Quantum as a pathway for resilience capacity
Quantum trips up the average person. What does quantum even mean? Physics? Mechanics? Computing? Leaps?
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”
Quotes like this one attributed to Robert Feynman support the idea that quantum mechanics is too hard for the average person to grasp. You might hold the belief that quantum mechanics is, well, like rocket science. Seems too difficult to muddle through. Doesn’t apply to day-to-day life. Wasn’t tested on in grade-school, so why should we learn it now later in life as a consultant? Or, whatever it is you do.
I’m accustomed to the scrunched eyebrows when I tangent to QM in small talk. Even so, every physics grad student understands quantum mechanics. And as this smart user on Reddit points out,
Quantum mechanics is very different from the way big things behave. [To] ‘understand” means “fit into your conceptual framework even though you have only experienced things that weigh more than a microgram.’ Of course anyone with good math skills can predict the outcomes of simple quantum experiments, they just offend our macroscopic sensibilities. - @Evermica
So the human brain is perfectly equipped to solve quantum’s mysteries. But the principles don’t agree with how we view the world on a human, or “macro”, scale.
You might have heard that quantum has virtually no applications in our reality. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “quantum mechanics is a phenomenally successful theory, but it is not at all clear what, if anything, it tells us about the underlying nature of the physical world.”
Since arriving at this conclusion, scientists and mathematicians have been at work formulating rules that fit QM consistently and formally, if not for a majority of cases. In so doing, properties can be isolated to measure for the purposes of the experiment in question. Partake in the fruits of quantum Eden and reap this landscape’s rewards through our holy scientific method.
Science and mathematics rely on rules, but the quantum world begs for anarchy.
We need not venture further into microscopia to consider the strongest philosophical takeaway: uncertainty is not meant to be certain, and complexity is not meant to be isolated.
I disagree that the Average Jo isn’t able to think about QM and its applications. I think this assumption is elitist, and has patriarchal roots. But more importantly, thinking this way misses a key point of quantum philosophy.
QM is actually not meant to be “understood” in the same way that we under-stand the physical world. The questions posed by quantum beg us to suspend ourselves from the need to even understand it.
I mean, take the concept of quantum tunneling. Particles pass through barriers that according to our classical science, they should not be able to move through. How is this possible? Brains “break” attempting the thought.
But our brains have broken before. In a matter of decades, humanity has had their concept of nature reframed. Tracing back further, we know civilizations restructured because the leading paradigm had come into question. Here we find ourselves, I believe, at another such juncture.
It helps to consider how the human brain works. In an instant, it categorizes sensory signals into a pattern we recognize as space-time experience. The brain is materialized as cerebellum, therefore grounded in physical matter, Earth’s gravity, and classical thermodynamics. Neurons congregate and connect into electrical hotspots and pathways that form thoughts and memories. Not even a second later and our bodies are made aware via our nervous system. All of this is thanks to our ability to consciously focus on and unconsciously receive environmental stimuli at quantum speeds.
We know all of this, and yet, we have no scientific consensus for consciousness. Never in history have humans “known” more, and yet we don’t have the slightest clue why we find ourselves in this reality.
What if to “know” what consciousness is, would be to not materially under-stand it? What if we detach ourselves from our so-called “macro” sensibilities to sense the invisible? And what if this process reveals not only our truest nature, but a pathway towards a holistic transformational Earth?
Herein lies the paradox, which coincidentally is the crux of the matter. Our future depends on suspending from the need to comprehend a concept through the lens of what we already know to be “true”. Hence, it’s not quantum mechanics we need to learn, but how to let go of thinking we can “know” anything at all.
Can we embrace complexity and uncertainty that is inherent to nature?
Taken at Ichetucknee State Park, 2024. Edited to artistically depict the invisible quantum world influencing all we sense.
Quantum, from the Latin root quantus which means “how much”, originally meant “some measurable amount or quantity” (Oxford English Dictionary). It later became a physics term to mean “quantity of electrical field present in an electrically neutral body”, before it was incorporated into Einstein’s theories and our understanding of the universe.
Quantum mechanics is the foundational theory for describing behavior at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Quantum physics, chemistry, technology etc. are scientific branches of QM.
Let’s start with what you likely already know to be true about physics and laws of nature. Best described by a ball thrown into the air with a certain level of force, we can predict how fast the ball will return to our hand based on mathematical principles that determine velocity. And thanks to Einstein’s theory of relativity, we can apply those same laws to predict how light bends and changes speed based on proximity to strong gravitational fields as it traverses through galaxies.
We know these principles are true because throughout time, researchers employed the scientific method to conclude and concur peer-reviewed experimentation. What “we”— society at large, ignoring educational politics for a moment— “know” to be true is based on what scientists report. They isolate real-life variables in controlled environments to observe what unfolds under certain conditions. Those outcomes become theories which are further applied in different contexts and through many experiments, evolve into Laws of Nature.
Main Idea Checkpoint 1: Science uses predictive models and mathematics to determine precise outcomes. Scientific methods isolate variables and observe outcomes that either prove or disprove their initial assumptions. Mathematics are used in statistical analyses to uncover meaning hidden in outcomes.
Now, I’d like to focus on a key aspect of this analogy to help explain quantum theory: the scientist. Imagine that as we throw our ball in the air and watch it release from our hand, we were somehow able to change the natural outcome simply from our observation. In the quantum world, the observer actually determines what is measured due to what is called quantum dynamics.
The basis of this lands squarely on the fact that light is both a wave and a particle. That is, until we measure it as either one, then it collapses into only either/or. Prior to our measurement, it existed in both forms.
Main Idea Checkpoint 2: According to quantum theory, the observer has an effect on outcomes and is not neutral. The act of measurement nullifies all other options and merges time and space into a single point of reference.
Trying to understand this is challenging. It may seem impossible. Until perhaps this very moment, your mind has learned that the only way it can shape reality is through predicted outcomes.
We can look to the way we developed the scientific method as proof that we rely on simple, linear (or exponential) outcomes.
Biases filter everything outside to form what we know inside. Reality is separate from ourselves until we act upon it. This ontological (nature of reality) perception shaped the objective approach by which we form, test, and solidify assumptions. Science depends on the idea that scientists are truly objective and can observe outcomes without having a role in shaping them. But in the quantum world, this is not true. Scientists are not objective.
We humans have not yet developed mental models capable of embracing the paradoxes that quantum theory presents. We puzzle our faces attempting to think about tiny objects that can occupy the same time and space. Even harder to believe that something can be in one location in the universe and suddenly be in an entirely different place the next moment without having traveled through space and time to arrive, almost like teleportation or magic.
Key concepts of Quantum Physics. For a short, high-quality explanation of each concept, see The Analyst on YouTube
When we take a step back and consider how quantum physics evolved, we are able to explain how science is a mechanism for consciousness to become aware of itself.
Much of the time the story of quantum physics starts with Einstein and Planck tag-teaming what quanta is, ultimately leading to Einstein to develop E=hf, or the theory of special relativity to describe radiation from black bodies. In Too Big for a Single Mind, Tobias Huter begins explaining quantum physics’ history with Marie Curie’s discovery of atomic radiation. He continues that scientists drove paradigmatic shifts that revolutionized what we knew about physics in the early 1900s. These deeply embedded changes led to the successful hypothesis, the photoelectric effect.
What fascinated me when I read this story was the social conditions that were necessary for these discoveries to have been brought to light. Further, a historical scientific legacy snowballed into later experiments and discoveries. Marie Curie would not have had the pitchblende material necessary for her research had it not been for Rothschild, a wealthy science and arts enthusiast, investing in its shipment. Einstein would not have finalized the special relativity formula had it not been for Planck’s constant. Planck wouldn’t have thought to apply his formula to Einstein’s relativity theory because he discounted Einstein’s explanations. We would not be able to wrap our minds around quantum had it not been for Schrodinger’s analogy about a cat in a poison-laced box, the cat embodying both states of dead and alive. And of course it must be said that no scientist could perform their research were it not for the development of written and verbal communication originating from ancient humans that centuries later allowed for observations to be shared and understood.
What I hope to reveal here is that throughout history, scientific discoveries are accredited to the scientists who observe natural phenomena and are able to siphon those observations into predictable equations, formulas and models. But when I zoom out, what I see is consciousness and reality dancing across space time, creating dense pockets where the mirror becomes symmetrical, the Seer can see the Seen clearly, and information is able to pass onto the next generation. No scientist could have survived without the support of the biosphere who we call “non-sentient”. There is no “Father” of quantum theory, just as there is no “Father” of mathematics or civilization. There is only life evolving to better understand itself.
Main Idea 3: Science is both a sum of human knowledge and an experimentation process that practitioners use to solidify a piece of knowledge as their discovery. science is a kind of “belief toy” that humans play with to describe how our species overcame advanced technological feats.
All life is making conclusions about the natural world constantly. We may use logic to come to conclusions that are in fact false. Science can also blind us to what’s outside the “known” world, as shown by the spiritual crisis unfolding today. By ignoring the vast, peculiar interconnections that constitute Nature’s fabric, we write off magnificence in its truest essence— that which cannot be conceived by the human mind.
Further, as I connect this to our earlier main ideas, certain personalities and circumstances contribute to the discovery of natural phenomena. Mainstream concepts of intelligence tell us that there is a genetic or biological predisposition to being born a genius, and certain social circumstances support the genius’ trajectory towards innovation. But discoveries made prior to the social paradigm being able to “explain” the idea are dismissed as insane, “out there”, or implausible. Einstein himself proposed the idea of the photon before he could later prove it through Planck’s contribution, and ironically Planck thought Einstein was woefully incorrect about his photon idea (even though Planck’s research were later applied to prove himself wrong!).
Today, we talk about quantum being the forefront of science and technology. Google shareholders have a financial erection over quantum computing’s stock potential.
I sense something is looming larger. I believe this shift has everything to do with us. The teachers and the students, the haves and the have nots. My central thesis is that the secrets that lie at the bottom of quantum theory’s pool show us a new way of life for humanity.
A new paradigm that transcends linear cause-and-effect and black-or-white thinking emerges.
I believe “true” sustainability reveals itself through embracing paradox and recognizing that we can never be objective observers. We are subjective sentient beings sharing a human experience, whose reality is filtered through biases we can never overcome because our mental architecture is how we make sense of the world.
We become more resilient through understanding belief systems as “condensation in the quantum field” (Wolinsky, 1993)
Information passes and our brains, bodies and environment make quantum-speed decisions about what we already know to be true (based on eons of biological evolution AND the knowledge experienced within our lifetimes categorized via our memories) to create a constant dream that is our life.
At the center of certainty lies uncertainty. The only way we can become who we are meant to be is through letting go of our prideful egos that hope to cling to our lifetimes as being ultimately significant, and sharing in a unified collective understanding.
