be assumed to be both alive and dead.  How can this patently absurd notion be true? The key idea here is a concept called superposition. 

* * *

We used to think that an atom looked like a tiny sun with the electrons whirling merrily around it.  This was before we had microscopes powerful enough to see atoms, something that didn't happen until 1955 when Dr. Erwin Mueller got the first glimpse through his newest “field electron microscope” at Pennsylvania State.  We now see electrons not as having orbits as such, but "shells" that are virtual spheres around the nucleus where the electron might possibly be at any given instant.  

These shells occur at various distances from the nucleus, determined by the amount of energy they possess, and the distances are called quantum levels.  This is the fact that the whole Quantum Theory rests on: an electron can only be on one or the other of its quantum levels, and no place in between.  When we speak of a "quantum leap", we are using a metaphor for what actually happens at the atomic level.  As an electron gains or loses energy, it leaps from a lower to higher to shell—or quantum level—and vice versa. 

This leap is what happens when a radioactive atom decays, as the one in Schrödinger box might or might not do.  The “decay” we speak of is the electron losing energy and dropping to the next lower level.  As you may know, there is a principle called "conservation of energy".  The energy that the electron loses doesn't just disappear.  It can't.  Instead, the lost energy become a photon, which flies away from the atom at the speed of light.

So now we come to this superposition idea, almost.  In 1801, well before the Quantum Theory was conceived, an experimenter named Thomas Young set up an apparatus to demonstrate the behavior of light.  It was believed that light consisted of either a waves or particles, and he wanted to find out which. Young's device, called a double-slit interferometer, sent a ray of sunlight through a small hole in a piece of paper, then split that ray in two by placing another piece of paper on edge directly in the middle of it.  Although subsequent experiments used an actual pair of slits, this served to do the same thing: it showed that the two beams created an interference pattern on the screen where they landed.  The same thing will happen when waves of water are split; the peaks and troughs alternately cancel and reinforce one another.  You can see what the pattern of an interferometer looks like at the top of this article.

Thus, Young had proved that light was a wave and not a particle...only he hadn't.  During the early discussions of Quantum Theory, Albert Einstein wrote:

"It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do."

How could this be?  By this time, a more sophisticated version of Young's double-slit interferometer (one with actual slits) was being used to test the properties of light.  In was now possible to aim a very narrow beam of electrons toward two small slits, and detect the pattern they made.  If electrons are particles, the pattern should be two solid bars in the shape of the slits.  If they are waves, Young’s interference pattern should emerge.  But something strange happens: if either path of the electrons is monitored, each particle appears to pass through one slit or the other, and no interference is seen.  If, on the other hand, neither is checked, the electron will appear to have passed through both slits simultaneously before interfering with itself, thus acting like a wave.  How is this possible?  The only difference is one scenario involves observation—or what physicists call a measurement—and the other does not.  This is what is referred to as the observer effect.  Yes, this sounds crazy.  The behavior of innocent, unintelligent electrons changes depending on whether they’re looked at or not.  This phenomenon is seen over and over again with increasingly sophisticated experiments.

* * *

So, finally to superposition.  It is said that the electrons (or photons, or other particles) when unobserved, are in superposition, meaning that they can be in any possible state. In the case of the double slit experiment, this means they can go through either slit, and you don’t know which.  In this condition, they (or a significant number of them) seem to go through both slits at once.  When observed, they meekly go through one or the other.  Observation—measurement—collapses the wave function, the mathematical description of the probabilities.  There is then, no more probability, just a fact.  One slit; other slit.

As you might imagine, the implications of this phenomenon gave physicists fits, and continues to do so to this day.  This, in part, is why Einstein, who took a while to embrace some of the tenets of quantum physics, famously said, “God does not play dice”.

Most thinkers in this field are willing to concede the reality of the observer effect at the subatomic level, but draw the line at saying it has validity in the “macro” world—that is, ordinary reality.  Others are not so sure, and this is why we have respected scientists talking seriously about parallel universes that blossom from every collapsing wave function, and even the notion that we are two dimensional beings dreaming our waking lives in three dimensions.  The movie, “The Matrix” is often mentioned.

Given the above, my title, “Quantum Facts” might seem a bit tongue-in-cheek.  I had in mind to go into my suspicion that facts in today’s world seems rather arbitrary when viewed from different directions, and perhaps do a take on the observation that eye witness accounts of events can vary wildly from person to person.  But I’ve bored you long enough, and we can save that for another day.

For more intriguing information:

Through the Wormhole: The Double Slit Experiment (a video with Morgan Freeman)

Through Two Doors at Once: The Elegant Experiment That Captures the Enigma of Our Quantum Reality by Anil Ananthaswamy

Not a Well Regulated Militia

When was a young man in my late 20’s, I became friends with, and subsequently shared a house with a fellow who was very much into firearms. I became interested in them as well, and bought a few rifles, shotguns, and handguns over the course of the next few years.  I joined the NRA, and we subscribed to such magazines as “Guns and Ammo”, “Field and Stream”, and “Soldier of Fortune”.  I took a course in firearm safety, and got a permit for concealed carry in Connecticut.

My friend and I, and another guy who worked in the same machine shop, spent a lot of time in gun stores, traveling to shooting ranges, and generally shooting the shit about all things guns.  We were completely into it.

I had a sweet little Charter Arms .38 Special “Undercover” model revolver that I carried everywhere in a back belt holster.  There is a protocol about being in public while “packing”, and its a fool’s move to give away your “defensive position” in any way.  In other words, as far as anyone else was concerned, you were unarmed.

At that time in my life, we also spent a lot of time in bars, some of them pretty rough.  Biker bars, for example.  In this context, you are always thinking about threats—you know, that burly, scarred-up guy who might say, “Whadda you lookin’ at, huh?”  That never happened, of course, but the mind builds scenes where there is no choice but to reach back and haul out your gat, and...  I never got any further than “and...”.

After a while, the stress of this weird mindset began taking its toll.  When my girlfriend questioned why I always carried a gun, I had to concede that there was no good reason, and stopped.  I haven’t carried since.

I was 31 at the time, and generally had a pretty good head on my shoulders.  Please understand that in the late 70's and early 80's, my friends and I were not driven by politics—at least not per se.  We were enthusiasts, and were somewhat fueled by the notion that should our country be invaded and occupied by enemies, we, the citizens would not be caught flat-footed.  I should also note that the movie, "Red Dawn" was released about this time, and it expressed our thesis almost exactly, a fact that embarrasses me now.  Suffice it to say the issue of Second Amendment rights was nothing like the hot-button it is today.

* * *

Consider now a child at the age of 17 in the year 202.  This child grows up in the same kind of atmosphere that I was absorbed in, but instead of getting cranked up by his drinking buddies, he is encouraged by his parents, and by the people he most admires: the police. 

A seventeen year old boy, filled with ideas of glory and too much testosterone should not be out in public with one of the most deadly firearms available to civilians.  If he had stayed home in Antioch, Illinois on that night, two people would be alive, and a third would not be looking forward to perhaps years of painful and expensive surgery.  But instead of being safe in bed in Antioch, it is alleged that he was driven the 20 miles to Kenosha by his mother where the opportunity to be a hero overcame any moral guidance he might have received from his Christian background.  In the heat of that night, the awesome power of the .223 caliber AR-15 military-style assault rifle held sway, and its deadly work was done.

Some people—especially the allegedly Christian group who have now exceeded their $200,000 goal for Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense—believe this was a justifiable act.  What part of this narrative involves driving a boy, armed with a weapon he was too young to have, into a zone where anguished people were protesting yet another outrageous shooting at the hands of the police—the police that this boy revered?

If you can find a clear and compelling defense for this behavior, I’d like to hear it.  We should be taking action now to make sure that no more Kyle Rittenhouses ever walk the streets of America looking for glory.

Originally posted in somewhat shorter form on Facebook on August 30th, 2020, five days after the murder of Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum people and the maiming of Gaige Grosskreutz at the hands of Kyle Rittenhouse during street protests in Kenosha, WI. —the author

You Are the Enemy

.

You are the enemy.

But wait, you say, I’m one of the good guys!  I live right, and I do my best to be on the side of truth and justice, don’t I?  

Let's take a moment to look back on previous times of trouble, when it seemed far easier to know who your enemies were and were not.

First, we visit World War II.  The second Great War is now considered to have been be a just war, and the last of such within our lifetimes.  Europe was being crushed under the brutal Third Reich of Adolf Hitler, and Japan had begun expanding its empire by occupying French Indochina.  On December 7th of 1941, the Japanese Air Force carried out their infamous attack on Pearl Harbor, dragging the United States into a conflict we’d hoped to avoid.  Before too long, the entire nation was mobilized against enemies both in the South Pacific and Europe.  We knew the shape of our foes as the dreaded Nazis and the “Japs”, and we were determined to show them our American might.  Many fought, many died, but the Allied forces won the day, and the world was once more at peace.

The Germans of this era had a very different view of what the war was about.  Their country had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Entente Powers in World War I, and Hitler was leading the way to regain their national pride.  Der Fürher warned his people of other threats: the Jews, the homosexuals, and the Gypsies.  In the spirit of purifying the Fatherland by purging all pariahs, the German people encouraged Hitler’s Brown Shirts to usher these vermin away into concentration camps; out of sight, out of mind.  Those citizens who were disquieted by this kept their peace.  It is never good to go against the grain lest you be singled out.

* * *

Although our Great War and its triumph are a ringing victory in our history, the Civil War between North and South still troubles the soul of this nation.  For more than two centuries, the British colonies, and then the young nation of the United States, made their fortunes on the backs of captives from Africa.  Pressed by strong arguments from abolitionists, President Abraham Lincoln mounted a war against the Southern States, who would rather secede from our Union than abandon the practice of chattel slavery.  Slavery had lined the pockets of plantation owners, and provided those States with political clout unavailable to the Northern states.  

The North had begun to distance themselves from this cruel practice, and many wished to see abolition become the law of the land.  Lincoln knew that the cost of a war between the States would be heavy, but he also knew where the political winds were blowing.  There was no choice but to proceed.  Through blood and smoke and agony, our nation heaved into birth a new law that made enslaving our fellow man a crime.  We wept for our dead, and moved on.

In the South, the growing cry to abolish slavery was a threat to their agrarian way of life.  Agriculture, which depends on hard manual labor, was only sustainable if that labor came at no financial cost.  The notion that slavery might suddenly be abolished brought visions of chaos to rival the turmoil of the French Revolution of only a half century before.  Plantation owners foresaw bankruptcy and ruin. Poor whites, already living on the knife edge of starvation, saw doom and death if they had to free their “darkies”.

To the minds of Southern whites, slavery was not only an economic necessity, but the natural order of Man.  Had not the ancient Greeks and Romans, the founders of civilization, held slaves?  Even the Bible was called in to defend the institution.  Revered Abraham owned slaves, and consider Paul, who returned Philemon to his master.  No, Blacks were naturally weak of mind and, like the beasts of the field, needed the protection of a loving Master, and useful work to do.

* * *

So where does that leave us today?  We are the inheritors of a world altered by mighty struggles generation after generation.  Most wars are fought for land or gold, but nearly all are sold as a battle of ideals.  Today we face growing unrest over deeply ideological issues.  The conservative Right opposes the liberal Left in nearly every particular, and this pattern is repeated all over the globe.  There are real threats, such as the massive displacement of populations due to wars and climate change.  Other conflicts have arisen over social issues: abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and marriage, the sovereignty of our Second Amendment, and lately, the demand to bring true racial justice to America.

As with the battles outlined above, there are sides with very different visions of what the world should be.  Are you in favor of the status quo, or do you wish to see a new era of social progress?  The battle lines have been drawn, and we have already seen many casualties.  I fear there will be many more before the end of it.

So yes, you are somebody's enemy, whether you wish to be or not.  There can be no sitting on the sidelines to wait it out.  It will affect all of us.  Whatever the outcome, some group of people will gain while others will lose.  Some will be empowered while others are disenfranchised.  

And what will become of the losers?  They will continue to live among us, and will be forced to accept a world that rejects their ideology.  And do not be fooled—they will seek to prevail again.

In order to make a lasting change, we must strive to bring justice for all of us into this picture.  Nothing tastes sweeter than victory, but it is hollow if we stand on the necks of the vanquished and crow about our greatness.  As the days and weeks and months roll on through these dire times, keep ever in mind how the world will be at its end.  And we, all of us, have a hand in that end.

Kenosha

While not all is not known about Kyle Rittenhouse, the boy who killed two people and wounded a third in Kenosha last night, it seems clear that he was living out a dream. He dreamt of becoming a police officer, with all the honor and responsibility that entails. We have seen pictures of his cherubic face beaming from his junior-sized police uniform, of him carrying his cherished military-grade assault rifle. A 17-year-old with a vision for the future. His parents must have been so proud.

But then, this narrative of protecting and serving met the real world. He found himself in the midst of people agonized by what the police actually do to people of color in this country, people without power who die when they show up in the wrong place, at the wrong time, or do the wrong things according to a powerful, dominant, white story.

This story has dominated our policy and politics for hundreds of years. Kyle’s narrative told him that people protesting injustice were criminals, were enemies of the peaceful white privilege he took for granted. Privilege he had no choice but to take for granted because that was what his heroes on the police force took for granted.

Consider what his parents must now face as the events of last night unfold before our eyes. Their son, who seemed old enough and competent enough to handle his own weapon, went out into a chaotic world to be a hero. They may or may not have consented to this, but there he was. In the heat of the moment, some action, something yelled, something thrown, something that looked like a weapon, caused his arms to raise up, and his finger to squeeze in the way he’d been taught, and people died.

You who are reading these words: I ask you to consider everything I’ve said. The deaths and maiming were caused by a boy, but the actions of the boy were caused by a story. Boys at the age of 17 do not have the judgement to know where the boundary between story and reality lies. I am not saying that he is not guilty; what I am saying is that we are all guilty. We propagate the stories, and we school our young in them. Even our anti-stories fuel what becomes reality—what can become the reality of an August night in the year 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, USA.

Perhaps you are accustomed to the virtue in situations like this being on one “side” or the other. Death takes no sides, and cares not a whit about your political position. Life, for that matter, works the same way. The question we should be asking ourselves is: how did we arrive at this insane place, and how do we, together, find our way back to sanity?

Concerning Reality

While there is (probably) an objective reality, it is the stories we tell ourselves and to each other that makes up our experience of reality on a daily basis.  Our stories are greatly influenced by how, where, when, and under whose care we grew up, and is further molded by the nature of the world around us as we move through time.

The sense of what is real is shared, to a greater or lesser extent, with the people around us.  This is often referred to as our “consensual reality”, that is, an unspoken consensus of what is real and true.  It is easy to see that there can be a great divergence between groups of people with different backgrounds, and it can be jarring to realize that something you hold to be unshakable truth is seen as a fantasy to others.  In a world where so much information is spread around by people with different agendas, these disconnects have become more and more frequent.  

Quite another matter is what happens when a person loses their way in their reality, and begins to think act in a way that does not match the reality of people around them.  We often refer to this as delusion or insanity.  Interacting with someone in a delusional state can be frightening and disorienting.  It can even cause you to question your own motives and reactions.  

We try to see the delusional person’s behavior in terms of how we would react to the same stimulus or circumstance, and there is no connection, no way of understanding it.  This is something that frustrates us when we hear about a sensational crime committed by someone who is acting on instructions from a mind that has come unmoored from our reality.  

The upshot of this is that we can never take for granted what other people see as real.  It is easy to be dismissive of their viewpoints, to hold them at arm’s length, or to run away in fright.  I would hope that when faced with any of these manifestations of differing reality that we would engage our compassion, and remember that we share our humanity with them.  We are all, down deep, fragile flowers and easily crushed.  Hold the flower of your fellow human lightly, and allow it room to flourish, if you can.

Good Deeds

You often hear people say, “No good deed goes unpunished”.  I’ve said it myself, but I must admit that the idea has always stuck in my craw.  If you think about it, it’s a discouragement to do good deeds.  After all, who in their right mind wants to be punished?  The safest course would be to do for yourself and let everyone else do the same.  I submit that the present state of the world might be examined in light of this.

Rather than consider your charitable actions toward others as good deeds, it might be better to think in terms of right action.  Right action, a concept of Buddhism, would have us live in alignment with the things that promote wellbeing in all aspects of our lives and in our interaction with others.  To borrow from a definition I found here: https://www.learnreligions.com/right-action-450068

"Right Action" is about "right" morality—translated as samyak or samma—It means being accurate or skillful, and it carries a connotation of "wise," "wholesome," and "ideal." It is "right" in the sense of being "upright," the way a ship rights itself when battered by a wave. It also describes something that is complete and coherent. This morality should not be taken as a commandment, as in "do this, or you are wrong." The aspects of the path really are more like a physicians' prescription than absolute rules.

Thus, living in right action does not require us to go out of our way to do a good “deed” for someone. Our goodness toward others becomes inherent in our behavior.  This does not mean that we will never be rebuffed or disappointed as a result of some action—it is through these corrections that we learn.  These are the waves that buffet the ship of our lives, and learning how to come back to center is a vital part of our growth.

Coming into right action as a way of life is not a decision so much as it is a process.  Of course, you must begin by deciding to live in this way, but it requires diligence and attention to the world around and within you until it grows into habit.  Doing the right thing in all circumstances is never completely possible, but if we aim for it, it’s far more likely to happen on a regular basis.