How to Teach Physics to Your Dog (29 page)

The idea is fleshed out in more detail, with more erroneous justifications, in Tiffany Snow’s
Forward from the Mind: Distant Healing, Bilocation, Medical Intuition & Prayer in a Quantum World
(Spirit Journey Books, 2006):

Entanglement
(sometimes called
nonlocality
) is where a
faster-than-the-speed-of-light
signal is instantaneously communicated between two particles which somehow remain in touch with each other no matter how far apart they are. What happens to one instantly happens to the other, even across a galaxy, through the entangled waveform connection. And if we look at the beginning of the universe through a “Big Bang” theory, we see all energy (which includes us) was entangled in the very beginning, so we all have an indent [
sic
] with each other now, even though we may be far apart. Very simply, what one of us does, does
affect all others
. [p. 31]

This starts off with an explanation that is only slightly wrong, but it goes completely off the rails by the end of the paragraph.

As we saw in
chapter 7
, entanglement does, indeed, allow for nonlocal correlations between the states of entangled particles. However, these correlations must first be established through local interactions—the photons in the Aspect experiments were initially produced by the same atom, for example.

The quantum connection between these entangled particles is extremely fragile, and it’s easily broken by interactions with the rest of the universe, leading to decoherence. Physicists have to work very hard to produce an entangled state that lasts even a tenth of a second. No entanglement-based connection could possibly survive the fourteen billion years since the Big Bang.

Since there is no residual entanglement from the Big Bang, there is no inherent connection between separated objects. I can easily arrange for the states of two dogs to become correlated, as discussed in
chapter 7
(page 143), but only by bringing those dogs together and allowing them to interact with each other. If the two dogs are always separated, there is no way for them to become entangled. Similarly, even leaving aside the fact that human organs are far too large to show quantum effects, there is simply no way to establish a connection between, say, the liver of a patient and the hands of a “healer,” without some contact between them.

Entanglement is also invoked as an explanation for homeopathy. In homeopathic treatments, minute quantities of herbs or toxins are placed in water and then diluted to a point where there should not be a single molecule of the original herb or toxin in a given water sample. Homeopaths claim that the water “remembers” the presence of the original substance, though, and acquires some of its properties, which supposedly enables the water to heal patients who drink it. Entanglement is sometimes
cited as an explanation for this “memory” effect, with the claim being that the interaction between the water and the herb or toxin establishes a connection along the lines of the correlations seen in the Aspect experiments.

The absolute pinnacle of the quantum-entanglement explanation of homeopathy is presented in the work of Lionel Milgrom, who theorizes that it involves not merely entanglement between water and toxin, but a three-way entanglement between the patient, the practitioner, and the remedy (he calls this “PPR” entanglement). Milgrom has a wonderful ability to ape the jargon and notation of quantum physics, and writes in a 2006 paper:

[I]t should be possible to use notions of quantum entanglement (and by implication, information processing) to illustrate certain features of the therapeutic process in homeopathy and other CAMs.
*
Consequently, the effects of investigating homeopathy and other CAMs using blinded trial procedures should also be amenable to such illustration. Thus, in double-blinded provings, each of the components in the PPR entangled state may be thought of as two-state “macro-qubits” . . . and, therefore, by implication, the homeopathic process might be considered to involve macro-quantum “teleportation.” . . . However, it is only the entangled state which contains information about the whole system. Thus, anything which breaks the entangled state will necessarily lead to loss of information about the integration of function of the systems as a whole system. Clearly, this could happen in [double-blind randomized control trials
^†
] of homeopathic
efficacy, where either the remedy or patient and practitioner are removed from their entangled therapeutic context.
*

This is a truly breathtaking application of “quantum” reasoning. Not only does Milgrom attribute the curative effects of homeopathic remedies to this “macro-quantum ‘teleportation,’ ” but in a lovely bit of logical judo, he uses this argument to explain away the failure of homeopathic remedies to outperform placebos in properly run clinical trials. It’s all quantum, you see, and thus attempting to measure the performance in a manner consistent with scientific principles ruins everything. Milgrom concludes that standard medical testing protocols simply can’t be used to measure homeopathy because “they seem to destroy the very effects they were purportedly designed to investigate,” an impressive attempt to use quantum mechanics to avoid (possibly via tunneling or teleportation) meeting the exacting standards applied to conventional medical treatments.

The claim that entanglement explains homeopathy is patent nonsense. Patients and practitioners are much too large to exhibit quantum behavior, and even though there is the slight possibility of an entangling interaction between molecules in a solution, entanglement is just a correlation between the
states
of two systems—when an atom is in a particular state, a photon is vertically polarized, or when one dog is awake, another dog is also awake. This does not mean that one system has acquired characteristics of the other. A quantum interaction can set up a correlation between an atom and a photon, but it can’t turn an atom into a photon or water into healing elixir, any more than an interaction between two dogs can turn a Labrador retriever into a Boston terrier.

Quantum mechanics is a weird and wonderful theory, and it makes some amazing things possible. Most modern technology depends on quantum mechanics in one way or another—modern electronic devices and computer chips rely on quantum effects in order to operate, and optical devices like the lasers and LEDs used in modern telecommunications are fundamentally quantum devices. Quantum theory may also provide for future technologies with amazing potential—quantum computers that can solve problems faster than any classical computer, or quantum cryptography systems that protect messages using unbreakable codes.

As astounding as its results are, though, quantum mechanics does not provide a basis for miracles. Its predictions defy everyday intuition, but the theory does not completely override common sense. If somebody promises results that sound too good to be true, chances are they’re lying, either to you or to themselves. Dropping a few quantum buzzwords into the explanation doesn’t make free energy or eternal youth any more plausible.

There are many fascinating aspects of quantum theory that we haven’t talked about here. There are also a lot of evil squirrels in the world, with or without goatees. Think carefully about claims made regarding quantum effects, and keep in mind that while it may be weird, quantum mechanics is not magic. If you do that, you’ll have no trouble finding the wonderful aspects of our quantum universe, and avoiding quacks and crackpots.

“Wow, dude, that’s pretty depressing.”

“What? Quantum theory doesn’t need to be magic to be cool.”

“No, not that. I’m talking about the scammers. I knew squirrels were evil, but I didn’t know there were humans who were that bad.”

“Yeah, it’s a little depressing to see a good theory abused in this way. But on some level, it’s a sign of progress.”

“How do you figure?”

“Well, if you go back to the 1800s, you can find people making the same sorts of magical claims about electricity. All sorts of nonsensical devices were proposed that were supposed to do magical things because they used electricity.”

“Yeah?”

“And in the mid-1900s, it was atomic or nuclear power. People suggested using nuclear power for the most absurd things, and any number of scams claimed atomic power as a basis.”

“Yeah? What’s your point?”

“Well, nobody really falls for either of those anymore. We’ve gotten used to electricity and nuclear power, and people no longer believe ridiculous claims made about them.”

“So ‘quantum’ is the new ‘atomic’?”

“Pretty much. Scammers have had to move on to ‘quantum’ as an explanation, because the old explanations don’t work anymore. So, in a sense, the fact that people are peddling ‘quantum’ hokum means that the general public has gotten a tiny bit less credulous over the years. ‘Quantum’ still works because most people don’t know what it means.”

“So you need to teach more people about quantum.”

“Exactly. Hence this book.”

“And I’m helping! I’m a public-service dog!”

“You’re a very good dog.”

“So, is that it for the book, then?”

“Pretty much. Why?”

“Well, if you’re done with the book, can we go for a walk?”

“Sure.”

“And if we see any evil squirrels . . .”

“If we see evil squirrels, you can bite them.”

“Ooooh!”

*
The interview is online at
http://www.healthy.net/scr/interview.asp?ID=167
, and was retrieved in summer 2008.

*
The plural “physicists” here is probably not justified—“radically ambiguous flowing quantum soup” is not a common phrase in physics. The only actual physicist who has ever used it appears to be Nick Herbert, a promoter of “Quantum Tantra,” which is about what you would expect.

*
Not to mention securing funding for their experiments.

*
“CAM” = “complementary and alternative medicine.” Acronyms make anything sound more scientific.

†
Double-blind randomized control trials are medical tests in which patients are randomly selected to receive either the treatment being tested or a placebo, and neither the patient nor the doctor dispensing the treatment knows which is which. These are the gold standard for modern medical research.

*
Lionel R. Milgrom,
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
4, 7–16 (2006). Quotes from p. 14.

I learned about the physics described in this book from a large number of mentors and colleagues over a period of almost twenty years. Many thanks are due to Bill Phillips, Steve Rolston, Paul Lett, Kris Helmerson, Ivan Deutsch, Aephraim Steinberg, Luis Orozco, Paul Kwiat, Mark Kasevich, Dave DeMille, Seyffie Maleki, Kevin Jones, Jeff Strait, Stuart Crampton, and Bill Wootters. All the good parts of the explanations are ultimately due to them; any mistakes are original to me.

I got many helpful comments on an early draft of this book from my intrepid beta readers: Jane Acheson, Lisa Bao, Aaron Bergman, Sean Carroll, Yoon Ha Lee, Matt McIrvin, and Frances Moffet. Michael Nielsen and David Kaiser also made helpful comments on draft copies. All of them helped make this a better book than it would’ve been otherwise.

This book grew out of a couple of posts on my weblog, “Uncertain Principles” (
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/
), which eventually became the opening dialogues of chapters 4 and 9. Thanks are due to the folks at ScienceBlogs—Christopher Mims, Katherine Sharpe, Erin Johnson, and Arikia Millikan—for providing me with a platform, and to Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing and the people at Digg for promoting those posts. Barrett Garese, Erin Hosier, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden deserve thanks for convincing me that writing a physics book with my dog was a good idea. And of course, thanks to my editor, Beth
Wareham, and agent, Erin Hosier, for all their help getting the book into shape, and helping me navigate the publishing process, which is completely different than anything in physics.

Emmy was adopted from the Mohawk & Hudson River Humane Society shelter in Menands, New York (
http://www.mohawkhumanesociety.org/
). Like most animal shelters, they are an excellent source of wonderful dogs (and other pets), and I would encourage anyone thinking of getting a dog to look at their local shelter.

I’ve been lucky enough to know a lot of dogs over the years—Patches, Rory, Truman, the late great RD, Bodie, and even Tinker—and there’s a little bit of all of them in this book. Most of the credit goes to Emmy, though, who is unquestionably the best Emmy ever, and the Queen of Niskayuna.

Many thanks are due to my friends and family, who have been tremendously supportive despite finding the whole thing a little weird. And last, but far from least, thanks to my wife, Kate Nepveu, for reading innumerable drafts and gently correcting my grammar; for patiently listening to me rant and kick ideas around; and for baby Claire, who complicated things in the best way possible, and most of all for inspiring the whole thing by laughing when I have silly conversations with the dog. This quite literally would not have happened without her.

David Lindley’s
Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science
(Doubleday, 2007) provides a very readable introduction to the early history of quantum theory, as well as a detailed account of the debates about the theory and the meaning of the uncertainty principle.

Louisa Gilder’s
The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics Was Reborn
(Knopf, 2008) covers some of the same territory as
Uncertainty
, but with more of an emphasis on entanglement, and goes on to describe Bohm’s nonlocal hidden variable theory, Bell’s theorem, and the first experimental tests of nonlocality. The book is built around several reconstructed conversations among the important figures in the story, with dialogue pieced together from letters and memoirs.

The Tests of Time: Readings in the Development of Physical Theory
, edited by Lisa M. Dolling, Arthur F. Gianelli, and Glenn N. Statile (Princeton University Press, 2003), reproduces many of the classic papers in early quantum theory, including Bohr’s original model of hydrogen; the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen paper; Bohr’s response to EPR; and John Bell’s famous theorem.