Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
299
[38] … Wigner’s proposal is a move away from the Copenhagen idea that the quantum
state represents knowledge available to a community of communicating observers,
who have a common knowledge that is useful for making predictions about their
combined future experiences. Wigner suggests that each conscious being is able to
collapse one single objective quantum state, regardless of whether the information is
actually physically shared. It is a move away from an essentially subjective pragmatic
interpretation toward a more objective absolute one.” From his later years Wigner’s
view matures in that he expresses a hope that a more general theory will be developed in the future, while being unsatisfied with the present incompleteness of his
interpretation. In [39] it is cited: “In his later papers, Wigner expressed his “desire
for a less solipsistic theory” but only in last papers did he consider the consequence
of solipsism as a sufficient reason to repudiate his earlier views… At the end of a
paper published in 1977, Wigner expresses the hope “that quantum mechanics will
also turn out to be a limiting case, limiting in more than one regard, and that the
philosophy which an even deeper theory of physics will support, will give a more
concrete meaning to the word ‘reality’, will not embrace solipsism, much truth as
this may contain, and will let us admit that the world really exists” [39]”.
But what does this hope really mean in a more “realistic” description of the
material world? Is it identical with Einstein’s belief, quote—unquote: „Es gibt so
etwas wie den ‘realen Zustand’ eines physikalischen Systems, was unabhängig von
jeder Beobachtung oder Messung objektiv existiert und mit den Ausdrucksmitteln
der Physik im Prinzip beschrieben werden kann.” [40]? Primas and Esfeld [36] are
convinced that the majority of contemporary scientists share this view with Einstein.
Even if they are right, this is clearly not a good sign, since it means the comeback of 19th century materialism when classical physics fulfilled all requirements of
“objective reality” as inferred above by Einstein.
The authors further polemize with Wigner, quoting some of their most interesting
disagreements with him: “Wigner never discussed spontaneously broken symmetries, which are nowadays on all levels of physics, from elementary particle physics
to molecular and solid state physics, of utmost importance… On the other hand,
Wigner mostly analysed fictitious isolated systems with a finite number of degrees
of freedom whose infinite environment he assumed to have a negligible effect. Yet,
the interactions of an object system with its environment can have dramatic qualitative effects such as dressing, symmetry breakdown, and the emergence of qualitatively new properties. It is well known that the coupling of small molecular systems
with the environment can lead to symmetry breakings which are of great biological
significance such as molecular chirality.”
Moreover: “Curiously for a scientist with an excellent background in chemistry,
Wigner denies the objective reality of molecular chirality: “It should be admitted,
first that the concept of the positions of atoms continues to be a useful concept but
it has turned out to be an approximate one. It is useful under certain condition but it
is not difficult to produce situations in which it is meaningless. A particular striking
example is an optically active organic molecule in its normal state. This is neither
right handed, nor left handed—in fact, the atoms have no clearly defined positions
with respect to each other, not even approximately.” [41]”
299
[38] … Wigner’s proposal is a move away from the Copenhagen idea that the quantum
state represents knowledge available to a community of communicating observers,
who have a common knowledge that is useful for making predictions about their
combined future experiences. Wigner suggests that each conscious being is able to
collapse one single objective quantum state, regardless of whether the information is
actually physically shared. It is a move away from an essentially subjective pragmatic
interpretation toward a more objective absolute one.” From his later years Wigner’s
view matures in that he expresses a hope that a more general theory will be developed in the future, while being unsatisfied with the present incompleteness of his
interpretation. In [39] it is cited: “In his later papers, Wigner expressed his “desire
for a less solipsistic theory” but only in last papers did he consider the consequence
of solipsism as a sufficient reason to repudiate his earlier views… At the end of a
paper published in 1977, Wigner expresses the hope “that quantum mechanics will
also turn out to be a limiting case, limiting in more than one regard, and that the
philosophy which an even deeper theory of physics will support, will give a more
concrete meaning to the word ‘reality’, will not embrace solipsism, much truth as
this may contain, and will let us admit that the world really exists” [39]”.
But what does this hope really mean in a more “realistic” description of the
material world? Is it identical with Einstein’s belief, quote—unquote: „Es gibt so
etwas wie den ‘realen Zustand’ eines physikalischen Systems, was unabhängig von
jeder Beobachtung oder Messung objektiv existiert und mit den Ausdrucksmitteln
der Physik im Prinzip beschrieben werden kann.” [40]? Primas and Esfeld [36] are
convinced that the majority of contemporary scientists share this view with Einstein.
Even if they are right, this is clearly not a good sign, since it means the comeback of 19th century materialism when classical physics fulfilled all requirements of
“objective reality” as inferred above by Einstein.
The authors further polemize with Wigner, quoting some of their most interesting
disagreements with him: “Wigner never discussed spontaneously broken symmetries, which are nowadays on all levels of physics, from elementary particle physics
to molecular and solid state physics, of utmost importance… On the other hand,
Wigner mostly analysed fictitious isolated systems with a finite number of degrees
of freedom whose infinite environment he assumed to have a negligible effect. Yet,
the interactions of an object system with its environment can have dramatic qualitative effects such as dressing, symmetry breakdown, and the emergence of qualitatively new properties. It is well known that the coupling of small molecular systems
with the environment can lead to symmetry breakings which are of great biological
significance such as molecular chirality.”
Moreover: “Curiously for a scientist with an excellent background in chemistry,
Wigner denies the objective reality of molecular chirality: “It should be admitted,
first that the concept of the positions of atoms continues to be a useful concept but
it has turned out to be an approximate one. It is useful under certain condition but it
is not difficult to produce situations in which it is meaningless. A particular striking
example is an optically active organic molecule in its normal state. This is neither
right handed, nor left handed—in fact, the atoms have no clearly defined positions
with respect to each other, not even approximately.” [41]”