This episode’s guest is Rob Lea. Rob is a UK-based science journalist with a background in physics who  covers stories in space, astronomy, and quantum physics. In this episode we talk about pseudoscience, why do people connect quantum mechanics with their mystical beliefs, and what it means for science communicators.

Rob took a different path to science journalism than most science writers. He started writing about skepticism, and debunking things on alternative medicine and tabloid news stories about the supernatural and paranormal.

The subject of our discussion is related to Rob’s path as a science journalist as we talk about how quantum mechanics is used in popular media to promote pseudoscience and mysticism. We discuss some of the problems with this and what it means for us as science communicators.

God of the Gaps

The God of the gaps is a theological and logical fallacy that says gaps in scientific knowledge can be explained by the existence of God. Rob says these days, this has retreated to the world of quantum mechanics as there are still a lot of unknowns in that that area of physics. Today, we can’t google some aspect of quantum mechanics without being inundated with articles related to mysticism and consciousness.

As Rob points out, this is difficult for the lay person to sift through or know what to believe.which is unfortunate as quantum mechanics is a wonderful field. We have gained so much from the field and it is scary that general audiences find it so difficult to access accurate information.

Communicating Unknowns in Science

Rob points out part of the problem lies with physicists and the physicists who have come before. It is natural for scientists from any discipline to want to engage and entertain to promote their field. The problem, Rob thinks, is when we focus too much on the mysteries and unknowns which gives people the idea we have no idea what’s happening.

Rob points out when new discoveries in quantum mechanics are covered in popular media and the press, there is usually going to be a quote from various scientific figures,like Einstein. If the story is on (quantum) entanglement, you will find Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” quote somewhere in the opening paragraphs.

The problem is that quote was made over 100 years ago and a lot has changed since then. Rob points out, if Einstein could see the developments today, or how ubiquitous a role quantum mechanics plays in our lives or the technologies we use, he would not say the same thing today.

But the problem isn’t just that some quotes are outdated but the language we use is misleading. For that, our discussion turned to the double-slit experiment—the demonstration where light and matter display characteristics of waves and particles. In this experiment, light or a stream of particles pass through a double slit and an interference pattern is projected on the screen.

This experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1801 and demonstrated the wave behavior of light—it was initially believed that light consisted of either waves or particles. One hundred years later, during the advent of modern physics, physicists realized light could show characteristic properties of both waves and particles.

This experiment becomes very counter-intuitive when we fire individual photons (particles of light) or electrons through the double slit. Initially, we just see a few dots appear on the screen but given enough time, the interference pattern emerges—it doesn’t matter how slowly we fire those particles.

The interference pattern emerges because the wave goes through both double slits at the same time, something that is impossible to consider when we do this experiment with particles. The surprising thing, if we change the experiment to determine which slit an electron or photon goes through, the interference pattern is destroyed!

At this point we delved into the language physicists use to explain this experiment—physicists say the act of observation destroys the interference pattern. This is problematic as it makes people think conscious observers can affect the reality around them, which is far from what really happens and opens the door for the quantum mysticism crowd.

Both Rob and I agree measurement is a better term than observation but the term may seem cold as it does not imply a conscious observer—Of course, eventually there is a conscious observer at the end of every experiment making a measurement. This “experimenter effect” is something we can’t avoid as, philosophically, to make a measurement on anything, we need to interact (and change) it in some subtle way. (Change happens but not because some consciousness is focused on the experiment).

Using Physics to prove the existence of Ghosts

Part of the discussion turned to ghost hunting television shows. Having never watched any of them, Rob advised me not to start. Rob says will usually talk about quantum mechanics and how the double slit experiment shows that consciousness changes reality.

As Rob points out, the double slit experiment contradicts the idea of consciousnesses existing outside the body and mind-body dualism—Instead of showing that consciousness can exist outside of physical material, the experiment shows it can’t.

Rob’s reasoning is that the experiment is one of the most performed experiments in the last 100 years and we have always gotten the same result every single time. As you perform the experiment, you will always get an interference pattern if you don’t try to determine which slit the particle goes through (which-way information). If you do try to determine which-way information, the interference pattern is destroyed.

Now this is the part where things get a bit tricky. If consciousnesses did exist outside of the body, there would be lots of free floating consciousnesses around us that would occasionally interfere with the experiment and cause wave function collapse: the interference pattern would be destroyed. In the laboratory, we would see the interference pattern disappear and then reappear for no apparent reason. As we have never observed this, we assume either consciousness can not exist outside the body or it can not collapse the wave function.

Rob points out this is an example where people use an experiment to support their views when, in reality, it does the opposite.

Problems in Science Communication

One of the biggest problems we face as science communicators is the prevalence of misinformation. There seems to be a prevailing animosity towards scientists and experts by the general public, especially when what experts say contradicts what the public believes.

Earlier science communication focused on the deficit model; the idea that posits the public’s hostility and/or skepticism to science and technology comes from a lack of knowledge. If we give the public good information they can use and understand, they will change their minds. The problem isn’t one of ignorance but also the information contradicts their world view and, along with it, their sense of identity.

The deficit model does not take into account the complexity of human thought and it is something all science communicators need to be aware of. At the end of the day, we all have our work cut out for us as we try to educate the public about science.

So check out this episode as Rob and I talk about physics and science communication.

Check Rob’s articles on Medium: https://medium.com/@roblea_63049