Mind and Matter VII

Quantum Physics VMind over Matter V

2

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics V – Schrödinger’s cat

• Mind over Matter V– Phenomena related to MPD

and dissociative disorders

3

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics V – Schrödinger’s cat

• Mind over Matter V– Phenomena related to MPD

and dissociative disorders

4

The context for Schrödinger’s cat (thought experiment)

• By 1935 . .– The basic form of quantum mechanics was clear– Schrödinger’s equation was the accepted equation of motion

• Required on the small scale– For the large-scale the earlier (“classical”) physics was used

• But was recognized as only an approximation– Good enough most of the time– Easier to use

• Heisenberg: objects like atoms are not real– They’re just “potentialities”

5

Quantum mechanics and things larger than atoms

• Heisenberg: objects like atoms are just “potentialities”• Things that are combinations of atoms

– are therefore combinations of “potentialities”– So they too must be just “potentialities”

• Chairs? Tables?• Cats and dogs?• Planets and stars and galaxies?

• Schrödinger came up with a thought experiment– To demonstrate just how weird quantum mechanics is– Or at least, how weird it is under Heisenberg’s proposal,

• Which is consistent with Schrödinger’s equation

6

Wave function trapped in two boxes

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

32

1

7

Wave function of an atom trapped in two boxes

• Half of its “waviness” is in each of the two boxes• It is in a ”superposition” state• It does not exist in one box until an observer finds the whole

atom in one of the boxes • Upon looking into one box

– The superposition-state waviness collapses – Into one box– The whole atom, as particle, is now in the observed box

• Or, if not there, it is in the other box

• But: Before looking into one box,– You could have chosen instead to produce an interference pattern– Demonstrating that it was a wave and in both boxes simultaneously

Review

8

Now let us add something to one of the boxes(of course we have to enlarge the box)

• A Geiger counter – will detect the presence of an atom– And will “fire” if an atom is detected

• A lever to pull the cork from a bottle of hydrogen cyanide – This lever is connected to the Geiger counter – is moved when/if it fires, releasing the cork

• A cat– Will be killed by the cyanide if it is released

• Schrödinger: – A ”hellish contraption”– Not intended to actually be built or used

9

Schrödinger’s Cat – Diagram

Rosenblum & Kuttner, Quantum Enigma (2011), p. 146

10

Schrödinger’s cat

• Half of the waviness of the atom has gone into each box• As long as no observation is made . .

– The atom is in a superposition state– It is in both boxes simultaneously (as a wave function)

• Therefore the whole system is in a superposition state– The Geiger counter is both fired and unfired– The cork on the cyanide bottle is both pulled and unpulled– The cat is both dead and alive

11

Schrödinger’s cat (cont’d)

The entire system would [contain] equal parts of living and dead cat. —Erwin Schrödinger

12

Stephen Hawking’s comment

When I hear about Schrödinger’s cat, I reach for my gun.

—Stephen Hawking

13

Wanted Poster

14

Quantum strangeness – Dilbert (Scott Adams, 2014)

15

Quantum strangeness – Dilbert (Scott Adams, 2014)

16

Topics for today

• Quantum Physics V – Schrödinger’s cat

• Mind over Matter V– Phenomena related to MPD

and dissociative disorders

17

Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)a.k.a. dissociative identity disorder (DID)

• “a large body of credible evidence…demonstrates that additional ‘cognitive systems,’ psychological entities indistinguishable from full-fledged conscious minds or personalities as we normally understand these terms, can sometimes occupy the same organism simultaneously, carrying on their varied existences as it were in parallel, and largely outside the awareness of the primary, everyday consciousness.”

—Edward Kelly (2007: 36)

18

Literature on Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)

• Early reports by – F. W. H. Myers – Wm. James – F. C. S. Schiller

• Many other reports, from 19th century to present• Famous case: – Thigpen & Cleckley, The Three Faces of Eve (1957)

• Enormous literature from 20th century

19

F.C.S. Schiller’s brother

• F. C. S. Schiller (1864-1937)– A well-known philosopher– Born in Germany, studied at Oxford, taught at Cornell, Oxford (30 yrs), and USC

• His brother produced “automatic writing”– Went on continuously while he was fully and consciously engaged in some other activity such as reading a book or telling a story– Sometimes wrote simultaneously with both hands and on

completely different subjects• One or the other stream of writing was sometimes in

mirror-image form

20

The case of Anna Winsor

• Described by Wm. James and by F. W. H. Myers• Anna lost control of her right arm

– It was taken over by a distinctive secondary personality– Called “Old Stump” by Anna

• Right arm would write or draw – while Anna was occupied with other matters– Even sometimes while Anna was asleep

• Sometimes in total darkness

• The secondary personality manifested knowledge and skills which Anna herself did not possess

21

The Three Faces of “EVE”(Thigpen and Cleckley, 1957)

• Two major personalities, “Eve Black” and “Eve White”– Eve White was judged to be the original personality

• Allergy in one of the two personalities – Eve Black had allergic reaction to nylon stockings– Eve White did not

22

Physiological difference among personalities in same body

• Reported “in virtually every organ of body” (Coons, 1988)• Examples:– Anesthesia in one personality but not others (Braun, 1983)– Different personalities speaking with different accents

(Coons, 1988)– Differences in handwriting in different personalities

(Coons, 1988)– Deafness in one personality but not others (Coons, 1988)– One personality right-handed, the other left-handed • In one study, 37 out of 100 subjects (Putnam et al.,

1986)

23

Difference in allergies and response to medication

Case 1: One personality could eat oranges normally - all the other personalities were allergic to citrus

Case 2: One personality was allergic to cats - the other was not

Case 3: One personality was allergic to smoke - the other was not

• A survey of 100 different cases (F. W. Putnam et al. 1986)– 35 involved alter personalities that responded differently to foods– In almost 50%, different responses to medications

• Example: a woman with adult-onset diabetes– “required different amounts of insulin depending on which

personality was in control” (B. G. Braun, 1983)

24

Difference in addiction

• A woman with M.P.D. (Coons, 1988; Miller & Triggiano, 1992)– One personality addicted to heroin– The other personalities had no addiction and did not exhibit withdrawal symptoms

• When the addicted personality “took over”, needle track marks would develop in the arms

25

Differences in visual acuity

• An early report (Dufay 1876, Alvarado 1989)– A woman with severe myopia requiring glasses– When in somnambulistic state had excellent

vision without glasses• Could do needlework and thread needles in dim light

26

Ocular differences: “Eve”

• “Eve” – differences in strabismus– Strabismus: the two eyes move in different directions

and/or at different speeds– Study of film recordings (Condon, Ogston & Pacoe, 1969)– Each of the three personalities exhibited strabismus

• But with differences of detail• The “least stable personality” showed by far the largest number

of divergent movements• The personality which later became the dominant one showed

very few

27

Other differences in vision

• A color-blind patient with MPD (B. G. Braun, 1983)– Color-blindness “documented by the isochromatic color-blindness test” – The color-blindness disappeared after successful integration of the

personalities

• Optical differences between different personalities– A patient with two personalities (Birnbaum & Thomann, 1996)– Required different corrective lenses for the different personalities– Differences in corneal curvature– Differences in astygmatism

28

Optical differences: Experimental studies

• Examination of seven MPD patients (Shepard & Braun 1985, S. D. Miller 1989)– “clinically significant optical differences between alter

personalities” on six measures• Visual acuity• Manifest retraction• Color vision• Pupil size• Corneal curvature• Intraocular pressure

• Replication of Shepard & Braun study (S. D. Miller, 1991)– 20 MPD patients– Similar results

29

Unusual ocular differences (S. D. Miller, 1991)

• Case I: Accommodative-type esotropia in one personality– Involves rotation of eyes, sometimes appears in 4-5-year-old children– Observed in one personality of one patient– This personality was four years old

• Case II: a patient with one adult and two child personalities– The adult personality showed presbyopia

• Deterioration of ability to adjust thickness and curvature of the lens– The two child personalities showed no signs of presbyopia

30

Difference in visual acuity (S. D. Miller, 1991)

• A patient with two personalities– First personality:• 20/15 visual acuity in both eyes

– Second personality• 20/30 in one eye, 20/50 in the other

– And an outward rotation of the left eye

31

When Data Meets TheoryTwo 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 and Body– The data are in conflict with the theory that processes and

conditions of the body have physical origins

32

When Data Meets Theory (II)

• The two problem areas related • The data is in conflict with the Newtonian world view• The world as purely physical and mechanistic• Stemming from the work of Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

33

Comment

• One gets the idea that we are missing something fundamental in our understanding of the universe.

—Alex, of Indiana, posted to NYTIMES.COM(Science Times, 3 June 2014)

34

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