Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 283-7, 2002)
This book serves as a useful reminder that the widespread belief that the quantum
world is irreducibly weird, indeterministic, unvisualizable, and dependent on human
observation, is not required by experimental results, and that a causal, more rational
and intuitive interpretation is possible.
The book was compiled as a tribute to Jean-Pierre Vigier on the occasion of his 80th
birthday. It begins with a preface by Stanley Jeffers outlining Vigier’s life. He worked
closely with Louis de Broglie and David Bohm, and helped to pioneer the de Broglie-
Bohm-Vigier approach to quantum physics, also known as the causal stochastic
interpretation. The main features of this approach and how it evolved are explained in
an introduction by Lev Chebotarev. The bulk of the book consists of 22 facsimile reprints
of papers on quantum mechanics authored or coauthored by J.P. Vigier. There is also a
biography of Vigier’s works. Most of the papers are, at least in part, highly technical, but
much of the discussion and analysis of the contending interpretations of quantum
physics can be readily understood by nonspecialists.
Each time the position of, say, an electron is measured, it is found in only one place.
In between measurements we do not know exactly where the electron is, but the wave
function can be used to calculate the probability of it being found in any particular region
of space. On the assumption that the wave function provides a complete description of
quantum objects, many physicists believe that a particle does not follow a definite
trajectory in between measurements, but dissolves into ‘superposed probability waves’,
which then ‘collapse’ instantaneously, discontinuously, and quite inexplicably when the
next measurement is made.
Particles are pictured as oscillators (or solitons) beating in phase with their surrounding
pilot waves, which in turn result from the superposition of superluminal phase waves
carried by a subquantal etheric medium subject to constant stochastic fluctuations. The
force, or quantum potential, determining particle motions therefore carries information
from the entire environment, accounting for the ‘wholeness’ of quantum phenomena.
The causal stochastic approach can account for all the quantum properties of matter,
including all the so-called paradoxes. It therefore disproves the claim that the quantum
formalism requires us to abandon not only the quest for an explanation of quantum
phenomena but also the concepts of causality, continuity, and the objective reality of
individual microobjects. In Vigier’s view, the Copenhagen interpretation is based on
‘arbitrary philosophical assumptions’, and its insistence on the absolute and final
character of indeterminacy is dogmatic.
In the causal approach, therefore, ‘the material world has an existence independent
of the knowledge of observers’ (p. 170). Vigier does not discuss possible explanations
for genuine psychokinesis (‘mind over matter’). However, invoking the abstract notion of
wave-function collapse certainly contributes nothing to a concrete understanding of
such phenomena (see Pratt, 1997). Bohm believed that the causal interpretation
opened the door to the creative operation of deeper, subtler, more mindlike levels of
reality. Like Bohm, Vigier stresses that it is by no means a return to the classical
mechanistic worldview. Some of his statements, however, seem to deny the existence
of free will (pp. 50-51, 99-100), though he acknowledges that, given the fundamental
complexity of nature, ‘The ghost cannot be exorcized from the machine’ (p. 169).
Vigier shows how, in stark contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation, the causal
interpretation is able to provide an intelligible and visualizable explanation of key
experiments such as the double-slit experiment and neutron-interferometry experiments
(pp. 137-72). In the double-slit experiment, if both slits are open an interference pattern
builds up on the screen even if electrons approach the slits one at a time. In the
Copenhagen interpretation, a single particle supposedly passes in some indefinable
sense through both slits and interferes with itself, whereas in the causal approach each
particle passes through only one slit whereas the pilot wave passes through both. If a
device is used to detect through which slit each particle travels, the interference pattern
disappears. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the measurement collapses the wave
function, whereas in the causal approach it affects the real pilot wave. The Copenhagen
interpretation claims that any path-determining measurement will destroy the
interference pattern, whereas the causal interpretation predicts that interference will
persist if future techniques allow a sufficiently subtle, nondemolition measurement to be
performed.
Vigier writes:
Vigier (1997a) himself acknowledges this in an article not included in the book, or
even mentioned in the bibliography. In it he states: ‘the observed effect was not zero in
Michelson’s famous experiment, as later confirmed by a (presently almost forgotten) set
of very detailed and very careful experiments by Morley and Miller [Miller, 1933].’ He
presents a brief overview of the ‘long set of remarkable experiments’ conducted from
1881 to 1926, which ‘are now completely ignored in the physics community’. These
experiments detected a small but consistent and systematic ether drift of about 9 km/s.
Although relativity theory assumed a zero ether drift (and a constant velocity of light),
Vigier (1997b) argues that a positive ether drift is compatible with special relativity if
photons are assumed to have a very small mass. He also argues that Sagnac’s
discovery in 1910 of fringe shifts in rotating interferometers (the Sagnac effect) can be
reconciled with general relativity on the same assumption. Whether the results of ether-
drift experiments, including more recent ones (e.g. Silvertooth & Whitney, 1992), are
best understood in terms of standard relativity theory is hotly contested (e.g. Galeczki,
1995; Hazelett & Turner, 1979; Múnera, 1997; Spolter, 1993).
David Pratt
References
Galeczki, G. (1995). From Lorentz to Einstein and then back to Newton. Physics
Essays, 8, 591-593.
Hazelett, R., & Turner, D. (Eds.) (1979). The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A
Counter-Revolution in Physics. Old Greenwich, CT: The Devin-Adair Company.
Miller, D. C. (1933). The ether-drift experiment and the determination of the absolute
motion of the earth. Reviews of Modern Physics, 5, 203-242.
Spolter, P. (1993). Gravitational Force of the Sun. Granada Hills, CA: Orb Publishing.
Thompson, C. H. (1998). Behind the scenes at the EPR magic show. In Selleri, F. (Ed.),
Open Questions in Relativistic Physics. Montreal: Apeiron (pp. 351-359).
Vigier, J. P. (1997a). Relativistic interpretation (with non-zero photon mass) of the small
ether drift velocity detected by Michelson, Morley and Miller. Apeiron, 4, 71-76.
Vigier, J. P. (1997b). New non-zero photon mass interpretation of the Sagnac effect as
direct experimental justification of the Langevin paradox. Physics Letters A, 234, 75-85.
Homepage