Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
309
and quantum theory in particular, which is mandatory for a proper understanding
and justification of the second part of two-stage model. This is the conundrum of the
selection process in biological evolution and the choice process in the psychology of
free will. Contemporary quantum theory allows only an explanation of the first part
of two-stage model, which is not sufficient for a free will justification. In fact this
is exactly in line with Bohr’s opinion [61]: “To connect free will more directly with
the limitation of causality in atomic physics, as it is often suggested, is, however,
entirely foreign to the tendency underlying the remarks made here about biological
problems.” Bohr knew that quantum physics gives no answer to the selection process (the second part of two-stage model), and he therefore only called upon the
recognition of relevant psychological experiences [61]: “To illustrate the argument,
we may briefly refer to the old problem of free will. From what has already been
said it is evident that the word volition is indispensable to an exhaustive description
of psychical phenomena, but the problem is how far we can speak about freedom
to act according to our possibilities. As long as unrestricted deterministic views are
taken, the idea of such freedom is of course excluded. However, the general lesson
of atomic physics, and in particular of the limited scope of mechanistic description
of biological phenomena, suggests that the ability of organisms to adjust themselves
to environment includes the power of selecting the most appropriate way to this purpose. Because it is impossible to judge such questions on a purely physical basis, it is
most important to recognize that psychological experience may offer more pertinent
information on the problems.”
Bohr’s statement above represents a synoptical vision, cf. the one of Eccles and
Popper, unifying the principles behind biological and psychical phenomena. However, the problem of the second part of the two-stage model must indeed have a
solution within a satisfactory extension of the present understanding of quantum theory, originally formulated for the description of inanimate nature, but such a solution
does not yet exist on the level of quantum physics as restricted by the Copenhagen
interpretation.
9 The Paradox of the Meissner Effect
The strange phenomenon of superconductivity was coined by Heike Kamerlingh
Onnes in his two ground breaking papers [62], describing the complete disappearance
of electrical resistance of mercury observed in 1911 by his assistant Gilles Holst at
the Leiden research lab later known as the Kamerlingh-Onnes laboratory. Since then
superconductors have been regarded as ideal conductors with zero resistance. The first
theoretical articles on the subject of superconductivity, by Becker et al. [63], reflected
this ideal conductivity, deriving the relation between the current and the electrical
field, replacing Ohm’s law in normal conductors. Starting with the expression for
current
j = env
(9.1)
309
and quantum theory in particular, which is mandatory for a proper understanding
and justification of the second part of two-stage model. This is the conundrum of the
selection process in biological evolution and the choice process in the psychology of
free will. Contemporary quantum theory allows only an explanation of the first part
of two-stage model, which is not sufficient for a free will justification. In fact this
is exactly in line with Bohr’s opinion [61]: “To connect free will more directly with
the limitation of causality in atomic physics, as it is often suggested, is, however,
entirely foreign to the tendency underlying the remarks made here about biological
problems.” Bohr knew that quantum physics gives no answer to the selection process (the second part of two-stage model), and he therefore only called upon the
recognition of relevant psychological experiences [61]: “To illustrate the argument,
we may briefly refer to the old problem of free will. From what has already been
said it is evident that the word volition is indispensable to an exhaustive description
of psychical phenomena, but the problem is how far we can speak about freedom
to act according to our possibilities. As long as unrestricted deterministic views are
taken, the idea of such freedom is of course excluded. However, the general lesson
of atomic physics, and in particular of the limited scope of mechanistic description
of biological phenomena, suggests that the ability of organisms to adjust themselves
to environment includes the power of selecting the most appropriate way to this purpose. Because it is impossible to judge such questions on a purely physical basis, it is
most important to recognize that psychological experience may offer more pertinent
information on the problems.”
Bohr’s statement above represents a synoptical vision, cf. the one of Eccles and
Popper, unifying the principles behind biological and psychical phenomena. However, the problem of the second part of the two-stage model must indeed have a
solution within a satisfactory extension of the present understanding of quantum theory, originally formulated for the description of inanimate nature, but such a solution
does not yet exist on the level of quantum physics as restricted by the Copenhagen
interpretation.
9 The Paradox of the Meissner Effect
The strange phenomenon of superconductivity was coined by Heike Kamerlingh
Onnes in his two ground breaking papers [62], describing the complete disappearance
of electrical resistance of mercury observed in 1911 by his assistant Gilles Holst at
the Leiden research lab later known as the Kamerlingh-Onnes laboratory. Since then
superconductors have been regarded as ideal conductors with zero resistance. The first
theoretical articles on the subject of superconductivity, by Becker et al. [63], reflected
this ideal conductivity, deriving the relation between the current and the electrical
field, replacing Ohm’s law in normal conductors. Starting with the expression for
current
j = env
(9.1)