Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
Please excuse my limited understanding of the physics of this topic, but I have always found the HUP an intriguing puzzle regarding how to reconcile (a) the observation that position and movement cannot both be known precisely; with (b) the requirement that the universe is self-consistent. The deductive principle that physics operates by consistent laws seems contradicted by the observation that uncertainty is built into subatomic physics.
|
The thing is, the uncertainty is uncertain in a consistent way, you can repeat the experiment as many times as you want and you'll always get the same result, that measuring one of the properties means that the other becomes unknown.
Being consistent doesn't mean the same as making sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
Newton’s Third Law of Motion, generalizing equal and opposite reactions, implies that for every cause there is a measurable effect. Does this break down at the quantum level? The idea that quanta are both particles and waves seems to contradict the logical law of identity, that a thing is what it is and not something else. These deductive principles are the logical foundation against which inductive measurement assesses its findings, giving the options of saying the deductive principles are wrong or that the findings are incomplete.
|
The particle/wave duality doesn't really break the idea of identity, since those are merely different ways of behaving rather than different identities.
It's basically saying that if you're measuring the wave-like behavior of en electron, you'll see it behave like a wave and if you're measuring it's particle-like behavior you'll see it behave like a particle. That it's capable of both types of behavior doesn't retract from it being the same.
This is not a failure of deductive reasoning as such, it's a failure of your ability to conceive of something that can have both types of behavior, because you're basing your thinking on concepts learned from the macroscopic world where the two types of behavior can't be observed in the same things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
In looking at this material Kant’s critique of Hume is still relevant. Hume famously argued the skeptical modern empirical case that no necessary connection could be perceived between a cause and an effect. Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, said Hume’s skepticism did not enable us to recognise the existence of the universe, in which time, space and causality are necessary truths not given from empirical observation alone. As Einstein implied in his comments on Schrodinger’s cat, the rejection of determinism implied by the findings of quantum mechanics seems to deny this basic Kantian principle of necessary deductive truths by suggesting that causality does not operate at the subatomic level. It should be noted that this principle of causality does not diminish human freedom, because the ultimate cause can only be available to a hypothetical omniscience towards which human knowledge can only ever make a minimal approach. |
I think Einstein's comment on Schrödinger's cat missed the point he tried to make with the thought experiment.