One small step... an infinity of actions

January 5, 2001

While quantum theory informs our every move, we are still not masters of the multiverse it describes, says David Deutsch.

A 1,000-mile journey begins, obviously, with a single step. But is it not equally obvious that a step of a single metre must begin with a single millimetre? And before you can begin the last micron of that millimetre, do you not have to get through the other 999 microns first? And so ad infinitum ? That "ad infinitum" worried the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Can our every action really consist of sub-actions each consisting of sub-sub-actions, so that before we can move at all, we have to perform a literally infinite number of distinct, consecutive actions?

Zeno's paradox is the earliest known critique of the commonsense idea that we live in a "continuum" - an infinitely divisible, smoothly structured space. It highlights one of several problems with that concept that would be considered fatal if there were a reasonable alternative. But the only alternative is that space is not infinitely divisible but discrete, and the flaw in that is a killer too: if there are only a finite number of points - actions, changes, or whatever - between one place and another, how can you ever get from one to the next? There is, by definition, nothing in between, nowhere to be while you cross the gap. You start having not yet passed through, and then you have passed through. Period.

This dilemma kept coming up in various guises: does matter consist of atoms? How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? In the 19th century, the continuum seemed to have won, with the triumph of the wave theory of light - though Charles Darwin knew that there was a problem with evolution if, as he thought, inherited traits are continuously variable. When Max Planck solved the black body problem by postulating that atoms could absorb or emit energy only in discrete amounts, the quantum age began. The idea of quantisation - the discreteness of physical quantities - turned out to be immensely fruitful. Niels Bohr used it to construct the first successful model of the internal structure of atoms. Albert Einstein used it to analyse the photoelectric effect. However, escaping from the infinities of continuous motion again raised the question "how do you get from A to B?" Modern quantum theory gives an answer of sorts. Remarkably, it describes a reality in which observable quantities do take discrete values, yet motion and change are continuous.

How can that be? The standard response taught to subsequent generations of physics students was nonsense: "It is a particle and a wave - discrete and continuous - simultaneously." Or: "It isn't really localised or spread out until you see the result of your experiment." The fact that scientists could take such positions, and students accept them, marks an embarrassing period in the history of physics.

A resolution is not yet available, but quantum theory brings us substantially closer. I believe the resolution depends on an implication of quantum theory yet to be widely accepted: the existence of parallel universes. In short, within each universe, all observable quantities are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two values of a discrete quantity, what they are really telling us is that the transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse. A kind of progress, surely.

Nowadays, we rely on quantum theory to explain every counter-intuitive nuance of the behaviour of matter at atomic scales. One of the objectives in my own field is to build quantum computers - devices that will be capable of qualitatively new types of information processing. Only the very simplest have been built so far: quantum cryptographic devices whose security depends not, as current systems do, on transient assumptions about how much computer power or mathematical ingenuity is available to potential eavesdroppers, but on the timeless laws of quantum mechanics.

It will probably be decades before more spectacular applications, such as cracking the best existing cryptographic systems, become feasible. It is an extremely challenging task. Many different technologies have been proposed. Some doubt it can be done, but no one seriously disputes that if these computers can be built they will possess those capabilities, for the predictions of quantum theory are superbly corroborated by every known experiment.

In 1900, Planck was not sure what he had discovered. He did not like it, but he knew that somehow it had to contain the explanation for the observed phenomena - so he ran with it. He was right. Later generations discovered what it meant; and the longer we live with it, the more sense it makes.

David Deutsch is visiting professor at the Centre for Quantum Computation, University of Oxford, and is the author of The Fabric of Reality (Penguin).

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments