HIDDEN VARIABLES IN QUANTUM THEORY:
THE HIDDEN CULTURAL VARIABLES OF THEIR REJECTION
By Miguel Montenegro
September 2006
This is an interpretation of
what appears
to me as a strange situation in physics: the rejection, by mainstream
physicists, of hidden variables interpretations (in particular David Bohm’s) of
quantum mechanics without any really solid scientific reason. The few
physicists who have given the theme some attention acknowledge this. Others
dismiss it with a hostile and characteristically brief remark. Most just don’t
touch the subject at all.
I
am not a physicist. What follows is
written from an informed layman’s perspective. But the worldview that emerges
from physics concerns us all. And I have reasons to believe that many
mainstream physicists are driven by fears and cultural premises that I find
highly questionable and of which they may be completely or, at least, partly unaware[1].
Why
did the majority of physicists lock themselves up inside a hermetic understanding
of quantum mechanics, the so-called “
If
the successes of quantum mechanics explain physicist’s adherence to its
mathematical core, they cannot account for their historical allegiance to the
1)
the
renunciation to the prospect of ever
developing an intuitive grasp of
quantum reality and the correlate conviction that quantum phenomena can only be
described by mathematical formulae;
2)
the
acceptance of the “fact,” “imposed”
by quantum mechanics (and, more specifically, implied by the postulates of the
Copenhagen interpretation), that the
deeper level of physical reality is the quantum level as it is depicted by current quantum theory and presently
available experimental results;
3)
the
acceptance of the wave-particle ambiguity
as an inescapable implication of physical experiments as they are explained by
quantum equations coupled with the standard
4)
the
acceptance of the probabilistic
predictions allowed by quantum theory as the best possible approximation to quantum events.
In
the subsequent history of physics through the twentieth century and after the
formative years that began with Planck’s radiation formula (1900) and
culminated with Von Newmann’s standard mathematical account and interpretation
of quantum theory (The Mathematical
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 1932), there has been an oscillation
between, on the one hand, an epistemological view, strictly in line with the
Copenhagen orthodoxy, and, on the other hand, more realistic approaches (but,
nevertheless, Copenhagen-inspired) of two of the features presented above: the
acceptance of the wave/particle ambiguity and the acceptance of probabilistic
predictions as inherent features of the quantum world. While the epistemological
approach ascribe these two features of quantum theory to intrinsic limitations
of experimental situations (empirical interpretation of Heisenberg’s principle
of uncertainty) and of the knowledge relationship (Bohr’s complementarity), the
realistic approach implies that quantum “things” do have, in themselves, a probabilistic
behaviour and a particle-wave duality that are “resolved” – the famous wave
collapse – in and through measurement. (Particles are somehow supposed to be
multi-located or diffusely located prior to measurement.)
The
realistic (but Copenhagen-derived) standpoint has been fairly dominant up to
now[2]
and has led to most of the paradoxes, difficulties and eccentricities associated
with quantum mechanics, ranging from the Schrödinger’s cat paradox to the quantum
version of the “antropic principle,” according to which man was a necessary
cosmological development since human observation and awareness of the universe
allowed for the universe’s “quantum wave” to collapse and the cosmos to take a
definite shape. Alien and, in a way, contrary to the “standard interpretation,”
but nevertheless guided by the Copenhagen constraints, is the “many worlds
theory” which, stated flatly, implies that each time a physicist makes
quantum-related measurements in his laboratory, the universe splits into so
many universes as there are possible results to the measurement[3].
Underlying
the
I
believe that the hidden variables hypothesis is the real reason, the real
“menace” to which most of the physics community reacted by sticking blindly
and, one could almost say, “religiously” to a hard-boiled interpretation of
quantum equations made of renunciations and of pill swallowing that led – and is
still leading – to the most abstruse and far fetched interpretative
consequences.
The
ordinary substantive reasons put forward to dismiss the hidden variables
approach appear fragile: hidden variables interpretations do not necessarily
imply more assumptions or “arbitrary” constants than other more “orthodox”
theories. And the current difficulties and apparent impossibility in assessing
experimentally the validity of hidden variables theories is not an argument
either since it works equally well against the standard interpretation. And
there is another good counter-example: string theory is generally accepted as a
good bet by the physics community without any empirical and experimental
evidence to support it.
At
this point I should also mention, very briefly, some historical reasons
commonly used to explain the dominance of the
I
don’t deny any of these factors. But I think the main reason why quantum
mechanics was enshrouded in an orthodox and “tough” interpretation against any hidden
variables interpretation was that the latter aroused the specter of determinism
that was inherent to classical Newtonian physics. Quantum equations, with their
mathematically grounded probabilities seemed to, if taken at face value – i.e.
without considering the possibility
of hidden variables – point to a fundamental level of reality (as far as it
could be experimentally inferred) in which alea,
that is, chance, seemed to play a fundamental role, liberating us from the
“billiard ball” universe of Newton and allowing us into a cosmos where not all
the cards are set from the beginning, but where, at the same time, a certain
order seems to reign; an order that, at least locally, has been sufficient for life
and consciousness to evolve.
As
every anthropologist knows, different domains, areas and themes are, in any
given culture, linked by different kinds of semantic and logical connections. Among
the most important of these is what I call resonance,
but which may also be thought of as “metaphorical” links. I believe the option
between enshrining quantum mathematical and experimental theory in orthodoxy or
taking it as a fair approximation and considering the possibility of hidden
variables (which is nothing more than admitting that quantum uncertainty and
ambiguities may be explained by quantum theory’s “telescopic” character and its
consequent inability to describe “deeper” levels of reality) “resounded” with
other dilemmas in other cultural domains of the twentieth century Western
world, namely in the political and in the religious realms.
Quantum
orthodoxy was a way out of the suffocating Newtonian model of the universe,
which, according to Allan Watts, who called it the “fully-automatic model of
the universe,” had already been a way out (with a price attached) of the
“clay-model of the universe,” the biblical model in which an exclusivist,
omniscient “God” made the cosmos, the
same way as “He” made us all. The
fully-automatic model was a haven to escape from the “clay-model” with its
meddlesome all-seeing God.
Of
course, the fully-automatic model also had its shortcomings. It had been the paradigm
of the nineteenth century industrial world with all its political and social bleakness
to which Romanticism had reacted in an idealistic and, as Colin Wilson pointed
out, vain and self-defeating way. But its main drawback was the complete loss
of liberty in a “cold mechanical world.”
The
Newtonian deterministic world was also intimately linked with one of the two
“totalitarianisms” that shaped the twentieth century: communism, whose
dialectic materialism intended to extend the deterministic causal view of the universe
from the physical realm into the social and historical realms, where it
replaced the Hegelian idealistic determinism by turning it on its head.
In
the physicist’s minds – and, probably, on a more or less subconscious level –
letting chance in was undermining the Western mechanical civilization with its
prophetic ideology of Progress (in the social and historical realms) and
Evolution (which grounded Progress in the fundamental physical and natural
realms) as well as refusing the physical confirmation – “resonance,” one could
say – of dialectical materialism’s determinism, a confirmation upon which communist
ideology depended for the validity of its prophecies and worldview[4].
The
fact that the major proponent of the hidden variables hypothesis (after de Broglie’s initial proposals), David Bohm
(1917-1992), was a victim of McCarthyism and publicly exposed as a communist in the
beginning of his career (in 1949) was probably not without consequences for the
fate of his theoretical option in the second half of the twentieth century. Bohm’s interest in communism was short-lived[5]
and the fact that, from the early 1950’s until his death in 1992, he actively
and consistently developed a hidden variables theory shows that his physical
views had other grounds.
Finally,
I should point out that standard quantum theory had another advantage over the
“fully-automatic model.” Even if the latter was an escape from the “clay-model,”
and even if God was, according to
Well
then: with just one stroke, we were getting rid of the rude nineteenth century
mechanical civilization, with its blind trust
in Progress and Evolution, of communism
and all its philosophical similes, and, at the same time, keeping God off
premises! And they want us to give it
up? No way!
For
the moment, at least, some of the implicit grounds on which the physics
community rejected the hidden variables hypothesis are historical and I doubt
the monotheistic God would use that door. I think there was a shift in the last
quarter of the twentieth century, as a result of which the main specter
associated with the hidden variables hypothesis was no longer God, communism or
a mechanistic universe, but something
else. Something that also expressed itself through that diffuse cultural
movement known as “New Age,” a protean mixture of Oriental mysticism, Western occultism
and multicultural patchwork, which inherited some of its features from the
Beatniks, the American counter-culture and the Flower Power/Hippy trends.
David
Bohm’s intellectual itinerary seems to have followed
the flow, biographically speaking, as he associated with Krishnamurti and
became interested in subjects such as parapsychology[6]
and non-Western worldviews. But it is also clear from his work that his
philosophical and existential positions were inseparable from his views in
physics. These seem to have evolved considerably, but within a global
orientation that goes back to his first doubts about the consistency of the
standard interpretation following the publication of his Quantum Theory (1951)
[7].
On the other hand, he had developed, from a very early age, a deep interest in
the notion of wholeness, and, as a young man, he found in the philosophy of
Hegel a way of dealing with it. It was this same wholeness that first appealed
to him in Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics in which the quantum phenomenon
is inseparable from the measuring instrument and the whole act of observation.
But this “indivisibility of the quantum of action” worked more like a localized lock preventing further inquiry
than as hint to, or a preview of, the interconnectedness of the universe and
its workings. An explorer rather that a ideologue, Bohm
had no hesitations in abandoning the standard interpretation when he realized
that quantum formalism authorized the more rational and conceptually sound picture of localized
particles evolving in a shifting network of waves (see footnote 7). This
realization set his intuition of the universe as a whole on a much clearer and
broader outlook, which, unlike the
Indeed,
Bohm’s version of the hidden variables theory – as
well as his philosophical views – seems to “resonate” with the “holistic”
dimensions of Oriental philosophies. This is obviously opposed to the
historical ethos of Western science based
on distinction and separation (which was inherited from
Judaism via Christianism). I believe this “resonance” constitutes nowadays – particularly
since the publication of Capra’s book The
Tao of Physics, which publicly introduced the “Oriental connection” into
physics – an important, if not the main underlying
reason why the hidden variables hypothesis is still banned from mainstream
physics.
I
believe it is not just the single “deterministic possibility” embedded in the hidden
variables hypothesis that scares the physics community but the combination of
determinism[8] with non-locality. This combination yields a vision of a (possibly)
deterministic “undivided whole,” as
Bohm called it, that doubly deprives Westerners in general and physicists in
particular of their separated and mysteriously free egos[9], and of their potentially
controllable world made of distinguishable and divisible parts.
***
The
evolution of physics is, in a very large measure, connected with cultural
factors that physicists and “scientifically oriented people” tend to dismiss
because it deeply contradicts their self-image. I’m not saying that cultural
environment determines physicist’s choices and ideas regardless of scientific
criterions[10], theory’s internal logic,
experimental evidence, and so on. I’m rather saying that, whereas the latter
factors structure deeply what we could call the “physicist’s field of choices”
and are the main and, virtually, the only really determining factors they
acknowledge when they account for their decisions, these decisions are also
influenced by the cultural and historical environments and, namely, by socio-cultural
domains that, in our reflexively compartmented cultural world, we construe and
perceive as being largely unrelated to physical science.
[1] I would like to express my
gratitude to Professor Basil Hiley of the
[2]
Mainly because the strict
epistemological perspective does not allow any further enquiry and, therefore,
leads nowhere.
[3]
This theory drops the “had
hoc assumption” according to which the act of measurement “collapses” the
different “channels,” corresponding to the various possible measurements, into
a single channel or measurement outcome, but holds fast to the wave/particle
ambiguity, ending up with as many particles as there are possible measurement
outcomes and, therefore, with a corresponding number of ex-machina worlds to contain the
particles!
[4]
Some readers may find it
difficult to understand how any Western scientist of the early twentieth
century could be in anyway ill-willed about, or even hostile to, the myths of
Reason, Progress and Evolution that formed the moral backbone of European colonialist
and industrialist expansion. But if we look closely at the first decades of the
last century, we realise that those values were already coming downhill.
Nietzsche had pointed out the deep contradictions undermining European
high-culture and psychoanalysis was inflicting a deep blow to bourgeois social
conventions as well as to the western model of an autonomous self, grounded in
Reason and master of his own actions. But it was the First World War
(1914-1918), with its display of industrial warfare and mass-killing, that
really shook the foundations of Europe’s confidence in “civilization” (i.e. in
itself) and in its values of Reason and Progress/Evolution, as one can see
reflected in the writings of Sigmund Freud or in those of Max Weber, among many
others. The formative years of quantum physics were also those of Spengler’s Decline of the West (1923), of
Heidegger’s first demolition work on metaphysics (Being and Time, 1927) and of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems (1931)
which put an end to the philosopher’s dream of building a complete logical
system that could, among other things, contain the foundations of all
mathematics. Clearly, Reason and Progress weren’t as trustworthy as they had
appeared to be in the previous century.
[5] According to Professor Basil Hiley, David Bohm “indeed did
dabble in communism and, in fact, joined the CP for about nine months”. During
the Second World War, worrying about “the initial American flirtation with
Hitler’s fascism” and confronted with the panorama of a beaten
[6]
“Bohm’s
brief flirtation with parapsychology arose – according to Professor Hiley whom I’m quoting again – as we were trying to
understand quantum non-locality, another notion that frightened physicists. We
had one of the first groups of experimentalists at BBK actually trying to see
how far this non-locality extended. Our group once hold the ‘world record’ of
verifying that it extended to over 6m. The second run pushed that out to 23m.
Since then, of course, it has been extended to 41km and maybe even more by
now”.
[7] As Professor Hiley explained me, immediately after David Bohm finished his book on Quantum theory, a work still committed to the standard
interpretation which “he had imbibed through his university training,” “he felt
there was something not quite right with the
[8] An additional indication of the importance of determinism in our time
and of the urge to deflect it was IIya Prigogine’s reinstatement of the arrow
of time by simply incorporating the inevitable observational and computing
limitations into his description of reality, thereby rendering it ultimately and ontologically irreversible…
[9] Whose consciousness is so overrated that someone like Von Newmann didn’t
hesitate in making it responsible for the “collapse of the wave function” (or
“projection of the state vector”) and the “materialization” of definite quantum states.