Quote by Slavoj Žižek from Less then Nothing:
“The quantum universe is not mathematical in the sense of involving the immanent development of the consequences of initial axioms, butrather thoroughly scientific in the sense of relying on measurements and thereby
exposing itself to the contingency of empirical content. This is why scientific common sense (what Althusser called the “spontaneous ideology of scientists”) dismisses questions about the ontological implications of quantum physics as irrelevant to science:
‘It is a common view among many of today’s physicists that quantum mechanics provides us with no picture of “reality” at all! The formalism of quantum mechanics, on this view, is to be taken as just that: a mathematical formalism. This formalism, as many quantum physicists would argue, tells us essentially nothing about an actual quantum, reality of the world, but merely allows us to compute probabilities for alternative realities that might occur’.
Quote by Roger Penrose: The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe.”[2]
I agree that contingency of empirical content as the outcome of the measurement is a necessary feature of evolution of science of physics. But I disagree with Penrose that quantum mechanics provides no picture of ‘reality’. Elementary particles and their properties such as mass and charge are real, determined from many experiments, vacuum energy causes acceleration of the universe and is real. Just because you can not determine without probability all properties of elementary particles with infinite precision does not make it not-real.
In general when working with quantum physics you calculate an average value of a certain observable, such as the energy of the particle or a system. Many measurements are performed, until there is enough experimental data, so that the average energy is obtained from experiments. Then the experimental average is compared with value from theory. Statistical deviation in measurement comes from the fact that properties of particles are uncertain and have a statistical probability.
The discovery and measurement of the Higgs boson properties proceeds the same. A billion trillion collision events were performed so that maybe a couple of hundreds of Higgs bosons were produced. From the decay of the same Higgs bosons, probability of decay of the Higgs into other particles were statistically determined and compared with theory. Probability of interaction is related to the strength of the coupling of the Higgs field with other particles, which all obtain mass from the Higgs. These couplings are actually related to masses of particles, such as the electron. And it worked, as shown from results by the CMS at CERN [1]. Knowing without probability, with complete certainty what would happen to every particle would be impossible, it would require complete determinism, measurement with infinite precision and such requirements would result in even worse paradoxes then the measurement problem.
Quote by Slavoj Žižek:
“There is a moment of truth in this dismissal: translating quantum phenomena into a larger context to impress the public is wrong and misleading in our reality, objects do not occupy two places at once, and so on. However, the ontological question persists…what is the ontological status of the phenomena covered by quantum formulae’. “[2]
Define ‘place’ properly. If the ‘place’ is a single point in space and time, then it is an impossibility. You can not measure the position or placement of a particle to infinite precision, even if there were no quantum physics, you would not be able to write down the position to infinite number of decimal places. No computer could contain such information — the computer would have to be of infinite complexity. The universe would have to be infinite just to write down just one value of position of one particle. In reality the universe can contain only a finite entropy or amount of information. So it is impossible ‘place’ a elementary particle in a single point. Not only that, but if you try to ‘place’ a particle to a length smaller then Planck length, the energy will be so large and probability as strength of the gravitational force will be almost 100% so the particle will collapse into a singularity. Where rules of quantum gravity apply — a theory not yet developed.
It would be illogical to demand that a particle is localized to a single infinitely dense point. So every particle by default has to be in many ‘places’ at once. Therefore it is objective that elementary particles do not have an exact position in space — and can not be at one exact place. Quantum uncertainty in position and velocity is necessary for universe to work. Deformation of wavefunction in space is a natural extension of inability for the particle to be at an exact position in space, a deformation of the wavefunction depends on the potential energy of other fields.
For all practical purposes it is unnecessary to know the exact position of every particle to develop any technology imaginable. That is why physicists are not particularly bothered by ontological problems of the measurement and (not so) objective collapse of wavefunction. Philosophers are, because the old concepts of reality and their philosophical ideas are breaking down.
Formulae reduce the impossibility of infinitely precise measurements with infinite amount of data, to a function that has only a few parameters so that it in theory can be calculated. It serves the purpose of comparing theory with experiments. For example the standard model of cosmology only has a few parameters (including the cosmological constant). All of physics are mathematical models which are not perfectly precise, but precise enough so that experiments can be performed and then more sophisticated technology can be developed. After technology reveals failures in the model, new theory is developed, until eventually theory of everything. Does Slavoj seriously expect that after hundred of years of quantum physics we would have complete ontology and theory of the universe? It is incredible that we developed quantum physics to begin with. Before precise measurements of quantum gravity effects (at Planck length) are performed,it will be impossible to have any theory of everything. Every theory is just a mathematical construction — if not confirmed by the experiment.
[1] “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.” Nature 607, no. 7917 (2022).
[2] Slavoj Žižek: Less then Nothing. (2012).
