Niels Bohr and Quantum Reality

[Michael]

A history of quantum weirdness
Manjit Kumar’s new book charts the historic clash between Einstein and Bohr over quantum mechanics, and the science and philosophy that shaped their arguments.

The science of quantum mechanics underpins much of modern physics and its technological applications. It is phenomenally successful as a predictive theory. But as many readers might know, there is another side to the quantum, which we might call ‘quantum weirdness’.
Article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/5853/)

I found this article very interesting - though of course, my knowledge of quantum physics is comparable to Sarah Palin's knowledge of foreign affairs (Canada is next to Greenland and Greenland is 'owned' by Denmark and that's where Niels Bohr comes from, so that's my connection to quantum physics).

Anyway, here's the passage that seemed most interesting...

And the most shocking thing for Albert Einstein and some other physicists was that Bohr believed quantum mechanics demanded the abandonment of the idea of an underlying quantum reality existing independently of the observer.

I was just wondering what our 'objective reality loving' science types here might have to say about this. ;)

[Dominick]

I was just wondering what our 'objective reality loving' science types here might have to say about this. ;)
<sigh> is what they would say.

Vulgarizations of this sort do nothing but obfuscate and de-educate. The mathematics are the science, not the interpretations. People run away with these interpretations completely cutting off their relationship to the actual science. Interpretations don't mean squat. They are completely, entirely, 100% i r r e l e v a n t to science.

It's Bohr's models that agree with experiment and observation, not Einstein's. End of story. Whether people like the metaphyscial consequences thereof or not is, again, i r r e l e v a n t.

Other than that, the subjectivism Bohr introduces is not at all the subjectivism that philosophers argue. It's a totally different thing. The only thing Bohr is saying is that there is a bottom level of observation where it becomes impossible not to influence the observed. Above that level Bohr -and any quantum physicist- would argue the existence of objective reality more vehemently -and better- than I would.

[Michael]

<sigh> is what they would say.

Vulgarizations of this sort do nothing but obfuscate and de-educate. The mathematics are the science, not the interpretations. People run away with these interpretations completely cutting off their relationship to the actual science. Interpretations don't mean squat. They are completely, entirely, 100% i r r e l e v a n t to science.

It's Bohr's models that agree with experiment and observation, not Einstein's. End of story. Whether people like the metaphyscial consequences thereof or not is, again, i r r e l e v a n t.
I strongly disagree with the assertion of irrelevancy. I'd say that science is irrelevant in the face of human will. Human social consequences of any given scientific theory are a hundred times more significant to human life than any given scientific theory.

Other than that, the subjectivism Bohr introduces is not at all the subjectivism that philosophers argue. It's a totally different thing. The only thing Bohr is saying is that there is a bottom level of observation where it becomes impossible not to influence the observed. Above that level Bohr -and any quantum physicist- would argue the existence of objective reality more vehemently -and better- than I would.
Philosophy has always taken the 'extreme case' as the most important one as it shows the general pattern most clearly. It is very unphilosophical to reject the extreme case and default to a common generality.

And while I agree that there is quite a bit of difference in how Bohr is using the term and how the term is commonly construed, I respectfully submit that there is more similarity than difference in the way philosopher's use the term of subject or subjectivity and the way it is used by Bohr here.

Btw, scientists are by definition inclined to agree with the general postulate of the existance of an 'objective reality' since that is what they are trained to seek. Admitting that there is none devalues their social purpose. Philosophers do not have the same 'vested interest' in the topic.

[Dominick]

I strongly disagree with the assertion of irrelevancy. I'd say that science is irrelevant in the face of human will. Human social consequences of any given scientific theory are a hundred times more significant to human life than any given scientific theory.
That's irrelevant too :)
The point is that the interpretations are irrelevant to science. Whether they're nice playthings for philosophers doesn't affect the theories. It's a one-way street: you can get an interpretation from a mathematical model, but as soon as one changes that interpretation without there being an underlying consistent mathematical framework, one's up in the clouds and engaged in something that has no bearing whatsoever on science.
An elementary mistake that's almost universally made even in self-proclaimed popularized 'science' sources such as websites and magazines.


Philosophy has always taken the 'extreme case' as the most important one as it shows the general pattern most clearly. It is very unphilosophical to reject the extreme case and default to a common generality.
Unphilosophical it may be, but it's sound science.


And while I agree that there is quite a bit of difference in how Bohr is using the term and how the term is commonly construed, I respectfully submit that there is more similarity than difference in the way philosopher's use the term of subject or subjectivity and the way it is used by Bohr here.
Bohr isn't speaking here. It's some reviewer about a book by some author. May I suggest to actually read Bohr first hand. Yes, there will be mathematics in it but that's unavoidable as that's the topic at hand.

This discussion is as antiquated as that about evolution vs. creationism. All there is on the one side is some people that are reluctant to accept the nature of the universe because it's not intuitive to some humans. Why the universe should behave in an acceptable way to part of one species on a planet near a mediocre star in a back alley of an ordinary galaxy amongst billions of billions such galaxies is beyond me.

The bottom line here is the over-evaluation of Einstein, especially because of his pop-cult-status. Yes, Einstein stubbornly and doggedly pursued his hunch about relativity and ended up being right. But when he applied this same approach to QP, he ended up being in the wrong. Tough.

Btw, scientists are by definition inclined to agree with the general postulate of the existance of an 'objective reality' since that is what they are trained to seek. Admitting that there is none devalues their social purpose. Philosophers do not have the same 'vested interest' in the topic.
Like hell they haven't. None that I know even dares to put 17-th century semi-religious dogmas in question. They manage to entirely ignore the scientific developments of the 19th and 20th century. That's way beyond 'vested interests'. That's a degradation into scholasticism.

[Michael]

That's irrelevant too :)
The point is that the interpretations are irrelevant to science. Whether they're nice playthings for philosophers doesn't affect the theories.

Tell that to Galileo. :rolleyes:

Humanist interpretations trump scientific theories every time (when they conflict directly).

However, there is always varieties in humanistic interpretations. In our contemporary society, one humanistic faction (secularists) have been using science to attack another humanistic faction (theists) and have been doing so quite successfully for a long time. Science itself exists within this context - under the general political protection of 'seculars'. Without that, science would cease to function.

It's a one-way street: you can get an interpretation from a mathematical model, but as soon as one changes that interpretation without there being an underlying consistent mathematical framework, one's up in the clouds and engaged in something that has no bearing whatsoever on science.
An elementary mistake that's almost universally made even in self-proclaimed popularized 'science' sources such as websites and magazines.
Constantly accusing one's opponent of making stupid mistakes is a very poor method of debate or discussion.

Unphilosophical it may be, but it's sound science.
Yes. And taking extreme cases is sound philosophy.

With humans, emotion usually trumps reason. Reason (or science) is only accepted insofar as it is useful at any given moment.

Bohr isn't speaking here. It's some reviewer about a book by some author. May I suggest to actually read Bohr first hand.
Okay. I guess that ends that discussion. :ummm:

Shall I take the same approach when anyone else mentions any given name in philosophy? Shall I just tell them to go read the original? That may be good advice, but its pretty much useless for having a discussion or learning what other's viewpoints are, or sharing with others the benefits of one's own education and/or experiences.

This discussion is as antiquated as that about evolution vs. creationism. All there is on the one side is some people that are reluctant to accept the nature of the universe because it's not intuitive to some humans. Why the universe should behave in an acceptable way to part of one species on a planet near a mediocre star in a back alley of an ordinary galaxy amongst billions of billions such galaxies is beyond me.

The bottom line here is the over-evaluation of Einstein, especially because of his pop-cult-status. Yes, Einstein stubbornly and doggedly pursued his hunch about relativity and ended up being right. But when he applied this same approach to QP, he ended up being in the wrong. Tough.
Um... okay.

Like hell they haven't. None that I know even dares to put 17-th century semi-religious dogmas in question. They manage to entirely ignore the scientific developments of the 19th and 20th century. That's way beyond 'vested interests'. That's a degradation into scholasticism.
That's a rant, not an argument.

And Nietzsche certainly did exactly what you say no philosopher ever dares.

[SMadsen]

Tell that to Galileo. :rolleyes:

Humanist interpretations trump scientific theories every time (when they conflict directly).
A good point. How we see ourselves will always trump how we see everything else. But how we see ourselves still has no bearing on science.

Ask Galileo :)

However, there is always varieties in humanistic interpretations. In our contemporary society, one humanistic faction (secularists) have been using science to attack another humanistic faction (theists) and have been doing so quite successfully for a long time.
Wow, this is loaded :D

First off, no attack on theism using science will ever be successful. Saying that it will usually means that one is deep into some heavily loaded prejudice and presupposition. It's as irrelevant and useless as an attack on science using theism.

However. There are apparantly certain assertions to be made about the natural world from more or less theistic presuppositions. These don't differ from crystal healers, trekkies or health gurus where certain statements about the natural world must be presupposed in order for their beliefs to be sound and therefore useful for their purposes (which are never to examine the natural world anyway).

This is were any scientifically supported assertion countering such a statement will always and, by definition, inevitably be perceived as an attack from the point of view of the person or group making the statement. It is, however, neither attack nor defense but merely explanation. Or, in case of using .. umm, a less patient tone, a brush-off.

Science itself exists within this context - under the general political protection of 'seculars'. Without that, science would cease to function.
True.

[Dominick]

Tell that to Galileo. :rolleyes:
Even if Galileo had been hung, drawn, quartered and burnt at the stake his assertion would still have been the correct one. No amount of clerical opposition or lack of popular acceptance changes that. It's the same with the alleged Einstein interpretation. The experimentally verifiable facts deny it. Nor is there a mathematical foundation for it.


Humanist interpretations trump scientific theories every time (when they conflict directly).
Trump in what way ? Any interpretation I can think off doesn't even have the tools to challenge science. One can only challenge science by providing an alternative mathematical theory that agrees with experimentation better than the previous theory. Only science can trump science by definition.


However, there is always varieties in humanistic interpretations. In our contemporary society, one humanistic faction (secularists) have been using science to attack another humanistic faction (theists) and have been doing so quite successfully for a long time. Science itself exists within this context - under the general political protection of 'seculars'. Without that, science would cease to function.
No, science exists completely outside and independent of any societal context. The earth orbits the sun no matter what anyone does or says. One could claim E=mc³ till the end of times, it would still not agree with observation.


Constantly accusing one's opponent of making stupid mistakes is a very poor method of debate or discussion.
Science is strict and logical. If there is no underlying theoretical framework that agrees with the facts, then it isn't science. Since the topic was raised in the science section, that strictness needs to be pointed out. If this was the philosophical section the point would not apply, but at the same time the discussion would become science fiction.


Yes. And taking extreme cases is sound philosophy.

With humans, emotion usually trumps reason. Reason (or science) is only accepted insofar as it is useful at any given moment.

Science is accepted when it's in agreement with observed facts and the best theory to explain those facts. Nothing more, nothing less.
What those ignorant of actual science do with it, is a totally different issue. And like it or not, once again, completely irrelevant to the actual science.


Shall I take the same approach when anyone else mentions any given name in philosophy? Shall I just tell them to go read the original?
Yes, of course. What's the point of discussing something without actually knowing it ? :shrug:


That may be good advice, but its pretty much useless for having a discussion or learning what other's viewpoints are, or sharing with others the benefits of one's own education and/or experiences.
Science is exact. Bohr is correct, Einstein is incorrect. 2+2=4. Nothing I can do about that.


That's a rant, not an argument.

And Nietzsche certainly did exactly what you say no philosopher ever dares.
True, Nietzsche did but he didn't dwell much on these topics. And he was dead before relativity, before quantum mechanics, before DNA, before the double helix, before genetics, before the study of the brain, before a million other things arrived on the scene. Where is the philospher that has contemplated and incorporated the effect of these discoveries ? Must we assume that none of these had any impact at all on the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence as the OED puts it ?

[SMadsen]

No, science exists completely outside and independent of any societal context. The earth orbits the sun no matter what anyone does or says. One could claim E=mc³ till the end of times, it would still not agree with observation.
How the heck did you get that cubic root in there? :)

I will agree with Michael that science exists at the mercy of society. If no one does science, for whatever reason, then science simply doesn't exist. Also, if science is conducted on the wrong terms then it's simply not science and therefore doesn't exist in that context (for example, science does not exist within the walls of the Discovery Institute).

Now, if you're talking about the results of science, the scientific facts or natural phenomena as such then yes, all that exist outside and independent of any societal context.

Pedantic, maybe, but certain concepts should be adequately discernable in order to discuss them.

[Dominick]

How the heck did you get that cubic root in there? :)
Standard Belgian keyboard layout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout#Belgian) Though, typically, there's two standards, a French-speaking and a Dutch-speaking one :rofl:


I will agree with Michael that science exists at the mercy of society. If no one does science, for whatever reason, then science simply doesn't exist. Also, if science is conducted on the wrong terms then it's simply not science and therefore doesn't exist in that context (for example, science does not exist within the walls of the Discovery Institute).

Now, if you're talking about the results of science, the scientific facts or natural phenomena as such then yes, all that exist outside and independent of any societal context.

Pedantic, maybe, but certain concepts should be adequately discernable in order to discuss them.
I'm going to get a lot of heat for this, but I find that English is a language that lacks subtlety in vocabulary. :eek:

The OED has two definitions for science:

1. the intellectual and practical activity [...]
2. a systematically organized body of knowledge [...]

So, both the process and the result are described by the same word. In German e.g. one could use Kenntnis and Wissenschaft to differentiate between the two. The English 'knowledge' on the other hand is far too broad a concept to use in this context.

Clearly, Michael is talking about Wissenschaft (the first reference in the OED) while I'm talking about Kenntnis (the second).

[SMadsen]

I'm going to get a lot of heat for this, but I find that English is a language that lacks subtlety in vocabulary. :eek:

The OED has two definitions for science:

So, both the process and the result are described by the same word. In German e.g. one could use Kenntnis and Wissenschaft to differentiate between the two. The English 'knowledge' on the other hand is far too broad a concept to use in this context.

Clearly, Michael is talking about Wissenschaft (the first reference in the OED) while I'm talking about Kenntnis (the second).
One could reflect on the "body of knowledge" as being a property of man rather than the phenomena it describes but I think I've used my quota of pedantry lately so I'll stick to a formal agreement with your explanation :) Thanks.

[Michael]

A good point. How we see ourselves will always trump how we see everything else. But how we see ourselves still has no bearing on science.
I think how we see ourselves does have a bearing on science.

What we choose to look at or look for, and how we go about evaluating all that data has everything to do with who we see ourselves (or how the scientist sees themself as a scientist).

Ask Galileo :)
Your analogy is not relevant in context.

Galileo DID know that society can use politics or religion to trump the scientist. That's a fact known to Galileo in his own lifetime.

Galileo could NOT have known in his lifetime that his particular scientific theory would eventually become 'confirmed' and adopted as the dominant theory.

Ergo, your analogy of 'ask Galileo' is not valid. He couldn't have known.

Wow, this is loaded :D

First off, no attack on theism using science will ever be successful. Saying that it will usually means that one is deep into some heavily loaded prejudice and presupposition. It's as irrelevant and useless as an attack on science using theism.
Where did the secular trend come from?

Secularism co-relates very closely (by social class and geography) to the rise of 'enlightenment' ideals of politics, renessance ideas of humanism, and the ideas of the scientific revolution. All three 'trends' began together in the 17th century and achieved dominance only during the 20th. It is to be noted that even in the present day, these ideals do not hold a 'majority' - only a dominant minority.

Btw, Darwinian theory does more to 'attack' the idea of theism (in a Western context) than any other single idea. Darwin has been more influential to the rise of secularism over theism than Fitche/Nietzsche.

However. There are apparantly certain assertions to be made about the natural world from more or less theistic presuppositions. These don't differ from crystal healers, trekkies or health gurus where certain statements about the natural world must be presupposed in order for their beliefs to be sound and therefore useful for their purposes (which are never to examine the natural world anyway).

This is were any scientifically supported assertion countering such a statement will always and, by definition, inevitably be perceived as an attack from the point of view of the person or group making the statement. It is, however, neither attack nor defense but merely explanation. Or, in case of using .. umm, a less patient tone, a brush-off.
The reaction of strong theists to science-based arguments is not the point.

The rise of secularism has everything to do with science-based arguments (such as the Darwin example) 'converting' many weak theists into secularists.