
Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics - ColinWright
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics
======
snowwrestler
Of course it's wrong; all scientific theories are provisional approximations,
and the conflicts between quantum mechanics and general relativity are well
known.

The hard part is proposing an alternative theory that fits all the known
evidence. Quantum mechanics and general relativity both match a ton of
observations; anything that is going to replace them will need to _at least_
match the same set of evidence _at least_ as well.

Put another way--when one theory replaces another, it must be fully contain
the previous theory. General relativity, when applied to everyday human
experience (i.e. not super fast, super big, super heavy), produces Newton's
law of gravity.

Personally I think the next step in scientific understanding is in information
theory. It has the possibility of unifying chaos theory, computer science,
physics, and biology. I think this is how we'll develop an description of
consciousness for example. We've already seen some preliminary reports that
information theory can reproduce gravitation theory for instance.

<http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24975/>

~~~
planetguy
You seem to be engaging more with the headline writer than with Penrose.
They're both, perhaps, wrong, but Penrose is wrong in a far more interesting
way.

Penrose doesn't just think quantum mechanics is wrong in the sense that it
can't quite be lined up with general relativity, he thinks that quantum
mechanics and consciousness are the same problem and that we can't understand
one without the other. Now, to me this smacks a bit of the old argument:

1\. I don't understand baseball

2\. I don't understand women

3\. Therefore, women and baseball must be related somehow

but he has slightly better reasons than that for believing what he does.

Consciousness and quantum mechanics are both fascinating problems to
understand; personally I don't think they're the same problem but I don't mind
if some smart folks want to think carefully about the possibility that they
are.

If consciousness is a property of quantum mechanics then this ought to be at
least partially measurable. All you have to do is to construct an intelligent
non-quantum computer and ask it "Hey, are you conscious?" Of course this
doesn't really help you, because what if the computer just _thinks_ it's
conscious but doesn't have _real_ consciousness the way we do? What would this
even mean? What is it like to be an intelligent but non-conscious mind? In my
own opinion the question is meaningless which is why I think consciousness is
some kind of inevitable emergent property of intelligent systems; but of
course there's thousands of philosophers out there tackling this very question
so I won't pretend to have any original thoughts on it.

~~~
baddox
I don't understand why some researchers are so quick to blame our failure to
understand consciousness on the fact that consciousness is a quantum
phenomenon. I was under the impression that we're still nowhere near fully
understanding the brain even from a classical perspective.

~~~
drostie
Okay, so, let me try to enumerate these.

(1) The hardest part of quantum mechanics to understand is intimately tied to
our nature as subjects. Quantum mechanics is an entirely deterministic theory
about waves in superpositions which even explains how, why, and when it
disappears and averages out into classical probabilities. Except it doesn't
tell you why we don't see your television as 50% in your bedroom and 50% in
your living room. For that we start to invent things like many universes, half
of which have a TV in your bedroom and half of which have a TV in your living
room -- or Penrose's idea that perhaps some magical interaction not yet
observed forces something as large as a TV to "make up its mind" due to its
gravitational warpings. It's _just_ the fact that your _subjective experience_
doesn't see this TV as half in one place, and half in another, where the
wavefunction description fails. The rest is clean, deterministic, and precise.

(2) The second hardest part of consciousness to understand is something we
basically take for granted in the hardest part of quantum mechanics.
Compatibilist theories of free will make you feel warm and fuzzy but they
don't really feel like they address the fundamental mystery: How can a
deterministic system be said to "choose" something when that's a fuzzy airy-
fairy notion and the actual outcome was written down in the book of history
13.7 billion years ago, full stop? Why do we feel like we've got a million
options open when in fact this is false, false, utterly false, moronically-
out-of-touch-with-reality crazy false? But in quantum mechanics, the idea that
a quantum system has many options open, and can even "sniff around" over the
whole space, and that it might make a difference if it does or not -- these
things are very acceptable even if you take a deterministic approach to
wavefunction collapse. You could maybe in principle go from "warm and fuzzy
but I don't get it" to "weird and fuzzy but I think I get it," if the brain is
intrinsically quantum.

(3) The hardest problem of consciousness -- how we reconcile our touchy-feely
alive experience of red with a machine's cold unemotional ones and zeros -- is
very easy to solve by saying "we aren't a machine; subjectivity is something
more than a program." In fact, since programs can carry out programs, if
consciousness is mechanical we might well ask, how do you know that your brain
isn't a different conscious process which happens to be carrying out your own
conscious process, and might someday soon get bored and kill you out of its
own boredom and desire to live authentically? (This absurdity is also at the
heart of Searle's Chinese Rooom argument.) The problem is that machines are
such a good model that we have no idea what to replace them with. If quantum
systems could really feel in a way that machines really can't, this would
solve the problem neatly.

(4) One minor problem in consciousness is about how I'm able to hear things as
I am seeing them -- multithreading would suggest that we have multiple
consciousnesses doing the separate tasks separately; multitasking would
suggest that we switch between these things so fast that it gives an illusion
that they all come together, but I can't really do both at once. Quantum
mechanics offers a tantalizing hint; for example, in a superconductor, two
electrons of opposite momentum "get together" to form a larger particle called
a Cooper pair. (You're advised not to think too hard about how they "stay
together" with opposite momenta, because It's All Just An Excitation Anyways.)
That larger particle can even do something which electrons never can -- it can
form a Bose-Einstein condensate: it can conduct current without resistance.

(5) Everybody who watches Star Trek wonders what would happen if someone
accidentally forgot to dematerialize you before re-materializing you down on
the planet -- which one would be the right "you"? Quantum systems cannot be
cloned in this way. The closest we can get is to identically prepare a system
-- i.e. take another baby with the same genetic code and give it all of the
same life experiences, and kill the ones who don't make the same choices in
the same order. Without one of those, you can't clone an arbitrary unknown
system into two copies without measuring it and thus forcing it into a
classical state. If consciousness is quantum, then the classical state is
dead. But if consciousness is just a program, then we're faced with a much
scarier situation: in the transporter, you will actually die, but that's okay,
because we'll create an impostor who will sleep with your wife for you -- in
other words, it's okay because _we'll never know the difference_ , and _you'll
be dead_.

~~~
pharrington
Just in case you are serious, or people believe you're serious:

1) Quantum mechanics operates on the quantum level. Macro objects, while
composed of countless quantum systems, and thus are the result of the quantum
systems of probabilistic particles and waves collapsing and such, are just
that: the _result_ of the quantum systems. This isn't subjective experience;
it's an underlying behavior baring forth a different level of behavior. Just
as it's possible, but doesn't make sense to describe Tetris in terms of
electrons flowing through copper and semiconductors, one can describe the
quantum behavior of what the TV is constructed of, but that wouldn't relate a
bit to the meaningful object you watch shows on.

2) Probability on the quantum scale has nothing to do with the brain making
choices; even if understanding quantum mechanics turns out to be essential to
understanding consciousness, the brain can't _change the laws of physics_ ; it
can't decide that certain waveforms will collapse in a way that appeals to it.
By the same token, if you're a rational thinker, you'd understand that yes, if
one develops an accurate enough model of the universe, the base stuff it's
made of, you can predict the future. That's literally what science is;
developing models which will predict how certain systems behave in a given
condition. However going back to bullet 1, the concept of "free will" has
nothing to do meaningfully with the base stuff of the universe. It's
technically possible to be described in such terms, but that's not where
decisions happen.

3) Again, going back to rationality; humans are part of the same deterministic
system, operating under the same deterministic rules as everything else that
exists. Sure subjectivity _feels_ different than what we imagine a computer's
(non)experience to be, but that's just a result of the conscious process (and
the fact that most people don't empathize with machines).

4) I honestly don't even understand what you're trying to say here :\

5) This has nothing to do with anything at all but... _you_ aren't the atoms
that comprise you. _You_ aren't even the -cells- that comprise you. "Seven
years from now your body will be made of entirely different cells than it is
now" and all that.

~~~
tomp
1) The problem that quantum mechanics has with consciousness is that you can
connect macro objects (a cat) with the quantum effects on the quantum level
(detector), so that we should actually observe quantum effects on macro
objects. That's why Schrödinger's Cat is a paradox.

2) You can't really predict the future of a non-trivial closed system from
within the closed system itself - no matter how you would "calculate" the
future, you would never be able to include the state of your
calculator/computer into the prediction (perfect compression does not exist).
I.e., if I make a machine that predicts the future, I know the future, I can
act to change it, so the future is different... and the machine does not
predict the future, really.

In a way, the universe is the computer that is calculating its own future all
the time.

~~~
dangrossman
> In a way, the universe is the computer that is calculating its own future
> all the time.

Reminds me of this book:

[http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-
Computer-...](http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-
Scientist/dp/1400040922)

> Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth
> Lloyd—Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of
> the first technologically feasible design for a working quantum computer—the
> answer is yes. This wonderfully accessible book illuminates the professional
> and personal paths that led him to this remarkable conclusion.

------
Whodi
"Is it true that you were bad at math as a kid?" "I was unbelievably slow... I
always got lost... I was at least twice as slow as anybody else. Eventually I
would do very well. You see, if I could do it that way, I would get very high
marks."

Speaking as someone who still struggles with math, and was generally the
dumbest kid in the most advanced classes, it's a huge relief to hear that
someone as brilliant as Penrose experienced the same difficulties.

~~~
planetguy
I don't know how old you are, but I'm pretty sure Penrose overtook you by the
time he was your age.

~~~
Whodi
Haha, that's an understatement, I'm sure he was light years ahead of me as
early as 10. It's just inspiring to know that one can struggle with some of
the basics and rebound to do great things.

~~~
lusr
I always felt I was slower than the other kids, but later I realised I was
attempting to structure and understand the information whereas they were just
regurgitating it. Once I did understand the information I could apply it far
better than the others in class, and extend my understanding into new areas.
That's just one reason someone may be "slower".

------
Symmetry
A rather depressing interview. I enjoyed a lot of the explanations of Physics
in *The Emperor's New Mind", but even there I could see big holes in his
arguments about consciousness. For example, he talks about how its impossible
to make an algorithm tile a grid in a certain way, but I had a screensaver
which in fact did what he was saying was impossible. Here I just feel sort of
sad and lost.

I think my least favorite line was probably this: "The trouble is, what can
you do with it? Nothing. You want a physical theory that describes the world
that we see around us." If you're going to use that to reject theories about
the reality of the wave function, astronomers in the Renaissance would have
been equally justified in rejecting the heliocentric system on account of it
being at odds with what they saw around them, or Greek astronomers rejecting
the notion that the world was round.

~~~
maxharris
> astronomers in the Renaissance would have been equally justified in
> rejecting the heliocentric system on account of it being at odds with what
> they saw around them

False. Sights observed through a telescope were also part of "what they saw
around them." A true theory accounts for _all_ the evidence (and if it's not
ultimately reducible to or based on something you can get from the five
senses, it's not evidence).

~~~
Symmetry
Telescopes don't show you that (contrary to what your inner ear is telling
you) its the Earth that moves rather than the sun. At best they tell you that
Jupiter has things orbiting it.

~~~
T-hawk
Telescopes show that Venus displays phases like the moon while Mars and
Jupiter don't, which is important evidence for heliocentrism and the order of
the planets relative to Earth.

Telescopes also show that Jupiter's satellites experience eclipses, which
isn't direct heliocentric evidence, but does tell you that Jupiter and its
moons shine by reflected sunlight rather than intrinsic luminosity.

Telescopes also show sunspots, leading towards the discovery that the Sun is
an active body, and to some notion of its size and mass. Telescopes can also
show Venus transiting the Sun giving you a great idea of their sizes, which
happened in 1639.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus#First_scientif...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus#First_scientific_observation)

The switch to heliocentrism didn't happen overnight or as the result of a
single observation or event, but telescopes brought in many different streams
of evidence for it.

~~~
nikcub
Telescopes also show that Mars does loops as it pans across our sky

~~~
stcredzero
That can be seen with the naked eye.

------
lkrubner
If anyone is interested in the earlier Hacker News discussion of this article,
it is here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=925539>

------
ilitirit
This quite an old article.

> From the September 2009 issue; published online October 6, 2009

------
flom
Due to the inconsistency between quantum and relativity, I'm more inclined to
believe that the problem is with relativity. The idea that physics is
fundamentally non-deterministic satisfies me philosophically. If physics were
deterministic, than I should be able to theoretically build a computer, input
the state of the universe, and then be able to know what will happen in your
life (assuming I don't tell anyone the computer output, because that would
perturb the dynamics). I find that prospect far more unsettling than having to
account for a superposition of states until I obtain more information in the
future.

~~~
CrLf
You would never be able to predict future states of the universe, simply
because you cannot represent such states within the universe they represent.
Without the ability to predict, the universe is effectively non-deterministic
(literally, no one within it can determine its future states).

~~~
flom
You make a good point. In my earlier post, replace "universe" with "solar
system." Then, I can represent the states of the solar system in some subset
of the universe, and I'll place this computer sufficiently far from the solar
system so it doesn't interfere. Now I should be able to predict what happens
on earth, unless you think that variables outside of our solar system
significantly affect activities on earth, right?

~~~
olalonde
1) Don't underestimate the butterfly effect. 2) We can already predict the
future to a certain extent. 3) What you wish the universe was like is
irrelevant. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking>

~~~
flom
Re 2: There should be an obvious qualitative difference between being able to
predict where a ball will land if I throw it, and predicting who the
passengers riding a particular train in 15 years will be.

Re 3: I was commenting on Roger Penrose's assumption that quantum must be
"wrong" because it's "unintuitive" by expressing my opinion that I think
quantum is more intuitive than deterministic theories. Indeed, Dr. Penrose and
I are both using "wishful thinking," as did Einstein when he hypothesized that
the speed of light is "constant in a vacuum."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Special_relativi...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Special_relativity)

------
aidenn0
Of course by this definition of wrong, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, which
didn't stop me from taking a 400 level course on it.

~~~
diminish
Roger Penrose has fundamental thoughts about the physics and AI, not simply
callling them wrong wrong in the sense of falsifibility..Read his books.

~~~
nollidge
I don't think the aidenn0 is talking about falsifiability, but accuracy. As
in, Newtonian mechanics is not 100% accurate, but it works well enough for
macro-level calculations.

Like Asimov said, "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong.
When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think
that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is
flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." -
<http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm>

~~~
natep
That is what aidenn0 seems to be talking about, but that's not what Penrose is
talking about. Penrose is very clear that the predictions of QM are extremely
accurate. His contention is that the implications of QM cannot be true (that
there must be parallel worlds or "it doesn't matter what's really happening in
a superposition of states, just that the predictions are accurate"), therefore
QM as it is today cannot be a part of any single unified theory.

~~~
majmun
So basically equation helps you to make your measurement more accurate. (on
some scales) what happens underneath is known but can't be accurately measured
because it interferes with physical process. (wich comes to no suprise because
the measurmenst are done from whitin the universe while it's "running", and
that is why your measurment will have effect on future state of universe, )

Seems like Penrose is claiming that different interpretations of this
measurement interference are not necessary. thats what i get from article. at
least.

------
drallison
Not much content in this article. Read his books to get a feeling for the
breadth and depth of his thought.

~~~
Flow
Are any of his book suitable as casual on-the-tram reading? Could you
recommend one of his books? Thanks.

~~~
te_platt
I wouldn't say any of his books are exactly casual reading. The Large the
Small and the Human Mind is probably the most casual in that it merely
requires thinking and even then some of that is done for you the responses
from Abner Shimony, Nancy Cartwright, and Stephen Hawking (contributing
authors). The others require active engagement to work through. Especially
Road to Reality - there is nothing casual about that one.

~~~
evoxed
I started reading Road to Reality very casually– bought the book one day, next
day I was in a Starbucks enjoying it and my tea. 10 minutes later one of the
employees takes a break and the only table open is next to mine near the back.
After a few minutes of sighing, stretching, and looking at the door to see if
any new customers were coming in he turned to ask what I was reading. The next
30 minutes was the first and only time I have ever had a discussion about
particle physics with a barista.

------
mike_ivanov
Note this: "I was unbelievably slow ... we had to do this mental arithmetic
... I was struggling away to do these tests ... I was at least twice as slow
as anybody else."

------
tanvach
Personally I like the article, and I agree with his concluding paragraph that
there must be coherence preservation somewhere.

You need to look at one of the pillars of quantum mechanics he mentioned,
where the observables of a system are only the probability, and this is due to
'decoherence' from a measurement. What he's trying to point out is that the
coherence in the system must be preserved somehow, otherwise where could it
go? It seems that this is very central to the difference between quantum
mechanics and general relativity, and that the tiny connections to marry these
two are yet to be found. His position is clearly 'it's in the details' not 'we
must change everything' of string theory.

This argument reminds me very much of Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet about
information paradox.

PS: fascinating development in quantum weak measurement, where trading off
measurement accuracy provides a window into coherence of a system.

------
rsofaer
We have so much more to understand about brain functioning in our current
paradigm, and no pressing reason to try to build a new physics to help
neuroscience. The theory of mind/experience of consciousness is an output of
the brain, not part of its architecture.

------
eevilspock
Penrose's idea about the relationship between Consciousness and Quantum
Mechanics was used by Neal Stephenson in his SciFi tome, Anathem. Very
interesting concept, mediocre book.

------
guscost
I agree!

------
zmj
It's so sad to see old age claim a great mind.

~~~
maxharris
I don't understand what you mean. His intellect certainly shines through in
the interview, especially in the latter part where he talks about physics.

~~~
Symmetry
Really? I thought that the parts about physics were really disappointingly
fuzzy. Especially: "physicists have to say, well, somehow your consciousness
takes one route or the other route without your knowing it." I think that its
sort of shocking that he could fail to understand the arguments of his
opponents so badly as to end up saying something so ridiculous.

~~~
pjscott
I have a generally negative opinion of Roger Penrose's ideas, but let's be
fair: the fuzziness here was probably inevitable, given the popular nature of
the magazine interviewing him. If you judged scientists harshly for sounding
like handwavy simpletons in condensed interviews for reporters, you would end
up drastically underestimating most scientists who have ever had such an
interview.

------
gwern
> And yet the 78-year-old Penrose—now an emeritus professor at the
> Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford—seems to live the humble life
> of a researcher just getting started in his career. His small office is
> cramped with the belongings of the six other professors with whom he shares
> it, and at the end of the day you might find him rushing off to pick up his
> 9-year-old son from school.

Wonder if that's his kid? If I were feeling particularly sour today, I'd look
up how much extra risk of birth defects etc using 69 year old sperm (rather
than a more normal 30-40s) entails.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
You might want to start by looking up the way sperm is being produced. It will
help you clear the confusion with the link between the mother's age and birth
defects.

~~~
ceejayoz
Age of the father does have an effect, actually.
[http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-
reproduction/news/20030...](http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-
reproduction/news/20030701/dad-age-down-syndrome)

 _edit:_ Also, as someone who's had to use sperm donation to conceive...

> Wonder if that's his kid?

is pretty offensive. It's his kid, whether he's the _genetic_ father or not.

~~~
Create
Although citation is needed, if I remember correctly, because of lacking
healthy young Japanese men after WWII, ageing fathers' sperm contributed to at
least as much to newborn malformations as the nuclear fallout.

But the thread also tells you about the euphemism under the guise of 'ego' in
the article, and how society today is structured (ie. power of the old vs.
youth in our times). At his age, he should clearly let go, by all standards,
even if it so difficult. To quote a famous speech from another control freak
who at least knew all about this, luckily Nature has provisions because it
"clears out the old, to make room for the new. Right now the new is you. But
you won't always be."

~~~
georgieporgie
It's interesting that you mention the Japanese, because when I looked into it
awhile ago, I could find no evidence of any increase in birth defects
following the bombing. I could swear that we had pictures of deformed children
in a textbook as a kid, so I started Googling it, but the only things I turned
up said "no statistically significant increase".

