Our FAQ answers are less than complete. Our book always takes precedence.

The page numbers cited are from the revised paperback edition Oxford released in June 2008.

If you email us questions at brucero@ucsc.edu, we may add them here. We will respond to all questions by email in any event.

What is quantum mechanics?

It’s the theory basic to all of physics, from atoms to black holes. String theory starts with quantum mechanics. One-third of our economy depends on devices based on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics also tells us weird things about our world, and maybe weird things about us.

Your book’s subtitle says, “Physics Encounters Consciousness.” How?

With quantum mechanics physics found that observation created a physical reality. But by freely choosing a different observation, you could have created a physical reality inconsistent with the one you actually chose to create. (And therefore a different history!) Though, because of the complexity of big things, you can’t bring about just the future you want, as purveyors of pseudo-science imply, quantum mechanics applies to everything. Quantum mechanics reveals a mysterious encounter of “free choice,” conscious free choice, with the physical world. Quantum cosmologist John Wheeler, referring to the Big Bang, asked: “Does looking back ‘now’ give reality to what happened ‘then’?” It sure seems that physics has at least encountered, i.e., met, consciousness. Does this impact your world-view? It does mine. (Pages 1 and 87ff)

You quote famous physicists implying that our observation creates the physical world–even the Big Bang! Can you really believe such things?

Our simple answer is “no.” Richard Feynman, who understood quantum theory as well as anyone ever did, said: “Nobody understands quantum mechanics.” What he could have said is that nobody believes quantum mechanics. The trouble is that quantum theory, the most battle-tested theory in all of science, says these crazy things. The next question is relevant here.

Might a better understanding of quantum theory, resolve the quantum enigma?

No! The quantum enigma does not arise from the quantum theory; it arises directly from demonstrated physical facts. This means that no theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics, no string theory, no “theory of everything” can ever resolve the quantum enigma without discovering new, testable, physical facts. And we suspect, with John Bell, that the nature of this new physics will “astonish us.”

What is your definition of “consciousness”?

It’s similar to “awareness.” We use “consciousness” in the way it has been used for eight decades in discussing the “quantum measurement problem.” This use of “consciousness” includes the experience of free will. Consciousness is a mysterious concept. We try to define our use more carefully in the book, but according to Sigmund Freud, “What is meant by consciousness we need not discuss; it is beyond all doubt.” (Page 172.)

According to quantum mechanics, observation affects the thing observed. But does the observation have to be a “conscious” observation?

That’s been a hot question since the inception of quantum mechanics. According to the quantum theory, observations of particular outcomes arise through what is called the “collapse of the wavefunction.” Collapse is mysterious. So is consciousness. And they sure seem connected. Experts disagree with each other. If you read the undisputed demonstrations displayed on pages 87 through 98, you can decide for yourself.

Can’t a not-conscious robot be programmed to do the observation?

That’s a common argument. But if you’re interested in what’s going on beyond merely practical purposes, introducing the robot cannot evade the encounter with consciousness. (Page 186)

Doesn’t the “decoherence” argument show that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness?

Many physicists mistakenly think so. Decoherence theory explains how the physics discipline can, for all practical purposes, ignore its encounter with consciousness. But Zurek, probably the leading developer of decoherence theory, admits that the ultimate explanation of the mystery of observation and wavefunction collapse will involve “a model of consciousness.” If we go beyond merely practical purposes, we still see a mystery involving consciousness. (Page 160)

Why do many physicists deny (sometimes with considerable emotion) the encounter with consciousness?

For physicists, any association of their work with the pseudo-scientific nonsense published today can trigger embarrassment and an over-reaction denying all mystery. Many physicists are even unaware of the encounter, or think quantum mechanics’ problem with observation has been resolved. That’s partly because when we teach quantum mechanics to physics students, we focus on the practical aspects. We generally avoid the deeper questions, something most physicists didn’t come into physics to deal with. (Page 99)

Also, academic physicists–especially the mathematically inclined, very especially string theorists–consider their work important because it’s so fundamental. The existence of a quantum enigma, something yet more fundamental, something their mathematical approach seems unable to address, can appear to challenge the high status of their field in physics.

Isn’t string theory likely the fundamental idea that will eventually resolve the quantum enigma?

String theory, around for decades now, might eventually mathematically unite quantum mechanics with gravity (general relativity).  It would therefore produce the so called “theory of everything,” the ToE.  We know what such a ToE will look like.  It will be a set of equations.  That’s what string theorists are looking for.  The quantum enigma arises from theory-neutral experiments.  Without new experimental findings, findings that must somehow involve consciousness, the enigma can’t be resolved.  String theorists start out assuming all the results of quantum mechanics, that there are no such new experimental results.  That approach might produce a ToE, but it can’t resolve the quantum enigma.

Do the spooky actions in quantum mechanics give credence to ESP?

Nothing in quantum theory leads to ESP. But we now know that what Einstein derided as “spooky actions” do indeed exist. Arguably, at least, this makes ESP less unlikely. If ESP were shown to be real, it would revolutionize our thinking about the world. That’s a reason we can’t accept it without very strong evidence. The ultimate test must be experiment. At present, those experimental results are controversial. (Page 197)

Does consciousness “reach out” and do something physical?

We don’t know how to answer this question; consciousness is a mystery. And what does “do something physical” mean? Look at the undisputed demonstrations of the quantum enigma, and decide for yourself. (Pages 1, 87ff, 139ff, 197)