Last year, the Catholic physicist and author of the book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, Prof.

Stephen Barr, published an article on the Big Questions Online called: Does Quantum Physics make it easier to believe in God? Throughout his article he brings up the classical arguments in favour of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which was initially inspired by physicists Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. This interpretation is an attempt to solve what is known as the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. The problem has been mostly left to philosophers to contemplate whilst physicists continue doing their jobs smashing leptons, baryons and theorising about gravitons. The Copenhagen interpretation, in some of its renditions, claims that there is an act of conscious observers which causes the collapse of the wavefunctions of quantum systems. Prof. Barr argues that given that atheisms main tenant today is an adherence to the materialistic worldview, quantum mechanics (or at least his interpretation of it) presents itself as a threat to such idea. The basis of this is that given the fact that conscious observers cause the collapse of wavefunctions, there must be more to the world than just mere matter. I will try to argue that the subtleties are not that simple and that despite believing in God and having a commitment to immaterial substances such as the intellect, we should not look at the fundamental level of matter to attempt to refute philosophical errors such as materialism.

Quantum theory is arguably the most successful development in modern physics. The theory has more or less been outlined mathematically since the 1930s with the publication of John von Neumanns Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and other works. Much of the developments have been extensions and conceptual innovations of the original theory. Nonetheless the debate about what quantum mechanics is properly describing or how to understand the theory altogether has been raging ever since without much agreement amongst physicists and philosophers. The physicist Sean Carroll considers this to be an embarrassment to science. There are properties in the theory however which are not open to debate such as the mathematical formalism and the experimental results. Let us look at some initial properties of quantum mechanics which are usually relevant to the discussion of what is known as the measurement problem.

The Uncertainty principle: Heisenbergs uncertainty principle in its canonical form can be represented as:

Where h is Plancks constant and is valued as 6.626 x 10-34 J s. The principle states that the greater accuracy in the momentum of a quantum system entails greater uncertainty in its position and vice versa. The precise determination of x = 0 entails absolute ignorance of the momentum of the particle. Now, whilst the uncertainty principle itself does not solve the measurement problem, it does however suggest to us that there is already an epistemic limitation whilst conducting measurements in quantum particles. The impossibility of knowing both the momentum and the position of, say an electron already has some philosophical implications. This is due to the fact that quantum mechanics is dealing with the fundamental level of matter, which in turn involves mostly substantial changes rather than accidental ones (to use the Aristotelian language). In other words, the uncertainty principle is

describing mathematically the fact that matter at the quantum level is constantly changing its mode of being thus rendering a comprehensive observation of it really difficult as opposed to classical systems.

Consciousness causes collapse: There is a recurring theme within the philosophy of quantum mechanics about the measurement problem that some have been convinced must be explained in terms of conscious observers. One can find in the works of the great mathematician John von Neumann the famous collapse postulate, which is known as yielding the collapse of wavefunctions in terms of a conscious observation. Eugene Wigner voiced a similar opinion on what yields the collapse of the wavefunction. Overall this is somewhat of an extension or one of the elements of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, the states of systems can be described by vectors on a Hilbert Space. One canonical generalisation of such vector would be represented as:

Where, is the wavefunction of the system represented by the sum of two orthogonal vectors. The collapsed state is therefore represented as:

is what is known as the point with a different eigenvalue from the state The state which had been represented as the sum of two vectors. The probability of the system evolving and collapsing into that state is determined by the Born rule, one of the cornerstones of orthodox quantum mechanics. Now the key word used in the collapse of wavefunctions is the term observer. Only after the observation of the sum of different eigenvectors, does the wavefunction then collapse yielding one result or another. It must be added that this process is considered to be an indeterminate process which is entirely stochastic in nature. In the famous double slit experiment, an interference pattern is formed by electrons on the other side of the slit which are in states of superposition with each other and have gone through either or through both of the slits to get to the other side. When an observation apparatus is put near the slits to detect the trajectory of the electron, it behaves classically and only goes through one slit or the other thus collapsing the wavefunction and no longer giving us the interference pattern on the other side. Where does consciousness play a role in this? Well, the only way one can yield an observation of the path of the electron is if we are conscious of its course. So far so good, the theory seems to hold in a very different way to all other theories in physics that immaterial objects interact with the physical world. Now here is a somewhat strange scenario. Suppose that there is a measurement of the two-slit case whic h I explained and that instead of conscious observers immediately taking note of the trajectory

of the electrons through the slits, a computer does the work of writing down the results. And to make the story even more exciting, suppose that I left the experiment running whilst I was on holiday and that I only remembered to look at the results on my computer after 6 months. If we are to seriously take the view that consciousness, as an immaterial substance, is what causes the collapse of the wavefunctions, then only after 6 months of the experiment, did it actually yield any real results. Are you willing to bite the bullet and accept something that far-fetched? Most people would stop somewhere before that. But if consciousness is what guides the whole process of wave-packet reductions, then what other conclusion are we left with? I wish to propose perhaps a final note on the measurement problem and perhaps suggest why it wont go away any time soon unless it be ignored.

Bohmian mechanics and experimental equivalence: There is a reformulation of the entire theory in deterministic expressions which denies the actual collapse of the wavefunction and does not involve therefore conscious observers as key to the theory. This theory was formulated by the physicist David Bohm in the late 1950s and is pretty much the elephant in the room that remains to be addressed adequately by those who dismiss it. Although it is mostly liked by mathematicians and philosophers, physicists cannot ignore the fact that it is experimentally equivalent to traditional quantum mechanics. The major difference is in the ontology of both theories. The Schrdinger equation in quantum mechanics is what yields the result of the energy of the wavefunction of a system and in Bohmian mechanics it is directed further by the guidance equation which is described as:

Where mi is the mass of the particle i and is the nabla operator which describes the derivative of the coordinates and S is the phase of the wavefunciton in the polar representation . David Albert describing Bohmian mechanics explains1:

the statistical postulatecan be construed as stipulating that what God did when the universe was created was first to choose a wavefunction for it and sprinkle all of the particles into space in accordance with quantum mechanical probabilities, and then to leave everything alone, forever after, to evolve deterministically.

Bohmian mechanics is famously known as a pilot-wave theory, which attempts to reconstruct the principles of quantum mechanics which are indeterminate into a classical manner. Bohmian mechanics furthermore manages to escape the criticism of Bells theorem by being
1

David Albert Quantum Mechanics and Experience (Harvard University Press 1992), pp. 144-145

a non-local theory. John Polkinghorne2 comments on these pilot-wave theories: If Bohmian theory is correct, the role of the observer is simply the classical function of seeing already what is unambiguously the case. Now, I bring up Bohmian mechanics because it is a theory that yields the same experimental results as standard quantum mechanics but is radically different in its ontology. In quantum theory, systems evolve with indeterminacy and in Bohmian mechanics they evolve deterministically. In quantum mechanics the role of observation is what causes the collapse of the wavefunction, whilst in Bohmian mechanics observers are not necessary. The role of an observer in a physical system whose consciousness plays part in changing physical phenomena seems reprehensible to many, especially philosophers. Bohmian mechanics will therefore always be there for those who have problems with consciousness playing a role in physics. I hold to it for pragmatic reasons rather than dogmatic ones. The philosopher of physics Lawrence Sklar3 points out that: The adoption of one scientific theory rather than another, sometimes in very crucial cases indeed, rests as much upon...philosophical presuppositions as it does upon the hard data. Now, that is not to say that David Bohms reformulation of quantum mechanics will work forever. It does a good job so far, but the philosopher and mathematician Hans Halvorson points out that the theory might be a dead end and what he means by this is that mathematically, it does not seem to be making the same developments that quantum mechanics is. This might be a future problem but immediately the differences are only conceptual. The most recent conceptual developments in quantum theory are the algebraic quantum field theories, going beyond Hilbert Spaces and new unifications between general relativity and quantum mechanics to achieve a quantum theory of gravity. For the moment, given its experimental equivalence, philosophers and mathematicians can hold to Bohmian mechanics without having to worry much about creating a completely alien theory which is somewhat pseudoscientific. The Bohmian challenge is thus: Show me a problem in quantum mechanics that we cannot reformulate. For that reason, I think the hype of trying to disprove materialism by using quantum mechanics is a vain one. Quantum mechanics is a beautiful and elegant theory about the subatomic world and if anything it tells us the beauty of Gods creation but doesnt make it easier to believe in Him. It takes philosophy and a comprehensive understanding of nature to get to the Creator.

2 3

John Polkinghorne Quantum Theory: A very short introduction (Oxford 2002), p.91 Lawrence Sklar Space, Time and Spacetime (Berkeley: University of California Press 1976), p.417