But the view Heisenberg held of the nature of atoms and other particles required him to take a very special interpretation of the uncertainty between the momentum and location of particles-one that has come to be known as the "Copenhagen interpretation." Since he was committed to the view that reality is mathematically calculable "in every detail," and since we cannot calculate both the position and momentum of a particle, Heisenberg said that particles must not have both speed and location. This means that any particle for which we choose to measure either momentum or location only ever had whichever one of those properties we chose to measure! That is, if we find a particle's velocity, then it never had location; while if we find its location, then it never had velocity.(Clouser 155)From The Myth of Religious Neutrality - Revised edition.
Clouser is clearly stating that we cannot know the velocity and position of subatomic particles simply because we cannot measure it. Is this the reason for all the headaches? It seems too simple to me, and if Clouser is wrong-if there isn't some further evidence for particles having neither velocity nor position, he is greatly sacrificing his credibility. I think so enough to think that he wouldn't say what he said unless he had done his homework.
2 comments:
Actually, you leave out the next statement which concludes the paragraph - 'Heisenberg admits this is a bizarre thing to say'- and then quotes him "this is very strange result since it seems to indicate that [our] observation plays a decisive role in the event and that the reality varies, depending on whether we observe it or not." Clouser continues, 'He goes on to comment, however, that we should be prepared to give up our ordinary "classical" concepts when we deal with the world of subatomic particles.'
The next paragraph begins: 'Einstein rejected this view ...'
This discussion is part of Clouser's casebook to show that theories don't exist without divinity beliefs i.e. beliefs about the non-dependent upon which everything else depends.
Cordially yours,
Bruce Wearne
Point Lonsdale
AUSTRALIA
Bruce,
I am honored you would interact with me on this and possibly correct a misunderstanding I may have.
To be clear, Clouser's is demonstrating that Heisenberg held mathematics as divine per se.
I am saying Clouser disagrees with the Copenhagen interpretation and that most scientists I have read agree with it or at least uncritcally reassert it.
Zeroing in on one phrase, "since we cannot calculate both the position and momentum of a particle, Heisenberg said that particles must not have both speed and location." By inference, Clouser would only grant this given mathematics are divine per se, but he most clearly rejects this position, giving the counterexample of a thermometer changing the temperature of the fluid it seeks to measure.
Am I understanding Clouser correctly?
Post a Comment