Mind and Matter V

Quantum Physics IVMind over Matter IV

The irony is that, if we cannot understand ourselves and refuse to do so, how can we hope to understand fundamentally the world surrounding us?

—Huping Hu From Review of “Quantum Enigma”

2

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics IV– The Copenhagen Interpretation

• Mind over Matter IV – Physiological changes in hypnosis

3

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics IV– The Copenhagen Interpretation

• Mind over Matter IV – Physiological changes in hypnosis

In our standard view of quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation …, “observations” not only disturb what is to be measured, observations actually produce the measured result.

—Kuttner & Rosenblum, Quantum Engma (2011)

4

Wave function trapped in two boxes

Rosenblum & Kuttner, Quantum Enigma (2011), p. 96

32

1

Review

5

Open both boxes

• Open doors of both boxes at the same time

• Results after many atoms, one at a time

Review

6

What if we choose to open just one box?

• Either – A whole atom hits the screen– Or nothing

• Until we open the other box

Review

7

The Copenhagen Interpretation I

• The orthodox stance in physics • Originated mainly by Niels Bohr– Along with his post-doc Werner Heisenberg– Soon after Schrödinger’s wavefunction came out

• Taught in physics classes to this day– And still the most widely accepted interpretation

• Comes in several varieties– But every variety includes a basic idea:

• Observation produces the property observed

8

Niels Bohr (1885-1962)

“The discovery of the quantum of action shows us…not only the limitation of classical physics, but by throwing a new light upon the old philosophical problem of the objective existence of phenomena independently of our observations, confronts us with a situation hitherto unknown in natural science.”

9

Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen Interpretation

• First proposed at a conference in 1927• Holds that the reality behind these complementary

phenomena—wave and particle—is incomprehensible to us• Bohr proposed that both appearances (wave and particle) of

the underlying reality are due in part to our measuring apparatus and the classical expectations on which they are constructed

• Einstein, also present at the conference, objected W 120-Bf

• Bohr: The wave is not the ultimate reality The particle is not the ultimate reality W 121L

10

The Copenhagen Interpretation II

• Based on three basic ideas: 1) The probability interpretation of the wavefunction

“Quantum probability is not the probability of where the atom is, it’s the objective probability of where you, or anybody, will find it.”

—Rosenblum&Kuttner 129 “Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it.”

—Pascual Jordan

2) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle 3) Complementarity

11

The Copenhagen Interpretation III

• Observation creates the physical reality of the microscopic world

• But for all practical purposes we can continue to use classical physics for the macroscopic world

• And since we have mathematical equations that work for the microscopic world we can use them for further science and engineering– And not worry about what it all means– Short form: “Shut up and do the math!”

12

Observation I

• Observation occurs when a atomic-scale object – atom, electron, photon, etc – interacts with a large-scale object

• The large-scale object– doesn’t have to be a person– could be a photographic film hit by a photon

• Records where the photon landed• Thus the film “observes” the photon

– The wavefunction has collapsed as the photon became a particle– could be a Geiger counter recording the passage of an electron

• The electron enters the tube of the Geiger counter• Thus the Geiger counter “observes” the electron

• “No microscopic property is a property until it is an observed property.”—John Archibald Wheeler

13

Observation II

“In the experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, the phenomena that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”

—Werner HeisenbergK&R 130Bf

“There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”

—Max Born

14

The Copenhagen Interpretation IV

• Argues that since we never deal directly with quantum objects, we need not worry about their physical reality or their lack of it

• Physics only reports on the effects measured by their instruments/measuring devices

• “ [According to Bohr] … although physicists talk of atoms and other microscopic entities as if they were actual physical things, microscopic things are only concepts we use to describe the behavior of our measuring instruments. We need not go beyond describing that behavior in deallng with the microscopic world.”

—Kuttner&Rosenblum 136

15

Complementarity

• Wave-like and particle-like natures are apparently incompatible

• But both of these classical conceptions of reality are needed to make all of the possible predictions

• This basic puzzle of quantum mechanics was named (in 1928, by Bohr) complementarity K&R 135T-M, L

W 130L

16

The wave-particle complementarity paradox

• If you look to see whether it is a wave, it is a wave• If you look to see whether it is a particle, it is a particle• Wave and particle are contradictory/complementary views• What to do? Some possibilities:– It is really a wave– It is really a particle– It is both wave and particle (Schrödinger wavefunction)

until it is observed (collapse of the wave function)– We don’t (can’t?) know the reality behind the paradox

(Copenhagen interpretation)

untenableuntenable

17

Generalized complementarity paradox

• If you choose to observe it as A, it is A• If you choose to observe it as B, it is B• A and B are contradictory/complementary views• What to do? Some possibilities:– It is really A– It is really B– It is both A and B until it is observed (collapse)– We don’t (can’t?) know the reality behind the paradox

(Copenhagen interpretation)

untenableuntenable

18

The paradoxical cube

19

Revisit the generalized complementarity paradox

• If you choose to observe it as A, it is A• If you choose to observe it as B, it is B• A and B are contradictory/complementary views• What to do? Some possibilities:– It is really A– It is really B– It is both A and B until it is observed (collapse)– We don’t (can’t?) know the reality behind the paradox

(Copenhagen interpretation)– It is neither A nor B in reality• Only our observation makes It appear to be A or B

untenableuntenable

20

Revisit the wave-particle complementarity paradox

untenableuntenable

• If you look to see whether it is a wave, it is a wave• If you look to see whether it is a particle, it is a particle• Wave and particle are contradictory/complementary views• What to do? Some possibilities:

– It is really a wave– It is really a particle– It is both wave and particle (Schrödinger wavefunction) until it

is observed (collapse of the wave function)– We don’t (can’t?) know the reality behind the paradox

(Copenhagen interpretation)– It is neither wave nor particle in reality

• Only our observation makes It appear to be a wave or a particle

21

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics IV– The Copenhagen Interpretation

• Mind over Matter IV – Physiological changes in hypnosis

22

Mind over Matter IV

– Physiological changes in hypnosis• Visual effects• Autonomic effects• Analgesia • Relief from allergies• Relief from bleeding• Healing of wounds• Burns• Other skin conditions

“…the royal road to solving the mind-body problem Involve[s] unraveling the mystery of hypnosis”

—T. X. Barber (1984)

23

Visual effects Pupils of eyes

• Responses to hypnotic suggestion of “total blindness”– 3 subjects (Schwarz, Bickford & Rasmussen 1955)– In 2 of the 3,

• Pupils became “much more dilated and sluggish in their reaction to light”

• Contrasting pupil dilation effects (Erickson, 1977)– Reported “subjects who would dilate the pupil of one eye

and contract the pupil of the other in hypnotic trance, when looking at the same light”

24

Autonomic effects (I)

• Dramatic acceleration of heart rate (Pelt, 1965)• Babinski reflex (Gidro-Frank and Bowersbuch, 1948)

– Present in infants up to one year of age– Produced by stroking the sole of infant’s foot– Appeared in subjects upon hypnotic regression to 5-6 months

• Appeared spontaneously, with no specific suggestion for it• Subjects were unaware of its existence and properties

25

Autonomic effects (II)False pregnancy

• False pregnancy in a (homosexual) man (D. Barrett, 1988)– Was undergoing hypnotherapy to quit smoking– Given suggestion to imagine himself as the person he would like to be– Had long wished he were a woman and wanted to bear a child– After three months, went to hospital

• Enlarged abdomen• Morning nausea• Nipple secretions• “noticeable” enlargement of one breast

26

Autonomic effects (III)Change in size of breasts (Willard, 1977)

• Subjects: 70 women who wanted to increase the size of their breasts

• Given relevant suggestions while in a hypnotic trance– Instructed to feel sensations of warmth and tingling in breasts– Instructed to visualize themselves as they wished to look

• Most of them increased their breast size– Average increase 1 ½ - 2 inches– Greatest success with women who could “obtain visual

imagery, quickly, easily, and a large percent of the time that they attempted it”

27

Hypnotic analgesia (I)Pain relief during surgery

• An important application of early mesmerism • In 18th and early 19th centuries

– Before chemical anesthesia was developed

• Mastectomy – A case in 1829:

• Patient showed no signs of pain• No changes in pulse or breathing during surgery

– A similar case in 1854 (Gauld, 1988)• In presence of several observing physicians

28

Hypnotic analgesia (II)Pain relief during surgery (cont’d)

• Later use of hypnotic analgesia (Bramwell, 1903) after advent of chemical anesthesia– Tooth extraction– Eye surgery– Removal of tonsils– Uterine tumors– Breast tumors– Childbirth

29

Hypnotic analgesia (III)Pain relief during surgery (cont’d)

• More recent use of hypnotic analgesia (Mason, 1955)– Removal of two impacted wisdom teeth

• Incision in gum• Removal of bone by chisels

– Breast surgery, same patient• Surgical bilateral mammoplasty

– Scars, breast tissue, and fat were removed– Breasts were completely reshaped– Procedure lasted 70 minutes– No signs of pain– Later said that she felt and remembered nothing

• Yet more recent cases (Hilgard & Hilgard, 1975/1983)– 32 cases, 1955-1974

• (See also Emily Kelly, 2007: 189)

30

Hypnotic analgesia (IV)Studies aimed at understanding the physiological mechanism(s)

• The hypothesis of endogenous opiate release– Brain imaging studies cast doubt on the hypothesis

• (Crawford, Knebel & Vendemia, 1998)– Studies using injection of naxolone (Goldstein & Hilgard, 1975)

• Naxolone blocks opioid release• But naxolone failed to interfere with analgesic effect of hypnosis

• Other studies using brain imaging (Emily Kelly 2007, 186-188)– Results are quite inconclusive– Various cortical effects have been found– Also, variation among subjects

31

Relief from allergy

• Numerous cases• Types of allergen involved

– Pollen– House dust– Tuberculin– Etc.

• Types of allergic reaction relieved or diminished– Skin allergies– Asthma– Hay fever

32

Bleeding

• A famous case of hemophilia (I. Stevenson, 1997)– The son of the Czar– Bleeding was stopped by hypnotic suggestion– The hypnotist: Rasputin

• Bleeding from a severe laceration (Clawson & Swade, 1975)– Stopped immediately after hypnotic suggestion

• Severe gastrointestinal bleeding (Bishay, Stevens & Lee, 1984)– From ulcers

• Bleeding during dental surgery (T. X. Barber, 1984)– Particularly useful in cases of hemophilia

33

Healing of wounds (Ginandes, Brooks, Sando, Jones & Aker, 2003)

• Healing of wounds from surgical incisions• Subjects

– One group of patients received hypnotic suggestion– Two control groups, no hypnotic suggestion

• Wounds healed faster in the hypnosis group

34

Treatment of burns

• Study of 14 patients with severe wounds (Evin 1979)– 13 of the 14 “healed rapidly and without scarring”– Including a man whose right leg had briefly been immersed up

to the knee in 950o molten aluminum– The 14th patient had “scoffed at the idea” of hypnosis

• Study with unusual control group (Moore & Kaplan, 1983)– Five patients – Were their own controls– They had bilateral burn damage

• In most cases, both hands– Hypnotic suggestion was directed at one side only

• Randomly chosen– Four out of five “demonstrated clearly accelerated healing on

the treated side” • Judgment made by a physician unaware of which side had been

treated– The fifth patient had rapid healing on both sides

35

Other phenomena involving skin

• Treatment of skin diseases– Warts– Eczema– Psoriasis– Ichthyosiform erythrodermia (fish-skin disease)– Pachyonychia congenita (similar to fish-skin disease)

• Induction of . .– Bleeding – Blisters – Markings

36

Psoriasis and eczema

• Eczema – numerous cases– Bramwell (1903), Asher (1956), Mason (1960), Crasilneck & Hall (1959)– In many cases, almost instantaneous improvement (Dunbar, 1954)– Eczema, scars, and swelling from x-ray burn (Dunbar, 1954)

• Scars so severe that a physician had recommended amputation– Persisted for 14 years

• Four weeks of hypnotic treatment– Symptoms almost completely cured– Completely healed a year later

• Psoriasis (Frankel & Misch, 1973)– A case that had resisted 20 years of conventional treatments– Significant improvement after hypnotic treatment

37

“Fish-skin disease” (I)

• Congenital ichthyosiform erythrodermia– Appears at birth or shortly thereafter– Part or all of body covered with thick, black,

horny layer of skin• Inelastic, subject to painful lesions

– Ten cases of favorable response to hypnotic treatment (Barber 1984)

– Significant improvement with conventional treatments are practically unknown

38

“Fish-skin disease” (II)

• The case of a ten-year-old boy (Mason, 1952)– Nearly the entire body was affected– Treatment began with focus on left arm

• “Five days later the horny layer softened, became friable, and fell off. The skin underneath became pink and soft within a few days…. At the end of 10 days the arm was completely clear from the shoulder to the wrist.”

– Mason then treated the other arm– Ten days later, the legs and the trunk – Improvements ranged from 50% to 99% for various parts of the body– “rapid and dramatic” improvement for first few weeks– Less improvement in subsequent weeks– Four years later, “not only has there been no relapse, but his skin has

continued to improve…without further treatment of any sort, hypnotic or otherwise” (Mason 1955)

39

Pachyonychia congenita (similar to fish-skin disease)

• Case description (Mullins, Murray & Shapiro, 1955)• Treatment focused first on the left hand• “Within three days there was noticeable softening of the keratotic

material on the left hand”• Then other parts of body were treated• Condition on soles of feet so painful that patient

– could not walk – was confined to a wheelchair

• The authors published photographs showing dramatic improvement in the soles of patient’s feet

• By 13th day of treatment, patient “stood on his feet without pain for the first time in his life that he could remember”

• By 17th day, “he was able to walk the length of the ward without pain”• Five months later, was walking “with only a slight impairment”

40

Marks on skin induced by hypnosisThree cases reported by M. H. Biggs (1887)

• 1. Biggs suggested that a cross would appear on right arm– Appeared after three days, as “a dusky-red cross, four or five

inches long and about three inches wide”– Persisted for several months until subject returned to Dr. Biggs for suggestion of removal

• 2. Biggs suggested that – a cross would appear on chest every Friday– Eventually,

• the words “sancta” and “crucis” would appear• the cross would bleed

– Cross appeared on first Friday after the suggestion– Consistently reappeared for several weeks– Bleeding occurred only once,

• along with the letter “S” at the suggested location

• 3rd case less dramatic

41

Hypnotic induction of blisters

• J. A. Hadfield, in Lancet (1917):– Under hypnosis,

• suggested that he was touching the arm with a red-hot iron• actually he touched the arm with his finger

– Then covered the area with a large roller bandage• Fastened with safety-pin• Pin sealed with sealing wax

– After six hours, bandage removed– Blister had formed

• Increased in size• Developed a large quantity of fluid

• Paul 1963, similar case– Cardboard tube placed around the area instead of a bandage

42

Hypnotically induced “burns” Gauld (1990), Madden (1903)

• Hypnotic suggestion (two cases):– Upon waking, subject would go to a stove

and touch it– and the stove was red-hot – Actually, it was cold

• Both subjects had immediate reactions– (1) “a lively reddening”– (2) “an actual burn, from which the skin

subsequently came away”

43

The case of a burn from a (non-existent) shell fragmentM. Ullman, in American Journal of Psychiatry 103 (1947)

• Hypnotic suggestion, to a soldier:– A molten shell fragment has hit your hand

• Result:– “immediate pallor”– “narrow red margin 20 minutes later– a blister one hour later

• Ultimately became a second-degree burn• The patient was “under the observation of the

author and another medical officer…for the entire period”

44

An unintended sunburnJ. M. Bellis, in American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 8 (1966)

• Hypnotic suggestion:– Imagine being on a beach on a sunny day

• Purpose: to induce relaxation

• Result:– Immediately upon awakening her face was

“beet-red…and the redness extended over her shoulders and half-way down her arms”

– The redness conformed to the lines of subject’s dress

45

Suggestions with controls

• (1) cross drawn on both forearms with blunt knife (Moll 1901)– Suggestion: blisters would appear on right side– After five minutes, reddish swelling and a wheal “somewhat in the

shape of a cross” on right forearm only– No change on left arm

• (2) cross traced on both arms with pencil (Dunbar 1954)– A wheal would form on left side– Subject under constant observation by group of neurologists– A wheal appeared one hour later– Only on left arm

46

The case of Olga Kahl (I)(E. Osty, 1929)

• Experiments conducted by Osty and Richet (a physiologist) – Observations in full daylight

• Was able to produce thin red lines on forearms or chest– Corresponded closely to target images

• Some chosen by herself• Some chosen by investigators

• The marks would form within tens of seconds– Then fade within a minute

47

The case of Olga Kahl (II)(E. Osty, 1929)

• Three of the targets were complex line drawings– Example: “8”

• First, an “X” appeared, then a rounded line at the bottom joining the corners

– Example: a water goblet• Result: One side of a drawing of a goblet

• In 5 cases, names were suggested– In all 5 cases, letters appeared on her arm, one after another

• Partially spelling out the name– Target: “Rosa”; Result: “Ro”– Target: “François”; Result: “FrAN”– Target: “Sabine”; Result: “SAB N|”– Target: “Yolande”; Result: “Y Lande” (some letters distorted)– Target: “René”; Result (upside down): “REH”

• N.B.: Olga was Russian• in Russian, the letter N is written as “H”

48

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