Any theory can be proven wrong. Quantum theory, too, is only a theory and may turn out to be mistaken. Moreover, even today there are scientists who consider it erroneous and are searching for alternatives.
In the world of science, it is common for one theory to fall and for another to rise in its place. However, there is a subtle distinction to be made here. Let me explain by comparing the Newtonian theory with Einstein’s theory of relativity. First, let’s assume that there is a stick that is moving in space. According to Einstein, if we make the stick move extremely fast, it will begin to shrink. According to Newton, regardless of the velocity, the stick will remain as it is. Thus, we have two competing theories.
Some will say that Newton’s theory is completely false and that Einstein’s is correct. Indeed, if we look at the question superficially, this will be a true statement. However, the fact of the matter is that this statement is false.
The precise way to decide between the two theories is to say that Newton’s theory is a boundary case of Einstein’s theory. This means that in most familiar circumstances, sticks cannot move nearly as fast as it takes for us to see them shrink. Therefore, in most cases, Newton’s explanation holds true.
However, Einstein’s perception is generally correct. Not only is it true regarding familiar velocities, but it would also be true if we were to accelerate the speed to such a high velocity that we could actually see the stick shrinking.
If science discovers a new theory that says today’s depiction of reality by quantum mechanics is a boundary case, then everything we have said about quantum theory will remain true. If you state that it is incorrect, then you will have to show that it is totally and essentially false. Such a possibility always exists, theoretically, but quantum mechanics has thus far proven itself as the must successful scientific theory in the history of science, passing more rigorous tests than any other theory to date. Hence, it is highly unlikely that it will be essentially refuted.
***
At its origin, science was based upon a religious worldview, perceiving the world as a living entity where diverse spiritual forces operated, such as ghosts and demons. Later on came modern mechanical science that determined that the previous theory was a complete fallacy, and that the world could best be understood by using the mechanical principles of physics and chemistry.
Mechanical science determined that there were no ghosts or demons that dwelled in, and operated, matter. Instead, it postulated that matter is operated by cause and effect. Chemical reactions do not happen according to the phantoms of alchemy, but according to quantifiable chemical reactions that can be mechanically controlled by mathematics.
This mechanical approach made possible our huge progress in understanding matter and its modus operandi. It also led to numerous technological innovations that have benefited us for many years. As we said earlier, modern medicine is fundamentally established upon this mechanical worldview.
Until the 1930’s, the predominant belief was that biology was different from all other sciences. It was believed that although a living organism was made of chemicals, it was nonetheless operated by a living entity that was not mere matter.
However, the evolution of contemporary biology could take place only after it was decided to discard the idea of the living entity. Professors that insisted on supporting the old concept were discharged from universities. Thus, modern genetic engineering, molecular biology, and pharmacology progressed through the lifeless mechanistic approach of reducing living bio-systems to nothing more than complex machines.
There is a very interesting point concerning the connection between physics and other sciences: All the sciences—chemistry, biology, zoology, anthropology, sociology, and every other science—designed their models according to the mechanistic perception of the crown science—physics. Actually, this process continues today.
In many universities the world over, various sciences have yet to adapt their models to the 19th century models of physics. The problem is that physics has already abandoned these models. Even molecular biology, which studies the most minuscule objects, has yet to turn to the path that the quantum revolution has paved.
About a year ago, I gave a course at the department of biochemistry in the University of Toulouse, France. The head of the department was unaware of the fact that to understand the evolutionary process of protein, one needed to take quantum effects into consideration, and that this is why it cannot be understood in terms of classical mechanics. This is just an example of how even “fundamental” sciences such as biochemistry have not internalized the implications of quantum mechanics.
Even in its home court, in physics, most physicists have not yet grappled with the implications of the discovery that events unfold in the physical universe without being completely determined by prior events in the physical universe. This concept is still shocking to the prevailing scientific perception throughout the world.
We are in the midst of a slowly progressing conceptual revolution. More and more physicists, biophysicists, and biomolecular scientists are beginning to understand the impact of quantum mechanics. However, only a handful has recognized that evolution incorporates quantum effects in the design process of organisms. When these scientists began to face this conceptual revolution, some of them grasped the far-reaching implication—that the mechanistic view was outdated, and that something else had come to replace it.
On a personal note, I’d like to say that even as a young man, I felt that the mysteries of the physical world hid a deeper mystery. Even before I knew what quantum physics was about, I assumed that plunging into its depths would lead me to the spiritual world. In addition, I was always intuitively drawn to Kabbalah. Whenever I came across it in its genuine form, I felt that it manifested an inherent truth.