IAPS

Author: Ali Mohammed Redha, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia

Overthinking a Simple Question

Figure 1: Showing a famous post popularized by World of Engineering social media accounts asking: “which of these trucks are driving?” [1]

1 Motivation

You have probably come across this post (Figure 1) somewhere on social media. It is a famous “trick question” that is meant to stir up discussions, of which there are many. I came by this post numerous times, often going to read the comments, be amused by how many incorrect answers to the question, and then moving on. Being a physicist, I knew the answer and it was as clear as it can be. Having such a question answered incorrectly most of the time was not a big deal, as the question is meant for fun. 

Recently, I came across the post again on Instagram, this time as part of a Ramadan daily quiz made by an academy that I am part of. I waited anticipatingly for the results to be announced. The answer was announced, and it was “C”. “Hmm…Surely they are not serious”, I thought. An attempt by multiple participants was made to clarify the correct answer, but the organizers insisted on the answer. In the end, the clarification attempts failed, and the answer remained “C”.

Although it has been a while now since that incident, I still have it roaming around my head. “The question is simple. How could they have gotten it so obviously wrong?” Thus, I decided to dig deeper into the problem, hoping to find an answer.

2 What Exactly Does the Question Want?

When a physicist thinks about a problem, they immediately start thinking about the exact meaning behind the question. Here, we want to know which of these trucks are moving in the indicated direction. 

Based on your background, this is either “very easy” or “impossible”. The obvious answer is “A” is moving backward, “B” is stationary, and “C” is moving forwards. Problem solved right? Not quite. There are more details underneath this problem than what is immediately thought. Let us take into consideration all the different cases instead of talking about the problem abstractly. Consider this thought experiment.

Imagine you are in a car and the car is stationary. Suddenly, the car starts accelerating fast reaching 100 km/h in 5 seconds, what will happen to you? You will feel a strong pushback due to inertia, almost clinging you to your seat. This is similar to the case “C” in the question. Imagine afterward the car stays moving steadily at 100 km/h for a while. Then, all of a sudden, the brakes are hit, and the car decelerates to 20 km/h in 5 seconds, what will happen to you? You will feel a push also caused by your inertia, but this time it will push you forward. Think about it, the car was still moving forward, yet you felt a push forward. This is like case “A”. We have shown that both cases “A” and “C” are possible to be moving in the forward direction. 

Even case “B” is possible to be moving forward. Imagine if the car brakes are not hit, and the car keeps moving at 100 km/h for a long time. What will happen? You will stay still as if you are not even moving. As you can see, all of the cases are possible to be moving in the direction stated in the problem. Except there is more to it than just this.

Consider now that everything is reversed. The stationary car, with you in it, starts moving backward reaching 100 km/h in reverse. What will happen to you now? You will feel a push forward (opposite the direction of motion). If the car then stays moving at that speed for a while, you will feel as if you are stationary. And again, when the car decelerates from 100 km/h to 20 km/h, you will feel a push backward (with the direction of motion). This means that all the cases are possible to be moving in the opposite direction as well!

It can get even more counterintuitive, as one can make an argument that they all can be stationary, and it would be true in certain circumstances. For a physicist, this should not be surprising, as physics tells us everything we need to know about these answers.

3 The Physics Behind It

In physics, motion means the change of position in the direction specified and that has a name. We call it velocity. So, to answer the question, we need to know the direction of the velocity of each truck. However, the three images given do not give any indication whatsoever about the direction of the velocity. Instead, it gives us the direction of the force applied to the liquid, or in other words, the direction of the acceleration.

According to Newton’s first law, a stationary object would stay stationary, and a moving object would stay moving at constant speed unless a net force acts upon it [3]. This in a way, is the case “B”. A moving object with constant speed cannot distinguish (physically) whether it is moving or not. This is known as the principle of relativity (first made famous by Galileo Galilei) [2]. This means that we cannot physically sense speed (by touch at least). Newton’s second law gives us what an applied force does, and that causes acceleration [3]. Acceleration is the change of motion (velocity). A change backward would give us the answer “A” and a change forward would give us the answer “C”, due to the famous phenomena of inertia. See, this does not tell us in any way what is the direction of velocity. The directions of the velocity and acceleration are independent of each other. So, in each of the three cases, the object can be moving in any direction. As a matter of fact, it can even be moving sideways, vertically, or even at an angle! 

If you go back to the post, the answers with the most likes are those saying all choices are possible [1]. In fact, some say that the wording of the question supports this answer (“are” not “is”). However, some other comments come up with a good counterpoint. The question says “driving” and generally, driving is done by hitting the gas pedal, not the brakes! Therefore, the answer is “C”. Maybe this is what the organizers meant in that answer? To that I say, yes you got a point. But I would still argue that the answer is not just “C”, not just from the previous argument (as the car still can decelerate even with pushing the gas pedal), but also for another entirely different one. Let me show you why.

4 Overthinking the Question

For those observant, there is a slight flaw in our theoretical experiment. We used a solid object – you dear reader – as a replacement for the liquid in the problem. And this is a technical issue in the experiment, as liquids behave differently than solids. 

Liquids, unlike solids, do not have a fixed shape. And so, a force acting on a liquid would produce vastly different results than a force acting on a solid. A rigid solid object would remain intact upon a simple touch, and a liquid, like water would start vibrating, with waves rippling on its surface. That is just a simple touch of the hand. A strong force would cause a larger vibration on the water’s surface and would cause its shape to deform significantly. 

Now apply this to the case we have. The truck is stationary with all the liquid on it, then it starts accelerating strongly forward abruptly. The liquid will be pushed backward at first, but upon hitting the back of the container will start waving back and forth. What we will get is chaos, in the logical and physical sense. The motion of liquids in such cases is chaotic, similar to tossing a coin or using random.org [4]. Hence, case “C” would not be replicated precisely during a forward acceleration of the truck. If you take 1000 images of the truck accelerating forward, maybe you will be able to replicate image “C”, except do not hedge your chances of having it stay constantly the same. Fun fact, you might be able to get images of “B” or even “A” if you were lucky enough! Things need to go a specific way, but it is possible! Thus, you might be able to get images “A”, “B” and “C” in the same “photo shoot”. Even with the notion that hitting the brakes is not driving, we still got all the images which means all of the answers are possible. Let us take one more thought experiment to explore another possibility. 

5 Overthinking It to Absurdity 

Imagine the truck with the fluid inside it, and we take that truck and shake it violently. After that, we let it rest in a pure isolating chamber, where it cannot interact with anything at all. During this time, we took our special x-ray camera and took a large number of photos (theoretically an infinitely large number of them). If we then filter out these photos, we will see the three cases among them. The point is that the force applied on the truck does not have to be by the truck (engine) itself. It can be caused by other means. 

The complexity of the problem does not stop there. I mentioned previously that the reaction of liquids to forces is chaotic, meaning it depends on many factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the type of liquid (determining its density, viscosity, etc.), the volume and temperature of the liquid, the material the container is made of, the type of gas (if any) with the liquid inside the container and its temperature, ambient air temperature, wind currents, amount of sun radiation incident, the surface of the road and the tiers, vibrations caused by the car engine and motors, and the remaining is left for the reader to figure out as an exercise [5]. This adds layers upon layers to the already, too complicated simple problem . 

6 Conclusion

The final answer to this question is: all and none of the above (this is a first!). This problem highlights one trick of mother nature. How our senses fool us and build our intuition on a physically incorrect notion. This is why we have to be careful when dealing with physics, as more often than not, physics can be counterintuitive (which in and of itself is counterintuitive). Ultimately, the answer to this question does not matter. It is for fun. What matters is how people perceive this problem. Everyone is going to understand it in their unique way, which opens the floor for some great discussions. It is astonishing to come across a question occasionally where there can be no winner or loser. Just different perspectives on a fascinating, tricky problem. In such a scenario, the true winner is everyone who got enlightened by a nice, eye-opening discussion. Not everything has to be a competition after all… and yes, I did write this to prove a point.

7 References

[1] World of Engineering. Which of these trucks are driving?: https://twitter.com/engineers_feed/status/1592207414367252480 2022 Nov 14 [cited 2023 April 27] [Tweet]. Available from: @engineers_feed. 

[2] Wikipedia contributors. Principle of relativity [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2023 Mar 27, 20:46 UTC [cited 2023 Apr 27]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity.  

[3] Glenn Research Center. Newton’s Laws of Motion [Internet]. Glenn Research Center – NASA. [Cited 2023 May 21]. Available from: https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/ 

[4] Bishop R. Chaos. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2017 Mar 21 [cited 2023 May 21]. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/ 

[5] Wikipedia contributors. Fluid dynamics [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2023 May 4, 18:13 UTC [cited 2023 May 21]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity.  

Author: Jan (Jack) Beda, University of Edinburgh, UK

Let’s begin with polarized sunglasses. You may have them. Why did you get such a fancy pair? Maybe you’ve been told they reduce glare? They do, in fact. All the light that bounces around in our universe has a polarization. A “direction” in which the electromagnetic fields wiggle. Light can wiggle up-down or left-right (and in a few other ways). It turns out that when light is reflected off of water and other substances, it becomes “partially horizontally polarized” (1). That is to say, more of the light wiggles left-right than up-down. Your fancy polarized sunglasses include a polarizer that only lets through the up-down light, and so all of the horizontally polarized light (the glare off the water) gets cut out.

Now, you can probably already figure out what happens if I take two polarizers and put them perpendicularly on top of each other. Let’s say the first one blocks the up-down light, then the second one blocks the left-right light, and so if you put them together, all of the light is blocked, and you see nothing. As you rotate the polarizers with respect to each other, you are able to change how much light gets through. The transmission of light depends whether the polarizers are aligned in parallel (maximum transmission) or perpendicular (minimum transmission) to each other.

Fig. 1: Various pieces of packing tape placed between a computer, and polarized sunglasses. (Image created by the author).

Now, we can take these two perpendicular polarizers and slide a piece of transparent tape  between them. Better yet, we slide a big mash-up of pieces of tape in between. What happens? Suddenly the polarizers fill with colour (Fig. 1 and 2). In fact, I encourage you to do this right now! You might not have polarizing sheets lying nearby, but if you have polarized sunglasses and a computer screen, you can do it. Most computers produce polarized light, and your sunglasses act as the second polarizer. Just zoom your computer screen into some white section of this article, increase the brightness, throw some pieces of tape together, and look at them between your computer and polarized sunglasses (nearly all tape will work, but some work better than others). You should see a stained-glass window-like array of colours which changes as you rotate the tape. 

Fig. 2: A more involved piece of art by physicist Aaron Slepkov [5, p. 619]

What in the world is going on here? The tape demonstrates the phenomena of birefringence. When light passes through the back polarizer (or your computer screen), it has one polarization. Then the tape does something very neat, and rotates this polarization of light by some amount. Importantly, the amount by which the light is rotated depends on both the wavelength of the light, and the thickness of the tape. For example, in the centre of Fig. 2, we see a bright green section. The polarised light is rotated by just the right amount as it passes through the tape so that the resulting polarisation is perfectly aligned with the second polariser to pass through unchanged. Perhaps the red light, on the other hand, was rotated just enough to be completely cut out by the second polarizer. The amount that the light gets rotated depends on the thickness of the tape as well, meaning that places with more layers of tape will display different colors than places with fewer layers. By varying the number of layers, we can get a wide array of colours.

Now, how do birefringent materials rotate light? When light passes from one medium to another, the light refracts, and its direction changes as a result of a difference in index of refraction across the mediums. Some objects, like the tape, are birefringent, and due to their molecular structure, the index of refraction is different depending on the polarization of the light incident (2). When unpolarized light is passed through a birefringent object for a long enough time, the beam can split into two separate beams, each with perpendicular polarization. In many cases, the light does not travel for long enough in a birefringent material to fully split the incident beam. Instead, the different indices of refraction will create a phase shift in the two polarizations of light resulting in a change in the polarization of the exiting light. This often results in partially elliptically polarized light but can be approximated as a net rotation of the polarized light.

The world of birefringence is far and wide. This technique of viewing birefringent objects between two polarizers can be used to analyse stress patterns in plastic ( look at your plastic ruler between two polarizers) (3) and in geology (a number of rocks are birefringent) (4). Most importantly, we can create some beautiful pieces of art: birefringence is a fascinating concept to study..

Works Cited

1. Halliday D, Resnick R, Walker J. Fundamentals of Physics. 10th ed. Wiley; 2014. p. 997–998. ISBN 978-1-118-23061-9

2. Belendez A, Fernandez E, Frances J, Neipp C. Birefringence of cellotape: Jones representation and experimental analysis. European Journal of Physics. 2010;31(3):551-561.

doi:10.1088/0143-0807/31/3/012

3. Redner AS, Hoffman BR. Measuring residual stress in Transparent plastics. mddionline.com. 2017. https://www.mddionline.com/news/measuring-residual-stress-transparent-plastics

4. Alderton D. Other Silicates: The Al2SiO5 Polymorphs, Cordierite, Staurolite, Epidote, Chlorite and Serpentine. Encyclopedia of Geology. 2nd ed. Academic Press; 2021. p. 368-381. ISBN 9780081029091. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102908-4.00186-7 

5. Slepkov AD. Painting in polarization. American Journal of Physics. 2022; 90 (617): 617-624. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0087800

Author: 🇵🇭 Harvey Sapigao

In celebration of World Quantum Day 2023, the jIAPS Article of the Month is quantum-themed.

———-

“Oh, so you study physics. What are you going to be? A physician?”

We often get this comment after telling people our degree. The confusion is understandable; ‘physician’ and ‘physicist’ do sound alike, have similar etymologies (both coming from the Latin word ‘physica’), and might as well mean one or the other in a parallel universe. But I once got a remark that I was going to be a psychologist, which I thought was a bit of a stretch. 

We often think concepts in physics are so far removed from psychology, other than the fact that working with the Schrodinger equation can make our brains hurt. But physics, especially in the realm of quantum mechanics, is actually helping explain things about our minds, and these insights might also help us with our own mental well-being.

The obvious connection between quantum mechanics and psychology is that our brains are composed of matter, and matter, on the subatomic level, behaves quantum mechanically. Neurons typically communicate by passing ions to one another (1). The channels through which these ions pass are only fractions of nanometers thick – small enough for quantum effects to occur (2). In fact, the transmission of ions has shown to be compatible with quantum tunneling models (3). This is a stark departure from the classical notion that ions simply pass through channels like balls through tubes.

But the contribution of quantum mechanics goes far beyond neurons and ions. We now know that elementary particles don’t just strictly behave as particles; they also behave as waves. And just as there is a wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, there is an analogous paradox in psychology: the mind-brain duality (also known as the mind-body duality, or ‘bodymind’) (4).

When classical physics was the only version of reality we knew, the idea of the mind and the brain was that of a dualism, not duality (5). That is, the mind and the brain were thought to be two completely different things. The thoughts, feelings, experiences, and everything that cannot be represented by matter were separated from those that can. ‘Mental’ states were separated from ‘physical’ states much like how waves were separated from particles.

René Descartes popularized this dualism and was named after him (5). Cartesian dualism is a seemingly innocuous – even helpful – dichotomy, but it has actually contributed to the mental health stigma we are facing to this day (6,7). This dualism has contributed to the notion that mental problems are very different from physical ones, and so, in many countries still, psychiatric hospitals are separated from general hospitals (7). Throughout history, treatments for the mentally ill have often been very different from those for the physically ill, and even the phrase ‘mentally ill’ has a negative connotation (7,8). Cartesian dualism has also contributed to the common misconception that mental issues are “all in the mind” and can be treated with having the right mindset (6).

Quantum mechanics brought the idea that reality wasn’t as cut and dry as we thought it was. Atoms can be in a superposition of states: a wave and a particle. And so, duality was born. This helped us understand that mental health might be both a mental and a physical affair; a duality – not dualism – of the mind and the brain.

Needless to say, mental health is not the same as physical health. But the two are not so dissimilar that treatments for the former were once thought of as witchcraft and the latter as medical science, as was the case in the time of Descartes (9). Indeed, research suggests that psychiatric drugs are just as effective in treating mental illnesses as other medical drugs are in treating physical illnesses (10). However, since mental health is also dependent on the mind, other treatments such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or talk therapy, also work (11). Psychiatric drugs address the problem in a physical sense while talk therapy addresses it in a mental sense, and yet one can be as effective as the other.

***

We know that the physical aspect (the brain) is made of matter (quite literally, the gray and white matter), but what exactly is the mental aspect (the mind)?

Elementary particles – electrons, photons, quarks, etc. – are the smallest units of matter, and in quantum mechanics they come in discrete units called quanta. In psychology, a similar concept arises: the qualia (12). Qualia describes a unit of subjective experience; it is the color yellow as perceived by our eyes; the note A-flat as perceived by our ears; the feeling of tingles as perceived by our skin. That’s qualia. And whether or not we like the look of yellow, or the sound of A-flat, or the sensation of tingles, is also qualia. Put together, these hints of experiences make up our consciousness, and our consciousness, in essence, is what we have been calling the mind. Indeed, qualia make up the mind just as quanta (elementary particles) make up the brain, and that the mind-brain is the quality and quantity of a human.

An important feature of consciousness is that it is personal. It is based on our own subjective experiences; we all see colors, hear notes, feel sensations, differently. Moreover, we experience things in only one way: our own. Therefore, equating one’s own experiences to those of another is not only futile, but also impossible.

But some argue that consciousness is merely the result of matter interacting with one another; they are simply the result of neurons and ions playing around. There are, of course, conscious processes that can be mapped out in the brain; for example, the prefrontal cortex – the part of the brain near the forehead – activates whenever we act in a conscious manner, such as speaking, as opposed to, say, snoring while sleeping (13,14). But how consciousness emerges from the ‘lighting up’ of those neurons is still a mystery.

Consider a classic example in philosophy: the ‘chairness’ of a chair. Different materials, such as wood, metal, and plastic, can be used to make a chair. When these materials meet our rudimentary standard of what a chair is — something that can be sat on, have legs, and stand on its own — they become a chair. These properties emerge as special characteristics of a chair, but are not intrinsic to the wood, metal, or plastic from which the chair is made. Only when these materials are arranged in a particular way do they acquire these properties; wood, for example, cannot be sat on, have legs, and stand on its own unless it is assembled as a chair. These properties — the chairness of a chair — seem to appear out of nowhere, beyond the physicality of the materials.

Consciousness seems to appear out of nowhere, too. These networks of neurons are intertwined in a way that makes consciousness emerge. Consciousness is not a property of a bunch of neurons, just as chairness is not a property of a bunch of wood. But arrange them like a live brain, and consciousness emerges.

The idea that we are nothing more than the result of interactions of matter is called ‘materialism’ (15). Materialists think that consciousness is an illusion, as is the chairness of a chair. This view was especially popular before quantum mechanics, when all we knew about the world was in terms of balls revolving around bigger balls (whether that be electrons revolving around the nucleus or planets revolving around the sun).

Now, some find materialism difficult to accept. As we now know, funky stuff happens in the quantum realm, and most, if not all, cannot be expressed in terms of definite, intact balls. If the materialists are right, what would then be the difference between an alive and a dead person, if all there is to them are essentially balls? How did a bunch of mindless, zombie atoms conspire to create a brain-full, alive-and-kicking human being? Philosopher William Luijpen mentioned a contradiction among materialists: they philosophize and classify themselves as the same with chairs and tables, yet philosophizing and classifying are actions chairs and tables cannot do (16).

Still, what consciousness really is (and if it even exists) remains contentious in the fields of psychology, philosophy, and more recently, artificial intelligence. But one of the most commonly accepted views today is that consciousness coexists with matter, and we cannot be human without having one or the other. If we lose consciousness forever, we become corpses (a.k.a dead), and if we lose matter forever, we become, in paranormal terms, a ‘soul’* (a.k.a dead).

***

One of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, the von Neumann-Wigner Interpretation, assumes that consciousness exists. John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner’s interpretation was inspired by the earlier Copenhagen Interpretation.

Naturally, in a quantum mechanics sense, the wave/particle’s state is a cloud of probability; the state is indefinite, having no exact value. Its state can only be described in a probabilistic curve based on its wave function. But upon measurement, the wave/particle instantaneously evolves into a single state; the wave function ‘collapses’ and becomes a single, definite value. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the mere act of measuring alters the wave/particle’s state from its probabilistic nature to an exact and determined value (17).

However, the Copenhagen Interpretation did not address what constitutes a measurement, a conundrum known as ‘the measurement problem.’ To solve this problem, von Neumann injects into it the idea of consciousness, where he postulated that a conscious being (i.e. humans) must be doing the measuring (18). According to him, every state exists indefinitely in a soup of superposition and quantum probabilities until they encounter a human, which collapses them into single states. The states then cascade like dominoes, eventually creating a definite reality which we call the universe.

Von Neumann determined three processes at play. The first, called ‘process 1’ or ‘the Heisenberg choice,’ is the conscious choice, or more familiarly called the free will, of the observer on how to act or go about acting. It is the process that collapses probability into certainty. But before states collapse (i.e. undergo process 1), they first exist in states of clouds of probability, a process von Neumann called ‘process 2.’ Process 2 generates and superposes virtually all possible outcomes of the universe. The third process, called ‘process 3’ or ‘Dirac choice,’ is the outcome that arises from processes 1 and 2. Process 3 is the reality as a result of the clouds of probability (process 2) being collapsed by humans (process 1).

It is worth noting that a measurement is not limited to looking or observing or using a microscope. Measurement, as in the context of process 1, occurs at a more fundamental level, affecting a bunch of neurons and ions first before affecting bigger devices, such as the eyes, then the microscope, and so on (it cascades like dominoes).

What’s interesting about the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation is that it assumes reality arises as a result of consciousness. It puts us as the agents of the universe; one that makes things happen as opposed to one that happens as a result of. It’s not that we are the consequence of the universe, but that our conscious decisions create consequences in the universe. If the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation is true, it can have profound implications on the way we view life.

***

Wave-particle and mind-brain. Qualia and quanta. Consciousness and matter. All convenient parallelisms in the world of psychology and physics. But how do these apply to our own mental well-being? The paper “Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: A Neurophysical Model of Mind–Brain Interaction” by Jeffrey Schwartz, Henry Stapp, and Mario Beauregard attempts to explain how mental effort manifests into the world around us, borrowing concepts from quantum mechanics in describing the mind-brain interaction (19).

The paper first points out the problem that arises when we only look at psychology through the classical (deterministic) lens, which assumes that our consciousness is merely a by-product of the neurons from which our brains are made, and therefore has no ability to affect the physical world. Consciousness can be thought of as a hologram, where it is there but cannot move objects around it, and is thus an illusion.

Yet multiple studies have shown that consciousness does affect the physical world. For example, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been highly effective in treating mental illnesses such as unipolar depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder (20). Neuroimaging has revealed that significant changes in the brain occur after CBT sessions of patients with phobic disorders (21). People with obsessive-compulsive disorders have even been able to reduce their habits through willful action (22). This phenomenon has become an active area of research since the 1990s and has been termed ‘self-directed neuroplasticity’ (22).

Self-directed neuroplasticity is the ability to alter the neuronal circuitry of our brains through willful effort, allowing us to rewire our brains to match the way we want to think. Because our brains are plastic and malleable, and because consciousness can affect the physical world, controlling our consciousness has a direct consequence in the universe – a phenomenon that couldn’t be explained by the classical model of physics.

The paper then goes on to argue that the mind-brain interaction is explained by the processes mentioned in the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation. Process 1, according to them, “describes an interaction between a person’s stream of consciousness, described in mentalistic terms, and an activity in their brain, described in physical terms.” That is, process 1 bridges the gap between the mental mind and the physical brain; it facilitates the interaction between the mind and the brain.

Process 1 is further divided into two: the passive and active process 1. The passive version, as the name suggests, does not require much conscious thought, while the active version requires conscious effort. It is akin to voluntary and involuntary actions of muscles; heart contraction is involuntary (and thus is passive), whereas weight-lifting is voluntary (and thus is active).

The active and passive processes also differ in a variable called ‘attention density’ – the amount of attention exerted in a period of time. The authors described attention density as “the rapidity of process 1 events.” In other words, it is the number of measurements done per time interval (recall that process 1 is the act of measuring by a conscious being). The active process requires a higher attention density compared to the passive process; the active process measures a quantum system much more frequently than the passive process.

A quantum system, if left unchecked for a period of time, will evolve into a superposition. For example, if the wave function of the quantum system, at t = 0 ns, gives a 100% probability to ‘yes’ and 0% to ‘no’, after some time, say 1 ns, the quantum system will evolve into 90% ‘yes’ and 10% ‘no’. After 2 ns, the system becomes 80% ‘yes’ and 20% ‘no’, and so on. This is how quantum systems evolve through time, only that it has no pattern; the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ probabilities oscillate unpredictably, albeit gradually, over time.

Now, if we measure a quantum system, it will collapse into a single state; the system collapses into 100% ‘yes’ and 0% ‘no.’ If we do this multiple times, the system will collapse every time. If we do this rapidly and much more frequently, the quantum system will not have enough time to evolve into a superposition; the system will ‘freeze’ into a 100% ‘yes’ and 0% ‘no’ so long as we keep measuring it rapidly. This effect is called the quantum Zeno effect (23).

The active process, according to the authors, produces the quantum Zeno effect. Since the active process has high attention density (high measurement frequency), it produces the quantum Zeno effect in a quantum system. Therefore, if we exert mental effort (which increases attention density and thus invokes the active process), we can essentially control a quantum system, and consequently whatever is connected to that system.

The implication of this is that we are, indeed, agents of the universe rather than mere products of it. We have control over our actions and we have the freedom to choose. This realization can be immediately beneficial to the nihilistic, but those who are struggling with other mental issues can also learn from the paper. If we are willing to do something (such as wanting to get better, or, at least, believing that we can), it has a chance of materializing, which is much less bleak than not having control at all.

The authors explicitly state this implication, saying that the importance of a patient’s willingness and commitment to get treated is essential. They said that “it takes effort for people to achieve therapeutic results. That is because it requires a redirection of the brain’s resources away from lower level limbic responses and toward higher level prefrontal functions—and this does not happen passively.” Moreover, “clinical success is jeopardized by a belief on the part of either therapists or patients that their mental effort is an illusion or a misconception.”

Of course, the paper hinges on the fact that the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation must be true for their conclusions to be true. But, if I may be philosophical for a bit (being careful not to mistake ‘physicists’ for ‘philosophers’), I find it comforting to think there is an inkling of a chance that we live in a universe where we have authority over our choices; where we have free will; where our lives are not set in stone.

If consciousness is an illusion and the universe is deterministic, what then separates us from algorithms and Twitter bots and Dall-E? What laws of physics enabled us to contemplate and ruminate and have existential crises? What is stopping us from becoming just cogs in a machine?

If that really is the case, I’m glad we don’t know. It leaves room for imagination, for thoughts, for feelings, for opinions, and for beliefs. And even if some think opinions and beliefs disparage humans more than enhance them, that in itself is an opinion or belief which they hold. In a way, we are living in a superposition, and we can only guess our states. But not knowing is what comforts me. It is the bliss of ignorance. And this is what I choose.

* This is only for representational purposes, as the idea of a soul contradicts the mind-brain duality. According to the theory, consciousness cannot exist by itself, so a soul should not exist on its own (and caught-on-camera “ghost” videos are only pareidolias). The belief that they do exist is called “spiritualism,” which Luijpen thought was as flawed as materialism.

References

1. Lall S. How do neurons communicate (so quickly)? [Online] MIT McGovern Institute. MIT; Available from: https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2019/02/28/ask-the-brain-how-do-neurons-communicate/ [Accessed: 8thDecember2022] 
2. Cataldi M, Perez-Reyes E, Tsien RW. Differences in apparent pore sizes of low and high voltage-activated ca2+ channels. Journal of Biological Chemistry. [Online] 2002;277(48): 45969–45976. Available from: doi:10.1074/jbc.m203922200 
3. Nawafleh S, Qaswal AB, Alali O, Zayed FM, Al-Azzam AM, Al-Kharouf K, et al. Quantum mechanical aspects in the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain. Brain Sciences. [Online] 2022;12(5): 658. Available from: doi:10.3390/brainsci12050658 
4. Eastman T. Duality without dualism – California State University, Sacramento. [Online] Available from: https://www.csus.edu/cpns/library/te_dwd.pdf [Accessed: 8thDecember2022] 
5. Robinson H. Dualism. [Online] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University; Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBodHisDua [Accessed: 8thDecember2022] 
6. Mehta N. Mind-body dualism: A critique from a health perspectivefnx08. Mens Sana Monographs. [Online] 2011;9(1): 202. Available from: doi:10.4103/0973-1229.77436 
7. Latoo J, Mistry M, Alabdulla M, Wadoo O, Jan F, Munshi T, et al. Mental health stigma: The role of dualism, uncertainty, causation and treatability. General Psychiatry. [Online] 2021;34(4). Available from: doi:10.1136/gpsych-2021-100498 
8. Talking about mental health. [Online] Mental Health Foundation. Available from: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/a-z-topics/talking-about-mental-health [Accessed: 8thDecember2022] 
9. Mental illness in the 16th and 17th centuries. [Online] Historic England. Available from: https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1485-1660/mental-illness-in-the-16th-and-17th-centuries/ [Accessed: 8thDecember2022]
10. Leucht S, Hierl S, Kissling W, Dold M, Davis JM. Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective: Review of Meta-Analyses. British Journal of Psychiatry. [Online] 2012;200(2): 97–106. Available from: doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096594 
11. Hofmann SG, Asnaani A, Vonk IJ, Sawyer AT, Fang A. The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research. [Online] 2012;36(5): 427–440. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1 
12. Tye M. Qualia. [Online] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University; Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/#Uses [Accessed: 8thDecember2022] 
13. Raccah O, Block N, Fox KCR. Does the prefrontal cortex play an essential role in consciousness? insights from intracranial electrical stimulation of the human brain. The Journal of Neuroscience. [Online] 2021;41(10): 2076–2087. Available from: doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1141-20.2020 
14. Bartels A. Consciousness: What is the role of prefrontal cortex? Current Biology. [Online] 2021;31(13). Available from: doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.012 
15. Materialism. [Online] Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc.; Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy [Accessed: 8thDecember2022] 
16. Luijpen W. Man, The Metaphysical Being. Existential phenomenology. Pittsburgh, Duquesne University; 1960. p. 17.  
17. Faye J. Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. [Online] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University; Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ [Accessed: 8thDecember2022] 
18. Neumann JV, Beyer RT, Neumann JV. The Measuring Process. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1955. p. 418.  
19. Schwartz JM, Stapp HP, Beauregard M. Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: A neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. [Online] 2005;360(1458): 1309–1327. Available from: doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1598 
20. Butler A, Chapman J, Forman E, Beck A. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review. [Online] 2006;26(1): 17–31. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.003 
21. Klumpp H, Fitzgerald DA, Angstadt M, Post D, Phan KL. Neural response during attentional control and emotion processing predicts improvement after cognitive behavioral therapy in generalized social anxiety disorder. Psychological Medicine. [Online] 2014;44(14): 3109–3121. Available from: doi:10.1017/s0033291714000567 
22. Schwartz JM. Neuroanatomical aspects of cognitive-behavioural therapy response in obsessive-compulsive disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry. [Online] 1998;173(S35): 38–44. Available from: doi:10.1192/s0007125000297882 
23. Misra B, Sudarshan EC. The zeno’s paradox in quantum theory. Journal of Mathematical Physics. [Online] 1977;18(4): 756–763. Available from: doi:10.1063/1.523304 

Author: Zlatan Vasović

Have you ever thought that physics is missing its international day? A new initiative by quantum scientists around the world could just change that— an initiative to celebrate April 14 as World Quantum Day. Its main goal is to promote quantum science and technology around the world.

The importance of quantum has been growing, and so has the need to promote the understanding and achievements of quantum science. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 confirms this—it was awarded to Anton Zeilinger, Alain Aspect, and John F. Clauser for their work on tackling fundamental questions of quantum mechanics. This gives us a special occasion to celebrate the fundamentals of quantum science, its applications, and its possible impact on our society.

World Quantum Day originally started as a decentralized initiative by scientists around the world. It was launched on April 14, 2021, as the countdown towards the first celebration on April 14, 2022. The date was chosen as a reference to 4.14, the rounded first digits of Planck’s constant: 4.13567×10-15 eV·s.

The first World Quantum Day was celebrated in 2022 through 200+ events in 40+ countries. The events promoted all domains of quantum science, as well as its history, foundations, applications, and philosophical and societal implications. There are both online and in-person events, meaning that you can take part wherever you are in the world. 

Now the second celebration is just around the corner. It’s set for April 14, 2023, but the events don’t have to be on that exact date. You can find more information on how to engage at https://worldquantumday.org/. 

Let’s celebrate World Quantum Day!

Editor’s Note – jIAPS is celebrating World Quantum Day too: the April photo competition is Quantum themed and is listed on the World Quantum Day website. Enter your quantum or physics-themed photos by emailing them to us at jiaps@iaps.info.