In keeping with what I was ranting about the other day (Michio Kaku's statement), I often hear scientists say something similar to the following: “Quantum mechanics undoubtedly seems strange and counterintuitive, but we know that it’s true because most of our technology is based upon it, our technology would not work without quantum mechanics.” As if a prerequisite of having a technology is having a particular theory that supports the technology. Must a caveman have a theory of thermodynamics in order to use fire? Of course not.
As an example, here is a direct quotation from the Faculty Senate Statement of Science (February 2007) of the University of Oklahoma: “Some of the great scientific discoveries upon which our technology is based include the atomic theory (Physics and Chemistry), quantum theory, electromagnetic theory, Newton’s theory of gravity, and the theory of relativity (Physics), the theory of plate tectonics (Earth Science), and the theory of evolution (Life Sciences).”
But this is foolishness. Our technology is not based upon quantum mechanics or atomic theory and such; actually, the reverse is true: quantum mechanics is based upon our technology. Or rather, quantum mechanics is based upon our observations. To say that our technology is based upon quantum mechanics is as foolish as saying that electricity is based upon atomic theory. Atomic theory was created to explain electricity; electricity does not exist because we came up with atomic theory. Electricity would exist whether or not we had an atomic theory, so electricity cannot be based upon atomic theory. Likewise, our technology, or rather the workings of nature behind our technology, does not exist because of quantum mechanics. We came up with quantum mechanics to explain the observed workings of nature.
You could argue that our development of quantum theory, and our subsequent understanding of it, made it possible for us to develop our technology; without this theory we would not have been able to develop our technology. But I would argue that we could have come up with our technology without a quantum theory. It might have taken us longer, as we stumbled blindly along without a theory to guide us. But we would have eventually developed our technology without quantum theory. Just like you don’t need an understanding of the molecular structure and molecular behavior of water to be able to make a dam and harness the energy of moving water. Just like you don’t need an understanding of atoms and electrons to make electricity flow through a wire.
Nature and its workings exist regardless of our understanding; our lack of understanding does not render nature inoperative. If we come up with a theory to explain those workings, it does not mean that those workings are based upon our theory. That’s absurd. Yet this is precisely what scientists are saying when they say, “Our technology is based upon such and such a theory.”
I say all this to make the following point: when I say I think something like relativity is nonsense, and a scientist tells me I’m a fool and a crackpot, because relativity is proved by countless experiments and observation, what the scientist is telling me is akin to telling me that our technology is based upon quantum mechanics. Relativity is not proved by observations; it is put forward as an explanation of observations. Thus if I disagree with relativity, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with observations, but with relativity’s explanation of those observations. To say that relativity is wrong is not to say that observation is wrong, or that experimental results are wrong. If I were to say, “The sky is not blue,” when clearly it is indeed blue, then I would be a fool. But if someone tells me, “The sky is blue because…” and I disagree with their because, I am not disagreeing with the fact that the sky is blue. I am disagreeing with their explanation of why it is blue. Relativity is not saying that the sky is blue, so to speak; it is saying that the sky is blue because. And it’s the because with which I disagree.
