Amit Goswami, Quantum Mechanics and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

About a week ago, we Chinmayans in Washington D.C. were privileged to

hear a talk by Amit Goswami on Quantum Mechanics and Vedanta (of a

rather Advaitic flavor). Goswami is a Professor of Physics at the

University of Oregon, and that is enough credentials for me, as far

as the physics is concerned!

 

Sadanandaji of this list asked me to write something up, so I've been

trying to research it. Unfortunately, the articles on the web do not

give enough of the details I am looking for; I don't have time to

read his book; and my memory is poor. Nevertheless, I will write

something up to the best of my ability. Please read this with all

due caution!

 

 

Basically, Goswami believes that the 'paradoxes' of Quantum Mechanics

require the introduction of Consciousness as the primary reality, and

this consciousness is much like what the Vedas say it is. The

introduction of consciousness is not new. Physicists such as Wigner

and others spoke of that. But linking it up to the Vedas is new, and

it is in this area that I have unfortunately found little of use on

the web. Let me discuss what I can, anyway.

 

To understand the paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics, consider a key

experiment, namely, diffraction through a double slit.

 

Suppose we take any sinusoidal wave, such as a water, sound or light

wave of a single frequency, and place a barrier in front of it that

has only two tiny closely-spaced holes (or slits). A wave will then

be emitted from each hole, and the two waves will 'interfere' on a

screen that is placed some distance beyond the barrier. The

interference will consist of dark and light stripes, in the case of

light. This does not happen if we shoot tiny particles through the

holes, so that interference is considered a clear indication of wave

propagation.

 

But with light, a complication arises, as was discovered earlier in

the last century. Light is emitted and received as discrete packets

of energy, which look very much like particles. For instance, if we

actually look closely at the screen (e.g. a photographic plate), we

do not see a smooth change to the screen as we would expect from a

smooth wave filling up space. Instead, we see first a tiny flash of

light here and then there, until gradually many tiny 'pixels' add up

to produce the striped interference pattern mentioned above. And

there are many other experiments indicating that energy is always

radiated and received as tiny packets of energy at discrete points of

space.

 

So we have a paradox. The light seems to consist of little

'particles' of energy called photons, but it seems to propagate as a

wave, which is a very different structure from a particle.

 

Indeed, the mystery only deepens if we emit *one photon at a time*.

You would think that this photon can only go through one hole or the

other. But then how could the interference pattern possibly happen,

since it needs both holes for the stripes to occur? The stripes

occur due to the interference or interaction of the waves emitted

from BOTH holes. Yet, if we emit only one photon at a time, the

interference pattern still builds up on the screen.

 

This profound mystery prompted some of the 'fathers' of Quantum

Mechanics to postulate the 'Probability Interpretation of the

Wavefunction'. As the photon (or electron or any other elementary

particle) propagates through space, there is only a probability wave

(or 'wavefunction'). Such a wave is similar to a light wave in terms

of its form and propagation, but it is not considered a 'real'

entity. Rather, it has a strange shadowy existence as the

'probability' of finding a particle at a given point in space. To be

more precise, the square of the 'amplitude' of the wave is the

probability of finding the particle. Where the wave is 'big', we are

more likely to find a particle, and where small we are less likely.

Notice that the particle also has a shadowy existence. It does not

really exist until *observed*. Until then, there is only the

*probability* of finding a particle anywhere. For example, the

screen is effectively an 'observer', according to this line of

thinking, but until the photon is actually 'observed' at a point on

the screen, it is considered not really to exist.

 

In this way, an 'explanation' is offered for how the photon can

propagate as a wave. It propagates as a wave of probability, which

behaves like a real wave as far as propagation is concerned. During

the propagation, the photon does not really exist, so that we need no

longer ask how the photon passing through one hole can be affected by

the other hole. If the photon really existed as a discrete entity at

the time it passes through one hole, then the influence of the other

hole would be almost impossible to explain. We would have to have

little gremlins running with messages from one hole to the other, and

this would have to be instantaneous. Such instantaneous signals are

ruled out by special relativity, which does not allow any message to

travel faster than light. (Special relativity is considered to be a

rock-solid theory.)

 

Hence, the observer becomes a key player in quantum mechanics. In

classical mechanics, the observer has a passive role, which has no

actual influence on reality. Reality is considered to be something

'real' and 'material', which is 'out there', i.e. outside of the

consciousness of the observer. The observer simply observes, but

this observation has no influence on the reality which is observed.

That reality exists in complete independence from the observer. This

is no longer the case in quantum mechanics. Now the observer is

necessary to 'collapse' the wavefunction into a real particle. Until

the observation takes place, the particle has only a shadowy virtual

existence. There is only the probability of finding it here or

there. Only an observation triggers the actual existence of the

particle, as the probability wave collapses into a real particle. So

the story goes.

 

Note that so far, the role of the 'observer' does not seem to require

*consciousness* itself. The observer can be a spot of light on a

photographic film. The physicist can go away before the experiment

and come back a week later and look at the film. It is not clear to

me at this point of the argument where the actual conscious observer

is necessary. (Of course, those familiar with my thinking know that

I believe that consciousness is everything, but this is at a much

higher level than any scientific experiment. Right now, I am trying

to understand the physicists on their own terms)

 

I think that most physicists would answer me by saying that the

conscious observer is necessary because *everything* is a

wavefunction until observed. The film itself is made of particles

which are wavefunctions, so that we cannot even speak of a real spot

on a real screen until THAT is observed. Until observation,

everything is made of shadowy probability waves. If this is the

correct argument, from the physicist's point of view, then I must say

that I am not entirely convinced.

 

Anyhow, you now have some idea why many physicists think that an

actual conscious observer is an essential and integral part of the

quantum mechanical formulation of 'reality'. It is no longer

considered possible to 'detach' the observer from our 'model' of the

world. Nothing has a real existence until the observer comes in.

Observer and reality seem to be joined like Siamese twins.

 

Another manifestation of this are the well-known Heisenberg

Indeterminacy Relations, which say that the position and velocity of

a particle cannot both be measured with arbitrary precision at the

same time. This is quite contrary to the classical notion of a

particle, where the particle has an exact position and velocity at

each point of its trajectory. In quantum mechanics, the particle may

have either an exact position or an exact velocity but not both at

any given time. It is up to the observer and the experiment that he

performs. Again the role of the observer is essential. One cannot

speak of the 'real' properties of the particle *until* the

observation (i.e. experiment) is performed. These properties do not

really exist 'out there', and hence the particle does not really

exist 'out there', until the observation takes place.

 

Yet another crucial experiment is the family of so-called EPR

experiments (named after Einstein, Rosen and Podolsky), in which two

particles are 'entangled' in some way. For example, a particle may

'decay' or split into two particles, which go flying off in opposite

directions. The angular momentum must be conserved, so that if the

original particle had zero spin (a form of angular momentum), then

the two resulting particles must have opposite spins (to balance out

to zero). But as usual, these spins are not *real* until measured or

observed. As before, there is only a probability wavefunction giving

the probability of observing them in some state of spin. Again, the

role of the observer seems paramount.

 

However, once one particle is observed to have some spin, then the

other one must *immediately* assume the opposite spin, in order to

obey the rock-solid conservation of angular momentum. As with the

double-slit experiment, this immediate transmission of information

contradicts relativity, which suggests to some that there is some

kind of omnipresent consciousness overlooking the whole process,

which can instantly relay information. Note that this is something

new compared to the mere observer who causes the probability

wavefunction to 'collapse' into particles with definite properties,

since now there is a transmission of information as well. This

suggests a kind of all-knowing God-like consciousness, rather than

the relatively ignorant consciousness of the laboratory observer, who

may not even know the spin of the original particle.

 

In summary, you can see how the 'observer' has become a key player in

Quantum Mechanics. And to many, such as Goswami, this observer

becomes indistinguishable from a *conscious* observer. This latter

interpretation has been advocated by many different physicists, not

just physicists of Indian origin who may have some bias towards

Advaita. So Goswami is not necessarily out on a limb with his

interpretation in terms of a conscious observer. He is in highly

respectable company, including some of the actual fathers of Quantum

Mechanics. But there are also many eminent physicists who reject

consciousness as any kind of an underlying 'substratum' of quantum

phenomena (and ALL phenomena of physics are ultimately quantum

phenomena). They think of observation as mere measurement, which

could just as well be done with unconscious robots.

 

Goswami's contribution has been to extend this notion of the

essential role of the conscious observer to a sweeping philosophy in

which consciousness is the essential reality of all that is

happening. There is much more to Goswami's philosophy than what I

have presented here. I cannot provide the details, as they are not

really available to me until I buy his book. My purpose in writing

this article was to give you some idea of how modern physics has

reintroduced the role of the observer as a key player of reality

rather than a passive witness. (Actually, is not the witness in

Advaita often taken to be rather passive? Hmmmm.) Perhaps some of

the technical details of my explanation are flawed, but the general

idea has been given accurately enough. This may do for now.

 

As far as I am concerned, I believe in the Advaitic tenet that

'consciousness is everything' based on idealistic metaphysical

reasons which transcend any scientific experiment. As far as I am

concerned,the observations and experiments themselves, as well as

their interpretation, all take place within the arena of

consciousness. The results of any possible future scientific

experiments can easily be accommodated by my expansive worldview, and

consciousness will always remain the sole reality. This may sound

rather simplistic and dogmatic, but I am happy with it!!!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin