Sceptical Commentary

This piece appeared in the March 2005 issue of the 'Skeptical Adversaria', the newsletter of ASKE, the Association for Skeptical Enquiry.

Quantum Physics and the Paranormal

Tony Youens has forwarded me an email that ASKE received from Mr. Peter Bottomley (not an ASKE member, but that is no matter). Mr. Bottomley takes issue with an article entitled 'The problem-solving "magic" of quantum physics', written by Doug Bramwell that originally appeared in this newsletter some years ago and is now reproduced on the ASKE website. (Doug is no longer an ASKE member and we have not asked him for a rejoinder.)

In his article, Doug takes to task those who perceive in quantum physics scientific support for some unusual claims and supernatural ideas, such as channelling and ESP, likewise those who seek answers to fundamental, currently inexplicable phenomena, such as how to explain consciousness.

As Doug points out in his article, some of the ideas and predictions are extraordinary, counter-intuitive and by the exacting standards of classical physics, 'spooky'.

Put very simply, according to Doug's thinking, some people believe in the existence of mysterious phenomena, and some real phenomena (e.g. consciousness) seem to be mysterious; quantum theory is mysterious but highly successful; therefore quantum theory can successfully explain these mysterious phenomena.

Well, yes. But however ill-framed, loosely constructed, or even seemingly outlandish the supernatural claims for quantum physics, one can still take the trouble to provide cogent reason why they are wrong. I have provided, on occasions, court reports involving hypnosis in which I have had to explain in precise, first-principles terms, the invalidity of some claims that most people would immediately dismiss as nonsense without further ado.

I have struggled for several years now to try to gain an understanding of quantum theory and admit only to have been (very) partially successful. Armed with this inadequate knowledge, I venture to make two comments on Mr. Bottomley's letter.

Mr. Bottomley states, 'When Quantum Theory was first propounded it was hailed as heresy. Einstein hated it because it did away with the neat, orderliness of the Newtonian universe'.

I don't see it quite like this myself. I don't think Einstein's motive for opposing the ideas of quantum theorists (remember, he was one of the earliest contributors to quantum theory) is being well described here. Also, my own reading of the historical evolution of quantum theory (it doesn't seem correct to refer to a point in time when it was 'first propounded') presents me with a different picture. I get the strong impression that those brilliant scientists – Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc. - as they developed their contributions to the theory were also disquieted, possibly even frightened at times, by the implications of what they were claiming and where the theory was leading them. It seems that they could be their own severest critics. I understand, for example, that Planck spent years trying to disprove his theory that matter absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation only in discrete amounts, or quanta.

Whatever the case, it's inevitable that odd or revolutionary ideas will come in for mockery: it's human nature. But in science, sound ideas will out. In the 1920s and 30s a minority of scientists were lampooned (on one occasion in no less an organ than The New York Times) for advocating the development of spaceships. Conventional wisdom said that space is a vacuum so there is nothing for an engine to thrust against. But who had the last laugh?

I for one am not that impressed by arguments of the type 'They all laughed at Christopher Columbus' (well, the song says they did) when some improbable or loopy idea is launched on the world. Isn't it likely that the vast majority of such ideas end up as bleached bones on the rocky voyage of human discovery?

I once received a letter from a gentleman who was convinced he had invented an effective treatment for mental illness. His plan was that we should wait until mentally ill patients had fallen asleep and then stand over them chanting messages suggesting that they are getting better. The important feature of the treatment was that the patients should only be in a light state of sleep; should their sleep become to deep, the doctors should shake them until they returned to light sleep.

I wrote back to this gentleman, politely informing him that that there is overwhelming evidence indicating that when one is in a sate of sleep, the mind is particularly unreceptive to what is being said. I added, for good measure, that if the converse were true, having slept through many lectures in my time, I ought to be an astonishingly erudite person, when such is obviously not the case.

Was he pleased to receive the benefit of my opinion? Not a bit of it! Back through the letterbox came an indignant letter, telling me in no uncertain terms that it was people like me who, in the past, had insisted that the earth was flat!

Accusers of Abuse can get away with it

I read some rather depressing news in the Guardian recently. The House of Lords has ruled that parents wrongly accused of physically or sexually abusing their children will be unable to sue the accusing doctor, therapist, social worker, etc. for the mental suffering caused by the accusations and the unnecessary removal of their children from their homes. The professionals concerned have a duty of care to the child not the parents.

According to Lord Nicholls, 'When considering whether something does not feel 'quite right' a doctor must be able to act single-mindedly in the interests of the child. He ought not to have at the back of his mind an awareness that if his doubts about intentional injury or sexual abuse prove unfounded he may be exposed to claims by distraught parents.'

I cannot speak authoritatively about suspected non-accidental physical injuries. But doesn't it sound like a 'nightmare scenario' when psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, social workers, etc. are given permission to make the most appalling accusations against parents and take their children away from them, purely on the basis that something does not feel 'quite right'?

If you have any comments about 'Quantum physics and the paranormal' please click Guestbook. (Remember to make clear that you are referring to this article.)

To return to the top of this page click Top of page