Sunny
“…with each epoch making discovery even in the sphere of natural science [“not to speak of the history of mankind”], materialism has to change its form…”
— Engels (Ludwig Feuerbach and End of Classical Germany Philosophy)
Precisely because of the failure to comprehend this approach, with every pathbreaking and epoch-making discovery in the natural science, many scientists and philosophers claim that there is a “crisis of materialism”. Contrary to this careless and inaccurate conclusion, every new discovery in the sphere of natural sciences actually proves materialism and develops it further, as the entire history of materialist philosophy demonstrates.
A similar response was given by a number of learned people when the Nobel Prize in Physics for year 2022 was awarded. Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to experimental scientists who demonstrated the microscopic phenomenon of what is known as, quantum entanglement. Simultaneous non-local interaction of two quantum particles separated spatially appears weird to common sense. It was called by Einstein as the ‘spooky action at distance’. Owing to the failure to understand the significance, meaning and implications of this experiment, a lot of hue and cry regarding “crisis for materialism” and “end of objective reality” has been made.
To clear the confusion and counter the mysticist and idealist claims propagated by various scientists and, of course, the bourgeois media, we must first understand what quantum entanglement is and what are its philosophical implications? To understand this question we have to go back to the period of birth of quantum mechanics and understand the philosophical debates around it. We will do it in the subsequent section of the article.
One of the founders as well as critics of quantum mechanics was Albert Einstein. He considered quantum mechanics to be an incomplete theory. Einstein proposed that quantum theory must be local and separable, i.e., that non-local interaction should not occur in quantum entanglement as this interaction is counter to the logic of Special Theory of Relativity. According to the Special Theory of Relativity, to pass any information between two objects separated spatially, should take the speed of light to travel. The interaction between quantum particles, located at distance, without any time-difference, i.e., simultaneously, is called as non-local interaction. Einstein claimed that the theory of quantum mechanics must be incomplete as matter could interact only locally. To make it ‘complete’, hidden variables should be introduced in quantum mechanics. Whether quantum mechanics require hidden variables or not was formulated as a mathematical expression, called as Bell inequality, named after the physicist John Stewart Bell.
Bell inequality, if violated in actual experiments implied that quantum mechanics violates either locality or realism. It violates locality. Realism as formulated by Einstein meant that objective reality exists independent of observer and follows the law of causality. However, Einstein also asserted that any physical theory must also have aspects of ‘separability’ and ‘localism’. We will discuss later in the article on meaning of these concepts.
Bell inequality was the mathematical expression which was tested by three Nobel Prize winners in experiments and found that it is indeed violated. The violation of Bell inequality means that quantum mechanics is non-local in nature. Those who did not understand the Bell inequality, questions raised by Einstein and basics of quantum mechanics jumped to conclusions that quantum entanglement rejects objective reality itself. What it actually proves is that material world at microscopic level shows non-locality. It is just another aspect of matter which was revealed. We will dwell upon this in detail in the last section of the article.
The phenomenon of non-locality of quantum entanglement has been caught by a section of scientists, philosophers and commentators to claim as a proof of “end of objective reality”. They resurrect the ghost of Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is rebirth of Machian and neo-Kantian philosophy according to which objective reality does not exist and it is only the ‘observer’ who creates the ‘observed reality’. It is not the first time that with results of a scientific experiment a lot of hue and cry about an alleged “crisis of materialism” has been raised. It was recently raised also when Higgs Boson was discovered. It was raised in the last century when radioactivity was discovered. It was raised when Theory of Relativity was proven. It was raised when Quantum Mechanics was discovered. Of all theories quantum mechanics has been used most frequently to argue that it is against objective reality. One of the Nobel Prize winner, Zielinger, went onto say that that quantum entanglement proves the biblical phrase that “in the beginning was word”. Is it so? Let us see.
1. In the Beginning was Deed
“Modern natural science – the only one which can come into consideration qua science as against the brilliant intuitions of the Greeks and the sporadic unconnected investigations of the Arabs -begins with that mighty epoch when feudalism was smashed by the burghers. In the background of the struggle between the burghers of the towns and the feudal nobility – this epoch showed the peasant in revolt, and behind the peasant the revolutionary beginnings of the modern proletariat, already red flag in hand and with communism on its lips.”
— Engels (Dialectics of Nature)
It is precisely the ‘deeds’ of our past generations on which the edifice of natural sciences stands. The birth of modern science took place in the revolutionary era of birth of capitalism. Natural science had its martyrs and prisoners. Bruno and Servetus were burned alive. The scientists today cannot turn away from the history of science which is the proof of its historical progress. However, the philosophical misinterpretations today are actually disregarding the historical progress of the natural sciences. Dante’s sorrowful cry is what explains the current situation: “No one thinks about how much blood it has cost.” We will not dwell on the full historical account of development of natural sciences to understand the philosophical reactions garnered by discovery of quantum entanglement, an enterprise anyway outside the purview of this modest essay. We will briefly overview three cases to assert that the current “crisis” in physics and the howl of “crisis of materialism” are fancy products of bourgeois academic machinery. This machinery will keep on producing these sterile products until it is smashed and replaced.
It is not the first time that a crisis in physics has been echoing in the corridors of scientific institutions and universities. Lenin answered to “crisis in physics” and attacks on materialism in his book Empirio Criticism and Materialism in 1908. Lenin answered Bogdanov and other Russian Machists who attacked the premises of materialism under the pretext of incorporating elements from new science. Lenin argued that discovery of new strata of matter poses no threat to materialism. Lenin argued:
The crisis is not confined to the fact that “radium, the great revolutionary,” is undermining the principle of the conservation of energy. “All the other principles are equally endangered”. For instance, Lavoisier’s principle, or the principle of the conservation of mass, has been undermined by the electron theory of matter. According to this theory atoms are composed of very minute particles called electrons, which are charged with positive or negative electricity and “are immersed in a medium which we call the ether.” The experiments of physicists provide data for calculating the velocity of the electrons and their mass (or the relation of their mass to their electrical charge). The velocity proves to be comparable with the velocity of light (300,000 kilometres per second), attaining, for instance, one-third of the latter. Under such circumstances the twofold mass of the electron has to be taken into account, corresponding to the necessity of overcoming the inertia, firstly, of the electron itself and, secondly, of the ether. The former mass will be the real or mechanical mass of the electron, the latter the “electrodynamic mass which represents the inertia of the ether.” And it turns out that the former mass is equal to zero. The entire mass of the electrons, or, at least, of the negative electrons, proves to be totally and exclusively electrodynamic in its origin. Mass disappears. The foundations of mechanics are undermined. Newton’s principle, the equality of action and reaction, is undermined, and so on. (Lenin, Empirio Criticism and Materialism, 1977, Moscow: Progress Publishers, p. 233)
Further Lenin says:
The essence of the crisis in modern physics consists in the breakdown of the old laws and basic principles, in the rejection of an objective reality existing outside the mind, that is, in the replacement of materialism by idealism and agnosticism. “Matter has disappeared”—one may thus express the fundamental and characteristic difficulty in relation to many of the particular questions, which has created this crisis. (ibid, p. 239)
Lenin explained that with discovery of new phenomena we must reach to essence of new material stratum under study. The mechanics of earlier century must be replaced by new physics of 20th century but that does not affect materialism. Lenin says “…mechanics was a copy of real motions of moderate velocity, while the new physics is a copy of real motions of enormous velocity. The recognition of theory as a copy, as an approximate copy of objective reality, is materialism.” (ibid, p. 246)
At the beginning of the 20th century the image of the world as explained by classical mechanics was falling apart due to new phenomena. This happened because we were able to penetrate deeper into hitherto unknown stratum of matter. This was enabled with advent of much more developed forces of production. Scientists were able to intensively study properties of radiation produced on heating solid materials which was pointing towards the inner structure of atoms. Concept of atomism which assumed atom as indivisible mechanical impenetrable material object was questioned. Radioactivity, discovery of X-Ray and photoelectric effect led to the fall of atomism. This led to a lot of hullabaloo regarding the ‘disappearance of matter’. Lenin at that time answered to such hollow philosophical arguments of philosophical reactionaries. This was first such defense of materialism from neo-Kantianism and Machism onslaught which was using the pretext of new scientific discoveries to claim that materialism is in crisis.
Second case was the birth of quantum mechanics. A few years after Lenin’s defense of materialism, quantum mechanics came into being. The properties of new strata of nature were not reducible to older framework of natural sciences and again the word “crisis” found echo in academic circles. Taketani commented on this situation:
In the present day, cries of crisis have risen in every field, whether it is social or cultural. The snake should grow out of its aged skin. We must understand Goethe’s Stirb und Werde – the negation of the negation. Even in mathematics and physics, that were considered to be strictly confined into formal thought, there have arisen, since the end of the last century, such contradictions that could never be veiled… Physics has developed so much that the formal thought could never understand it. There has arisen in consequence the so-called mathematization which insists that “equation is everything”. It has been promoted by general social unrest to become a subject of empiricism, Machism, scepticism, symbolism, agnosticism, and so on. (Mituo Taketani, ‘Dialectics of Nature: On Quantum Mechanics’, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, Volume 50, May 1971, Pages 27–36, https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.50.27)
With discovery of quantum mechanics again the same old song was sung by bourgeois philosophers all over the world. Heisenberg declared that observer creates reality. Many Soviet scientists and other Marxist scientists were debating and defending the dialectical materialist position. Especially, the Soviet scientific community spearheaded not only the philosophical debates but also the scientific debates. Jordan, Heisenberg, Neumann, Bohr and others formed what came to be known as the Copenhagen School which claimed quantum mechanics to be ultimate theory and the uncertainty in observation at microscopic level to be characteristic of nature. This problem was called the ‘Observation Problem’. They claimed that nature is essentially indeterministic and to look deeper into matter is useless. Copenhagen mist spread among leading scientists. However, it was fought tooth and nail by scientific community and Marxists all over the world. The essence of Copenhagen mist can be captured in following words of Heisenberg:
The classical idea of “objective real things” must be here, to this extent, abandoned … The description of a fact can be effected in terms of classical concepts in just the approximation in which classical physics can be used. The mathematics of quantum theory can be used for this description as well, i.e., the boundary between the object in quantum theory and the observer who describes or measures in time and space can be pushed further and further in the direction of the observer … (W. Heisenberg, 1962, ‘The Development of the Interpretation of Quantum Theory’ in N. Bohr and the Development of Physics, edited by W. Pauli , Oxford: Pergamon Press, p. 27)
Einstein, Bohm, Bell, Taketani, Sakata, Fock and many scientists fought against the denial of objective reality and defended the materialist outlook. Taketani commented on this interpretation of quantum mechanics:
The observation problem of the quantum mechanics has been emphasized too much, because of its overestimation and misunderstanding. This was due to its remarkable results and certain tendencies of contemporary philosophy. The tendency of philosophy in recent years has been abandoning the old epistemological studies and aiming towards the philosophies of existence and its main concern has been in the problem of the practice. Thus, as a good illustration the philosophers were attracted by the so-called subjective action of the observer in the observation problem of the quantum mechanics. Without consideration over the theoretical structure of the quantum mechanics itself, the philosophers have been talking about action of the subject with help of the early subjectivist interpretation on the uncertainty principle. Such movement of the philosophers tempted some physicists to accept existence of action of the subject without deep consideration over the quantum mechanics itself. (Mituo Taketani, ‘Observation Problem of Quantum Mechanics’, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, Volume 50, May 1971, p. 65–72, https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.50.65)
The idealist explanation of quantum mechanics was countered effectively. We will discuss this observation problem and its materialist interpretation in detail in the next section. This was mentioned here as second case of “crisis of materialism” which was artificially created by the academic circle.
After restoration of capitalism in Russia and China and the ideological atmosphere created thereof, smacking of skepticism and nihilism, the reactionary bourgeois philosophy has again gathered momentum and with every new discovery calls of decisive refutation of materialism has been echoing in various universities and corridors of the academic world. This has been going on without any notable resistance from scientific community. Not only this, even the history of natural sciences is being distorted. ‘Copenhagen mist’ has once again clouded the research institutes and universities. As a third case of claim of “crisis of materialism”, an example from recent history will be enlightening.
Few years ago when Higgs Boson was discovered it was claimed that as the massive matter has originated after interaction with Higgs field and this means the end of materialism. It was claimed that massiveness is equivalent to materiality of this world and the Higgs field preceding this material fundamental structure must be the prime mover or the Hegelian demi urgos. Bourgeios media propagated Higgs Boson as ‘God particle’ and religious preachers all over the world caught this word to exclaim that religion has “once again” for the “last time won” over science! However, that was not to be. Higgs mechanism imparts massiveness to the elementary particles and it, in itself, is a material entity. Materialism’s claim was never to say that massiveness must be the property of matter. Massive matter was not the foundation of philosophical materialism, but a material reality outside of and independent of consciousness was the basic contention of materialism. Whether this material reality consists of massive matter or not was never the concern of philosophical materialism. This false interpretation of the proof of origin of massive matter with the discovery of the Higgs boson was countered by our organization when such claims were being made.
These three examples clearly show that the alleged crises in physics that periodically occur are in fact the development of physics but owing to the failure to understand the dialectical materialist worldview, the bourgeois philosophers and scientists descend into hysteric cries regarding the end of objective reality every time.
In similar vein, experiments proving quantum entanglement has been claimed as the end of objective reality. It is task of scientists to research to dive deep to unravel the complexities of nature. Dialectical Materialism is the abstraction and generalization of the accumulated knowledge of natural sciences and social science and as a scientific philosophy, it also provides natural science with a general outlook and methodology. Ignoring dialectical materialism, philosophy of natural sciences and scientists fall into the abyss of idealism.
One such scientist is Zeillinger who considers quantum entanglement as a proof of biblical phrase: “in the beginning was word”. Such mysticism has been propagated by many scientists and some of them claim that quantum entanglement has opened a window to the mysterious universe.
To comprehend this question we must first look into history of quantum mechanics to understand what exactly the problem of quantum entanglement is and what are the philosophical debates and various interpretations around it.
2. History of Quantum Mechanics, Observation Problem and Quantum Entanglement
“Once more the foundations of theoretical physics are shaken and experience calls for a higher level to express the laws. When shall we receive the saving idea? Happy will be those who might live to see it.”
— Einstein (Lecture delivered in Japan in 1922)
Quantum mechanics was theorized by Heisenberg and Schrödinger in 1925 but the material foundation of its origin were sown in the late-19th century. The industrial revolution centered on the steam engine led to formulation of Clausius’s heat engine and energy conservation laws and the theory of energetics. The end of 19th century brought about the study of thermal radiation into focus. With the centre of industrial production shifting to Germany, gas industry and metallurgical industry grew rapidly. It was this time when the theory of radiation was formulated. Theory of radiation was formulated by studying the highly heated metal radiating the light. Taketani comments:
In this way the basis for the study of thermal radiation was nearly established, and from about the middle of the 19th century the knowledge of it was rapidly deepened, to bring about steady progress in the theoretical research on it. From nearly the same time the center of research moved into Germany. This was directly connected with the rapid development of German industry at that time, as is described in detail in Amano’s book cited above. That is, after the Prussia-France War (1870-71) as the turning point, the weight of importance of German economy moved from agriculture to industry, and metallurgical industry, gas industry, illumination industry, etc. demanded and promoted the study of problems of high temperature and thermal radiation. (Taketani, 1971, The Formation and Logic of Quantum Mechanics, River Edge, NJ: World Scientific, p. 4)
These studies led to the discovery of quantization of energy in phenomenon of Black-Body radiation. Max Planck introduced the concept of quanta, that showed that energy can be radiated and absorbed in packets of energy. This pointed to the inner structure of atom. After Einstein’s formulation of photoelectric effect this view was established further that inner structure of atom shows quantum behavior. This was followed by debates on question of atomic models. Bohr established the atomic model with the incorporation of quantization in it. Quantum mechanics in its complete theoretical framework was established in 1925 and 1926 by Heisenberg and Schrödinger.
Heisenberg formulated Matrix Mechanics while Schrödinger formulated Wave Mechanics. Heisenberg formulated the fundamental law of quantum stratum, the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle and its philosophical implications became a subject of contention among the scientists. The philosophical generalization of uncertainty observed in simultaneous measurement of position and momentum of quantum particle was called the Observation Problem. Observation Problem of quantum mechanics was the subject of debate among the scientists. The Copenhagen School was claiming that it was observer that creates reality and on the other hand scientists such as Einstein, Soviet Scientists, Japanese Marxist scientists and others defended independent existence of objective reality. If we understand Observation Problem it becomes easier to comprehend the quantum entanglement. Actually, it just proves that in quantum mechanics in the process of observation we change the observed system. It is because of the difference in the two strata of matter. Taketani explained:
For a closed system, the motion of a state obeys the causality in the strict sense. But in an observation, it behaves unpredictably on account of uncontrollable interactions, so that the results of the observation can be predicted only statistically in the sense of probability. This allows the cry that “The causality is denied. (Mituo Taketani, ‘Dialectics of Nature: On Quantum Mechanics’, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, Volume 50, May 1971, p. 27–36, https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.50.27)
The probability in measurement of quantum particles does not mean causality is denied. Contingent result is expression of the necessity, or, it is subject to definite laws. To simplify we can take example of rolling a dice. On rolling a dice for thousand times there is around seventeen percent probability that result will show the face with digit one. This contingency is expression of the necessity that there are six faces of dice and each one is equally probable in the result of rolling. In case of quantum mechanics it is like rolling a dice made of clay which can have a new face created in the process of rolling. It has got nothing to do with denial of causality or observer creating the reality.
The uncertainty in observation is not something which points to absolute indeterminism or Kantian unknowability. Rather, it points towards the relative character of knowledge which Lenin has already pointed towards. Lenin explained:
Dialectics—as Hegel in his time explained—contains the element of relativism, of negation, of scepticism, but is not reducible to relativism. The materialist dialectics of Marx and Engels certainly does contain relativism, but is not reducible to relativism, that is, it recognizes the relativity of all our knowledge, not in the sense of denying objective truth, but in the sense that the limits of approximation of our knowledge to this truth are historically conditional. (Lenin, 1977. Empirio Criticism and Materialism, Moscow: Progress Publishers, p. 121)
Quantum mechanics as a theory of matter of quantum stratum is complete but in practice we have observed phenomenon which points to properties of subquantum stratum and in this sense it is incomplete. Quantum mechanics can be comprehended dialectically when we know that
in quantum mechanics the dialectics of the unification of antagonism, the essence and phenomenon, the part and whole, as well as the necessity and contingency, are closely interconnected to each other. (Mituo Taketani, ‘Dialectics of Nature: On Quantum Mechanics’, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, Volume 50, May 1971, p. 27–36, https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.50.27)
Einstein was not a consistent dialectical materialist, but still he was a materialist. He was not content with the explanations of Copenhagen School. His commitment to materialism was the reason why, while debating with the Copenhagen School he developed quantum mechanics further. The first round of debate on philosophy of quantum mechanics began with Solvay Conference of 1927 and ended with 1957 Bristol Conference. 1927’s Solvay Conference was claimed as defeat of Einstein’s skepticism of quantum mechanics and Bristol Conference 1957 was claimed as the defeat of Copenhagen School on Observation Problem. Einstein was a determinist but he was also defending natural science materialistically from attacks of idealism and this particular aspect of his thinking has been ignored. Two quotations of Einstein affirm that he was a consistent materialist. According to Einstein:
The belief in an external world independent of the percipient subject is the foundation of all science. But since our sense-perceptions inform us only indirectly of this external world, or Physical Reality, it is only by speculation that it can become comprehensible to us. From this it follows that our conceptions of Physical Reality can never be definitive; we must always be ready to alter them, to alter, that is, the axiomatic basis of physics, in order to take account of the facts of perception with the greatest possible logical completeness. (A. Einstein, ‘Maxwell’s Influence on the Development of the Conception of Physical Reality,’ in J. C. Maxwell: A Commemoration Volume, p. 66-73.)
Further:
Any serious consideration of a physical theory must take into account the distinction between objective reality, which is independent of any theory, and the physical concepts with which the theory operates. These concepts are intended to correspond with objective reality, and by means of these concepts we picture reality to ourselves. (A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’ Phys. Rev. 47, p. 777 – Published on 15 May 1935)
However, materialist Einstein had a tail of determinism attached to him. The debate between Bohr and Einstein was fought on one hand to defend the materialist outlook and also for Einstein’s determinist outlook which made him skeptic of any kind of uncertainty observed in quantum world. The debate saw Einstein coming up with many gedankenexperiments (visualized thought experiment, a German term used by Einstein) but was refuted by Bohr with equally determined answers. Einstein raised a question in 1935 which led to development of quantum mechanics further. Einstein along with Podolsky and Rosen came up with a paradox that if two particles which are entangled are observed in a definite manner, uncertainty in observation can be avoided. This is called EPR paradox and is the basis for the Nobel Prize in physics 2022.
Einstein’s approach to materiality had three aspects: locality, separability and realism. Separability means that the material entities must be like rigid body like balls on a Billiard table. Two material entities, like two billiard balls, occupy separate real space, as two billiards ball do on the billiard table. Localism means that for any information to pass between two objects it should take speed of light to travel. The two aspects of separability and locality are claimed by Einstein to be immutable property of matter. To him, realism means recognition of independent existence of objective reality adhering to the law of causality. This understanding is the essence of EPR paradox and later doubts of Einstein regarding Quantum Mechanics and also the essence of debate around quantum entanglement.
Gedankenexperiment in EPR paradox was later realized in real experiment. What was the experimental setup? As we explained in the beginning of the article that experimental setup tests the phenomenon of entanglement. This means that two quantum particles become entangled and act as a whole not equal to sum of its part. This is a everyday phenomenon which is observed in chemistry where two atoms form a chemical bond to constitute a molecule which is not equivalent to mathematical sum of two elements. This cannot be understood by formal logic. Here, two particles, even when separated by a distance, interact with each other simultaneously. This is contrary to Einstein’s two conceptions of physical theory: separatibility and locality. Einstein had contended that both the particles must have definite trajectories and they cannot interact over distance simultaneously.
Einstein’s understanding of quantum entanglement is similar to an example of classical mechanics where if a rigid body with a certain momentum breaks into two fragments, the momentum of two fragments as a whole will remain conserved. If we know the momentum of one fragment we will know the momentum of other fragment. In this case the moment they break apart the momentum for both of them is definite. In a similar way Einstein demanded that two entangled quantum particles must have definite physical properties. Einstein proposed that the quantum theory must be incomplete and what appears to us as uncertainty is because of incompleteness of the theory. A complete quantum theory should have variables (measurable qualities of a material entity like position) which are not known to us and are called as ‘hidden variables’. A quest for finding these hidden variables has been going on since Einstein’s paper came in 1935.
The hidden variables as predicted were tested by Bell by devising a mathematical expression called Bell inequalitiy which brings out the implication hidden variables would have for a quantum entanglement experiment. This is a simple yet brilliant test devised by Bell which captures mathematically the fact that the observation of quantum particles with local hidden variables will be different than from observation of quantum particles without hidden variables. If in the experiment entanglement is observed, i.e., non-local interaction occurs, it shows that either the phenomenon follows realism or it follows localism. This just proves that the quantum mechanics is non-local. However, does this prove that quantum mechanics denies objective reality? No it doesn’t. The entanglement can be explained by dialectical logic of part and whole only. Taketani explains:
In quantum mechanics, when one system is composed out of two systems, there appears in the whole what is more than the mere sum of respective components. This is the relation between the part and whole, which cannot be understood with the formal logic. In the whole thus composed, each component is completely different from what it is when put independently. This does not consist in a mere mechanical interaction, but does in the interpenetration of the space itself. It is a close dialectical connection in the composition of the whole out of its parts. (Mituo Taketani, ‘Dialectics of Nature: On Quantum Mechanics’, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, Volume 50, May 1971, p. 27–36, https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.50.27)
Laws of causality are still upheld by quantum stratum as explained by Taketani above.
Secondly, it does not mean that quantum mechanics exhausts the natural sciences. On the other hand the uncertainty and the entanglement show that electrons are not immutable and are not separable from space-time. This was pointed by Sakata when he pointed towards the research of scientists like Bohm who insist that
the space-time itself is composed of the subquantum existence. The elementary particles which we observe are considered as a small part of the iceberg appearing above the surface of the sea. The current quantum theory is, on the contrary, separating matter and space-time as independent existences. But, if the above viewpoint of Bohm has some truth, then problems of elementary particles should have a relation to the thought of Einstein’s general relativity. (Shoichi Sakata, ‘On Interpretation of the Quantum Mechanics: What is of Importance is not Interpretation but Revolution’, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, Volume 50, May 1971, Pages 171–184, https://doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.50.171)
Bohm formulated Pilot Wave Theory where a material pilot wave interacts with quantum elementary particles. The pilot wave causes the non-local interaction and thus the uncertainty also rises out of this pilot wave. Pilot wave is the material space-time interacting with elementary particles. This theory treats elementary particles as rigid bodies and separable like Einstein but incorporates non-localism. Even this does not do away with the separability and localism as assumed by Einstein but it just pushes it under the concept of “pilot wave”. Whether this theory holds water is still an open question as this is still to be proven but it is one of the materialist formulations which incorporate entanglement.
Non-local interaction between quantum particles is a fact. The rigid body picture of elementary particles is not correct or it needs a pilot wave to explain the non-localism and non-separability. Entanglement is negation of the image of universe in which everything is composed of rigid bodies like particles. On the other hand it also does not mean that quantum mechanics is the ultimate theory as claimed by the Copenhagen interpretation. Sakata very rightly pointed out that this claim is just the mirror image of determinist view of physics:
The viewpoint of regarding the quantum mechanics as one of the ultimate theories is intimately related to the physical picture in which the elementary particles are regarded as the ultimate constituents of the matter. This is reviving the mechanistic tendency in the contemporary physics. When we recall the basis of the mechanistic philosophy, you know that it is the picture of nature in the nineteenth century. It was built up by a combination of ideologies of the atomists, who believed that nature is ultimately composed of immortal atoms, and of thought of the mechanics-supremacy, which claimed that the Newton mechanics is the ultimate law governing motion of the whole existence. During the period of development of the quantum mechanics it was inevitable to fight against such fossilized picture of nature, and the early debate on interpretation of the quantum mechanics had clearly a character of this fight. But recently the situation has been becoming inverted and ironical, because the Copenhagen school, who were fighting against the mechanistic tendencies in the early debate, are now turning into prisoners in the hand of the new mechanistic philosophies. The new mechanistic point of view is different from the old one, in the point that it assumes the elementary particles as the ultimate constituents of the matter and regards the quantum mechanics as the ultimate law of physics, but their underlying philosophy is the same. (ibid.)
The essence of quantum entanglement is to comprehend the dialectic of part and whole of entangled particles. Contradiction of part and whole becomes evident in quantum entanglement as non-locality. This is not limited to quantum entanglement. This conflict is manifested when a molecule constituted out of the elements is not similar to constituent elements. Conflict between part and whole manifests itself when the properties of waves of ocean cannot be reduced to summation of droplets of water. Similarly, boiling of water cannot be reduced to simple summation of molecules, society cannot be reduced to summation of individuals. The insistence of Einstein of separability and locality as necessary category of objective reality are not correct. This is also a reason that violation of these two characteristics by quantum mechanics was claimed by many as end of objective reality.
3. Conclusion
The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the quantum entanglement reveals a new property of matter at the subquantum level. It does not deny the law of causality. Does it deny materialism? No, it doesn’t. On the contrary it proves it and deepens its understanding. It just proves the dialectical materialist world view that there cannot be fundamental or immutable elements. There is no immutable structure or immutable property to which matter must adhere. To claim this is metaphysical materialism and not dialectical materialism. In the beginning of the twentieth century when radioactivity and inner structure of atom was explored the claims of end of materialism were made. To these claims Lenin replied:
The recognition of immutable elements, “of the immutable substance of things,” and so forth, is not materialism, but metaphysical, i.e., anti-dialectical, materialism.” (Lenin, Empirio Criticism and Materialism, 1977, Moscow: Progress Publishers, page 241) He further explained: “dialectical materialism insists on the approximate, relative character of every scientific theory of the structure of matter and its properties; it insists on the absence of absolute boundaries in nature, on the transformation of moving matter from one state into another, which is to us apparently irreconcilable with it, and so forth. However bizarre from the standpoint of “common sense” the transformation of imponderable ether into ponderable matter and vice versa may appear, however “strange” may seem the absence of any other kind of mass in the electron save electromagnetic mass, however extraordinary may be the fact that the mechanical laws of motion are confined only to a single sphere of natural phenomena and are subordinated to the more profound laws of electromagnetic phenomena, and so forth—all this is but another corroboration of dialectical materialism. It is mainly because the physicists did not know dialectics that the new physics strayed into idealism. They combated metaphysical (in Engels’, and not the positivist,i.e., Humean, sense of the word) materialism and its one-sided “mechanism,” and in so doing threw the baby out with the bath-water. Denying the immutability of the elements and the properties of matter known hitherto, they ended in denying matter, i.e., the objective reality of the physical world. (Lenin, op.cit., p. 242)
Thus, even in case of quantum entanglement those who claim that locality and separability are the immutable properties of matter are wrongly footed. Electron is not immutable and has a definite structure which in itself is as inexhaustible as atom. As Lenin said:
The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite, but it infinitely exists. And it is this sole categorical, this sole unconditional recognition of nature’s existence outside the mind and perception of man that distinguishes dialectical materialism from relativist agnosticism and idealism. (ibid., p. 243)
Finally, we must understand that matter is a philosophical category and we must understand it as such. To explore laws and principles of a certain stratum of matter is task of science and dialectical materialism guides it by giving it a correct approach and method and is also enriched by it. This is what makes dialectical materialism a scientific philosophy. Scientists must understand that matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality existing outside of consciousness. It was never the task of materialism to ascribe separability or locality or immutability or any particular trait or property to matter. To probe these particularities is the task of natural science and not philosophy, even though with every new discovery the latter too is enriched and developed further. Engels sums it up:
Matter as such is a pure creation of thought and an abstraction. We leave out of account the qualitative differences of things in lumping them together as corporeally existing things under the concept matter. Hence matter as such, as distinct from definite existing pieces of matter, is not anything sensuously existing. When natural science directs its efforts to seeking out uniform matter as such, to reducing qualitative differences to merely quantitative differences in combining identical smallest particles, it is doing the same thing as demanding to see fruit as such instead of cherries, pears, apples, or the mammal as such instead of cats, dogs, sheep, etc., gas as such, metal, stone, chemical compound as such, motion as such. The Darwinian theory demands such a primordial mammal, Haeckel’s pro-mammal, but, at the same time, it has to admit that if this pro-mammal contained within itself in germ all future and existing mammals, it was in reality lower in rank than all existing mammals and primitively crude, hence more transitory than any of them. As Hegel has already shown (Enzyklopädie, I, S. 199), this view, this “one-sided mathematical view,” according to which matter must be looked upon as having only quantitative determination, but, qualitatively, as identical originally, is “no other standpoint than that” of the French materialism of the eighteenth century. It is even a retreat to Pythagoras, who regarded number, quantitative determination as the essence of things. (Engels, 1976. Dialectics of Nature, Moscow: Progress Publishers, p. 255)
Natural scientists without a sound philosophical understanding of dialectical materialism will astray in the abyss of “crisis of materialism” with the progress in science. And this was very clearly stated by Lenin:
No natural science can hold its own in the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook unless it stands on solid philosophical ground. In order to hold his own in this struggle and carry it to a victorious finish, the natural scientist must be a modern materialist, a conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx, i.e., he must be a dialectical materialist. (Lenin, 1972. Collected Works, Volume 33, Moscow: Progress Publishers, p. 233)
