God does not Play Dice

“I am convinced God does not play dice with the universe.” – Albert Einstein

Quantum Mechanics, despite how fancy and scifi-esque it sounds, is not a new concept. The “revolution” began in the beginning of the 1900s with Maxwell Planck’s theory that energy is quantized into “packets” called quanta, and has remained at the forefront of scientific discovery to the present day. The majority of the scientific community generally believes that Quantum Mechanics accurately describes the universe, but not everyone. In fact, Albert Einstein, himself, was not convinced of the completeness and accuracy of Quantum Theory. In fact, one of Einstein’s most famous quotations: “I am convinced God does not play dice with the universe.” was him expressing wariness of Quantum Theory, despite his work creating it. He was a champion of an idea that has become known as “Hidden Variable Theory”, an idea that persists to this day. But in order to learn what Hidden variable Theory actually is, we have to better understand what quantum mechanics is, and its difference from classical mechanics.

You, as a person, have lots of experience dealing with Classical mechanics. Classical mechanics are the “laws of physics” that govern the world you are familiar with. Momentum, acceleration, orbits, forces, without meaning to, we come into contact with classical mechanics every day. Everything from the moon in the sky to the friction stopping your car from rear-ending the car in front of you, to a cornerback making the game-saving tackle at the end of the football game are governed by the laws of classical mechanics. And one important quality of classical mechanics is that it is deterministic. This means that that given all the information about a situation, you can predict what is going to happen. For example, we know, at any given moment, where the moon is in the sky. We know where the moon will be in the sky in 100 year from now because we understand the gravitational interaction between the earth and the moon, and based on the mass of both of the bodies, and their distance from each other, and the orbital speed, we know the path the moon will take for centuries to come. And it is incredible accurate too. At midnight (eastern standard time) on April 2, 3019 the moon will be 19.49% full.

Quantum Mechanics, however, is not deterministic. Using quantum mechanics, we cannot predict the outcome of the situation with 100% accuracy. Instead, Quantum Mechanics is probabilistic. This means that we can determine the outcome that is most likely to occur, but we still do not know exactly what will happen. We just know the odds. (don’t tell Han). Quantum Mechanics govern the world of incredible small things. In systems nearly atomic in size, the laws of classical mechanics begin to break down, and a new, strange, law rules. And this law is very counter-intuitive, and because of this has faced a lot of backlash. Quantum Mechanics being probabilistic is the chief reason Einstein and other physicists have a problem with quantum mechanics, and is the motivation behind the Hidden Variable Theory.

Imagine you are at a baseball game. Surrounded by fans and the smell of popcorn, you intently watch the pitcher throw pitch after pitch. Now imagine you had no idea what air was. The air is still there, of course, but in your mind, the pitcher’s hand is the only thing that affects the ball. The pitcher will pitch each ball exactly the same, but the ball will not always end up at the same place. Of course, most of the pitches would end up in the strike zone, but some won’t be. Some balls will curve, while others fly straight, some will be faster, slower, some will fly right down the middle and others will fly wayward. We cannot determine exactly where each pitch will end up, but we can say where it will most likely end up. This is probabilistic.

Now imagine the same situation, but you are now aware of air. You understand how the spin of the ball interacts with the air to curve the ball, and aware how air currents and wind changes the path of the ball. With this new information, this new variable in the equation, we can now determine exactly where each pitch will end up. The discovery of this new variable turns the probabilistic system into a deterministic one. This is the main idea of Hidden Variable Theory, that Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, and some hidden variable, will make the it deterministic.

Probabilistic systems are so foreign to us. The laws of physics we learned in high school and we have come in contact with are all deterministic, so it is only natural to think that if Quantum Mechanics is not deterministic, then it is only because we do not fully understand it. The search for this hidden variable persists to this day, albeit without success. Quantum Mechanics has proved to be very accurate when applied to a wide array of systems. The allure of this idea in understandable, after all, it makes sense, deterministic systems are familiar to us, and some of the brightest minds in history have dedicated years to finding this hidden variable. We do not know if God truly does play dice with the universe, but maybe the dice in its own way brings an elegance and beauty to the cosmos that would otherwise be so predictable.

Genovese, M. (2007, January 12). Research on Hidden Variable Theories: A review of recent progresses. Retrieved March, 2019, from https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701071

Look Up the Moon Phase for Any Date. (n.d.). Retrieved March, 2019, from https://www.moonpage.com/index.html?go=T&auto_dst=T&tzone=et&m=4&d=2&y=3019&hour=0&min=0&sec=0Maguire, S. (2012, November 12).

It’s been a tough week for hidden variable theories. Retrieved March, 2019, from https://quantumfrontiers.com/2012/11/08/its-been-a-tough-week-for-hidden-variable-theories/

Townsend, J. S. (2012). A modern approach to quantum mechanics. Sausalito, CA: University Science Books.

Uzer, A. T. (2018). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Lecture presented in Georgia Institute of Technology.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.