Schrodinger's Truth

Quantum physics can help us understand modern media/politics.

In 1935, Austrian theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger was frustrated with a common quantum physics theory at the time, the Copenhagen Interpretation. In short, this theory held that a particle of an atom could exist in two different states/positions at the same time until it's observed — at which time it falls into a single state/position. In arguing with Copenhagen Interpretation co-founder Albert Einstein, Schrodinger came up with a thought experiment that explains the absurdity of this view on a larger scale:

Suppose there's a cat in a box with a radioactive element. This radioactive element has a 50-50 chance of decaying in an hour. If it does decay, that will release a poison that will kill the cat. If it doesn't decay, the cat lives. Until you check on the cat, Schrodinger theorized, doesn't that mean the cat is both alive and dead?

Schrodinger meant this as a critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation (and Einstein gave him high praise for it), but it's become something of a touchstone thought experiment for modern quantum physics theories. I won't get into that, but there are applications we can make to other fields.

Take, for instance, President Trump's claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by President Obama. He first made this claim in a series of tweets on March 4. We're now on March 23, and we remain in a Schrodinger's cat state of both truth and lie, a Schrodinger's Truth if you will.

Democrats and the FBI Director and the NSA Director and even the more foreign policy-heavy GOP Senators (McCain and Graham) have called the claims empty or stated that there is no evidence, but none have outright called him a liar. Instead, they continue to "investigate" or find no evidence, but that also leaves the door open that evidence could be found later. They don't slam the door shut on his lie.

On the other hand, the argument isn't settled. Trump and his supporters continue to push the claim. It's because of stories and quotes like this that continue the delay on what is and isn't truth. The lie remains a half-truth for as long as possible. The claim is both true and false at the same time.

In fact, just Wednesday another story came to light that seemed to vindicate Trump: House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) saying that some communications by Trump's transition team may have been picked up by "incidental," "normal," "legal" surveillance. It's a distraction. 1) This isn't wiretapping. 2) If it's all incidental, normal and legal, then what's the problem here? 3) The word "may have" and "possibly" were heavily repeated in Nunes' comments. 4) If it's the transition team, then that's AFTER the election, not before. Nunez didn't give a definitive yes/no. Until you get a yes/no, people may assume both could be true: A Schrodinger's Truth. Quick media note: All three major TV websites had this story on the front within minutes. None of the major newspapers had a mention of it at all several hours later. I thought that was smart of the newspapers.

Media organizations, the NSA and the FBI will say things like "there is no evidence to support," but reporters (distinct from personalities) won't say "Trump is lying/wrong." They're afraid of being proven wrong down the road, which could damage their credibility. By refusing to call a lie a lie, the media has ended up giving it partial legitimacy — it might be true, even if we don't know it yet. It's the difference between saying "We have found no traces of black on this sheet of paper." v. "This is a white sheet of paper."

This is a way in which journalism is being manipulated. It doesn't seem objective to say something is a lie — that appears to be subjective, which puts it in the realm of politics/beliefs/partisanship. But by refusing to put in plain language what they're trying to explain ("No evidence" = not true), the claim continues to be both alive and dead at the same time.

Schrodinger himself was making the argument that the cat can't exist as both dead and alive at the same time. Likewise, an outrageous claim like Trump's wiretapping claim cannot be both true and false. It is either one or it is the other. We're now two weeks into whether Trump lied or not about Obama's wiretapping. He lied. But his lie is still both alive (still being reported on/covered) and dead (not true, per many sources). Journalists should be brave enough to be willing to stick its neck out the slightest bit or it risks being manipulated into irrelevancy.

The Power of Placement

Monday morning was a busy day, as FBI Director James Comey was testifying to the House and the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearing was taking place. I decided to check the placement of the stories each website used at about 11:30 a.m., when much of the main news of the day had already broken. I looked at CNN, Fox News, NBC News, NPR, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

(Writer's note: I cut the in-depth analysis for length, but I can provide examples if needed.)

What did I learn? Probably nothing much. Fox News is slanted toward the GOP/conservatives while demonizing Democrats. I came to realize just how over-the-top/alarmist CNN is in its negative Trump coverage. Your views on that may vary. I found the Washington Post and New York Times' news information helpful and informative, though the NYT loses points for high opinion placements where they don't need to be. NPR seemed more of a 1,000-foot view, while NBC News was probably my overall winner based on placement and coverage choices.

Summary Judgments

This is why we don't burn books, people.  •  •  •  Great story by my old colleague Baxter Holmes for ESPN's TrueHoop about the NBA's addiction to PB&J sandwiches.  •  •  •  I went running yesterday for the first time in 11 days since the 4-miler. I only ran 3 miles and was pretty tired, but I had a great time: 32:00. Even if I ran a 12-minute mile for mile four, that would still mean I'd finish 1:15 ahead of my last 4-miler. I was pretty happy! Also, even though I've eaten terribly these last 10 days or so, I haven't gained any weight, so that was a pleasant surprise.  •  •  •  I've got a couple of Roland stories, because he's been pretty funny lately as we settle back into a routine. 1) I was sitting outside Roland's room this week as he was falling asleep. Just as I think he's falling asleep, he starts grunting and making sounds of movement. "I can't take off my hands!" he keeps saying. I finally go in to check on him, and he's going back and forth, trying to pull his hands off. "You can't take your hands off, buddy," I say. "OK." I lay him back down and he soon goes to sleep. 2) Yesterday morning, we had our morning ritual of fighting Roland to get his clothes on. He hates having to take his pajamas off and put on his clothes. I get his clothes on, but he's screaming and I have to go to work. I ask before I leave if I can get a kiss, and Evie declines, while Roland runs at me screaming. "What's wrong, Roland?" I say, kind of exasperated with the tantrum taking place. "Give kiss!" he yells at me, brow still furrowed and lips still tense. "Oh. Ok." He leaned in and gave me the smallest, stiff-lipped kiss before turning around and continuing to whine. It was the maddest, sweetest thing he's done.  •  •  •  And because I haven't had a good Evie story in a while, last night I had just gotten out of the shower when Alyson brought the kids home. Evie is fussy, so I pick her up (I'm wearing a towel around my waist). I think it is at that moment that she discovered I have chest hair. She started stroking my chest hair and patting it. Unsure of what she thought of it, I put clothes on, including a polo shirt that was unbuttoned at the top. I started to button it, but she told me to stop. She then poked at the chest hair coming out from the opening. "Button that," she said, then turned around and went back to her business.