Category Archives: Hmmm

James Breckenridge and The Missing Checkered Sock

from Something Cool News

Like most people with a functioning brain, I too have wondered about the mystery of the disappearing sock. You know, the one you put in the dryer with a bunch of other socks and yet, without exception or explanation, it always goes missing. No matter where you look or what you do, the sock goes missing. Every time. Some of the greatest minds of our generation have been unable to explain the enigma of the disappearing sock.

Except, it would seem, for one James Breckenridge. Breckenridge, the subject of this week’s mini-documentary Changing Lanes, had the opportunity to espouse his wisdom to me at a Starbuck’s in Abbotsford where he had been invited to partake in a coffee with his good friend Vince Dimanno. It was within the confines of this little establishment that he explained his theory to me, also an invited guest.

“In order to understand where these socks go,” he said, “we need to conduct a study, raise some funds so we can get a bunch of dryers which we can then experiment with. Once that process is complete, we need another set of dryers to try and replicate our results. After that, we need to invest in acquiring some experts to analyze those results. And then…”

It went on like this for a little while until the search for the missing sock was costing something like three billion dollars. It was a parable of course, a metaphor for the way government works. Rather than simply solve a problem, the wisdom of our modern day politicians seems to be to first study the problem, hold a never-ending series of conferences, write a number of reports and assessments and then start all over again, costing the taxpayers innumerate sums of money yet getting no closer to an actual solution to whatever the original problem was.

Now, two things struck me as I listened to James speak on this weighty subject. Firstly, how right he was. And secondly, how he was even able to tell this story given his current situation. For those not in the know, James is homeless and has been living in his car for the past few weeks. He was laughing and making wisecracks as he spoke, and I recall wondering how a man reduced to sleeping in the front seat of his car could find anything funny. Yet there he sat, chuckling at his own joke.

See, if I were James Breckenridge I’d be a very angry, angry man. This is a guy who has championed the homeless and worked tirelessly for them during his time at the Salvation Army Shelter where he works. And when not working, he has written extensively on his blog and to local newspapers, doing everything he can to raise awareness on the issue. Even now, homeless and alone, he is working on a way to get to Kamloops to attend a housing conference there or some such thing. He’s going to class to learn how to better help other people even as he himself needs help. Who is this guy?

And what result has James garnered for all this virtuous work? A giant goosegg, that’s what. He wrote a letter to local newspapers – a letter that was actually published – but not one of his friends/acquaintances stepped forward to offer him a place to live. These are the same people James tries to help when he can and defends when someone speaks ill of them. Even though some of them have a couch or a spare room they could lend, they remain silent and allow James to sleep in his 1987 Plymouth Duster.

The media hasn’t been any more accommodating. How do they repay him for all his insightful writing that he does for free? They also ignore his plight. The newspapers know he is homeless and living in his car – they published the letter that he wrote telling them so. Did they dispatch a single reporter to cover this development? Did they try and raise awareness about what he was going through? No – instead they remained silent, leaving it to SomethingCool News to tell the story.

Which, of course, we were more than happy to do. The point of it all is that we really shouldn’t have to, just as James really shouldn’t have to call a Rest Area along the freeway home. In a community that bills itself as caring and “Christian”, this kind of thing really should not be allowed.

It’s a point James understands well. “You know that thing that really pisses me off?” James said to me, taking a sip of his coveted coffee. “If I went into a local church, raised my hands and said, ‘Hallelujah, Praise the Lord!’, all of sudden everyone would come forward to help me. But because I don’t do that, I end up sleeping in my car. How’s that for a caring community?”

It reminds me something I read recently – a story in the newspaper about a church that was luring kids into church by allowing them to play the ultra-violent video game Halo 3. In justifying this, one of the pastors said, “We want to make it hard for teenagers to go to hell. If you want to connect with young teenage boys and drag them into church, free alcohol and pornographic movies would do it. My own take is that we can do much better than that.”

So….lure the kids into the church, let them play a violent video game and then tell them that doing so is wrong? It’s the kind of blatant hypocrisy James knows well. Once the “sin” of being homelessness is forgiven, then all is good. Then people can help. But until the homeless beg for forgiveness, they’re ears, eyes and mouth are closed.

The pastor at the Halo Church said that God wants ministers to be “fishers of men.” Elaborating further (and using a more disturbing tone), he said, “Teens are our fish. So we’ve become creative in baiting our hooks.”

Evidently, it’s not just the teens that are the fish, but the homeless as well. And until they start tugging on the bait, well, they’re just going to have to get used to sleeping outside, or as it is in James’ case, in their cars.

But James isn’t angry about that and instead makes a joke about it. I don’t understand how this man is able to turn so many negatives into such positives, but he does. For him, being a fish is an alright life, not one that he necessarily wanted or chose, but then why be depressed about it? Whether he’s angry or sad, he’s still going to be homeless, so I guess in his mind, he’s better off thinking about disappearing socks. I mean, if no one else seems to have any emotion on the subject, why should he?

Fred Johns

Immutable Laws of Weirdness?

I found myself pondering the possible existence of a universal law of Weirdness or The Weird, along the lines of the law of gravity. If in the same way that a planet has mass and attracts passing asteroids to itself, does Weirdness have a pseudo-mass such that at a certain level of Weirdness it begins to attract any nearby Weirdness, thereby increasing the Weirdness in a given area or in a person’s life?

These days I will admit that my headspace has always contained a certain amount of Wyrd, that my world view could/can be considered from slightly to a great deal skewed.

For many years my mental illness together with the effect of being an adult child of alcoholism caused me to hide and suppress my idiosyncratic thought processes and off-beat way of seeing or thinking about the universe around me. With all the negative connotations, the stigma, associated with the words mental illness I certainly did not want mental illness linked in any manner to me. Growing up with an alcoholic parent is all about keeping secrets and you are as sick as your secrets.

You become fixated on appearing, being normal. You stuff any problems or issues until their mass reaches the point that it collapses in on itself becoming a black hole that devours your life. Perchance black hole, while colourful, is not quite accurate in that there is no escape from a black hole, while there is escape into recovery from mental illness and the ‘isms of being an adult child of alcoholism.

Escape is not easy requiring years of effort and a willingness to face your true self, to do the work needed to change the way you think about yourself and the universe around you.

As part of the recovery process I became comfortable in my own skin and instead of denying the writer, the words inside of me, my Chi, I set them free. In setting them free I set free a part of me I had locked up, setting ME free. With that freedom came not only acceptance of the fact my head can be a Weird place to dwell, but I came to treasure that Weirdness and the little spark of madness that is an essential part of ME.

This train of thought arose as I found myself holding a digital video camera, zoomed in on a piece of paper hand towel that was full of crap, zooming out and panning over to the SCN correspondent so he could comment on the philosophical, ethical and societal implications inherent in the existence of this crappy piece of paper towel.

No, no metaphor; I mean full of crap literally – as in someone had used it as toilet paper.

You are correct this scenario was just a little Weird. Hence my contemplating whether Weirdness has some bizarre sort of pseudo-mass that could attract more Weirdness into my vicinity and life. I began to wonder if in accepting, even treasuring, the Weird in my head and sharing my thoughts through writing had resulted in a pseudo-mass of sufficient magnitude that it had begun to pull this kind of Weirdness into my life.

The whole chain of fate(?) began innocently enough over a cup of coffee at a coffee house. Hmmmm, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that this chain of events began as a result of events I had observed and that had set my mind to wondering and my fingers to typing about the conduct of the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) in terms of Orwellian Big Brother-ism and a police state. I emailed this article off to Something Cool News, leading to an exchange of email that led to a phone conversation that resulted in the conversation over coffee.

The conversation began about some of the unacceptable behaviours the APD has been increasingly engaging in with respect to the homeless and this behaviour’s expansion even into negative treatment of youth members of a local church for daring to “encourage” the homeless by giving out sandwiches. As interesting conversations tend to do this conversation ranged outwards into broader discussion of homelessness and the uncaring treatment of the homeless and others in need in Abbotsford.

At some point in this wide-ranging discussion the correspondent spoke of his chance observation earlier in the day in Abbotsford of paper towelling that had been used as toilet paper by someone forced to use the great outdoors as a washroom. We passed on by this conversation point to talk of other improper APD behaviours and City Hall’s love of paying lip service to the epidemic of homelessness and poverty on the streets of Abbotsford while actually doing nothing to address these grave social problems.

We left the coffee house to shoot the video report on the observations of APD behaviour and the thoughts and concerns that the observed APD behaviour raised in my mind. When we had finished the video report the SCN correspondent returned to his observation of the soiled paper towelling and what it said about Abbotsford. Thus it was I found myself following him to the site of the paper towel sighting to help him make a video record and commentary.

I found myself on video putting context and comment into this pile of crappy paper towelling. Pointing out that in Abbotsford washrooms are for “Customer Use Only”; or that there are “No Public Washrooms” in stores; that the keys to the locked washrooms of gas stations are not handed to the homeless; that while at the Clearbrook Library branch the washrooms are not locked, at the downtown MSA Library branch beside Jubilee Park the washrooms are locked and accessible only with a key.

Thus it is that the homeless are forced to either hold it in indefinitely or urinate and defecate outdoors like animals. Perhaps, even less than animals considering that just the day before I had seen a business truck whose business was cleaning up after people’s dogs.

I touched briefly upon what this says about Abbotsford, particularly in light of the (false) pride so many take in all the churches in Abbotsford and how very “Christian” Abbotsford is. This led to reflecting on the question of just how Christian it is that a community with all the wealth and resources of Abbotsford does not find the homeless situation intolerable and take the necessary steps to end homelessness and address poverty in Abbotsford.

When we had finished taping the commentary on the paper towelling and the treatment of the homeless in Abbotsford, I could not resist taking advantage of having a conversational associate to bounce a somewhat heretical train of thought off of.

It occurred to me that despite their claims to be Christians many, if not most, of those who name themselves as Christians behave in a totally Un-Christian manner. They appear totally willing to sacrifice the homeless and the poor in order that they not be required to put forth effort or even worse – money – in simple Christian charity.

Given that blasphemy is defined as: profane or contemptuous speech, writing or action concerning God. Are not all those who label themselves Christian but behave in the most Un-Christian of ways, committing contemptuous actions concerning God? Are not their actions in showing disrespect and contempt for the golden rule, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the admonition to love your fellow man and so forth, profane?

Do they not then Blaspheme?

Does it not follow that rather than being the most Christian of communities, that through their actions these self-labelled “Christians” in fact cause Abbotsford to be the most Blasphemous of Communities?

So there we were in between the two parts of the video commentary on the implications contained within these soiled paper towels, debating whether, in their inactions and uncaring indifference to the homeless the smugly superior Christian community does blaspheme? After a moment for both of us to reflect on that question we concluded: How could it not be blasphemy?

I then found myself holding a digital video camera, zoomed in on a piece of paper hand towel that was full of crap, zooming out and panning over to the SCN correspondent so he could make a comment on the philosophical, ethical and societal implications inherent in the existence of this crappy piece of paper towel.

As we shook hands and parted company I found myself reflecting on just how much and often the Weird enters into my life. This is only to be expected if there is a universal law of Weirdness along the lines of the law of gravity. The Implication being that I can expect increasing amounts of the Weird in my life as the increasing pseudo-mass of the Weird around me attracts more and more Weirdness.

There is no point in worrying about an immutable law of the universe regarding which I can do nothing. Besides it should fill my life with creativity, interesting challenges, and passion and prove to be downright fun.

Is a simple coffee simply coffee?

A short time ago a forwarded email came to me asking if I knew anyone in need of help. There was a church group who wanted to help some of their fellow Abbotsfordians in getting on their feet and moving forward with their lives. Toward that end they had requested suggestions for people they could help. The person they made the request of forwarded it on, it was forwarded on and so on until it landed in my email box.

It was heartening to hear of people interested in making a difference, who had gotten together to take positive action on their own initiative without waiting around for instructions. What I particularly liked about their approach is they wanted it to be hands on, not looking strictly to give money or some other material object, although such actions were a possibility. They were looking to be involved with the people they would be helping on a continuing basis over the year.

One of the realities I have observed is that continuing support is needed to help achieve a successful outcome in changing lives. Your time, concern and a willingness to listen and just talk are in many ways far more important a contribution than merely material items be they money, furniture, food etc.

We often forget that Man is a social animal. For years due to mental illness and other issues I was a loner, able to go for days (weeks or months at my lowest point) without seeing or interacting with people. One of my concerns as my recovery progressed was slipping back into that isolation. It turned out one of my counsellors was correct; I had reached a point in my recovery where I could not comfortably go back to being a loner.

I am still sometimes surprised by my need these days for social interaction, make that healthy social interaction. What with car troubles and other looming changes life has been a little stressful lately. A good friend called and we did coffee, finishing just minutes ago.

Some of the conversation was about the car and forthcoming changes, but most was about other interesting things going on in Abbotsford and our lives. Being able to sit down and write this comment on the “help needed” email and the thoughts it raised in my mind, is a reflection of what a calming, centering effect a simple coffee and conversation can have.

I also really liked the education possibilities. The church group would get the opportunity to know the people involved and see past the stereotypes; get to observe the many barriers that have come to exist in our society and its structure for those trying to get on with their lives after some problem or trauma had knocked them down; they would also see what difference even simple actions like sharing a coffee can have.

For those who would be on the receiving end of the help there would be the opportunity to change mental thought patterns. It is amazing just how negative an effect on your thought processes, patterns and outlook the beating your mind, your Self, takes in being homeless, addicted, poor or just on a unlucky streak has. An important aspect of your recovery turns out to be to change your way of thinking, of perceiving.

It is an idea with plenty of potential on both sides of the equation, the catch?

Even off the tops of people’s heads and on short notice the list of those in need in our community was overwhelming, far outstripping what this group could do. The request revealed a breadth and depth of need that is daunting and a little frightening.

It is perhaps a little damning that we as a community have failed to see this need and have allowed it to become so deep and wide spread. As a positive balance to this, those forwarding the request are working on finding ways to address the rest of the listed needs.

In that lies what is truly needed for our City, Canadian society, to begin to successfully address the social ills and problems we face: the involvement of the people of the community in helping other members of the community. Sitting around, waiting for someone to tell you what to do, fancy planning or plans will not do it.

The beginning of the end of social ills lies with people simply getting out, getting together and taking actions to address what is needed.

denouement

It was not unexpected for me in the course of this week to today, Friday August 10, 2007, be given a letter from the Salvation Army serving notice to move from residence at the Salvation Army.

My biggest worry about moving on is that at my car is not running well. So if you know someone would could donate their time to get my VW running at least semi-well and passing Air Care or has a station wagon or van (I am not a small person) for sale cheap …. send me an email at homelessinabbotsford@hotmail.com.

Better yet if you know someone who has a place to rent out at a low rental price OR someone who has an employment need for a literate, computer friendly ex-accountant with a passion for bringing about social change. Send them my way or my email address.

Is Reality a misunderstanding?

April 29, 2007Special to World Science

Sev­er­al phys­i­cists say they’ve con­firmed strange pre­dic­tions of mod­ern phys­ics that clash with our most bas­ic no­tions of real­i­ty and even sug­gest—some sci­en­tists and phi­loso­phers say—that real­i­ty is­n’t there when we’re not look­ing.
The pre­dic­tions have lurked with­in quan­tum me­chan­ics, the sci­ence of the small­est things, since the field emerged in the 1920s; but not all phys­i­cists ac­cept­ed them. They were un­dis­put­edly con­sist­ent with ex­pe­ri­ments, but ex­pe­ri­ments might not re­veal eve­ry­thing.
New tests—de­signed more specif­i­cally than be­fore to probe the real­i­ty ques­tion—have yielded un­set­tling re­sults, say re­search­ers who pub­lished the find­ings in the April 19 is­sue of the re­search jour­nal Na­ture. One of their col­leagues called the find­ings in­tri­guing but in­con­clu­sive.

The background

Quan­tum phys­i­cists have long not­ed that sub­a­tom­ic par­t­i­cles seem to move ran­dom­ly. For in­stance, one can meas­ure a par­t­i­cle’s lo­ca­tion at a giv­en mo­ment, but can’t know ex­act­ly where it would be just be­fore or af­ter.
Phys­i­cists de­ter­mined that the ran­dom­ness was­n’t just an ap­pear­ance due to our ig­no­rance of the de­tails of the mo­tion, but an in­es­cap­a­ble prop­er­ty of the par­t­i­cles them­selves.
Rath­er per­sua­sive ev­i­dence for this lay in math. Par­t­i­cles, for rea­sons no one quite knows, some­times act like waves. When they come to­geth­er, they cre­ate the same types of com­plex pat­terns that ap­pear when wa­ter rip­ples from dif­fer­ent di­rec­tions over­lap.
But a par­t­i­cle, be­ing at least some­what con­fined in space, nor­mal­ly acts on­ly as a small “wave pack­et”—a clus­ter of a few rip­ples in suc­ces­sion—un­like fa­mil­iar waves, in which doz­ens or thou­sands pa­rade along.
It turns out there is a math­e­mat­i­cal way to rep­re­sent a wave pack­et; but you must start by rep­re­senting an in­fi­nite­ly re­peat­ing wave, which is a sim­pler for­mu­la. Adding up many such de­pic­tions, if you choose them prop­er­ly, gives the packet.
Yet there’s a catch: each of these com­po­nents must have a slight­ly dif­fer­ent wave speed. Thus, the com­plete pack­et has no clear-cut speed. Nor, con­se­quent­ly, does the par­t­i­cle.
The previous experiments
Pre­cise­ly in line with such math, ex­pe­ri­ments find that par­t­i­cle speed is some­what ran­dom, though the ran­dom­ness fol­lows rules that again mir­ror the equa­tions. When you meas­ure speed, you do get a num­ber, but that won’t tell you the speed a mo­ment be­fore or af­ter. In es­sence, phys­i­cists con­clud­ed, the par­t­i­cle has no de­fined ve­loc­i­ty un­til you meas­ure it. Si­m­i­lar con­sid­er­a­tions turned out to hold for its lo­ca­tion, spin and oth­er prop­er­ties.
The im­pli­ca­tions were huge: the ran­dom­ness im­plied that key prop­er­ties of these ob­jects, per­haps the ob­jects them­selves, might not ex­ist un­less we are watch­ing. “No el­e­men­ta­ry phe­nom­e­non is a phe­nom­e­non un­til it is an ob­served phe­nom­e­non,” the cel­e­brat­ed Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty phys­i­cist John Wheel­er put it.
Still, human-made math­e­mat­i­cal mod­els don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly re­flect ul­ti­mate truth, even if they do match ex­pe­ri­men­tal re­sults bril­liant­ly. And those tests them­selves might miss some­thing. Sci­en­tists in­clud­ing Ein­stein balked at the ran­dom­ness idea—“God does not play dice,” he fa­mous­ly fumed—and the con­se­quent col­lapse of cher­ished as­sump­tions. The great phys­i­cist joined oth­ers in pro­pos­ing that there ex­ist some yet-unknown fac­tors, or “hid­den vari­ables,” that in­flu­ence par­t­i­cle prop­er­ties, mak­ing these look ran­dom with­out tru­ly be­ing so.
Phys­i­cists in due course de­signed ex­pe­ri­ments to test for hid­den vari­ables. In 1964 John Bell de­vised such a test. He ex­ploited a cu­ri­ous phe­nom­e­non called “en­tan­gle­ment,” in which know­ing some­thing about one par­t­i­cle some­times tells you a cor­re­spond­ing prop­er­ty of anoth­er, no mat­ter the dis­tance be­tween them.
An ex­am­ple oc­curs when cer­tain par­t­i­cles de­cay, or break up, in­to two pho­tons—par­t­i­cles of light. These fly off in op­po­site di­rec­tions and have the same po­lar­i­za­tion, or amount by which the wave is tilted in space. De­tec­tors called po­lar­iz­ers can meas­ure this at­trib­ute. Po­lar­iz­ers are like ti­ny fences with slits. If the slits are tilted the same way as the wave, it goes through; if op­po­sitely, it does­n’t; if some­where in be­tween, it may or may not pass.
If you meas­ure the two op­po­sitely-flying pho­tons with po­lar­iz­ers tilted the same way, you get the same re­sult for both. But if one of the po­lar­iz­ers is tilted a bit, you will get oc­ca­sion­al dis­a­gree­ments be­tween the re­sults.
What if you al­so tilt the sec­ond po­lar­izer by the same amount, but the op­po­site way? You might get twice as many dis­a­gree­ments, Bell rea­soned. But you might al­so get less than that, be­cause some po­ten­tial dis­agree­ments could can­cel each oth­er out. For ex­am­ple: two pho­tons might be blocked where­as orig­i­nal­ly they both would have pas­sed, so two de­vi­a­tions from the orig­i­nal re­sult lead to an agree­ment.
All this fol­lows from log­ic. It al­so de­pends on cer­tain rea­son­a­ble as­sump­tions, in­clud­ing that the par­t­i­cles have a real po­lar­i­za­tion wheth­er it’s meas­ured or not.
But Bell, in an ar­gu­ment known as Bell’s The­o­rem, showed that quan­tum me­chan­ics pre­dicts anoth­er out­come, im­ply­ing this “real­i­ty” as­sump­tion might be wrong. Quan­tum me­chan­ics claims that the num­ber of dis­a­gree­ments be­tween the re­sults when both po­lar­iz­ers are op­po­sitely tilt­ed—com­pared to one be­ing tilt­ed—can be more than twice as many. And ex­pe­ri­ments have borne this out.
The rea­sons why have to do with yet anoth­er odd pre­dic­tion of quan­tum me­chan­ics. Once you de­tect the pho­ton as ei­ther hav­ing crossed the po­lar­izer or not, then it’s ei­ther po­lar­ized ex­act­ly in the di­rec­tion of the in­stru­ment, or the op­po­site way, re­spec­tive­ly. It can’t be po­lar­ized at any oth­er an­gle. And its “twin” must be iden­ti­cal­ly po­lar­ized. All this puts ad­di­tion­al con­s­t­raints on the sys­tem such that the num­ber of dis­a­gree­ments can rise com­pared to the “log­ical” re­sult.
Past ex­pe­ri­ments have con­firmed the seem­ingly non­sen­si­cal out­come. Yet this alone this does­n’t dis­prove the “real­i­ty” hy­poth­e­sis, re­search­ers say. There’s one oth­er pos­si­bil­i­ty, which is that the par­t­i­cles are some­how in­stan­ta­ne­ously com­mu­ni­cat­ing, like telepaths.
The new experiment
The new ex­pe­ri­ment was de­signed to side­step this loop­hole: it was set up so that even al­low­ing for in­stan­ta­ne­ous com­mu­ni­ca­tion could­n’t ex­plain the “non­sen­si­cal” out­come, at least not eas­i­ly. One would al­so have to drop the no­tion that pho­tons have a def­i­nite po­lar­i­za­tion in­de­pend­ent of any meas­urement.
The work, by Si­mon Groe­blacher and col­leagues at the Aus­tri­an Acad­e­my of Sci­ences’ In­sti­tute for Quan­tum Op­tics and Quan­tum In­for­ma­tion in Vi­en­na, was based not on Bell’s The­o­rem, but on a re­lat­ed the­o­rem more re­cent­ly de­vel­oped by An­tho­ny Leg­gett at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Il­li­nois at Urbana-Champaign.
Full ex­pe­ri­ments based on Leggett’s con­cept re­quired an­a­lyz­ing pho­ton-waves that are po­lar­ized “el­lip­ti­cally,” which means a wave’s tilt changes con­stant­ly. One can de­tect this by sup­ple­ment­ing the po­lar­izer with a strip of ma­te­ri­al that’s bi­re­frin­gent, mean­ing it bends light dif­fer­ently de­pend­ing on its di­rec­tion.
The re­sults in­deed dis­proved that pho­tons have a def­i­nite, in­de­pend­ently ex­isting po­lar­i­za­tion, Markus As­pelmeyer, a mem­ber of the re­search team, wrote in an e­mail. The find­ings thus spell trou­ble for one “plau­si­ble no­tion of real­ism,” he added, though oth­ers could con­ceiv­a­bly sur­vive.
Not eve­ry­one is con­vinced. “The con­clu­sion one draws is more a ques­tion of taste than log­ic,” wrote Alain As­pect, who con­ducted the first con­clu­sive tests of Bell’s The­o­rem, in a com­men­tary in the same is­sue of the jour­nal. As­pect, of the École Poly­tech­nique in Pa­lai­s­eau, France, ar­gued that the find­ings can still be ex­plained by claim­ing cer­tain forms of in­s­tan­t­a­ne­ous com­mu­ni­ca­tion. But he con­ced­ed that he too is in­clined to re­nounce as­pects of real­ism in­stead. Such ex­pe­ri­ments, and the re­sulting de­bates, “al­low us to look deeper in­to the great mys­ter­ies of quan­tum me­chan­ics,” he added