Metaphysics, Angels And Quantum Theory

November 9, 2009 8:53 PM

Could a plausible theory be extrapolated for Angels/Paranormal Activity being an aspect of Quantum Physics?

I'm doing research for a creative writing project, so a theory would only need to be plausible; the rest could be creatively expanded upon to make relative sense. I'd like to have the initial idea be based on something potentially possible, though.

posted by Enki to science & nature (59 comments total)

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
posted by dsword at 8:56 PM on November 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

Quantum effects are limited to a very small physical size. Just like nuclear forces are very strong at small sizes, but not at larger scales.

That being said, most people have no interest in understanding anything about physics, much less quantum physics, so you'll be safe blaming it for whatever the hell you need to.
posted by odinsdream at 8:58 PM on November 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm pretty sure A.A. Attanasio hits on this in his Arthor Cycle, especially The Dragon and the Unicorn, so you might want to read that first. Or not.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 8:59 PM on November 9

Using quantum physics to explain anything weird is unbelievably cliché. Rest assured that if modern physics reasonably allowed for spooky shit at a macroscopic level, Creationists/ghosts hunters/etc would be all over it. Just make up some new unexplained phenomenon like the "Harperston Effect" and say that's the underpinning.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:03 PM on November 9 [3 favorites has favorites]

You're dealing with two phenomena--quantum mechanics and the paranormal--that operate on vastly different orders of magnitude. It would sort of be like discussing how a drop of water affects the salinity of the ocean.
posted by dfriedman at 9:08 PM on November 9

If I were you I would read up on dark flow and dust.
posted by jefficator at 9:11 PM on November 9

Thanks all for the suggestions, much appreciated.

Yep, indeed, paranormal and QM are perceived as two vastly different phenomena; what I'm trying to work at is to find a framework that would allow a reader to make a connection that could potentially bring the two under the same lens. Something akin to the Observer effect in QM, and how that changes the state of what you are observing. all about perspective.

It's a metaphysical fantasy/sf novel, and deals with some heady concepts. Talking about how a drop of water would affect the salinity of the ocean is pretty much exactly the kind of thing going on between the words :)

OxFCAF - like many other things in the novel, it won't be labeled in terms familiar to contemporary science. But fantasy and sf readers are for the most part pretty darn savvy, and will appreciate an idea all the more if they are able to link it back to something already postulated.

jefficator - Dark Flow holds promise. I'll steer clear of Dust because of the Pullman novels.
posted by Enki at 9:21 PM on November 9

Seconding odinsdream. No possible quantum-type theory could be plausible for readers who know anything about physics. But for 99% of those people, no possible theory could be plausible, period. So it's not like you'd be losing anybody if you did that.

Here's a possible theory: consciousness is an artifact of self-referential patterns (see Gödel, Escher, Bach) caused by quantum effects in microtubules (see The Emperor's New Mind). The patterns persist after death (and maybe even before birth), due to observer effects--echoes of things you say and do reverberate in other minds.
posted by equalpants at 9:26 PM on November 9

Something akin to the Observer effect in QM, and how that changes the state of what you are observing.

The problem here is that you seem to have a deep misconception about Quantum Mechanics. In QM an "observer" is anything that can cause a wave function to collapse. It doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.

Could a plausible theory be extrapolated for Angels/Paranormal Activity being an aspect of Quantum Physics?

NO. Not for anyone who has even the faintest idea of what Quantum Theory is really about.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:34 PM on November 9

Using quantum physics to explain anything weird is unbelievably cliché.

This. Please don't do it.

Robert Anton Wilson makes this argument. Fritjof Capra kinda makes this argument. Those two have influenced a whole generation of writers who've made up pseudo-science explanations for all manner of paranormal activity. It's definitely cliche. To the point that I put down any book, or turn off any show, that attempts this sort of pseudo science. Especially when it becomes clear that the author can't actually do the math.

It should be noted that neither Wilson nor Copra make an explicit argument that literal quantum effects cause literal paranormal activity, and so I quite enjoy them, and they don't set off my bogon detector. Wilson, for instance, merely argues that the universe we see is not the actual universe, but rather our universe--the tree in our mind is not the tree (think buddhist).
posted by Netzapper at 9:45 PM on November 9

Chocolate Pickle - You're right about the Observer effect, of course. But for the purpose of what I am writing, I will be sticking to humans as observers. Why? well, simply because you still need to make a story entertaining and not confusing.


NO. Not for anyone who has even the faintest idea of what Quantum Theory is really about.

How much do we really know about QT? The truth might be stranger than what we expect or anticipate. Regardless, I'm writing a fictional story meant to entertain at a certain level. Just make people consider. Having people think is a good thing. Fiction can do that very well.
posted by Enki at 9:47 PM on November 9

I always thought one of the spookiest results from QM was the Aharanov-Bohm Effect .

Basically, what is going on is this:

Say I have a tube with a magnetic field, and pretend that the magnetic field does not exist outside of the tube. Now, if I send a particle around the tube (but not through it), it will feel the effects of the magnetic field inside the tube.

The particle is affected by a magnetic field that it never sees, and (classically) has no way of seeing.

It always creeped me out.
posted by chicago2penn at 9:50 PM on November 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'm not physics expert, but I spent a few minutes trying to come up with something. You could have some mumbo-jumbo about infinite dimensional spaces and sufficiently advanced intelligences that have built galaxy-sized quantum computers capable of calculating the requisite probabilities to produce X phenomenon, and also having enough knowledge of physics, power, and precision to exert cross-universe influence on the corresponding probabilities in our own space, but it'd still not be plausible to anyone who knows much about physics. But if you can introduce your readers to some cool ideas (infinite dimensions, etc) then it might still be worth trying.
posted by Earl the Polliwog at 9:51 PM on November 9

How much do we really know about QT?

A lot. A huge amount, actually - physicists in 1945 knew way more about quantum physics than you would get with a college degree in 2008. You might be confusing how much you know about quantum physics with how much quantum physicists know about quantum physics. It sounds like you might want a thread where people throw their hands up and say "Garsh, we really don't know too much about this here quantum stuff" so that you have a convenient way to write your story, but it's just not the case.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:54 PM on November 9 [12 favorites has favorites]

Also, we know quite a bit about quantum theory. Sure, the results may be totally counter-intuitive and confusing (I always think of it as voodoo magic), but it sure does describe experiment well.
posted by chicago2penn at 9:56 PM on November 9

yeah, what 0xFCAF said...
posted by chicago2penn at 9:57 PM on November 9

chigago2penn - of course, I meant how much do we know about QM as it relates to our everyday lives, in comparison with say the theory of relativity.

I want anything BUT a convenient way to write a story. That's why I want the opinions of everyone and what they think. As for Wilson and Capra, they do make some interesting points, but not much that could be taken at face value. As we shouldn't take any theory at face value until it can be proven unequivocally.

It's an exciting area for building theory. Those who think in metaphysical terms are always going to differ from the scientific viewpoint.

I'm a postgrad student now, but did a major in English Lit and Religious Studies, the latter of which focused on Evolutionary Theory of Religion. Fascinating stuff. All these topics have the potential for intersection at various points.
posted by Enki at 10:05 PM on November 9

My brother IS a quantum physicist and I am an artsy fartsy nerd who likes to read fantasy for fun. Let me tell you, whenever I run across any subsection of theoretical physics or quantum physics being thrown around by fellow creative-types, I roll my eyes and hope they get back to the good magical fantastic parts soon. Seriously, if you're already pushing the boundaries of realism for style and storytelling, why do you need to pull in concepts you're not comfortable with? I only have a passing familiarity with much of quantum theory, but I have enough to recognize where writers are way out of their depth. What happens is, instead of my thinking "oh yes, how clever this story is, indeed" I think "oh god, can we get back to the demons and sorcerers now?"
posted by Mizu at 10:20 PM on November 9 [3 favorites has favorites]

I guess we can back up a step.

Is there a lot unexplained about quantum mechanics? Well, not really. Compared to how many unsolved problems there are in cosmology (which seems well-understood to the layperson looking at a model of the solar system), it's in pretty good shape. People get tripped up because unlike almost every single other physical science, quantum mechanics is not (and will probably never be) intuitive. We can explain electricity like water flowing through a pipe, and that's intuitive. We can explain relativity like a bowling ball on a rubber sheet, and that's intuitive. Magnetism gets intuitive once you have some high-quality magnets to play with.

Show anyone slightly non-skeptical the double-slit experiment and they're immediately all "Oh fuck, what about ghosts!"; this was the same thing people did when scientists made a compass needle with an electromagnet, except there's no good endgame here in terms of general understanding. Despite the huge advances in physics we've made since Planck's time, it's unlikely that a Stephen Hawking or Carl Sagan will ever be able to create a pop-science presentation of quantum mechanics where people get done watching the Nova episode and go "Okay, I think I understood that" like they can with relativity.

Whatever science has been the least-understood by the general public has been fodder for fiction authors for hundreds of years. Since humans will probably never intuitively understand quantum mechanics, so we can rest assured that it will be cliché central for the next hundreds years of fiction psuedoscience mumbo-jumbo. It was alchemy in Newton's time, then it was electricity, then magnetism, now it's quantum mechanics' turn. Whether or not you want your fiction to get in line with all the others is up to you.
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:24 PM on November 9 [5 favorites has favorites]

of course, I meant how much do we know about QM as it relates to our everyday lives, in comparison with say the theory of relativity.

A metric fuckton.

We use quantum effects on a daily basis. The transistors in your computer are designed around a plethora of quantum effects. Modern analytical chemistry, and so biomedicine, is based around quantum effects.

Quantum mechanics is one of the most widely studied and used theories we've ever developed. It comes up everywhere in the hard sciences, once you start studying something small enough.

It's certainly more applicable to modern life than relativity. Frankly, the observed effects themselves are kinda spooky, but the theory and the math behind it are pretty straightforward. I was surprised at how easy the math was, actually, when I picked up a book on the subject. And I got a C in integral calculus.

As we shouldn't take any theory at face value until it can be proven unequivocally.

That's not how science works. A theory is just a tool. A model that allows you to predict the outcomes of an experiment. If it does well, then it's useful and is not discarded. If it fails to predict results, or predicts incorrect results, then it's either refined or discarded.

Science is not capable of explaining the world in the same way that religion can. A good scientist will say, "Our experiments show a quantized negative charge that appears as either a particle or a wave, depending on the experimental conditions." But, except as a shorthand for the above amongst people who know better, a scientist will not say, "An electron is both a particle and a wave." Science is structurally incapable of explaining the world, only describing it with increasing precision and accuracy.

I'm a postgrad student now, but did a major in English Lit and Religious Studies, the latter of which focused on Evolutionary Theory of Religion. Fascinating stuff. All these topics have the potential for intersection at various points.

It's certainly true that parallels can be drawn between all sorts of aspects of human endeavor. But, you're not going to find very many physicists who are willing to say, "Yes, of course, it's conceivable that angels are a kind of quantum echo of a universal unconscious." Because it's hogwash for anybody who understands even a little of the science. It's every bit as much hogwash as saying, "Angels are the clockwork vibrations of dust particles set in motion by the sonic vibrations of the faithfuls' prayers."

Does that last bit sound plausible to you? The first bit doesn't sound plausible to anybody who's even touched the quantum mechanics math.
posted by Netzapper at 10:37 PM on November 9 [4 favorites has favorites]

A less scientific but more literary reasoning awaits you in the works of Jorge Luis Borges,
particularly in The Book of Sand or in The Aleph or even in the short story called The Garden of Forking Paths.
posted by at the crossroads at 10:43 PM on November 9

See, here's the deal:

I'm writing a work of fiction, postulating metaphysical explanations about reality and using a scientific framework to do so.

No, I'd be hard pressed to find a physicist who'd admit to the claims Netzapper proposes. Now, from a creative, thought-provoking POV, wouldn't it be interesting to postulate that it could be the truth? The physicist might not believe it; does that mean it's not true?

at the crossroads - Borges is The Man.

While I won't go into detail about the universe in which the novel is set, suffice to say that is a tad off in its own way. Playing around with established scientific theory in a creative setting is one of the fun things I get to do as a writer. It's not a hard sf novel.

chicago2pen - your mentioning of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect was interesting; that's exactly the sort of interesting effects I'm drawn to.
posted by Enki at 11:02 PM on November 9

Enki, I can't figure out why you posted this question. You asked it, and the consensus answer is "Nah!"

So why are you arguing about it?

If all you want is some sort of handwaving and techno-double-talk, you don't need our assistance. If you really do genuinely want a legitimate and plausible explanation for angels etc, you won't find it here.

The idea that QM is some sort of foggy mystery is utter bosh. QM is well enough understood to lead to the development of the laser, the transistor, the MOSFET, and modern plastics, among many, many other things. QM is well enough understood to have led to the development of several very robust (and extremely valuable) engineering fields, and that's a good test of whether a scientific theory is mature.

What do you want from us?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:22 PM on November 9 [5 favorites has favorites]

No, I'd be hard pressed to find a physicist who'd admit to the claims Netzapper proposes. Now, from a creative, thought-provoking POV, wouldn't it be interesting to postulate that it could be the truth?

I guess the thing that gets under my skin is this: if you're interested in what could be the truth, then why associat it with established scientific theory?

If your idea is to play with scientifically-observable metaphysical phenomenons, then why associate them with real scientific effects that don't actually predict those phenomenons? Wouldn't it be more enjoyable to work out an entire angelic theory, complete with courses at university entitled "Thaumaturgical Analysis" and "Introduction to Angelic Theory"?

Why hang real-world names on it when those associations are nothing more than a handwave? Scientists will find the idea laughable, disrupting their suspension of disbelief. And non-scientists will either ignore it completely, or assume you've done your homework and there must be something to it--thereby becoming more ignorant in the process.

Here's a good example: Terry Pratchett's Discworld has a color, octarine, that explicitly does not exist in our world. It's the color that magic glows. It's a great idea. It's one of the world's many endearing details.

However, it would ruin the effect for him to say, "If you mix blue and red paint, you get octarine." Why? Because, in the real world, I can mix blue and red paint, and I get purple--not some unobtainable magical color.

When you say that the Aharanov-Bohm effect results in resonance between a person's religious expectations and the Universal Oversoul, thereby creating the experience of angels... all you're saying is that "red and blue paint make octarine". It's a handwave, it's false, and it's far lazier than spending the time doing coherent worldbuilding. It's just Star Trek-style technobabble. You're neither inventing something coherent, nor hewing to established scientific observation.
posted by Netzapper at 11:31 PM on November 9 [9 favorites has favorites]

Chocolate Pickle - I've enjoyed the various answers, all of them. They're at the heart of one of the most important arguments in the book: whether we need to live in a world that demands emperical data, or if an intuitive understanding of what we regard as science (umbrella term) can be a basis for that understanding.
posted by Enki at 11:32 PM on November 9

Yeah, these guys are right. QM is pretty mundane to those of us working day-to-day in the chemical and physical sciences. It's certainly not angel-worthy, though entanglement and Bell's inequality might still give us some slight heebie-jeebies. Plausibility is just not there.

The physicist might not believe it; does that mean it's not true?

The physicist is just a dude who knows how to run an experiment. Experiments are a pretty good way of getting at the difference between what can happen and what can't happen.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:37 PM on November 9 [2 favorites has favorites]

whether we need to live in a world that demands emperical data, or if an intuitive understanding of what we regard as science (umbrella term) can be a basis for that understanding.

I'm not sure what an "umbrella term" is. It sounds like it might make a good German word (Regenschirmwort?).

But science as practiced today is merely the branch of epistemology that is interested in the empirical.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:41 PM on November 9

mr_roboto - I can imagine that it would be mundane if you worked with it every day. But yes, it's those heebie-jeebie moments that interest me. The Copenhagen interpretation of various outcomes - throw in some Descartian theory about the mental not taking up space and the physical taking up space and all sorts of possibilities come up that makes the creative mind swirl :)

I agree about experiments. But I will argue that the outcomes of experiments are the end-product of human observations. We understand it in way A because we observe it in a framework that fits A. Doesn't mean that the possibility for it to be understood in way C does not exist.
posted by Enki at 11:45 PM on November 9

But I will argue that the outcomes of experiments are the end-product of human observations. We understand it in way A because we observe it in a framework that fits A. Doesn't mean that the possibility for it to be understood in way C does not exist.

Not to be glib, but that's why we run controls.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:49 PM on November 9

It should be noted that neither Wilson nor Copra make an explicit argument that literal quantum effects cause literal paranormal activity, and so I quite enjoy them, and they don't set off my bogon detector. Wilson, for instance, merely argues that the universe we see is not the actual universe, but rather our universe--the tree in our mind is not the tree (think buddhist).

Wilson actually argues all manner of weird stuff (though always with a healthy dose of skepticism), including the notion that all Quantum Mechanics really proves is that there must be another realm of "physics" yet to be discovered: the Subquantal Realm. If this tweaks your curiosity, I highly recommend the The Science of Godmanship.

Don't get lost.
posted by philip-random at 12:47 AM on November 10 [2 favorites has favorites]

philip-random - Consider me tweaked. You sir, have my thanks.
posted by Enki at 12:53 AM on November 10

Enki: "Chocolate Pickle - I've enjoyed the various answers, all of them. They're at the heart of one of the most important arguments in the book: whether we need to live in a world that demands emperical data, or if an intuitive understanding of what we regard as science (umbrella term) can be a basis for that understanding."

I'm not sure what you mean by the world 'demanding' empirical data. The world doesn't demand much of anything, as far as I can tell-- it just is. If I may rephrase the argument (as I understand it):

Should we base our model of the world on experience or intuition?

Way I figure is this:

If you're interested in empirical knowledge, then science is what you should study. If you're not, then science is of not much use to you, so why use its vocabulary?
posted by alexei at 1:20 AM on November 10 [2 favorites has favorites]

We understand it in way A because we observe it in a framework that fits A. Doesn't mean that the possibility for it to be understood in way C does not exist.

Young Earth Creationists use this logic all the time. Their argument is "We're looking at the same evidence, we just have different (and implicitly valid) interpretations." What they don't disclose is that they are cherry picking a miniscule amount of overly simplistic descriptions from the vast oceans of available data that might look like it supports their interpretations if you know nothing about the subject.

That said, if I was gonna try and pull that kind of shenannigan for a story, I'd use Quantum Foam - pull in the wormholes mentioned at the bottom of the article for special effects and point out how it's only conjecture at the moment because it doesn't want to be seen, the various high energy particles involved being the intersection of our universe and the firing 'neurons' of a consciousness or consciousnesses with something to hide.

Of course, IANAQM so I just assume this is risible. But seeing as QF is purely a hypothesis, you can hang a lot of extra baggage on it without someone being able to get you on the maths in a matter of minutes :-)
posted by Sparx at 1:34 AM on November 10

But yes, it's those heebie-jeebie moments that interest me.

To be honest, If this is what you want you should have phrased your question better.

But anyway, If it's heebie-jeebie's you want check out this thread, Speedy Entangled Photons:. And this experiment I posted about in the comments, A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, which still bends my mind in the strangest of ways.
posted by afu at 3:41 AM on November 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

It's not a hard sf novel.

Wonderful! Please go forth with the quantum explanations for angels, then.

It's quite clear that you have no interest in science, by its very definition. That's okay, but stop claiming that you do while at the same time wanting to disown it with metaphysical bullshit. Seriously.
posted by odinsdream at 4:33 AM on November 10

By the way, if you need some examples of hand-wavey bullshit mysticism you could start with this recent FPP. This is a great example of using sciencey words without meaning anything at all.
posted by odinsdream at 4:38 AM on November 10

Once upon a time I read an essay about music in literature. It talked about how this and that taste in music can illustrate characters, but at the severe risk of dating a work. To combat this, some authors simply made up composers.

In Swann's Way, Proust invents a composer named Vinteuil. He supposedly has some music, and I guess it's supposedly great, but we don't have a clue what it sounds like. Do this, but with Science™!

You've got your base set of GM knowledge, great. Now diverge from Facts, invent a bunch of fake scientists, and have them come up with well-proven theories that are complete nonsense. The Netzapper Clockwork Vibration Dust Pseudoanimation Theory, which is grounded on Chocolate Pickle's Schrödinger Personal Theoretics Theory, which says that a theory in a box is always half true, so if you are 100% sure gravity is correct it has to balance out with someone who knows it to be 100% false, and that's why there are always jerks floating up to the 19th floor while you're stuck with the elevator.
posted by soma lkzx at 4:51 AM on November 10 [3 favorites has favorites]

Now, from a creative, thought-provoking POV, wouldn't it be interesting to postulate that it could be the truth?

No, because it's already a total cliché -- lazy science fiction writers have for years waved their arms and said "it's 'cos of quantum!" when faced with the necessity of explaining how their inventions work. You especially want to avoid anything about the observer effect, which has been done to death.

Forget about physics. At best you'll be repeating something we've all heard before; at worst you'll get it wrong enough that those who actually understand something about QM will be annoyed and put down your story.

You might get some mileage out of studying up on current theories about the nature of consciousness, and use that as the basis of your angelic theory instead -- it's not been overused the way QM has, is less well understood from a scientific perspective, which gives you a lot more room to mess around with it, and best of all has the additional virtue of actually bearing at least a vague relationship to what you're talking about. Dualism taken it to its logical extreme can easily give you disembodied angels and souls, if you fuzz up the details enough.
posted by ook at 4:59 AM on November 10

...and maybe devils can be Dennett's "zimboes"... hmm, on second thought don't write this story, because I may have to.
posted by ook at 5:02 AM on November 10

(and in case you don't get the reference: 'Cos of quantum! I hasten to clarify that Pratchett is not what I'd call a lazy science fiction writer; he was parodying the masses of them already out there. Please don't swell their ranks.)
posted by ook at 5:09 AM on November 10

You said at the outset you wanted to include QM "to make people think." But what people seem to be telling you is that you cannot connect QM and the paranormal without misleading people. Maybe you want poetry rather than fiction. Poetry can make connections between unrelated systems in a magical metaphoric way. But if you try to do the same thing with fiction, you risk people losing the sense that "I'm telling you how strange and inconceivable the universe is, filled with mysteries on the order of QM and angels," and instead reading that "Oh, I didn't know that science could really have an explanation for angels." I think you should read Pullman, because he tries to do something like this and mostly succeeds by making it very clear that his universe is not our universe and it works very differently. (I thought he waited far too long, though, to reveal what he was really up to with the Dust. I got frustrated by his teasing and quit reading before the end.) You can do this, but you have to get the tone right to show that you are using science as a metaphor, not as real science. So far, you haven't shown a great ability to do that in this thread, though, hence a certain amount of hostility from people who LIKE real science.
posted by rikschell at 5:18 AM on November 10

This is not an endorsement, I just thought you might find it useful. Also, read up on Enochian magic.
posted by hermitosis at 5:51 AM on November 10

You might find this bit of short fiction interesting.
posted by mikepop at 5:55 AM on November 10

To follow up on Netzapper's and soma lkzx's suggestions:

Some of the science-fiction stories I've particularly enjoyed take the approach of going back to older scientific theories that have been disproven in the real world and saying "what if" those theories had turned out to be correct and then building a new scientific edifice upon those differences.

"What if" preformationism*, larmarckian evolution, phologiston, or aether were real? What kind of world could you build from those differences? What sort of experiments and theories would result? Since you're the one deciding the results of these experiments, you should be able to lead to the Angels or paranormal activity you desire for your story. Since you're clearly stuplating a different world from the one we live in, you won't annoy the people who actually have some understanding of Quantum Theory. Readers who know something about the history of science will appreciate the game you're playing. If you actually create a sensible progression from your alternate experimental results to the world you've created (rather than just hand-waving), then even those readers who get the science of the real world will be impressed.




* (One of the coolest science-fiction short stories I've read in recent years was set in a universe where preformationism was the correct explanation for embryonic development and developed the world based on logical results of that fact. It was a great story, but I have no memory of the title or author. Does anyone else remember that one?)
posted by tdismukes at 6:57 AM on November 10

As with writing in general, I think you need to think about who your audience is going to be.

1) Nonscientists with little or no interest in science: Won't care how well your explanations match up with quantum mechanics. So the time you invest in making it match will be wasted.

2) Nonscientists with an interest in science: Will most likely have already read half-baked theories about the connections between quantum mechanics and the spiritual world/paranormal/God/magic. This is the audience you have the best chance with, but you'll have to have an interesting new take on things.

3) Scientists: Will not finish your novel, and will hate you with a passion for wasting the time they spent reading up to the point where you introduce the quantum mechanical basis for angels and the paranormal.

For all I know, science fiction and fantasy readers may come largely from category 2. If you think that's the case, then it's probably a good idea to read all of the other popular novels that make this connection so that you can make sure that what you are doing isn't derivative.

Overall, though, I think what you are proposing is a tough row to hoe.
posted by Killick at 7:15 AM on November 10

Before radio waves were understood, they existed, and might explain weird sounds from a crystal(far-fetched). Before Xray radiation was understood, a cool to the touch rock could burn your hand.

There could still be things we can't measure or understand. We develop theories to explain them. String theory, for example, is complex and rather fantastic. To provide a learning component, you could illustrate how things are observed, measured, tested, confirmed, in short, scientific method. You could bring in a great deal of healthy and respectful skepticism.
posted by theora55 at 8:27 AM on November 10

I don't know exactly what phenomena you're trying to explain in your story, but if I were you I would abandon QM in favor of chaos theory.

In a nutshell: The universe is fully predictable if you have access to all data (and, I suppose, the ability to calculate it). But it's impossible to have access to all data. We may think a given system is closed, but somewhere outside of it a butterfly flaps its wings and the ripples intrude into that system in imperceptible ways until suddenly all bets are off.

The consequences of the butterfly effect magnify exponentially with time. At one second after the wing flaps, things don't look so different. Give the ripples a few hours and the surrounding area will look a bit different than if the wing had never flapped. With enough time, the entire world has become a radically different place. I like the thought experiment of the very brief time traveler: Imagine if you could travel 10 million years back in time, remain there for a fraction of a second, and then leave. Your very presence, however brief, would have disrupted the surrounding particles enough that human history would never develop the way we know it today. There's no such thing as an inconsequential disruption.

In your story, the disruptions could come from anywhere... solar flares, gamma-ray bursts, mysterious ocean "bloops", alien/interdimensional/supernatural contact, or something more mundane. Whatever the original source is, the ultimate effects in your story arrive so indirectly that they can't be traced back to it. They remain unexplained anomalies. Once you're deep into chaos theory land, anything improbable is possible. The trick is to be a good enough writer to make such an infinite improbability drive believable for your readers.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 8:35 AM on November 10

Thanks again all for the suggestions. Much appreciated.

The nature of consciousness - in there already.
Again, I reiterate - I will not make mention of QM in the novel by that name. I'm looking at different aspects of QM so as to employ them in a new fashion. An alternate science, if you will.

Enochian Magic - plenty of that in there.

Perhaps I never should have mentioned Angels and QM in the same breath. It brings up all kinds of biases against the Abrahamic religions and the head-butting with the scientific community it's so fond of. I look forward to the day when science starts challenging the principles of Eastern religions/philosophy.

The scientific community is protective about its theories, and rightly so because as someone mentioned, we live in a world defined by fact. It's hard to argue against that.
posted by Enki at 8:39 AM on November 10

Another thing you may want to think about is the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM. Most people tend to put most of their faith in the Copenhagen interpretation (and for good reason!), but the many worlds interpretation has interesting (and possibly useful for you) results.

Also, the Stern-Gerlach Experiment may be interesting.
posted by chicago2penn at 8:55 AM on November 10

Tdismukes:(One of the coolest science-fiction short stories I've read in recent years was set in a universe where preformationism was the correct explanation for embryonic development and developed the world based on logical results of that fact. It was a great story, but I have no memory of the title or author. Does anyone else remember that one?)

Seventy-two Letters by Ted Chiang?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:21 AM on November 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

The nature of consciousness - in there already.
Again, I reiterate - I will not make mention of QM in the novel by that name. I'm looking at different aspects of QM so as to employ them in a new fashion. An alternate science, if you will.

A thought: You could say something interesting about the nature of science and human knowledge in general (physical or metaphysical), if you have your alternate science slowly disproved and replaced by another theory.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 9:23 AM on November 10

Sci-Fi Writer Attributes Everything Mysterious To 'Quantum Flux'

If you want to write fantasy, even science fantasy, go ahead and do that; you don't need a physics degree first. Trying to twist in science facts that other people understand better than the author is dangerous. It typically just leads to disappointment, mockery, or in the worst case a job as a Star Trek staff writer.
posted by roystgnr at 9:29 AM on November 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

I'd like to apologize for losing my temper in this thread last night.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:48 AM on November 10

Lentrohamsanin - that's the one, thanks!

That story includes several strands of alternate-reality science and is an excellent example of what I was talking about.
posted by tdismukes at 10:20 AM on November 10

Perhaps I never should have mentioned Angels and QM in the same breath. It brings up all kinds of biases against the Abrahamic religions and the head-butting with the scientific community it's so fond of. I look forward to the day when science starts challenging the principles of Eastern religions/philosophy.
I assure you that if you had brought up using QM as an explanation for reincarnation in your book, you would have received similar responses.
posted by peacheater at 12:18 PM on November 10

Reaction moves the world around I guess. Without it things would be a tad boring.
posted by Enki at 12:29 PM on November 10

I'm no quantum mechanic, but some interpretations of the theory allow for multiple higher spatial dimensions, yes? IIRC, the highest ones (seventh dimension, eleventh dimension, etc.) are curled up in subatomic structures that aren't detectable on our level, but maybe you could use a little creative license here.

For instance, let's posit the existence of a fourth spatial dimension surrounding our 3D universe. From a 4D point of view, our universe would be as fragile and readily manipulable as a 2D diagram would be to us. Any sentient life inhabiting this higher plane would be vastly more complex and intelligent than us, and would have godlike power over our world. They would be able to:

- see the insides and outsides of everything simultaneously (omniscience).
- access any place, no matter how isolated or secure (omnipresence).
- destroy or severely damage anything by attacking its insides, or by simply ripping it out of existence (omnipotence).
- move objects from one location to another without traversing the space in between (teleportation).
- potentially read our thoughts, by monitoring the entirety of our brain activity at once (telepathy).
- manifest themselves, or a part of themselves, anywhere at any time. Such a manifestation would be bizarre and terrifying if they simply stuck a pseudopod or what have you into our plane, or merely a disquieting uncanny-valley type of thing if they created a construct in our likeness (apparitions/hauntings/visions/revelations/etc.).

Oh, and they'd be invincible and undetectable. Such a being sure sounds a lot like God, and could stand in for an angel/demon/ghost/whatever in a pinch. Just throw in some blustering about "Calabi-Yau manifolds" and "n-dimensional Euclidean space" if you want to give things a technical veneer. See also the short story "In Fading Suns and Dying Moons" for a cool look at how such a extradimensional society might impose its will on us.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:19 PM on November 10 [1 favorite has favorites]

For instance, let's posit the existence of a fourth spatial dimension surrounding our 3D universe. From a 4D point of view, our universe would be as fragile and readily manipulable as a 2D diagram would be to us. Any sentient life inhabiting this higher plane would be vastly more complex and intelligent than us, and would have godlike power over our world. They would be able to:

That is the very basis of Rudy Rucker's Spaceland. In fact, his 4th dimensional beings do everything on your list except read minds.
posted by Netzapper at 4:26 PM on November 10

Rhaomi - great suggestions, some of which I have been contemplating already. The key term in my favour here is 'creative license' :)

Netzapper - Rudy Rucker's a wiz at math.
posted by Enki at 4:31 PM on November 10