Physics Week Two: Quantum Mechanics

I am sitting in the coffee shop listening to music and reviewing our reading packet, web links, and posts from last week's class. I can't quite figure out how I want to respond to last week's questions. Somebody unplugs my computer, causing the old piece of junk to shut down. Startled, I remind myself not to get mad, dude didn't mean to mess me up (even if he tells me "Its ok, I only need one outlet" as I mumble to myself about losing everything I had up on the screen). Waiting for my laptop to boot back up, I notice notes I made in my packet from last week I hadn't noticed minutes before when I reread the article. I read the notes, reread the passage, and take a moment to appreciate these instances when an accident puts me in the right place or right time or right frame of mind to receive...a nice precursor to the readings on synchronicity I'll be working on shortly.

The passage from "Quantum Mechanics and Uncertainty" refers to the Copenhagen Interpretation and the limitations and implications on the act of measurement. While we are supposed to believe that measurement is a simple and objective act, the Copenhagen Interpretation holds that "measurement is thus regarded as something intrinsically different from anything else in nature," an intervention that impacts and influences the subatomic particles it seeks to measure. It strikes me that measurement is an entirely man made act that exists only to satisfy human curiosity, as the author points out a limited, "left-hemispheric thought" process of rationalistic society. We westerners like definitive answers, demonstratable facts. Pre-quantum physics scientists, developing their theories within and in reaction to particular religiopolitical constraints, held a rabid commitment to this silly notion of "objectivity," a supposedly neutral concept that I believe is laden with bias and hegemonic blind spots. The Uncertainty Principle directly contradicts the idea that the observer is ever neutral.

I often have trouble reconciling my longing to be a more rational, scientifically informed person (in the Western sense, some hegemonic conditioning I haven't yet shed) with my interest in more metaphysical modalities. In one breath I might denounce all things "woo," and in the next breath begin a rant about how we are all connected in ways far beyond our current perceptions. During those moments when I feel insecure about my beliefs regarding such things as tarot cards or the wisdom of symbols from ancient belief systems or the knowledge we glean from the natural world, I find myself having intense arguments in my imagination with certain friends committed to objectivity and atheism. I want them to see beyond the skepticism to a deeper world of connections and influences that I feel more than I can articulate. Its interesting how this class is giving structure to ideas I didn't have words for.

In "Quantum Mechanics and Uncertainty," the writer goes on to encourage the act of standing in wonder, the subjective experience of which "is a message to the rational mind that the object of wonder is being perceived and understood in ways other than the rational." The author ends with a quote from Gary Zukav that implores the reader to freely feel awe without trying to understand it. "You will find that you do understand, but in a way you will not be able to put into words. You are perceiving intuitively through you right hemisphere." Intuiting and wonder, as scientific tools, I think are powerful however much, as Zukav notes, such skills have been dulled by centuries of repression. The universe is in fact a very weird place, a place that we cannot yet truly comprehend in its entirety, although the greater implications of the Uncertainty Principle and opening our minds to the myriad of ways quantum physics acts within the macroscopic world will likely help get us closer to understanding just how weird this place is.