Mind and Matter II

Quantum Physics IMind over Matter I

The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange protein: it rejects it.

P. B. Medawar (Biologist)

2

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics I– Early history of quantum physics (1897-1913)– The double-slit experiment

• Mind over Matter I– The placebo effect and the nocebo effect– Mind in disease and death

3

The Mind-Body ProblemDifferent dudes have different views

1 A person is made up of three components: BODY -- MIND -- SPIRIT

2 A person is made up of two components:BODY and MIND/SPIRIT

3 A person consists of a bodyMind is just the operation of the brainSpirit is an illusion

4 A person consists of mind/spiritThe body is an illusion

REVIEW

4

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics I– Early history of quantum physics (1897-1913)– The double-slit experiment

• Mind over Matter I– The placebo effect and the nocebo effect– Mind in disease and death

5

Waves (1) REVIEW

6

Waves (2)Wave Interference: Constructive

REVIEW

7

Waves (3)Wave Interference: Destructive

REVIEW

8

Wave Interference Pattern (I)

• The Double Slit Experiment • Wave theory of light – Thomas Young, 1803

9

Wave Interference Pattern (II)

• 1803: The wave theory of light Double Slit Experiment – Thomas Young

10

Precursors to quantum physics

• 1803 – Wave theory of light– Thomas Young (1773-1829)

• 1865 – Electromagnetic waves – James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

Electromagnetic waves

11

REVIEW

Electromagnetic waves

12

REVIEW

Important discoveries in 19th century physics

• 1803 – Wave theory of light – Thomas Young• 1865 – Electromagnetic waves – James Maxwell• 1897 – Discovery of the electron – J. J. Thomson (1856-1940)

13

14

Quantum Physics: Historical Approach

• “Physics courses are rarely presented historically. The introductory course in quantum mechanics is the exception. For students to see why we accept a theory so violently in conflict with common sense, they must see how physicists were dragged from their nineteenth-century complacency by the brute facts observed in their laboratories.”

Bruce Rosenbaum & Fred Kuttner Quantum Enigma (2011)

15

Discovery of the quantum

• 1803 – Wave theory of light – Thomas Young• 1865 – Electromagnetic waves – James Maxwell• 1896 – Discovery of the electron

– J. J. Thomson (1856-1940)• 1900 – Discovery of quanta of energy

– Max Planck (1858-1947)– Planck’s constant: “h”

• “An act of desperation”– The Planck postulate:

• Electrons radiate energy not continuously, but only as quanta • Each quantum has the energy hf

16

Energy loss by charged particle



Dotted line represents the prediction of classical physics. Solid line shows the energy loss occurring In sudden steps.

17

Problems with Planck’s formulation

• It allowed electrons to violate both– The laws of (electromagnetism as then understood)– Newton’s universal equation of motion

• But: It allowed the experimental data to be correctly described

• The proposal was not accepted by other physicists– They felt that a reasonable solution would eventually be

found– Planck himself agreed

Quantum PhysicsBasic Early Findings (I)

• 1900: Quanta of energy – Max Planck• 1905: Light as quantized – Albert Einstein

– Special theory of relativity proposed in same year– Evidence: the photoelectric effect– Not accepted by physicists for two decades

• After Nobel prize awarded, 1921– Quanta of light later (1920’s) came to be called

photons

18

Quantum PhysicsBasic Early Findings (II)

• 1900: Quanta of energy – Max Planck• 1905: Quanta of light (later: “photons”) – Albert Einstein• 1911: Model of the atom – Ernest Rutherford• 1913: Model of atom with quantum orbits

– Niels Bohr (1885-1962)

19

20

Quantum PhysicsNext Findings

• 1900: Quanta of energy – Max Planck• 1905: Light as quantized – Albert Einstein• 1911: Model of the atom – Ernest Rutherford• 1913: Model of the atom with quantum orbits – Niels Bohr• 1924: Wave nature of electrons (etc.) – de Broglie

• Photons, electrons, atoms: Particles or waves?– The double slit experiment– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ

21

When Data Meets Theory (I)

• If new data fits in with existing theory No problem

• If new data does not fit existing theory, two options1 Reject the data – pretend it doesn’t exist Not the way scientists operate2 Conclude that the theory requires revision

1 Revise the theory, or2 Look for a new theory3 At least, pending construction of new theory, recognize that

there is a problem, and stop believing in the old theory

22

When Data Meets Theory (II)Two major areas of Data-Theory Conflict

• Quantum Mechanics– Many theories have been proposed, none widely accepted

"Anyone not shocked by quantum mechanics has not yet understood it." Niels Bohr

"Nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman

• Mind in Health and Disease– The data are in conflict with the theory that disease and

healing are physical processes

23

When Data Meets Theory (III)

• The two problem areas are related • The data of both of these areas is in conflict

with the Newtonian world view• The Newtonian view:

– The world is purely physical– The world is mechanistic

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

24

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics I– Early history of quantum physics (1897-1913)– The double-slit experiment

• Mind over Matter I– The placebo effect and the nocebo effect– Mind in disease and death

25

Placebo and Nocebo (I)

• Placebo (Latin, ‘I shall please’) – “An intervention with no direct physiological consequences but

nevertheless improves (or worsens) a person’s health” (Emily Kelly, 2010) – I.e., “a psychological factor seems to have precipitated a change

in a physiological condition”(Emily Kelly,

2010) – “In placebo, there is a mental state that seems to alter

physiological processes” (Kihlstrom, 1993)

26

Placebo and Nocebo (II)

• Placebo is – ”on the one hand, … so thoroughly accepted by the medical

community that it is an obligatory factor in the experimental design of studies of the efficacy of medical treatments

– yet on the other hand, there has been virtually no effort until recently to understand the “enigma” of the placebo itself and its apparent conflict with the biomedical model.”

(Emily Kelly 2010)

• “dismissing a treatment as ‘just a placebo’ may not be enough” (Kaptchuk 2002)

27

Placebo and Nocebo (III)Studies (i)

• Placebo injections have higher placebo effects than pills

• Large pills have higher placebo effects than small pills

• Very small pills have higher effects than average-size pills

Darian Leader and David Corfield, Why People Get Sick: Exploring the Mind-Body Connection (Pegasus Books, 2008)

Kaptchuk, Goldman, Stone & Stason, in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000

28

Placebo and Nocebo (IV)Studies (ii)

• Levine, Gordon and Fields (1978):– Double-blind study– 40 post-dental-surgery patients– All given a placebo as a pain-killer– After one hour, randomly assigned to one of two groups:

• 17 got another placebo• 23 got naxolone

– Blocks the analgesic effect of endogenous opiate-like sutstances such as endorphins

– They reported significantly more pain than those who got the second placebo

– Conclusion: because the naxolone undid the analgesic effects of the placebo, the original placebo effect had been the result of endogenous opiate release

29

Placebo and Nocebo (V)Studies (iii): Brain imaging

• Petrovic, Kalso, Petersson, & Ingvar 2002– Brain-imaging with PET after giving placebo as pain-killer– Decreased activity in brain areas associated with pain:

• Thalamus, insula, anterior cingulate cortex

• Wager et al. 2004– Brain-imaging with fMRI after giving placebo as pain-killer– Results like those of the Pet study

• Zubieta et al. 2005– PET imaging after giving placebo as pain-killer– Activation of the endogenous opioid system

30

Placebo and Nocebo (VI)Studies (iv): Asthma Luparello, Lyons, Bleecker & McFadden 1968; McFadden, Luparello, Lyons & Bleecker 1969

• Patients were given an inhalant of saline solution and were told that it was an allergen (i.e., a nocebo)

• Significant increase in airway resistance• They were then given an inhalant of the same saline

solution but were told that it was a medication• All of them responded favorably (decrease of symptoms)

31

Placebo and Nocebo (VII)Studies (v): Ulcers Moerman (1983, 2000), review of numerous studies

• Placebo compared with cimetadine• Effect measured by endoscopic examination• Findings: “…broad variation—from 0 to 100

percent—in placebo effectiveness

32

Placebo and Nocebo (VIII)Studies (vi): Ulcers Sternbach 1964

• Six subjects with ulcer problems• Given three pills on three separate occasions

– First one, “a stimulant to stomach activity”– Second, “a relaxant”– Third, “a placebo”

• Actually, all three were placebos• In four of the six patients

– High gastric activity for the “stimulant”– Low gastric activity for the “relaxant”– Intermediate activity for the “placebo”

33

Placebo and Nocebo (IX)Studies (vii): Placebo Surgery in treatment of anginaCobb, Thomas, Dilard, Merendino & Bruce, 1959

• The surgical treatment: – Mammary arteries are tied off– Supporting theory:

• should increase blood flow through other channels

• Sham surgery experiment was done to test effectiveness• Two groups of patients, one got the sham surgery

– Double blind:• Neither the patients nor the doctors who evaluated their

progress know which procedure had been performed– Both groups showed improvement

• Measured by number of nitroglycerin tablets taken– Sham surgery group showed showed greater improvement– In subjective evaluation by patients,

• The sham surgery group reported slightly better results

34

Placebo and Nocebo (X)Studies (viii): Arthroscopic Knee Surgery Mosely et al., in New England Journal of Medicine, 2002

• Three groups of patients with osteoarthritis of knee1) Real arthroscopic knee surgery2) Arthroscopic lavage only3) Simulated surgery

• Double blind:– Neither the patients nor the doctors who evaluated their

progress knew which procedure had been performed

• Outcome measure by– Patient reports of pain and level of functioning– Objective tests of walking and stair-climbing

• Results– All three groups reported less pain and improved function– Physicians’ evaluations: “objectively measured walking

and stair-climbing were poorer in the debridgement [surgery] group than in the placebo group” (p. 84)

35

Placebo and Nocebo (XI)Studies (ix): Skin AllergyY. Ikemi & S. Nakagawa, A psychosomatic study of contagious dermatitis, Kyoshu Journal of Medical Science 13, (1982)

• Study of contact dermatitis• Thirteen hypersensitive subjects• Touched on one arm with leaves from harmless tree

– But told that they were from lacquer tree• Lacquer tree produces effects like those of poison ivy

• Touched on other arm with leaves from lacquer tree– But told that they were from a harmless tree

• Results– All thirteen subjects had skin reactions to harmless leaves– Only two had reactions to the leaves from lacquer tree

36

Quote from Mark Twain, Christian Science (1903)

No one doubts—certainly not I—that the mind exercises a powerful influence over the body. From the beginning of time, the sorcerer, the interpreter of dreams, the fortune-teller, the charlatan, the quack, the wild medicine-man, the educated physician, the mesmerist, and the hypnotist have made use of the client's imagination to help them in their work. They have all recognized the potency and availability of that force. Physicians cure many patients with a bread pill; they know that where the disease is only a fancy, the patient's confidence in the doctor will make the bread pill effective.

Mark Twain

Mind in Disease and DeathRepresentative Studies (1): Feeling of hopelessness

• Study by Everson et al., 1996– 2,400 patients, Finland – Hopelessness measured by simple 2-item scale– Significantly correlated with

• Death from – cardio-vascular disease – cancer – injury

• Non-fatal cancer• Non-fatal myocardial infarction

37

Mind in Disease and DeathRepresentative Studies (2) : Prediction of death

• Study by Boitnott, Freisinger&Slavin (1967)– Three births on same day, predictions by (same) midwife

(Lousiana)– 1st: predicted that she would die before her 16th birthday

• She died in an automobile accident shortly before 16th birthday

– 2nd: predicted that she would die before her 21st birthday• She died on her 21st birthday

– 3rd: predicted that she would die before her 23rd birthday• Went to hospital 2 weeks before 23rd birthday, died

the day before birthday

38

Mind in Disease and DeathRepresentative Cases (3): A woman’s death belief

• Study by Walters (1944)• Woman who believed she was going to die

– Believed she would die at the same age as her mother– Mother died at age 42– Two weeks before anniversary of mother’s death, became

excited and fearful– Lapsed into a coma on the anniversary of mother’s death– Died the next day, in the 7th month of her 42nd year

39

Mind in Disease and DeathRepresentative Cases (4): The man with a mean mother

– Study by Mathis (1964)– Mother cursed him for going against her wishes

• Said, “Something dire is going to happen to you”– Two days later, first asthma attack, age 53– Further asthma attacks after encounters with mother– On the day of death..

• At 5:00 pm, “excellent physical and mental condition” reported by physician

• At 5:30 pm, telephone conversation with mother, who repeated the warning

• 6:35 pm, was found comatose• 6:55 pm, pronounced dead

40

Mind in Disease and DeathRepresentative Cases (5): A man who died of “liver cancer”

• Study by Meador (1992)– Doctor’s diagnosis: “widespread incurable liver cancer”– Died soon after the diagnosis– The details:

• Was told in October that he had only a short time to live• Said he would like to live through Christmas for his family’s sake• Doctor found him looking good through Christmas (monthly visits)• Admitted to hospital in early January• Died 24 hours later

– Autopsy: • The diagnosis was a false positive• Only a small cancerous module was found, insufficient to cause death

– Additional factors• Wife had died tragically 6 months before the diagnosis

– “everything I ever loved or wanted in my whole life vanished. Gone forever…. My heart and soul were lost in the flood that night”

41

42

When Data Meets Theory (I)

• If new data fits in with existing theory No problem

• If new data does not fit existing theory, two options1 Reject the data – pretend it doesn’t exist Not the way scientists operate2 Conclude that the theory requires revision

1 Revise the theory, or2 Look for a new theory3 At least, pending construction of new theory, recognize that

there is a problem, and stop believing in the old theory

REVIEW

43

T h a n k s f o r y o u r a t t e n t i o n !