“…by small and simple things are great things brought to pass;
and small means in many instances doth confound the wise.”
Alma 37:6
Quantum theory attempts to explain the properties of the very small. When we think of quantum theory, we are often drawn to the ideas of quantum physics and quantum mechanics, which are actually different things. Both quantum physics and quantum mechanics are the study of subatomic particles, but quantum mechanics then formulates those observations into mathematical laws1. I began my musings on the quantum world through an interest in the mysteries of quantum physics. From the double slit experiment that shows how light acts as both particles and waves, to the ‘spooky action at a distance’ of entanglement, I am intrigued by the ways in which quantum physics seems to turn Newtonian physics on its head2. Who wouldn’t be excited by the ideas that something can actually be in more than one place at a time, or that there might be a multiverse wherein all possible outcomes are played out? It’s Marvel meets Star Trek in science class.
Unfortunately for me, mathematics just never really clicked. The main thing I remember about my algebra class was the teacher’s saying that “There’s never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.” I guess I spent a lot of time doing things over. My weakness at mathematics precludes me from engaging in the discussions on quantum mechanics. I love learning about the phenomena and noumena of quantum physics, but just don’t have the background to understand the mathematical formulas that describe them. I am left therefore to look at a more general picture of quantum physics presented on YouTube by Matt O’Dowd3 and Arvin Ash4. Authors such as Brian Green5 and Fred Wolf6 have also been influential in my understanding of some of the basic ideas of quantum physics. While not able to follow the equations scribbled across the whiteboards, the concepts that these scholars discuss are captivating.
I began thinking about how some of the concepts of quantum physics resembled studies with which I am much more competent. As a trained historian, I began to apply the ideas of quantum theory to look at historical studies. The first of these appropriations stemmed from the famous double slit experiment mentioned above. While physicists were observing properties of light, could not the historian address questions of chronology. Could the particle traits of light be compared to linear, and ostensibly linear progressive, chronologies that make up the timelines of so many high school textbooks, and could the wave-like properties not be compared to the cyclical ideas of history repeating itself? These different ways of conceptualizing history have often stood in opposition to one another, with most historians fundamentally understanding that history is a combination of both, but not knowing why. The comparison to physical properties possibly provides a useful framework. Furthermore, I postulate that if historical events can be compared to particles in their linear and cyclical properties, other interesting concepts emerge. Rather than looking at an event as a specific point on a timeline, it needs to be approached as the smudge or a representation of a transformation7. When we examine a historical event, aren’t we just taking a series of complex-interacting actors and collapsing their wave function to a single representative point? Jumping down this rabbit hole will doubtfully lead to any new revelations in the world of quantum physics, but it may provide a new framework for people to think about history.
Every discipline, whether it be physics, history, management, or neuroscience seeks to answer questions and secure its relevance. Most of the times, these answers come through theoretical models that explain the world around us, and most of these models seem to do a good job in helping us create perceptions of our world. Unfortunately, the more we seem to learn about these theories, and the more we challenge them, the more deficiencies and exceptions occur. I have already alluded to the seeming incompatibility in physics of quantum field theory and general relativity8. Likewise, history is torn between the empiricism of Ranke and the postmodernism of Foucault. Peter Hoffer utilizes the following quote in his aptly titled book The Historians’ Paradox, “Historical experience is not the deluded and blithely arrogant conviction that we have experienced the past as people in the past experienced it. Rather, it is the experience of a rift, a break, between what we are now and what others were then9.” Leonard Johnson and Alan Frohman discuss the ‘gap’ that exists in management10. As with physics and history, the interaction of the large and small, the general and quantum, the grand narrative versus focused ethnography manifests itself in seemingly incompatible conundrums. Our very anatomy seems to be connected to this complex interchange. Ian McGilchrist’s examination of the ways the hemispheres of the human brain perceive the world and even our own bodies further these ideas of a gap between the specific and wholistic11.
The relationships and interactions between big and small are therefore the subject of my current musings. How do we reconcile the laws of the big and the laws of the small? The answer within physics is described as ‘the theory of everything,’ and I believe that the nomenclature equally applies to other fields. Whether examining the connections between cerebral hemispheres, events in historical narratives, or languishing middle managers, the theories connecting big and small become the theories of everything. Physics, history, management, psychology, and a plethora of other areas can, and have progressed through the dual-track approaches of big and small. Physicists could focus on either general relativity or quantum mechanics and remain somewhat insulated from one another. Historians could focus on national histories, or small groups of marginalized people without direct confrontation, and leadership seminars could teach classes on small group connectivity or corporate structures without much crossover. However, from small things, great things are brought to pass. As we find the theories to bridge quantum and vast we see a glimmer of omniscience and find the higher degree of enlightenment. Thus I muse.