A Sense of Doubt blog post #4166 - SoD Reprint from 2019 - What Really Happens in Schrodinger's Box?

A Sense of Doubt blog post #4166 - SoD Reprint from 2019 - What Really Happens in Schrodinger's Box?

Just this because I jus read A LOT about wave function, Schrodinger's, and quantum mechanics in Quarantine by Greg Egan.

This was a good article.

Thanks for tuning in.

LOW POWER MODE: I sometimes put the blog in what I call LOW POWER MODE. If you see this note, the blog is operating like a sleeping computer, maintaining static memory, but making no new computations. If I am in low power mode, it's because I do not have time to do much that's inventive, original, or even substantive on the blog. This means I am posting straight shares, limited content posts, reprints, often something qualifying for the THAT ONE THING category and other easy to make posts to keep me daily. That's the deal. Thanks for reading.

BLOG VACATION #1 - 2026 - Taking a blog vacation for a couple of weeks, until at least June 26th, 2026. But now that it's past June 26, I am not sure when I am resuming normal operations. Mostly reprints. A few simple shares (not that simple shares are out of the norm) and THAT ONE THING. Need time for other things.

Link to the original post I am reprinting below:

Friday, July 12, 2019

A Sense of Doubt blog post #1604 - What Really Happens in Schrodinger's Box?

A Sense of Doubt blog post #1604 - What Really Happens in Schrodinger's Box?

I have been working on several posts featuring original content, but they are not done yet. So stay tuned.

For now, I reached back into the archive for this one.

A Twitter message from Eno that caught my eye.

FROM
https://aeon.co/essays/what-really-happens-in-schrodinger-s-box

Our quantum problem

When the deepest theory we have seems to undermine science itself, some kind of collapse looks inevitable

Adrian Kent

is a reader in quantum physics at the University of Cambridge. His latest book is Many Worlds? (2010), co-edited with Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett and David Wallace.

In 1909, Ernest Rutherford, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden took a piece of radium and used it to fire charged particles at a sheet of gold foil. They wanted to test the then-dominant theory that atoms were simply clusters of electrons floating in little seas of positive electrical charge (the so-called ‘plum pudding’ model). What came next, said Rutherford, was ‘the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life’.

Despite the airy thinness of the foil, a small fraction of the particles bounced straight back at the source – a result, Rutherford noted, ‘as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you’. Instead of whooshing straight through the thin soup of electrons that should have been all that hovered in their path, the particles had encountered something solid enough to push back. Something was wrong with matter. Somewhere, reality had departed from the best available model. But where?

The first big insight came from Rutherford himself. He realised that, if the structure of the atom were to permit collisions of the magnitude that his team had observed, its mass must be concentrated in a central nucleus, with electrons whirling around it. Could such a structure be stable? Why didn’t the electrons just spiral into the centre, leaking electromagnetic radiation as they fell?

Such concerns prompted the Danish physicist Niels Bohr to formulate a rather oddly rigid model of the atom, using artificial-seeming rules about electron orbits and energy levels to keep everything in order. It was ugly but it seemed to work. Then, in 1924, a French aristocrat and physicist named Louis de Broglie argued that Bohr’s model would make more sense if we assumed that the electrons orbiting the atomic nucleus (and indeed everything else that had hitherto been considered a particle) either came with, or in some sense could behave like, waves.

If Bohr’s atom had seemed a little arbitrary, de Broglie’s improved version was almost incomprehensible. Physical theory might have recovered some grip on reality but it seemed to have decisively parted company from common sense. And yet, as Albert Einstein said on reading de Broglie’s thesis, here was ‘the first feeble ray of light on this worst of our physics enigmas’. By 1926, these disparate intuitions and partial models were already unified into a new mathematical theory called quantum mechanics. Within a few years, the implications for chemistry, spectroscopy and nuclear physics were being confirmed.

It was clear from the start that quantum theory challenged all our previous preconceptions about the nature of matter and how it behaves, and indeed about what science can possibly – even in principle – say about these questions. Over the years, this very slipperiness has made it irresistible to hucksters of various descriptions. I regularly receive ads offering to teach me how to make quantum jumps into alternate universes, tap into my infinite quantum self-energy, and make other exciting-sounding excursions from the plane of reason and meaning. It’s worth stressing, then, that the theory itself is both mathematically precise and extremely well confirmed by experiment.

Quantum mechanics has correctly predicted the outcomes of a vast range of investigations, from the scattering of X-rays by crystals to the discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider. It successfully explains a vast range of natural phenomena, including the structure of atoms and molecules, nuclear fission and fusion, the way light interacts with matter, how stars evolve and shine, and how the elements forming the world around us were originally created.

Yet it puzzled many of its founders, including Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger, and it continues to puzzle physicists today. Einstein in particular never quite accepted it. ‘It seems hard to sneak a look at God’s cards,’ he wrote to a colleague, ‘but that he plays dice and uses “telepathic” methods (as the present quantum theory requires of him) is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.’ In a 1935 paper co-written with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, Einstein asked: ‘Can [the] Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’ He concluded that it could not. Given apparently sensible demands on what a description of physical reality must entail, it seemed that something must be missing. We needed a deeper theory to understand physical reality fully.

Einstein never found the deeper theory he sought. Indeed, later theoretical work by the Irish physicist John Bell and subsequent experiments suggested that the apparently reasonable demands of that 1935 paper could never be satisfied. Had Einstein lived to see this work, he would surely have agreed that his own search for a deeper theory of reality needed to follow a different path from the one he sketched in 1935.

Even so, I believe that Einstein would have remained convinced that a deeper theory was needed. None of the ways we have so far found of looking at quantum theory are entirely believable. In fact, it’s worse than that. To be ruthlessly honest, none of them even quite makes sense. But that might be about to change.

Here’s the basic problem. While the mathematics of quantum theory works very well in telling us what to expect at the end of an experiment, it seems peculiarly conceptually confusing when we try to understand what was happening during the experiment. To calculate what outcomes we might expect when we fire protons at one another in the Large Hadron Collider, we need to analyse what – at first sight – look like many different stories. The same final set of particles detected after a collision might have been generated by lots of different possible sequences of energy exchanges involving lots of different possible collections of particles. We can’t tell which particles were involved from the final set of detected particles.

Now, if the trouble was only that we have a list of possible ways that things could have gone in a given experiment and we can’t tell which way they actually went just by looking at the results, that wouldn’t be so puzzling. If you find some flowers at your front door and you’re not sure which of your friends left them there, you don’t start worrying that there are inconsistencies in your understanding of physical reality. You just reason that, of all the people who could have brought them, one of them presumably did. You don’t have a logical or conceptual problem, just a patchy record of events.

If you think this doesn’t make any sense, that there has to be something missing, well, that’s how many thoughtful physicists feel

Quantum theory isn’t like this, as far as we presently understand it. We don’t get a list of possible explanations for what happened, of which one (although we don’t know which) must be the correct one. We get a mathematical recipe that tells us to combine, in an elegant but conceptually mysterious way, numbers attached to each possible explanation. Then we use the result of this calculation to work out the likelihood of any given final result. But here’s the twist. Unlike the mathematical theory of probability, this quantum recipe requires us to make different possible stories cancel each other out, or fully or partially reinforce each other. This means that the net chance of an outcome arising from several possible stories can be more or less than the sum of the chances associated with each.

To get a sense of the conceptual mystery we face here, imagine you have three friends, John, Mary and Jo, who absolutely never talk to each other or interact in any other way. If any one of them is in town, there’s a one-in-four chance that this person will bring you flowers on any given day. (They’re generous and affectionate friends. They’re also entirely random and spontaneous – nothing about the particular choice of day affects the chance they might bring you flowers.) But if John and Mary are both in town, you know there’s no chance you’ll get any flowers that day – even though they never interact, so neither of them should have any idea whether the other one is around. And if Mary and Jo are both in town, you’ll certainly get exactly one bunch of flowers – again, even though Mary and Jo never interact either, and you’d have thought that if they’re acting independently, your chance of getting any flowers is a bit less than a half, while once in a while you should get two bunches.

If you think this doesn’t make any sense, that there has to be something missing from this flower delivery fable, well, that’s how many thoughtful physicists feel about quantum theory and our understanding of nature. Pretty precisely analogous things happen in quantum experiments.

One attempt to make sense of this situation – the so-called ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum theory, versions of which were advocated by Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and other leading quantum theorists in the first half of the last century – claims that quantum theory is teaching us something profound and final about the limits of what science can tell us. According to this approach, a scientific question makes sense only if we have a direct way of verifying the answer. So, asking what we’ll see in our particle detectors is a scientific question; asking what happened in the experiment before anything registered in our detectors isn’t, because we weren’t looking. To be looking, we’d have had to put detectors in the middle of the experiment, and then it would have been a different experiment. In trying to highlight the absurd-seeming consequences of this view, Schrödinger minted what has become its best-known popular icon – an imaginary experiment with a sealed box containing a cat that is simultaneously alive and dead, only resolving into one or other definite state when an experimenter opens the box.

The Copenhagen interpretation was very much in line with the scientific philosophy of logical positivism that caught on at around the same time. In particular, it rests on something like logical positivism’s principle of verification, according to which a scientific statement is meaningful only if we have some means of verifying its truth. To some of the founders of quantum theory, as well as to later adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation, this came to seem an almost self-evident description of the scientific process. Even after philosophers largely abandoned logical positivism – not least because the principle of verification fails its own test for meaningful statements – many physicists trained in the Copenhagen tradition insisted that their stance was no more than common sense.

However, its consequences are far from commonsensical. If you take this position seriously, then you have to accept that the Higgs boson wasn’t actually discovered at the Large Hadron Collider, since no one has ever directly detected a Higgs boson, and we have no direct evidence to support the claim that the Higgs boson is a real particle. Insofar as we learnt anything about nature from the Large Hadron Collider, it was merely what sort of records you get in your detectors when you build something like the Large Hadron Collider. It’s hard to imagine the scientists who work on it, or the citizens who funded them, being very enthusiastic about this justification, but on a strict Copenhagen view it’s the best we can do.

It gets worse. Quantum theory is supposed to describe the behaviour of elementary particles, atoms, molecules and every other form of matter in the universe. This includes us, our planet and, of course, the Large Hadron Collider. In that sense, everything since the Big Bang has been one giant quantum experiment, in which all the particles in the universe, including those we think of as making up the Earth and our own bodies, are involved. But if theory tells us we’re among the sets of particles involved a giant quantum experiment, the position I’ve just outlined tells us we can’t justify any statement about what has happened or is happening until the experiment is over. Only at the end, when we might perhaps imagine some technologically advanced alien experimenters in the future looking at the final state of the universe, can any meaningful statement be made.

Of course, this final observation will never happen. By definition, no one is sitting outside the universe waiting to observe the final outcome at the end of time. And even if the idea of observers waiting outside the universe made sense – which it doesn’t – on this view their final observations still wouldn’t allow them to say anything about what happened between the Big Bang and the end of time. We end up concluding that quantum theory doesn’t allow us to justify making any scientific statement at all about the past, present or future. Our most fundamental scientific theory turns out to be a threat to the whole enterprise of science. For these and related reasons, the Copenhagen interpretation gradually fell out of general favour.

Its great rival was first set out in a 1957 paper and Princeton PhD thesis written by one of the stranger figures in the history of 20th-century physics, Hugh Everett III. Rather unromantically, and very unusually for a highly original thinker and talented physicist, Everett abandoned theoretical physics after he had published his big idea. A good deal of his subsequent career was spent in military consultancy, advising the US on strategies for fighting and ‘winning’ a nuclear war against the USSR, and the bleakness of this chosen path presumably contributed to his chain-smoking, alcoholism and depression. Everett died of a heart attack at the age of 51; possibly we can infer something of his own ultimate assessment of his life’s worth from the fact that he instructed his wife to throw his ashes in the trash. And yet, despite his detachment from academic life (some might say from all of life), Everett’s PhD work eventually became enormously influential.

One way of thinking about his ideas on quantum theory is that our difficulties in getting a description of quantum reality arise from a tension between the mathematics – which, as we have seen, tells us to make calculations involving many different possible stories about what might have really happened – and the apparently incontrovertible fact that, at the end of an experiment, we see that only one thing actually did happen. This led Everett to ask a question that seems at first sight stupid, but which turns out to be very deep: how do we know that we only get one outcome to a quantum experiment? What if we take the hint from the mathematics and consider a picture of reality in which many different things actually do happen – everything, in fact, that quantum theory allows? And what if we take this to its logical conclusion and accept the same view of cosmology, so that all the different possible histories of the evolution of the universe are realised? We end up, Everett argued, with what became known as a ‘many worlds’ picture of reality, one in which it is constantly forming new branches describing alternative – but equally real – future continuations of the same present state.

On this view, every time any of us does a quantum experiment with several possible outcomes, all those outcomes are enacted in different branches of reality, each of which contains a copy of our self whose memories are identical up to the start of experiment, but each of whom sees different results. None of these future selves has any special claim to be the real one. They are all equally real – genuine but distinct successors of the person who started the experiment. The same picture holds true more generally in cosmology: alongside the reality we currently habit, there are many others in which the history of the universe and our planet was ever so slightly different, many more in which humanity exists on Earth but the course of human history was significantly different from ours, and many more still in which nothing resembling Earth or its inhabitants can be found.

On another paper addressing the same issue, Everett’s comment was the single word ‘bullshit’

This might sound like unbelievable science fiction. To such a gibe, Everett and his followers would reply that science has taught us many things that seemed incredible at first. Other critics object that the ‘many worlds’ scenario seems like an absurdly extravagant and inelegant hypothesis. Trying to explain the appearance of one visible reality by positing an infinite collection of invisible ones might seem the most deserving candidate in the history of science for a sharp encounter with Occam’s razor. But to this, too, Everettians have an answer: given the mathematics of quantum theory, on which everyone agrees, their proposal is actually the simplest option. The many worlds are there in the equations. To eliminate them you have to add something new, or else change them – and we don’t have any experimental evidence telling us that something should be added or that the equations need changing.

Everettians might have a point, then, when they argue that their ideas deserve a hearing. The problem is that, from Everett and his early followers onwards, they have never managed to agree on a clear story about how exactly this picture of branching worlds is supposed to emerge from the fundamental equations of quantum theory, and how this single world that we see, with experimental outcomes that are apparently random but which follow definite statistical laws, might then be explained. One of the blackly funny revelations in Peter Byrne’s biography The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III (2010) was the discovery of Everett’s personal copy of the classic text The Many‑Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, put together in 1973 by the distinguished American physicist Bryce DeWitt and a few of Everett’s other early supporters. To DeWitt’s mild criticism that ‘Everett’s original derivation [of probabilities]… is rather too brief to be entirely satisfying’, Everett scribbled in the margins ‘Only to you!’ and ‘Goddamit [sic] you don’t see it’. On another paper addressing the same issue, his comment was the single word ‘bullshit’. Although generally in more civil terms, Everettians have continued to argue over this and related points ever since.

Indeed, the big unresolved, and seemingly unsolvable, problem here is how statistical laws can possibly emerge at all when the Everettian meta-picture of branching worlds has no randomness in it. If we do an experiment with an uncertain outcome, Everett’s proposal says that everything that could possibly happen (including the very unlikely outcomes) will in fact take place. It’s possible that Everettians can sketch some explanation of why it seems to ‘us’ (really, to any one of our many future successors) that ‘we’ see only one outcome. But that only replaces ‘everything will actually happen’ with ‘anything could seem to happen to us’ – which is still neither a quantitative nor a falsifiable scientific statement. To do science, we need to able to test statements such as ‘there’s a one-in-three chance X will happen to us’ and ‘it’s incredibly unlikely that Y will happen to us’ – but it isn’t at all obvious that Everett’s ideas support any such statements.

Everettians continue to devote much ingenuity to deriving statements involving probabilities from the underlying deterministic many-worlds picture. One idea lately advocated by David Deutsch and David Wallace of the University of Oxford is to try to use decision theory, the area of mathematics that concerns rational decision-making, to explain how rational people should behave if they believe they are in a branching universe. Deutsch and Wallace start from a few purportedly simple and natural technical assumptions about the preferences one should have in a branching world and then claim to show that rational Everettians should behave as though they were in an uncertain probabilistic world following the statistical laws of quantum theory, even though they believe their true situation is very different.

One problem with this line of thought is that the assumptions turn out not to seem especially natural, or even properly defined, on close inspection. The easiest way to understand this is to look for rationally defensible strategies for life in a branching universe other than the ones Deutsch and Wallace advocate. One example I rather like (because it makes the point succinctly, not because it seems morally attractive) is that of future self elitism, which counsels us to focus only on the welfare of our most fortunate and successful future successor, perhaps on the premise that our best possible future self is our truest self. Future self elitists don’t worry about the odds of a particular bet, only about the best possible payoff. Thus they violate Deutsch and Wallace’s axioms, but it is hard to see any purely logical argument against their decisions.

Another issue is that, as several critics have pointed out, whatever one thinks of Deutsch and Wallace’s proposed rational strategy, it answers a subtly different question to the one that Everettians were supposed to be addressing. The question ‘What bets should I be happy to place on the outcomes of a given experiment, given that I believe in Everettian many-worlds?’ is certainly a question that relates something we normally try to answer using probabilities with the many-worlds picture. In that sense, it makes some sort of connection between probabilities and many worlds – and since we’ve seen how hard that is to achieve, it’s easy to understand why Everettians (at least initially) are enthusiastic about this accomplishment. But, unfortunately, it’s not the sort of connection we need. The key scientific question is why the experimental evidence for quantum theory justifies a belief in many worlds in the first place. Many Everettians – from Everett and DeWitt onwards – have tried to give a satisfactory answer to this. Many critics (myself included) appreciate the cunning of their attempts but think they have all failed.

If we cannot get a coherent story about physical reality from the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory and we cannot get a scientifically adequate one from many-worlds theory, where do we turn? We could, as some physicists suggest, simply give up on the hope of finding any description of an objective external reality. But it is very hard to see how to do this without also giving up on science. The hypothesis that our universe began from something like a Big Bang, our account of the evolution of galaxies and stars, the formation of the elements and of planets and all of chemistry, biology, physics, archaeology, palaeontology and indeed human history – all rely on propositions about real observer-independent facts and events. Once we assume the existence of an external world that changes over time, these interrelated propositions form a logically coherent set; chemistry depends on cosmology, evolution on chemistry, history on evolution and so on. Without that assumption, it is very hard to see how one might make sense of any of these disciplines, let alone see a unifying picture that underlies them all and explains their deep interrelations and mutual dependence.

If we can’t allow the statement that dinosaurs really walked the Earth, what meaningful content could biology, palaeontology or Darwinian evolution actually have? It’s even harder to understand why the statement seems to give such a concise explanation of many things we’ve noticed about the world, from the fossil record to (we think) the present existence of birds, if it’s actually just a meaningless fiction. Similarly, if we can’t say that water molecules really contain one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms – or at least that something about reality that supports this model – then what, if anything, is chemistry telling us?

Physics poses many puzzles, and the focus of the physics community shifts over time. Most theoretical physicists today do not work on this question about what really happens in quantum experiments. Among those who think about it at all, many hope that we can find a way of thinking about quantum theory in which reality somehow evaporates or never arises. That seems like wishful thinking to me.

The alternative, as John Bell recognised earlier and more clearly than almost all of his contemporaries, is to accept that quantum theory cannot be a complete fundamental theory of nature. (As mentioned above, Einstein also believed this, though at least partly because of arguments that Bell was instrumental in refuting.)

We need to supplement our quantum equations with quantities that correspond directly to real events or things – real ‘stuff’ in the world

Bell was one of the last century’s deepest thinkers about science. As he put it, quantum theory ‘carries in itself the seeds of its own destruction’: it undermines the account of reality that it needs in order to make any sense as a physical theory. On this view, which was once as close to heresy as a scientific argument can be but is now widely held among scientists who work on the foundations of physics, the reality problem is just not solvable within quantum theory as it stands. And so, along with the variables that describe potentialities and possibilities, we need to supplement our quantum equations with quantities that correspond directly to real events or things – real ‘stuff’ in the world.

Bell coined the term beables to refer to these elusive missing ingredients. ‘Beable’ is an ugly word but a useful concept. It denotes variables that are able to ‘be’ in the world – hence the name. And indeed it turns out that we can extend quantum theory to include beables that would directly describe the sort of reality we actually see. Some of the most interesting work in fundamental physics in the past few decades has been in the search for new theories that agree with quantum theory in its predictions to date, but which include a beable description of reality, and so give us a profoundly different fundamental picture of the world.

What sort of quantities might do the trick? One early idea comes from Louis de Broglie, whom we met earlier, and David Bohm, an American theoretical physicist who fled McCarthyite persecution and spent most of his career at the University of London. The essence of their proposal is that, in addition to the mathematical quantities given to us by quantum theory, we also have equations defining a definite path through space and time for each elementary particle in nature. These paths are determined by the initial state of the universe and, in this sense, de Broglie-Bohm theory can be thought of as a deterministic theory, rather like the pre-quantum theories given by Newton’s and Maxwell’s equations. Unfortunately, de Broglie and Bohm’s equations also share another property of Newton’s equations: an action at any point in space has instantaneous effects on particles at arbitrarily distant points.

Because these effects would not be directly detectable, this would not actually allow us to send signals faster than light, and so it does not lead to observations that contradict Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It does, however, very much violate its spirit, as well as the beautiful symmetry principles incorporated in the underlying mathematics. For this reason, and also because de Broglie and Bohm’s ideas work well for particles but are hard to generalise to electromagnetic and other fields, it seems impossible to find a version of the scheme that is consistent with much of modern theoretical physics. Still, de Broglie and Bohm’s great achievement was to show that we can find a mathematically consistent description of reality alongside quantum theory. When it first emerged, their work was largely unappreciated, but it led to many of Bell’s insights into the quantum reality problem and blazed a trail for later theorists.

In the 1980s, a much more promising avenue opened up, thanks to the efforts of Giancarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, Tullio Weber and Philip Pearle, three European theorists and an American. Their approach became known as the ‘spontaneous collapse’ model and their brilliant insight was that we can find mathematical laws that describe how the innumerable possible outcomes encoded in a quantum description of an experiment get reduced to the one actual result that we see. As we have already noted, the tension between these two descriptions is at the heart of the quantum reality problem.

When using standard quantum theory, physicists often say that the wave function – a mathematical object that encodes all the potential possibilities – ‘collapses’ to the measured outcome at the end of an experiment. This ‘collapse’, though, is no more than a figure of speech, which only highlights the awkward fact that we do not understand what is really happening. By contrast, in Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber-Pearle models, collapse becomes a well-defined mathematical and physical process, taking place at definite points in space, following precise equations and going on all the time in the world around us, whether or not we are making measurements. According to these new equations, the more particles there are in a physical system, the faster the collapse rate. Left isolated, a single electron will collapse so rarely that we essentially never see any effect. On the other hand, anything large enough to be visible – even a dust grain – has enough particles in it that it collapses very quickly compared to human perception times. (In Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment, the cat’s quantum state would resolve in next to no time, leaving us with either a live cat or a dead one, not some strange quantum combination of both.)

One way of thinking about reality in these models, first suggested by Bell, is to take the beables to be the points in space and time at which the collapses take place. On this view, a dust grain is actually a little galaxy of collapse points, winking instantaneously in and out of existence within or near to (what we normally think of as) the small region of space that it occupies. Everything else we see around us, including our selves, has the same sort of pointillistic character.

Collapse models do not make exactly the same predictions as quantum theory, which could turn out to be either a strength or a weakness. Since quantum theory is very well confirmed, this disagreement might seem to rule these new models out. However, the exact rate of collapses per particle is a free parameter that is not fixed by the mathematics of the basic proposal. It is perfectly possible to tailor this value such that the differences between collapse model predictions and those of quantum theory are so tiny that no experiment to date would have detected it, and at the same time large enough that the models give a satisfactory solution to the reality problem (ie, everything that seems definite and real to us actually is real and definite).

That said, we presently have no theoretically good reason why the parameter should be in the range that allows this explanation to work. It might seem a little conspiratorial of nature to give us the impression that quantum theory is correct, while tuning the equations so that the crucial features that give rise to a definite physical reality are – with present technology – essentially undetectable. On the other hand, history tells us that deep physical insights, not least quantum theory itself, have often come to light only when technology advances sufficiently. The first evidence for what turns out to be a revolutionary change in our understanding of nature can often be a tiny difference between what current theory predicts and what is observed in some crucial experiment.

Like every previous theory of physics, quantum theory will turn out only approximately true, applying within a limited domain only

There are other theoretical problems with collapse models. Although they do not seem to conflict with special relativity or with field theories in the way that de Broglie-Bohm theory does, incorporating the collapse idea into these fundamental theories nevertheless poses formidable technical problems. Even on an optimistic view, the results in this direction to date represent work in progress rather than a fully satisfactory solution. Another worry for theorists in a subject where elegance seems to be a surprisingly strong indicator of physical relevance is that the mathematics of collapse seems a little ad hoc and utilitarian. To be fair, it is considerably less ugly than the de Broglie-Bohm theories, which to a purist’s eye more closely resemble a Heath Robinson contraption than the elegant machinery we have come to expect of the laws of physics. But compared with the extraordinary depth and beauty of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, or of quantum theory itself, collapse models disappoint.

This could simply mean that we have not properly understood them, or not yet seen the majestic deeper theory of which they form a part. It seems likelier, though, that collapse models are at best only a step in roughly the right direction. I suspect that, like de Broglie-Bohm theory, they will eventually be seen as pointers on the way to a deeper understanding of physical reality – extraordinarily important achievements, but not fundamentally correct descriptions.

There is, however, one important lesson that we can already credit to collapse models. De Broglie-Bohm theory suffers from the weakness that its experimental predictions are precisely the same as those of quantum theory, unlike collapse models that, as we have noted, are at least in principle testably different. The beables in de Broglie-Bohm theory – the particle paths – play a rather subordinate role: their behaviour is governed by the wave function that characterises all the possible realities from which any given set of paths is drawn, but they have no effect on that wave function. In metaphysical language, the de Broglie-Bohm theory beables are epiphenomena. The American psychologist William James once critically and poetically described the English biologist T H Huxley’s view of human consciousness as ‘Inert, uninfluential, a simple passenger in the voyage of life, it is allowed to remain on board, but not to touch the helm or handle the rigging’. Much the same might be said of a de Broglie-Bohm beable. Collapse-model beables, on the other hand, give as good as they get. Their appearance is governed by rules involving the quantum wave function, and yet, once they appear, they in turn alter the wave function. This makes for a far more interesting theory, mathematically as well as scientifically.

It’s tempting to declare this as a requirement for any variable in a fundamental theory of physics – or at least, any variable that plays as important a role as the beables are meant to play: it should be mathematically active, not purely passive. Any interesting solution to the quantum reality problem should (like collapse models but unlike de Broglie-Bohm theory) make experimentally testable predictions that allow us to check our new description of reality.

How might we do that? Assuming these ideas are not entirely wrong, what sort of experiments might give us evidence of a deeper theory underlying quantum theory and a better understanding of physical reality? The best answer we can give at present, if collapse models and other recent ideas for beable theories are any guide, is that we should expect to see something new when some relevant quantity in the experiment gets large. In particular, the peculiar and intriguing phenomenon called quantum interference – which seems to give direct evidence that different possible paths which could have been followed during an experiment all contribute to the outcome – should start to break down as we try to demonstrate it for larger and larger objects, or over larger and larger scales.

This makes some intuitive sense. Quantum theory was developed to explain the behaviour of atoms and other small systems, and has been well tested only on small scales. It would always have been a brave and perhaps foolhardy extrapolation to assume that it works on all scales, up to and including the entire universe, even if this involved no conceptual problems. Given the self-contradictions involved in the extrapolation and the profound obstacles that seem to prevent any solution of the reality problem within standard quantum theory, the most natural assumption is that, like every previous theory of physics, quantum mechanics will turn out only approximately true, applying within a limited domain only.

A number of experimental groups around the world are now trying to find the boundaries of that domain, testing quantum interference for larger and larger molecules (the current record is for molecules comprising around 1,000 atoms), and ultimately for small crystals and even viruses and other living organisms. This would also allow us to investigate the outlandish but not utterly inconceivable hunch that the boundaries of quantum theory have to do with the complexity of a system, or even with life itself, rather than just size. Researchers have proposed space-based experiments to test the interference between very widely separated beams and will no doubt spring into action once quantum technology becomes available on satellites, as it probably will in the next few years.

With luck, if the ideas I have outlined are on the right lines, we might have a good chance of detecting the limits of quantum theory in the next decade or two. At the same time we can hope for some insight into the nature and structure of physical reality. Anyone who expects it to look like Newtonian billiard-balls bouncing around in space and time, or anything remotely akin to pre-quantum physical ideas, will surely be disappointed. Quantum theory might not be fundamentally correct, but it would not have worked so well for so long if its strange and beautiful mathematics did not form an important part of the deep structure of nature. Whatever underlies it might well seem weirder still, more remote from everyday human intuitions, and perhaps even richer and more challenging mathematically. To borrow a phrase from John Bell, trying to speculate further would only be to share my confusion. No one in 1899 could have dreamed of anything like quantum theory as a fundamental description of physics: we would never have arrived at quantum theory without compelling hints from a wide range of experiments.

The best present ideas for addressing the quantum reality problem are at least as crude and problematic as Bohr’s model of the atom. Nature is far richer than our imaginations, and we will almost certainly need new experimental data to take our understanding of quantum reality further. If the past is any guide, it should be an extraordinarily interesting scientific journey.

Philosophy of science Physics Quantum theory

28 January, 2014

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 1907.12 -10:10
- Days ago = 1469 days ago
- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I plan to continue Hey Mom posts at least twice per week but will continue to post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2607.14 - 10:10

- Days ago: MOM = 4030 days ago & DAD = 684 days ago

- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I post Hey Mom blog entries on special occasions. I post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day, and now I have a second count for Days since my Dad died on August 28, 2024. I am now in the same time zone as Google! So, when I post at 10:10 a.m. PDT to coincide with the time of Mom's death, I am now actually posting late, so it's really 1:10 p.m. EDT. But I will continue to use the time stamp of 10:10 a.m. to remember the time of her death and sometimes 13:40 EDT for the time of Dad's death. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.

A Sense of Doubt blog post #3853 - Nanotech Fantasy & Techno-Pipe Dreams

A Sense of Doubt blog post #3853 - Nanotech Fantasy & Techno-Pipe Dreams

I was very excited back in the 2000s reading Joel Garreau's Radical Evolution and Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near as well as other books mentioned in this article: Diamond Age, Engines of Creation, and Bill Joy's famous article "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us."

I made a whole category for GRIN tech posts. GRIN = Genetic Engineering, Robotics, Information Tech or AI, and Nanotechnology.

I have made many posts on those collective topics.

And yet, where are the nanobots to monitor or even repair our health?

Where are our flying cars?

For that matter, a much more achievable goal, where are our "orbital" space colonies?

I put "orbital" in quote because a colony or even "colonies" would be placed at Lagrange points of equalized gravity or balance, which means the colony would need very little fuel to stay "in place."
See also solving the THREE BODY PROBLEM.

So, where are they?

Where is the future we were promised?

Well, it may be farther away than predicted or just a pipe dream for some tech, line nano.

Good article follows.

Thanks for tuning in.


https://aeon.co/essays/no-suffering-no-death-no-limits-the-nanobots-pipe-dream

Philip Ballis a British science writer whose work appears in Nature, New Scientist and Prospect, among others. His latest books are How Life Works (2023) and Beautiful Experiments (2023). He lives in London.

Edited bySam Dresser

4,300 words

In 2000, Bill Joy, the co-founder and chief scientist of the computer company Sun Microsystems, sounded an alarm about technology. In an article in Wired titled ‘Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us’, Joy wrote that we should ‘limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.’ He feared a future in which our inventions casually wipe us from the face of the planet.

The concerns expressed in Joy’s article, which prompted accusations of Luddism from tech advocates, sound remarkably similar to those now being voiced by some leaders in Silicon Valley that artificial intelligence might soon surpass us in intelligence and decide we humans are expendable. However, while ‘sentient robots’ were a part of what had spooked Joy, his main worry was about another technology that he figured might make that prospect imminently possible. He was troubled by nanotechnology: the engineering of matter at the scale of nanometres, comparable to the size of molecules.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say Joy was troubled by the version of nanotechnology that he had read about in the book Engines of Creation (1986) by the engineer K Eric Drexler, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At the close of the 20th century, it was nanotechnology, not AI (which didn’t seem to be getting very far), that loomed large as the enabler of utopias and dystopias. Drexler’s book described a vision of nanotech that could work wonders, promising, in Joy’s words, ‘incredibly low-cost solar power, cures for cancer and the common cold’ as well as ‘[low-cost] spaceflight … and restoration of extinct species.’

But Joy had learnt from the inventor Ray Kurzweil (now a scientific adviser to Google) that Drexler’s nanotech promised something yet more remarkable: the singularity, a point at which our accelerating technological prowess reaches escape velocity and literal marvels become possible – in particular, immortality through the merging of human and machine, so that we could upload our minds to computers and live forever in a digital nirvana.

‘[N]anotechnology-based manufacturing devices in the 2020s will be capable of creating almost any physical product from inexpensive raw materials and information,’ Kurzweil wrote in his book The Singularity Is Near (2005). The technology ‘will provide tools to effectively combat poverty, clean up our environment, overcome disease, extend human longevity, and many other worthwhile pursuits.’

But, Joy learned, there was a downside to all this. Drexler’s nanotechnology could get out of hand, unleashing swarms of invisibly tiny nano-robots that blindly start pulling everything apart, atom by atom, until they have reduced the world to what Drexler called ‘grey goo’. In the late 1990s, the grey-goo problem was the golem that, like ‘superintelligent AI’ today, might bring about our hubristic downfall.

You might have noticed that none of this has happened. No cures for cancer, no mind-uploading immortality, but no grey goo either. This is because Drexler’s vision of nanotechnology was a chimera. It was like the philosophers’ stone of the alchemists: magic dressed in the science of its time, by means of which almost anything becomes possible. I call these oneiric technologies: they do not and quite probably cannot exist, but they fulfil a deep-rooted dream, or a nightmare, or both.

These techno-fantasies are central to the utopias regularly forecast by tech billionaires

These are not simply technologies of the future that we don’t yet have the means to realise, like the super-advanced technologies that Arthur C Clarke said we would be unable to distinguish from magic. Rather, oneiric technology takes a wish (or a terror) and clothes it in what looks like scientific raiment so that the uninitiated onlooker, and perhaps the dreamer, can no longer tell it apart from what is genuinely on the verge of the possible. Perpetual motion is one of the oldest oneiric technologies, although only since the 19th century have we known why it won’t work (this knowledge doesn’t discourage modern attempts, for example by allegedly exploiting the ‘quantum vacuum’); anti-gravity shielding is probably another.

The oneiric technologies currently in vogue in Silicon Valley include the notion of terraforming other planets, transforming their geosphere and atmosphere to render them inhabitable; cryonic freezing of your head after death so that your consciousness can one day be rebooted; and the related idea of mind-uploading to computer circuits. These techno-fantasies are central to the utopias regularly forecast by tech billionaires. They interconnect in a nexus to which Drexlerian nanotechnology is central.

It is worth looking into that particular dream, not just because of the parallels with the fantastical claims and fears about AI today, but because even now Drexlerian nanobots have not gone away. Kurzweil still cites them as the reason why his singularity is even ‘nearer’ – in 2024, he put it at 2045, at which point it will be possible to go (that is, to send nanobots) ‘inside the brain and capture everything in there.’ This implausible form of nanotechnology is still a part of Silicon Valley’s magical thinking, the aim of which, as the science writer Adam Becker says in his book More Everything Forever (2025), is to ‘tame the universe, to make it into a padded playground.’ No suffering, no death, no physical limits: a paradise shaped by ultra-libertarian – some say quasi-fascist – politics in which no one will tell you that anything is forbidden or impossible.

An enthusiast of 1970s dreams of space colonisation, Drexler began thinking about nanotechnology as an undergraduate at MIT in 1977. He was inspired by a talk by the physicist Richard Feynman titled ‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom’ (1959), in which Feynman imagined engineering at extremely tiny scales too small for the eye to see – and perhaps as small as could be conceived. ‘What would happen if we could arrange the atoms one by one the way we want them?’ Feynman asked. What indeed, Drexler wondered.

In 1981, he published his core vision in the academic paper ‘Molecular Engineering: An Approach to the Development of General Capabilities for Molecular Manipulation’. But it was his book Engines of Creation five years later, a popular and non-technical account of what this capability might lead to, that made Drexler the toast of tech entrepreneurs.

Drexler imagined making a ‘molecular assembler’, a mechanical device for grabbing atoms and pushing them together like Lego bricks. It might sound absurdly difficult to achieve that level of control and precision, but Drexler argued that we already have proof of its possibility. For isn’t this just what biology does, using machines made from protein molecules to read assembly instructions encoded in DNA and turn them into the parts of living cells? You might wonder what kind of practical manufacturing could be usefully done with a molecular-scale machine, but the key to Drexler’s vision was a progressive scaling up: small machines make bigger ones, which make bigger ones. Scaling up would also borrow another trick from nature: these molecular machines would be self-replicating, being able to assemble copies of themselves. You need only make one, and it can multiply exponentially. After publishing Engines of Creation, Drexler obtained his doctorate at MIT under the supervision of the AI guru Marvin Minsky. His thesis furnished a more technical book, Nanosystems (1992), intended as the scientific blueprint for realising the wonders promised in Engines.

Kurzweil imagines nanobots whizzing around in our heads reading the electrical states of neurons

With atomic-scale manipulation and assembler replication, said Drexler, we could create anything – not, as we currently do, through crude chemical processing or the laborious ‘top down’ etching and carving needed to fashion miniaturised devices such as silicon chips but from the bottom up, atom by atom. And whereas nature’s machines – proteins – are delicate and liable to fall apart if they get too warm or cold, molecular assemblers can be made of sterner stuff. Ideally, we would make them from carbon atoms, each component then in effect a little shaped piece of pure diamond. These ‘diamondoid’ nanomachines – nanoscale robotic arms, pincers, rotors, filters and so forth – wouldn’t break or corrode, and ‘will be able to build virtually anything that can be designed.’ In his book Where Is My Flying Car? (2021), Drexler’s associate and advocate, the computer scientist and writer J Storrs Hall, estimated that with nanoassemblers one could recreate the entire physical infrastructure of the United States – roads, bridges, cities – in a single week.

Drexler’s nanotech dream, with nanoscale robots patrolling our bloodstream, killing off pathogens and stripping sclerotic deposits from the blood vessel walls, seemed just what Kurzweil needed in order to realise his aspiration of escaping death. Such nanotechnology, Kurzweil has said, ‘promises the tools to rebuild the physical world – our bodies and brains included.’ Kurzweil imagines nanobots whizzing around in our heads reading the electrical states of neurons and thereby collecting all the information held within our neural circuitry, broadcasting it to detectors to create a virtual replica of our memories and thoughts – a digital clone of our conscious state, which would experience itself as no different from the meatspace version of us. Science-fiction writers loved it. Neal Stephenson based his novel The Diamond Age (1995) on a steampunk version of Drexlerian ‘matter compilers’, namechecking Drexler and Feynman in the book.

Scientists, however, were not so enamoured. The US chemist Julius Rebek told Scientific American in 2004: ‘This is not science – it’s show business.’ The chemistry Nobel laureate Richard Smalley engaged in an exchange of letters with Drexler published in 2003 in the American Chemical Society’s house magazine Chemical & Engineering News, in which Smalley insisted that Drexler’s idea was chemically illiterate.

The idea of manipulating atoms one by one was not itself inherently crazy. During the 1980s, scientists at IBM’s research labs developed so-called scanning probe microscopes that move ultrafine metal needles over surfaces to create images of individual atoms and molecules sitting on them. In 1989, an IBM team in California used such an instrument to write out the company’s name in letters five nanometres tall, using the tip to nudge, individually, 35 atoms of the element xenon into position on the surface of nickel.

Nor was Drexler wrong to think that chemical assembly at the molecular scale is possible. In the past several years, another IBM team in Switzerland has made rather complex single molecules – some of them difficult to create by conventional chemical methods – by pushing their fragments together on a surface with a scanning probe microscope until they react and join up.

Work like this makes it rather easy to present Drexlerian nanotechnology as plausible. But there are several key problems with using such an approach to synthesise molecular assemblers that can replicate and build anything. First, chemistry is not arbitrary: you can’t put atoms together any old how. Most arrangements are simply not stable, and so they will spontaneously rearrange into more stable ones. Getting rid of the energy released when a new chemical bond is made can be a big challenge too. And perhaps most of all, treating molecular objects as though they were just scaled-down engineering devices – rotary bearings, levers, clasps and so on – ignores the realities of the molecular world, which is full of strong and uncontrollable forces between molecules and random, pervasive shaking because of heat energy, and where liquids seem as viscous as molasses. As the late Scottish chemist James Fraser Stoddart, who won the 2016 Nobel Prize for his work on artificial molecular machines, told Becker: ‘The whole idea of extrapolating from the macroscopic world, from a car or a bicycle or something like that, down to the fundamentals of how you construct artificial molecular machines just makes no sense. It’s never going to work.’

Stoddart’s Nobel-winning work, in contrast, was firmly based on regular, known chemistry. He and others have found ingenious ways to link up molecules into structures that can carry out mechanical operations without needing to suspend physical and chemical laws. Stoddart’s breakthrough invention was a ‘molecular shuttle’ in which a ring-shaped molecule was threaded on a rod-like molecular axle capped with bulky chemical groups that prevent unthreading. The ring can jump between two docking positions on the axle, a little like an abacus bead. It’s fun to imagine such a molecular assembly being used to do abacus-style computation – but, as Stoddart knew, in practice it would be nigh-impossible to prevent the ring from making spontaneous jumps because of its thermal movements, so that the average setting of many such shuttles will be determined not by where we initially put them but by the statistical laws of thermodynamics. It’s the same story for the ‘biomolecular machines’ that were Drexler’s inspiration: they don’t work like nanoscale versions of electric motors or robot arms, but are governed by thermodynamic laws that inject random noise into their behaviour. At the molecular scale, nature is not much like mechanical engineering at all.

https://techcouver.com/2020/10/26/precision-nanosystems-covid-19-vaccine/

Drexler tried to head off such criticism in Nanosystems, arguing that his critics were merely coming up with badly designed nanotechnology and then dismissing the whole field of ‘molecular manufacturing’ because of that bad design. If he seemed to make light of experimental difficulties, he said: ‘I can only plead that it would soon become tedious to say, at every turn, that laboratory work is difficult, and that the hard work is yet to be done.’ Sure, it’ll be hard, but we’ll manage it somehow.

The grey-goo problem made nanotechnology a bête noir of techno-sceptics and environmentalists

Yet Nanosystems exemplified the strategy of oneiric technologists. You start from what looks like sound science – Drexler talks about thermal motion, chemical bonds, intermolecular forces. But you move almost imperceptibly into sheer fantasy, all the while ramping up the excitement of the impressionable reader. The second half of the book presents devices such as molecular sorters – wheels that separate different types of atoms or molecules – alongside molecular conveyor belts, robotic arms, and sets of interlocking gears. There are nanoscale mechanical computers made from moving rods, effectively miniaturised versions of Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine, his steampunk design for a general-purpose calculating machine, which he hoped to create out of brass components in the 19th century. There are, by this point, no longer any molecules in sight: we’re asked to assume these wondrous machines have all been somehow fashioned and assembled from diamondoid pieces, even though no one had ever made anything of the sort.

Maybe it’s all just as well that this is fantasy, because then so is the grey-goo problem. In this scenario of nanotech gone rogue, nanobot molecular assemblers escape our control and replicate without check, pulling apart every scrap of matter they can lay their nano-hands on and refashioning it into more of themselves. Each nanobot being smaller than a dust grain, the world then ends up being disassembled – at frightening speed, if you believe the calculations – into featureless mush.

The grey-goo problem made nanotechnology – which many assumed would be created in Drexler’s model – a bête noir of techno-sceptics and environmentalists in the 1990s. Among them was Prince Charles, now the British monarch, who voiced concerns in 2003 that prompted the Royal Society to produce a report on the benefits and risks of nanotech that barely mentioned Drexler, and attempted to steer the discussion back to the actual science. The grey-goo narrative was, however, far too good for science-fiction writers to resist: Michael Crichton of Jurassic Park fame got there first with his thriller Prey (2002).

The grey-goo nightmare might sound familiar to aficionados of AI ‘existential risks’, for it is the forerunner to the philosopher Nick Bostrom’s ‘paperclip problem’. Imagine, Bostrom said in 2003, we design an all-powerful, superintelligent AI that we assign the task of making paperclips. (It would be hard to imagine a more ridiculous use of such a powerful technology, but that’s not the point – or rather, the sheer banality is part of the point.) The AI might decide that its assigned task is so important that it will stop at nothing to make more paperclips. And because we have given it such power and ingenuity, it will outwit any efforts of ours to divert it from that goal – and will promptly turn everything, including us, into paperclips. Bostrom’s point was that it would be extremely hard, perhaps impossible, to ensure that such a superintelligent AI has goals that remain aligned with ours. ‘The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paperclips but no humans,’ he told HuffPost in 2014.

Bostrom’s scenario has been much debated, but its central problem is simply stated. Like grey goo, it involves an oneiric technology. Can’t we just switch it off? No, it is un-switch-off-able. If it’s superintelligent, won’t it figure out that we don’t want to become paperclips? No, it is superintelligent enough to be unstoppable but not enough to figure that out. And how does it turn everything into paperclips anyway? It can pull everything apart into atoms and then reassemble them at will: it is Drexlerian! Magically, it has precisely those capabilities and flaws the scenario demands, granted by unspecified (but capital-S) Science.

https://pandorafms.com/blog/grey-goo/

More than three decades after Nanosystems was published, Drexler’s nanotechnology is not one nanometre closer. It’s not that making a replicating diamondoid molecular assembler proved rather harder than Drexler imagined. It’s that there was never any real programme for how that could be done, nor any reason to think it was possible. Not a single carbon atom has been put in place in the attempt. No scientist has deemed it worth even trying.

Yet nanotechnology itself is now a mature science. Nanometre-scale pieces of matter of all descriptions can be assembled using chemical processes and are used in areas ranging from photovoltaic cells to biomedical imaging techniques. As well as Stoddart’s Nobel for synthetic molecular machines, the 2023 Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded for work on nanometre-scale clusters of atoms called ‘quantum dots’ that have a panoply of applications from biomedicine to information technologies. Chemists have figured out how to ‘program’ strands of DNA so that they will fold up spontaneously, origami-style, into complex shapes and patterns smaller than a bacterium, including a minuscule map of the Americas. Scanning probe microscopes are now regularly used as tools for molecular manipulation. Ultra-strong and hollow tubes of carbon a nanometre or so wide, discovered in 1991, are the ultimate carbon fibres and have been widely used in biomedical devices, wearable electronics and tough composite materials. The one-atom-thick carbon material graphene is another star of such ‘carbon nanotechnology’, of which Smalley was a pioneer. DNA sequencing, such as that used to track new variants of the COVID-19 virus, is now often done by dragging the strands through nanometre-scale protein pores embedded in membranes, a method developed by the company Oxford Nanopore. None of this work, however, uses anything like the approach Drexler advocated. Rather, it depends on chemistry as we have always known it.

That’s not to say Drexler’s vision was worthless. Indeed, it helped to stimulate early interest in the field, and even Smalley attested that he was initially excited by the possibilities it sketched for engineering with matter on tiny scales. Drexler attracted enough venture capital to establish in 1986 an organisation called the Foresight Institute, based in San Francisco, that today continues to offer grants and support to research on conventional nanotechnology and to award prizes (named after Feynman) to leading scientists working in the field. The institute organises conferences that attract many respectable scientists, working on topics such as protein design, which won the 2024 Nobel Prize in chemistry. At first sight, the Foresight Institute seems to have quietly set aside Drexler’s own oneiric version of nanotech.

None of this is moored to current technologies, but requires essentially magical inventions

But has it? The institute’s logo remains one of Drexler’s imaginary diamondoid gearwheels. It says it is now supporting work in neurotechnology, longevity biotechnology, space and ‘existential hope’. For anyone alert to the oneiric technologies of techno-utopias and dystopias, these are red flags. Neurotech – think of Elon Musk’s much-hyped Neuralink initiative for hooking up brains to machines – connects to the fantasy of mind-uploading, which Musk believes is possible. ‘We could download the things that we believe make ourselves so unique,’ he said in an interview in 2022. ‘As far as preserving our memories, our personality, I think we could do that.’ Musk says that a long-term goal for Neuralink is to ‘store your memories as a backup.’ These ideas, it’s important to recognise, are not to be confused with ambitious extrapolations of current scientific capabilities; they aren’t even coherent concepts.

Longevity? Drexler became closely associated with the community who called themselves Extropians, a reference to the idea that we can impose ever more order and design (extropy) on the Universe rather than surrendering to the dissolution of entropy seemingly demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. Extropianism has a huge overlap with transhumanism, the idea that we humans can transcend ourselves with technological help, eventually merging with machines or totally redesigning the human form.

https://sageuniversity.edu.in/blogs/space-colonization-exploring-the-future

Space? It’s not about making better telescopes or robotic spacecraft. Techno-utopians like Musk, Jeff Bezos and the influential software engineer and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen believe in the manifest destiny of humankind’s colonisation of space. As Becker explains in More Everything Forever, Kurzweil envisages sending out fleets of Drexlerian replicating nano-robots that transform planets and, ultimately, turn the entire accessible universe into a gigantic supercomputer with ‘exquisitely sublime forms of intelligence’. Again, none of this is moored to current technologies, but requires essentially magical inventions.

Existential hope? Here the Foresight Institute directs you to the Abundance and Growth Fund of the philanthropic funding and advising organisation Open Philanthropy in San Francisco, which aims ‘to accelerate economic growth and boost scientific and technological progress’ and to oppose ‘(even well-intentioned) governmental regulation’ that slows progress. In other words, this concept of ‘existential hope’ is entrained with the kind of ultra-libertarian, anti-regulation project envisaged by Andreessen, Musk and other tech billionaires.

Notably missing from such utopian goals is any mention of climate change, or threats to democracy, or arms proliferation, or corporate profiteering, or indeed any of the urgent problems facing the world here and now. Such issues don’t interest oneiric technologists, because there is nothing transcendent about them. They do not speak to immortality, to endless growth, to galactic futures, to that padded playground universe. Bill Joy summed up the matter in his 2000 article. ‘I remember feeling good about nanotechnology after reading Engines of Creation,’ he wrote. ‘If nanotechnology was our future, then I didn’t feel pressed to solve so many problems in the present. I would get to Drexler’s utopian future in due time; I might as well enjoy life more in the here and now.’

We don’t have to buy the myths of oneiric technologies

What messed it up for Joy was not the fact that Drexlerian nanotechnology was a pipe dream (as any number of well-informed scientists could have told him). Like all tech barons, he stayed within the club, conversing with Kurzweil (‘In the hotel bar, Ray gave me a partial preprint of his then-forthcoming book The Age of Spiritual Machines,’ says Joy, attesting to no flicker of misgiving at that title) and with the robotics futurist Hans Moravec (book title: Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind). Joy learnt about grey goo, and it made him think about Hiroshima, and his vision of an imaginary utopia turned to one of imaginary apocalypse.

Joy was commendably trying to do the right thing: to think ethically about powerful technologies. But he lacked the resources to know what to be excited by and what to fear. Here’s what I mean. Joy had made his fortune through his role in inventing world-changing computer tech. Meanwhile, when I wrote a critical review of Nanosystems as an editor of Nature in 1993, I was a mere five years from having completed my PhD and still wet behind the ears. How come I could tell its vision was going nowhere, yet Joy couldn’t? It was most certainly not because I was some kind of prescient wunderkind. It was not because of who I was but because of who I wasn’t. My social circle wasn’t other tech leaders; I wasn’t hanging out in the bar with Kurzweil; I wasn’t in the oneiric Silicon Valley bubble. Rather, I was lucky enough to have benefitted instead from contact with scientists doing benchtop research, with the likes of Smalley and Stoddart.

With AI, we are doing all this again. We are accepting the fantastical prophecies of the likes of Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt, who has forecast that ‘within three to five years we’ll have … [artificial] general intelligence, which can be defined as a system that is as smart as the smartest mathematician, physicist, artist, writer, thinker, politician’ (the ‘smartest artist’ being a concept that apparently means something within Silicon Valley). With no trace of irony, Schmidt adds that ‘I call this … the San Francisco consensus, because everyone who believes this is in San Francisco.’ As part of the package, we are then asked to accept not only the fantastical dreams of this community but also their eschatology, in which a machine superintelligence wipes us out. We are entranced by such ‘existential risk’ discourse when it comes from a Musk, a Bezos, or others who have fallen into the orbit of the San Francisco consensus. And if we take their dream, we have to take their nightmare too.

But we don’t have to. We don’t have to buy the myths of oneiric technologies. We can take a look at what happened to Drexlerian nanotechnology and diagnose the warning signs. We can choose to refuse that distraction, to heed humble experts over media-anointed geniuses. It’s perhaps not as exciting, it lacks any chiliastic frisson, and it might require us to think about boring risks and mundane regulation of research instead of science fantasy. But that’s where we live.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2509.05 - 10:10

- Days ago: MOM = 3718 days ago & DAD = 372 days ago

- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I post Hey Mom blog entries on special occasions. I post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day, and now I have a second count for Days since my Dad died on August 28, 2024. I am now in the same time zone as Google! So, when I post at 10:10 a.m. PDT to coincide with the time of Mom's death, I am now actually posting late, so it's really 1:10 p.m. EDT. But I will continue to use the time stamp of 10:10 a.m. to remember the time of her death and sometimes 13:40 EDT for the time of Dad's death. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.