Experimental metaphysics

Via Pointless and absurd, word of an experiment which has apparently disproved both the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations of quantum physics.

The experiment is a variation on Young's double-slit experiment. When you pass a beam of light through a narrow slit, it diffracts (essentially, spreads out); the slit effectively becomes a point-source of waves, like the ripples you get when you stick your finger in water and wiggle it up and down. Young used two slits, side by side, and found that the waves from each interfered with one another. He was able to use this interference pattern to calculate the wavelength of light.

(The first slit in the above setup is used to ensure that the waves impacting on the pair of slits are coherent - all lined up. Nowdays we'd just use a laser)

How is this relevant to quantum mechanics? It's all to do with waves and particles. Young did his experiment because he wanted to prove that light was a wave. However, light also behaves like a particle (your TV remote is proof of this). Quantum physics accepts that it's both ("wave-particle duality"), but according to the complementarity principle (shared by both the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations), "both aspects cannot be revealed in a single experiment". You can see (and measure) light as a wave, or as a particle, but not both at the same time.

The experiment - "Afshar's experiment" - purports to do both. It uses a double-slit apparatus, with a series of wires placed in the minima of the interference pattern. Behind that is a photon detector, placed so as to detect the light from only one slit. Light is passed through the apparatus one photon at a time. According to the complementarity principle, this forces particle-like behaviour. A particle passes through one slit; it follows a discrete path; therefore, it may hit one of the wires and be absorbed. You would therefore expect, over many photons, that the number detected at the detector would be lower than the number emitted, the difference being those that were absorbed by the wires.

This doesn't happen. The number of photons detected is pretty much the same as the number emitted; no photons are absorbed by the wires. What's going on?

The obvious answer is that the wires are where no light is going to go (the minima in the interference pattern), and so of course they don't absorb any. The problem is that we know which slit the photon went through - and when we look at what happens with a single slit, we find that light is indeed absorbed. How can the mere existence of a second slit (which the photon doesn't go through) affect where it goes?

Conversely, we can think of the photon as a wave, which goes through both slits and therefore produces the interference pattern. But then, how do we then see it as having travelled through only one slit?

No matter which way we look at it, it's a problem for complementarity, because we are able to see both wave and particle aspects at once. Which means it's also a problem for the Many-Worlds interpretation, because in their view this means that the world both has and has not split.

No doubt the proponents of the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations will come up with an explanation - that's what paradigms do, after all - but what's really interesting about all this is that they have to at all. Both interpretations are regarded as purely in the realm of metaphysics - after all, what can be more metaphysical than the idea that photons "know" whether they're being looked at as a wave or particle, or that the world continuously splits and we never notice? - but here we have an experiment which purports to disprove them. And this isn't the first time this has happened in quantum physics - the EPR experiments in the 60's, 70's and 80's disproved "hidden variable" theories and showed that actually, some properties really are determined at the instant they are measured (or worse, at the instant the same property of a correlated particle is measured). Quantum physicists just seem to have this bad habit of constructing interpretations which seem on the face of it to be metaphysical, but which turn out in the end to be making testable claims which can be verified or disproved by looking at the world.

The traditional view is that "if it makes testable claims, it's not metaphysics", but what is testable and what is not is a function of both technology and theory. This means that the boundary between physics and metaphysics is not stable. Physics can chip away, bringing things out of the realm of metaphysics and into testable reality. Which means that "experimental metaphysics" isn't the oxymoron it sounds like...

Is NZUSA writing Peter Dunne's press releases?

Peter Dunne: Debt punishes our brightest and best

Middle Class an Endangered Species? (part 2)

My Right has taken issue with my post yesterday and missed my point. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Government's tax policies, if you are in a financial hole you should stop digging. Somewhere along the line this family got themselves into trouble because they made a crap decision, they decided to have more kids without making sure they could afford them. People on the right seem to think that this behavior is limited to beneficiaries but its not.

Its a bit simplistic to look at this as a simple left vs right issue. One of the major factors that is hurting the middle classes is the student loan system and other than a bit of tinkering around the edges by Labour there is a broad consensus on this short sighted policy between the main parties. This family may get a tax cut under a National government but they would still be shafted by having to pay all that extra money for student loan repayments. The student loan system is completely out of control and is going to have big consequences down the track yet no party seems to have the answer to this problem.

Poor political management

Nanaia Mahuta may resign from Parliament

This is poor political management on Clark's behalf. She's acted in a high-handed and arrogant manner, taking a page from Blair's book in labelling her opponents "wreckers and haters". If she loses her majority and has to go crawling to the Greens or NZFirst, or worse call elections, she'll have no-one to blame but herself.

General of the day

The US has replaced the Republican Guard general appointed to control Fallujah, saying that he would not pass the vetting process. However, he will continue to serve as the Fallujah force's deputy - which is interesting, because I'd have though that if someone was so tainted by their association with the former regime that they'd be unfit to command, then they'd certainly be unfit to be second-in-command as well. You'd almost think that this is a poor PR move, designed to paper over General Salsh's background while leaving him in defacto control because he has the loyalty of the troops on the ground...

The bottom of the barrel

New Zealand employers seeking staff are down to the "crud at the bottom of the barrel", according to one economist.

Well, he's an economist, so he should know the answer: offer more money. That's how the market is supposed to work, after all.

Middle Class an Endangered Species?

In some ways I can identify with the family in the Sunday Star Times article. I will turn 28 this month and despite having a reasonable job, for me home ownership and a family seem a very long way off. I suspect at some point I will have to work overseas again to be able to ultimately afford the lifestyle that I want...I'm lucky because I could do this without too much bother. Other people aren't in a position where they could drop all their commitments like that.

Although Idiot is bang on in his analysis of the predicament that the middle class find themselves in, the "struggling middle class family" in question's problems are largely of their own making. At the end of the day they chose to have children that they couldn't afford...its no use whinging to Helen Clarke about it. Its also interesting that in their letter they took a swipe at Helen being childless....just like opposition parties have been known to do from time to time. I smell a rat.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid. In any case, I think there is a huge personal responsibility component to this story that is being overlooked.

New Kiwi blogs

Aaron Bhatnagar, who I remember from my days on nz.pols.

Also, Rodney Hide has got in on the act, and has started his own campaign dairy.

Foxes: Henhouse Abuses Rare

Billmon really has a way with words, doesn't he?

Saving the middle class

Another interesting series in the Sunday Star Times, this time on the plight of the middle class and the demise of the single income family. The stalking horse is a Waihi family, which is barely getting by despite a salary of $55,000 a year.

Rather than focus on the specifics here, I'll take the case as symptomatic of a wider problem. An increasing number of "middle class" families are having trouble getting by. Why is a traditional middle class lifestyle increasingly unattainable?

The obvious proximate cause is student loans. This is exactly what critics of the student loan scheme have been warning about all along - professional graduates unable to afford children or houses because they're still paying for their parent's tax-breaks. Without that debt-burden, the McLachlans would be substantially better off each week, both financially and psychologically.

I say "proximate cause" because this problem has been brewing for a long time. Part of it goes back to double vs single income families. Once upon a time we had a social contract in this country - employers would pay workers to support a family as well as themselves. Now we don't. The social contract went into slow decline in the early 70's, a decline dramatically hastened by the "reforms" of the 80's and 90's. A conscious goal of Douglas and Richardson was to create an "internationally competitive" - meaning "low-wage" - economy, and in this respect they succeeded. New Zealander's incomes dropped in real terms. The expansion of the labour force and the resultant downward pressure on wages created a feedback cycle, driving the process even faster as people were forced into part- or full-time work to make ends meet. The result has been a real impoverishment and drop in living standards of New Zealanders - not necessarily financially (household income has now recovered in real terms), but in terms of time. We now work twice as hard to earn what we used to get.

But the change from a single- to a double-income economy isn't the whole story. The real culprit here is the dramatic redistribution of wealth during the "reform" period. Rogernomics and Ruthanasia shifted wealth up the pyramid, from the poor and middle classes to the rich. Tax changes and service cuts fell disproportionately on the middle class, while the fruits of growth went to the rich (and only the rich). The net result? The top decile's share of earned income increased by about 5% over the reform period; their share of wealth by even more. These increases were at the direct expense of everybody else.

Should we do something about this? Yes. The New Zealand "dream" has been of a middle-class country, a "property-owning democracy", where people own their own houses, enjoy substantial equality, and can afford to have kids. While there's been a great broadening of social attitudes on the latter front, I think the rest of this dream still holds. Having a broad middle class is fundamentally what this society is all about. The government should therefore be trying to promote it, or at least make it accessible.

How can we do that? The most obvious immediate solution is restoring a decent universal family benefit for parents. This assists families while maximising choice. Rather than the government telling mothers to work or not to work, it is up to the individuals concerned whether to spend the money on subsidising childcare or on supporting a non-working parent.

Longer term, we can reduce the debt-burden on future earners by restoring a universal student allowance. The Greens and Progressive Coalition have long been in favour of this; United-Future came on board last week, and NZFirst today. The government has hinted that there will be something along these lines in the upcoming budget, but I suspect they're simply going to widen eligibility rather than universalise, and that simply isn't good enough. Quite apart from the long-term effects of debt, no-one in this country should have to borrow to eat.

(Of course, this does nothing to help ease the problems of student loans now. In order to do that, we need to look seriously at altering the repayment structure, and ultimately at debt forgiveness. The problem here is that there is no way to do the latter without creating serious inequities between those who have their debts forgiven and those who paid themselves. OTOH, not doing it results in a crippled middle class...)

But ultimately, we can only rebuild the middle class by reversing that 80's and 90's shift of wealth up the pyramid. And the only way to do that is by government redistribution - higher taxes on the rich, funding increased benefits and services to everyone else. Those balking at this measure should ask themselves what sort of society they want. Do they want a broad society where most people are in the middle - or a narrow one of rich and poor?

Sweeping racism under the rug

The mayor of Christchurch is now opposing plans to hold an anti-racism, "pro-harmony" march in the city, saying that it will damage the city's reputation overseas. He's worried about a counter-demonstration by the racist National Front, but his reaction plays right into their hands. Problems like racism need to be confronted, not swept under the rug. Refusing to confront them simply allows the problem to fester and grow. We all know the quote: "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Well, Christchurch has a problem, and it needs to be faced up to, rather than ignored.

New Fisk

The "Good Guys" Who Can Do No Wrong

Safe

Truck-driver Thomas Hamill, taken hostage in Iraq almost a month ago, has escaped.

Global warming could soon make Antarctica the only place to live, says chief British scientist

You always wonder if the scientist has really said this or if the dumb media who cover science stories poorly at the best of times have taken it out of context. I looked at it and thought...hang on a minute, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a long way from being the sole factor in determining the Earth's climate. Just off the top of my head, the distance from and activity of the sun and therefore the amount of heat we are getting in the first place play a huge role. The circulation of the oceans make a big difference too...and they would have been radically different cause the continents weren't where they are now. Sure climate change is a reality, but this is stretching things. I'm expecting the story to show to be uncritically regurgitated on the Greenpeace site any day now.

ACT of madness?

Prebble's decision to resign as leader may well be the only thing that saves it from being swallowed up by a resurgent National party. Actually ACT has probably already been swallowed up so its more like they're attempting a desperate heimlich maneuver or sticking their pudgy little capitalist fingers down National's throat to force vomiting in the hope that they will spit ACT back out again

While on the one hand we get to see an interesting and possibly bloody tussle between the faithful policy purists (who probably still have pictures of Rodger Douglas pinned to their wall, and a zeal that is only exceeded by that of hard core Christians) and the more populist approach of Rodney Hide, it does ensure that ACT will be in the news for the next few months giving them maximum exposure to the voters. Thats if the Tariana Turia travelling circus doesn't steal the show.

So who should they pick as leader? Its easy to see why they wouldn't be so keen on having Hide as head stone thrower in the ACT glass house. Aside from the embarrassment of Donna Awatere Huata there are a few others in the party whose ethics have been called into question over the years...even if they aren't quite in the same league as she is in the dodginess stakes. With Hide out busting perks and uncovering scandals, people might be tempted to look more closely at ACT.

Hide has his uses but he doesn't come across as a team player. Besides its always a mistake to give the leadership to anyone who openly covets it and especially to reward someone for undermining the incumbent leader.

I'd go for Stephen Franks personally. The few times I have heard Stephen Franks in interviews and debates I have been impressed. He's someone who does his homework and gets his point across well and has found some of the Government ministers wanting on occasions. People have suggested that his leadership skills are an unknown (true) and that he lacks charisma but I'm not sure how much charisma matters in ACT. I don't think people voted for Prebble on the basis of his warm, fluffy personality and besides I seem to remember people saying that Brash's lack of charisma would be his downfall.

Of the others, Ken Shirley is solid but probably won't inspire people and Dr Murial Newman makes me ill...which could be be a desirable quality if its something that only happens to lefties :-)

In any case I hope that they can turn their poll rating around...not because I want them in Government but because they have been very good in opposition at keeping the Government honest, certainly better than National has been up until recently. Of course the other reason to have them there is that if National's support does hold and they win the next election, ACT will be there to counterbalance NZ First. Lets face it, Labour has dropped the ball so badly over the foreshore and seabed that National winning the next election is a distinct possibility. Well there are one or two good things a National Government could do that Labour can't, its not something I'd overly look forward to.

Rotten to the core

The New Yorker has published details from a leaked army report on the torture at Abu Ghraib, which finds widespread culpability amongst military intelligence staff and private contractors - none of whom have yet been charged.

It also mentions several soldiers who were fobbed off after reporting abuse to their superiors, and a previous report which was a poor attempt at a coverup.

Rather than being the isolated acts of a few individuals, it is becoming clear that Abu Ghraib was rotten to the core. Torture was passively condoned by the command structure, and covered up at the highest levels of the army. Even now, the army is in denial - they have charged only six low-level staff. They have not charged the officers who looked the other way and allowed torture to happen on their watch, or the military intelligence staff and mercenary interrogators who encouraged (and even ordered) abuse. Complicity and culpability is widespread, and if the US army is to redeem itself, it must acknowledge this and properly punish everyone involved.

Legalities

A comment on Political Animal suggests that this is an opportunity to prove the superiority of western democracy - because:

A) In a free society like the U.S., such governmental misconduct can be exposed by the press, and,

B) Swift and severe punishment awaits the perpetrators.

I think Lt Calley disproves this to some extent... but worse, some of those involved are mercenaries and may slip through the legal cracks. It's happened before, in Bosnia, where DynCorp employees bought and "owned" teenage sex-slaves. As mercenaries, they were not subject to US military jurisdiction; as American contractors, they weren't subject to Bosnian civil jurisdiction; and they weren't subject to the US courts either. They lost their jobs, but no-one could be prosecuted. So far, there's no indication that the US has plugged this little loophole and made mercenaries legally accountable for their actions.

Another outrage

Several years ago, the Macedonian army killed a group of "foreign militants", apparantly an Al-Qaeda cell. They tried to link it with the Albanian NLA, then stuck their hand out for aid money because they were fighting the "war on terror".

The whole thing was staged. The "Militants" were a group of helpless illegal immigrants, gunned down in cold blood.

That's about buried the needle on my outrage-meter for the day.

Orwellian

In civilised parts of the world, it's May Day - a day to celebrate worker's struggles. In the US, it's Loyalty Day, "a special day for the reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States and for the recognition of the heritage of American freedom".

Just a little Orwellian, neh?

More on torture and abuse in Iraq

The US torture scandal has spread to the UK, with the Daily Mirror publishing photographs of a British soldier urinating on an Iraqi prisoner.

The Mirror says the latest pictures were handed over by British soldiers who claimed a rogue element in the British army was responsible for abusing prisoners and civilians.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the soldiers told the paper no charges were brought against the unnamed captive.

They allege during his 8-hour ordeal he was threatened with execution, his jaw broken and his teeth smashed.

After being beaten and urinated on, he was driven away and dumped from the back of a moving vehicle, the soldiers claimed.

They added they did not know whether he survived.

As with the US case, the British army is investigating and promising prosecutions.

In many ways I'm unsurprised by this. A psychology experiment in the 70's graphically showed what people do when given power over one another. Prisons and authoritarian institutions are supposed to prevent this by leadership - by having those at the top lay down the law and tell people very clearly that sadism and abuse are not acceptable. That didn't happen here - which is why the CO of the prison has been relieved and may be prosecuted. But it's not just a failure by authorities to discourage abuse - quite the opposite, in fact. According to the CBS story, other authorities within the prison positively encouraged it. The guards were told by CIA and mercenary interrogators to "fear up" prisoners before questioning. As one of the suspects' lawyers said:

"The elixir of power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, that's intoxicating," says Myers. "And so, good guys sometimes do things believing that they are being of assistance and helping a just cause. ... And helping people they view as important."

A second famous psychology experiment showed how far ordinary people will go when "following orders". Mix the two, authority and obediance, and the result is simply toxic. They feed off one another to create worse and worse abuses. Add "justice" into the mix - a sense that what you are doing is right and proper and in the aid of a moral and just cause - and you're staring into the abyss.

None of this is an excuse - but it is illuminating, and it points out that responsibility doesn't rest solely with the abusers. Those who created this toxic situation, who failed to show the required leadership, and who passively encouraged abuse must also be held to account.