Quantum Randi Challenge
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Quantum Randi Challenge Sascha Vongehr National Laboratory of Solid-State Microstructures, Nanjing University, Hankou Lu 22, Nanjing 210093, P. R. China Violations of Bell type inequalities in quantum physical experiments disprove all relativistic micro causal, classically real models. Desperate attempts at saving classicality have retreated to claiming what A. Shimony calls a conspiracy at the intersection of the measurements’ past light cones. It is time to embrace the quantum paradigm instead of being stuck in defending it against positions on par with the creationist belief in divinely planted fossil records. The Quantum Randi Challenge is designed to help scientists and educators discredit local realistic models and related attacks against quantum physics. Its ‘Randi-type’ properties are ensured via a simple computer game that can be made attractive and understandable to lay people. We introduce the general concept of a ‘James Randi type’ challenge as a tool for science outreach aimed against the spread of pseudoscience. This is a challenge which, according to the laws of nature as known to science, is impossible to meet. Randi challenges work simply by being known to exist while never having been overcome, despite the large rewards which would follow from meeting the challenge. This effectively refutes pseudoscientific claims according to which the challenge could easily be met. Pseudoscience exploits well meaning engagement in argument in order undermine science by artificially creating the appearance of a dispute between experts where there is none. Randi challenges allow scientists to publicly refuse to give a platform to pseudoscience without strengthening the perception of censorship and establishment conspiracy. Scientists may decline to enter rhetorical discussions “until the challenge has been met” and no-one can complain that their point of view is actively suppressed. Keywords: Bell Inequality; Pseudoscience; James Randi Challenge 1 1 Introduction: What and Why is a Randi-Type Challenge? The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) famously offers one million US dollars to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities under laboratory conditions. Its existence has helped stem the spread of pseudoscience. We define a ‘Randi-type’ challenge as one having the following necessary characteristics: C1) It cannot be met (according to the established laws of nature). C2) If certain pseudoscientific claims were correct, it could be easily met. C3) Meeting the challenge would quickly result in enormous rewards. C4) Judging whether the challenge has been met does not depend on anything that could be discredited as ‘establishment conspiracy’, for instance scientific peer-review. The original James Randi challenge evidences that such challenges can be an effective tool for furthering the public understanding of science, because these characteristics lead to the following two uses: U1 ) Educators can point to the bare existence of the challenge to counter the spread of pseudoscience. The challenge having not been overcome in spite of items C2 and C3 gives a convincing argument that the claims of pseudoscience are wrong, convincing also to the many who cannot grasp the intricate details of the scientific issues at hand. For instance, understanding that there can be a trivial error hidden behind the smoke screen of some highly complex calculation “disproving Bell” is not easy for outsiders. However, the fact that the “anti-Bellist” does not go ahead and meet the corresponding challenge, which would immediately bring her undying fame, with or without the approval of the scientific establishment, is a powerful argument that the anti-Bellist’s theory cannot deliver what the she claims. 2 U2 ) The existence of the challenge allows scientists to refuse to enter into rhetoric arguments that actually mainly serve to provide pseudoscience a platform to promote itself. All communication is postponed until after the challenge is met. This aspect is important because one aim of pseudoscience, “intelligent design” for example, is to spread doubt and construct the appearance of a controversy among experts, giving lay persons the impression that well-established science is in dispute. Well-meaning engaging in ‘debates’ backfires by supporting the deception. The best way to promote the use of Randi challenges is probably to go ahead and construct one. The general concept as outlined above can be applied to counter pseudoscientific claims against quantum physics. This article will further describe the issues that the hereby announced Quantum Randi Challenge (QRC) addresses, and how it is ensured that the QRC is indeed of the Randi-type, i.e., has characteristics C1 to C4. 2 Pseudoscience against Quantum Physics Much popular pseudoscience seemingly accepts but misrepresents quantum mechanics in order to sell magic medical cures or argue for precognition. Such is not our concern here. We are concerned with the increasingly vocal pseudoscience that rejects fundamental quantum physics. In order to show relevance, we will first introduce the core issue and clarify why there is an increasing rejection against it especially from many who otherwise defend science. Quantum mechanics has been experimentally confirmed to astounding levels of accuracy. The core of the theory is entanglement. Uncertainty and quantization could emerge from classical substrates, but entanglement and quantum superposition, which is 3 the entanglement of states rather than that of multiple particles (which are themselves states of a field), is fundamentally non-classical. All important modern applications like quantum cryptography (Ekert 1991) 1 and quantum teleportation for example are based on entanglement. Quantum entanglement is proven to be non-classical by the experiments and theory around the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) (Einstein 1935) 2 paradox and John Bell’s famous inequality (Bell 1964) 3. The violation of Bell inequalities in quantum physical experiments (Aspect 1981, 1982)4,5 has disproved all local realistic (LR) models, for example non-contextual, possibly stochastic, hidden variables. Such hidden variables cannot violate Bell’s inequality (Bell 1966) 6, variations of which (Clauser 1969) 7 have been strongly violated by diverse experiments, most impressively with the closing of the so called communication loophole by (Weihs 1998) 8, and quite recently again by confirmation of the Kochen-Specker theorem (Kirchmair 2009) 9. Discussing an eavesdropper’s exploitation of the still open detection loophole is important for secure key distribution protocols (Barrett 2005; Acin 2006) 10,11 . However, this high level of sophistication is ill advised when publicly defending quantum physics against those who aim to ‘save classical physics’ by exploiting the detection loophole in ever more conspiring, but LR (local realist) ways. Nature cunningly exploiting the detection loophole in just such a way as to deceive us about being classical would imply it wanting to do so rather than being the blind classical mechanism that is seemingly defended. The sophistication in the arguments is exploited to validate nonsense as profound genius which the establishment cannot grasp and therefore suppresses. This is where the QRC comes in. 4 2.1 Non-Locality versus Modified Realism Why does quantum physics encounter increasingly strong rejection? Bell’s theorem and the EPR paradox prove (QM-apparent) non-locality, but that the “local” of “local realistic” is questionable has met relatively wide acceptance. Non-locality is an instantaneous correlation. Although one cannot use it to transport matter or information with superluminal velocities, it is a form of faster than light physics, but such still does not trigger widespread rejection, especially not among lay persons. However, this “spooky interaction at a distance” (A. Einstein) is actually quite ‘unreal’ and it is the “realistic” in “local realistic” which has been crumbling ever since EPR. There are different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Some accept the Everett relative state description (Everett 1957) 12 and many-worlds interpretations (DeWitt 1973; Deutsch 1997) 13,14 ; some despise talk about other worlds, but all serious contenders agree on that the traditional form of direct, classical realism is in dire need of modification, while Einstein-locality , which is the micro-causality of modern relativistic quantum field theory, may perhaps stay with us. Whether this necessitates modal realism (Lewis 1986) 15 or many-minds interpretations (Albert 1988; Lockwood 1996) 16,17 or yet entirely different descriptions is under debate, but there is no longer any question about that the type of realism is not an innocent assumption. We will not discuss all the ways in which this triggers widespread opposition, but one aspect should be pointed out in order to understand why this retreat of naïve realism finds resistance inside the scientific community, for example among researchers in fields like engineering and chemistry and among science literate lay persons. Many scientists do not 5 distinguish between realisms and often even identify scientific realism with classical direct realism, and scientists of course defend scientific realism precisely in order to reject pseudoscience. Adding in that discussions about modifying realism triggers concerns about undesired reality of unethical decisions and many other, scary thoughts questioning personal identity and agency and so on, it should be expected that the reaction against