Quantum Theory, Perspective, and Reality

“Without the quantum theory, our molecules and atoms would dissolve instantly.” This is a quote from the book, Physics of the Impossible, written by Michio Kaku. The book explores the possibility of performing or creating seemingly impossible events or things, such as force fields, time travel, phasers, teleportation, and so forth. The quote above comes from the chapter that deals with the possibility of teleportation, and it occurs while the author is discussing some of the basics of quantum mechanics, more specifically, about how much of quantum mechanics relies on probabilities, as opposed to known certainties.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty details of quantum mechanics (I am only familiar with some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics), I think there is much that can be said about the opening quote. Michio Kaku seeming to be saying in that quote that the world would fall apart if quantum theory didn’t work. This idea strikes me as ludicrous. Quantum mechanics is not reality; quantum mechanics is a description of reality. Reality exists apart from our understanding of it, our models (such as quantum mechanics) are imperfects descriptions of that reality.

I don’t know that Michio Kaku was actually trying to say that the theory of quantum mechanics holds our world together. He was probably just trying to emphasis that, despite its weirdness, quantum mechanics is the best description of the subatomic world that we have. But claiming that a human-created model is reality, I think, is more than just a poor choice of words or hyperbole: people really do think that the way they understand something IS reality.

Take this for example: a person lives to be over one hundred years old. As this is a rare thing, the local newspaper sends someone out to do an interview. During the interview, the reporter asks the person who is one hundred years old, “To what do you credit your longevity?” How could a person who is one hundred years old possibly know what factor in their life contributed to their longevity? They could pick anything that they did that their friends, who did not live as long, did not do, or vice versa, but how would the hundred year old know that that difference was what made the difference? Another example: someone was a witness to a tragic and completely unexpected accident. In gathering information about the accident, a reporter asks the witness, “What could the victims have done to prevent the accident?” Again, how could the witness know which factor he observed contributed to the accident?

Now I am not saying that the hundred year old or the witness have no useful information. What I am trying to point out is that often, we jump from, “That person has useful information,” to “That person has the answer.” This is just like quantum mechanics: it has useful information, but it surely does not have all the answers, especially as scientists learn more about subatomic behavior. Neither am I saying that there is no reality, there are just perspectives. What I am saying is that no one has a perfect understanding of reality. This would mean, first of all, that multiple witnesses and perspectives are preferable to a single witness; second, ultimate authority will not come from any person, so ultimate authority must come from somewhere outside of man; third, humility is required since we are all wrong in our thinking somewhere.