Heisenberg uncertainty principle

[Zoso]

Okay...maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the HUP the law that states that it is impossible to know, simultaneously, both the position and momentum of an electron? If so, why is this so offensive to Objectivism? Also, why is it that the idea of randomness on a quantum level is so offensive to Objectivism?

[DavidV]

Okay...maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the HUP the law that states that it is impossible to know, simultaneously, both the position and momentum of an electron?  If so, why is this so offensive to Objectivism?  Also, why is it that the idea of randomness on a quantum level is so offensive to Objectivism?

They aren't, if by randomness, you are describing an epistemological, not a metaphysical state.

[stephen_speicher]

Okay...maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the HUP the law that states that it is impossible to know, simultaneously, both the position and momentum of an electron?  If so, why is this so offensive to Objectivism?

Putting aside the issue of a precise formulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, please provide a citation in the Objectivist corpus which justifies your statement that it is "so offensive to Objectivism."

Also, why is it that the idea of randomness on a quantum level is so offensive to Objectivism?

If by "randomness" in this context you mean that the exact same non-volitional entity may act differently under the exact same physical circumstances, then that is a violation of the law of causality, and causality is a fundamental axiom of Objectivism.

[Zoso]

I'm not going to look for the exact quotes, but Peikoff mentions it in The Ominous Parallels. I'm sure you know of the apparent contradiction between the law of causality and free will, so I won't go into detail...I will, however, ask you how Objectivism rectifies this apparent contradiction. Also, while I am by no means an expert on the subject, I am aware that many experts in quantum mechanics believe in the precise form of randomness that, according to Objectivism, I should reject. What scientific evidence is there to the contrary?

[Zoso]

They aren't, if by randomness, you are describing an epistemological, not a metaphysical state.

This is the kind of answer I was looking for. I guess I was just confused. To my knowledge, the HUP simply means that we can't know for certain both the position and momentum of an electron...not that each electron does not have a definite momentum and position. Why, then, does Peikoff seem to reject it?

[stephen_speicher]

I'm not going to look for the exact quotes, but Peikoff mentions it in The Ominous Parallels.

If you cannot be bothered by substantiating your assertion, then come back to the subject when you can.

Also, while I am by no means an expert on the subject, I am aware that many experts in quantum mechanics believe in the precise form of randomness that, according to Objectivism, I should reject.  What scientific evidence is there to the contrary?

That is the wrong question. You should be asking what scientific evidence there is for the assertion of randomness. If you then study the issue, by reference to experimental data, you might then conclude there is none. The assertion of randomness is an inference drawn upon false premises, "experts" notwithstanding.

[DJames]

Have you actually looked up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? I used to be an undergraduate in Physics, and while I don't claim to know the definition anymore, I remember it being considerably more technical than that (its lacking the "..because" part). I thought it was something to do with errors in instrumental measurement.. a more precise measurement of position ruins your precision on motion, since your instrument cannot simultaneously measure both quantities at the same time. Your measurement disturbs the system, which leads to uncertainty. So every measurement in quantum has uncertainty - even in perfect experiments. The HUP provides the exact relationship between the precision in one quantitiy and the precision lost in another.

This concept bothered me a lot in quantum mechanics, but then, general consensus is its still an incomplete science..far as I remember =p. Keep in mind its just stating the uncertainties in your knowledge of a position and a momentum are not independent, and providing the relation between the two, and it should make sense. Hope that helps..

[EC]

The HUP is stated mathematically:

(delta)r(delta)p </= h/2

where (delta) denotes change in

r is position , p is momentum , h is h-bar Planks constant, and </= is less than or equal to

or

(delta)E(delta)t </= h/2

where E is energy and t is time

These statements which denote a minumum intrinsic uncertanty in these observables have been shown to hold in experiment after emperiment for the last 70 years or so. It tells us something deep about the inherent structure of the Universe. Namely, we live in a Quantum Mechanical Universe.

In this QM Universe certain quantities take discrete numbers and only those numbers. This results from the wave nature of all matter. This wave nature is what leads ultimately to the "so-called" quantum randomness. I encourage everyone reading to go and Google the "double-slit experiment" and study it and its implications. Virtually all QM can be deduced from its results.

Many Objectivists are hostile to these facts either because they don't fully understand the theory or they have been taught the wrong interpretations of it. The Copenhagen Interpretation, for instance, essentially states that a system doesn't have a quantum state until it's observed by a "conciousness". Any Objecivist should easily be able to point out the fallacy of that "interpretation". Note, this leads to false paradoxes of cats being both dead and alive inside of boxes.

Besides this bad "interpretation" and several others, including the utilitarian approach many physicists take, another reason why some Objectivists are hostile to the theory is its "so-called" inherent randomness. Examples: Positron A has a 60 percent chance of being here, a thirty percent chance of being there, and a ten percent chance of being over there. Or, a certain particle without being acted on suddenly decays to two other particles. Or, for some time t, much, much quicker than the blink of an eye, a proton and anti-proton pop into existence, ex nihilo, cross paths and dissapear again. See why certain Objectivists are "hostile" to the theory? It 'seems' like is's not "deterministic". Like cause and effect is in some sense obliterated.

Keep in mind as you read this that Quantum Mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of science. It has been tested and retested so many times day after day for decades and has never made a single false prediction. Remember, nearly all modern technology from the computer screen your reading this off of, to the laser in your car's stereo results from the application of Quantum Theory, specifically Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).

Our Universe is a Quantum Universe.

What an Objectivist that is "hostile" to QM needs to keep in mind is that there are "interpretations" of QM in which the Theory is completely deterministic. The one I like is the "Many Worlds" interpretation. It gets rid of the probabilities by essentially saying that the Universe splits everytime an object changes state, i.e. a photon "really" takes every path to a screen, each one in its own universe. And what we live in is not really a Universe, but instead a Multiverse. Many Objectivists still might find objections in that, and I will not try to defend it here. The "Many Worlds" interpretation has been defended elsewhere and I leave it to the reader to find its defense via Google and the web or via reading a book on Quantum Theory. I'd recomend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene for a start.

In conclusion, Objectivists should withold "hostility" or any other "emotions" about a theory until they have the relevant facts and/or interpretations, assumimg of course, the theory is non-arbitary and has a solid conceptual basis.

[stephen_speicher]

They aren't, if by randomness, you are describing an epistemological, not a metaphysical state.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a separate issue from that of "randomness on a quantum level." The assertion of quantum randomness as it is typically made in, say, the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, is of a metaphysical, not an epistemological nature. It is a destruction of causality itself.

[Dominique]

The one I like is the "Many Worlds" interpretation. It gets rid of the probabilities by essentially saying that the Universe splits everytime an object changes state, i.e. a photon "really" takes every path to a screen, each one in its own universe. And what we live in is not really a Universe, but instead a Multiverse. Many Objectivists still might find objections in that, and I will not try to defend it here. The "Many Worlds" interpretation has been defended elsewhere and I leave it to the reader to find its defense via Google and the web or via reading a book on Quantum Theory. I'd recomend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene for a start. 

In conclusion, Objectivists should withold "hostility" or any other "emotions" about a theory until they have the relevant facts and/or interpretations, assumimg of course, the theory is non-arbitary and has a solid conceptual basis.

I have some info on this in my blog, I've been studying it myself. I was reading The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch which alternately clarified things and digressed (I thought). I haven't finished it-he lost me a little in the virtual reality section and so I went back to Ayn Rand, but he did clear up the notion of "Many-Worlds" for me so that it didn't seem so ridiculous, same with the double-slit and the collapse of a wave function. I think the problem is the terminology is so misleading. I'm still interested though, I keep waiting for SETI to come out with the fourth part of the series they've been doing.

[EC]

I forgot about Deutch's book. That's a good one to read to except the last chapter's a little out there. He has good ideas but I think he's a little confused philosophically. He could use a nice dose of Objectivism.

[stephen_speicher]

In this QM Universe certain quantities take discrete numbers and only those numbers. This results from the wave nature of all matter. This wave nature is what leads ultimately to the "so-called" quantum randomness. I encourage everyone reading to go and Google the "double-slit experiment" and study it and its implications.

Yes, the double-slit experiment is fundamental to quantum mechanics. But, regarding your assertion of "the wave nature of all matter" you need to learn to make the distinction between experimental fact, and the inferences drawn from fact based on ones premises.

Virtually all QM can be deduced from its results.

Which notion is exactly the problem. Instead, quantum mechanics needs to be induced from experiment.

Many Objectivists are hostile to these facts either because they don't fully understand the theory or they have been taught the wrong interpretations of it. The Copenhagen Interpretation, for instance, essentially states that a system doesn't have a quantum state until it's observed by a "conciousness".

You need to get your theoretical and historical facts straight. You are confusing the Copenhagen interpretation with other theories for whom consciousness has a special significance. Here is a direct quote from Werner Heisenberg, one of the main founders of the Copenhagen interpretation.

"Therefore, the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place during the act of observation. If we want to describe what happens in an atomic event, we have to realize that the word 'happens' can apply only to the observation, not to the state of affairs between two observations. It applies to the physical, not the psychical act of observation, and we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with the measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer."

--Werner Heisenberg, _Physics and Philosophy_, Prometheus Books, 1999.

See why certain Objectivists are "hostile" to the theory?  It 'seems' like is's not "deterministic". Like cause and effect is in some sense obliterated.

Are you making the claim that the Copenhagen interpretation, or many of the standard theories, do not obliterate causality? If so, you are grossly mistaken.

What an Objectivist that is "hostile" to QM needs to keep in mind is that there are "interpretations" of QM in which the Theory is completely deterministic. The one I like is the "Many Worlds" interpretation.

The many-worlds interpretation is "determinsitic" only in the sense that it a obeys a deterministic wave equation. But mathematics does not a theory make, and the physical content of many-worlds is fundamentally absurd. To believe that branches of the universal wavefunction actually exist is to believe in a fairy-tale world of science fiction. I mean, really, it is hard to keep a straight face and talk about worlds splitting in a quantum superposition decoherence.

It gets rid of the probabilities by essentially saying that the Universe splits everytime an object changes state, i.e. a photon "really" takes every path to a screen, each one in its own universe. And what we live in is not really a Universe, but instead a Multiverse. Many Objectivists still might find objections in that, and I will not try to defend it here.

Smart move.

[stephen_speicher]

I have some info on this in my blog, I've been studying it myself. I was reading The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch which alternately clarified things and digressed (I thought). I haven't finished it-he lost me a little in the virtual reality section and so I went back to Ayn Rand, but he did clear up the notion of "Many-Worlds" for me so that it didn't seem so ridiculous ...

What exactly did Deutsch's book clear up for you regarding many-worlds? Can you just briefly indicate to me why it now seems sensible to you, rather than ridiculous?

[Bowzer]

In addition to paying close attention to Stephen's words in this thread, one can learn more about this issue by listening to David Harriman's excellent lectures, The Crisis in Physics--and Its Cause and The Philosophic Corruption of Physics.

[Hal]

If by "randomness" in this context you mean that the exact same non-volitional entity may act differently under the exact same physical circumstances, then that is a violation of the law of causality, and causality is a fundamental axiom of Objectivism.

If we accept a volitional entity can act differently under the same physical circumstances without violating identity, then why is it logically impossible for a non-volitional entity do likewise? If part of the nature of man (for instance) is to make free choices and identity involves an entity acting in accodance with it's nature , then why can't an aspect of an electron's nature (for instance) be to move in a non-deterministic manner?

[stephen_speicher]

If we accept a volitional entity can act differently under the same physical circumstances without violating identity, then why is it logically impossible for a non-volitional entity do likewise?

Because "non-volitional" is a negation of "volitional," and the volitional freely chooses among alternatives. There are no alternatives available to matter; it acts in the single way possible that is in accord with its nature and the physical circumstances that it is within.

If part of the nature of man (for instance) is to make free choices and identity involves an entity acting in accodance with it's nature , then why can't an aspect of an electron's nature (for instance) be to move in a non-deterministic manner?

You mean, why can't we re-define "non-deterministic" to mean "deterministic?" Well, we can, but that would be silly. Our job is to recognize the facts of reality, not obliterate them. That which is volitional is not deterministic; that which is not volitional is determinstic. (And, hey, don't blame me for this. I just report the facts of reality as they exist. I am not responsible for creating them.)

[Dominique]

What exactly did Deutsch's book clear up for you regarding many-worlds? Can you just briefly indicate to me why it now seems sensible to you, rather than ridiculous?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it seems seems sensible-just not so ridiculous as it had at first. I gues the main thing I understood from the book (and I could certainly be wrong) is that it only means that for each "tangible" photon there is a "shadow" or if you want to say *dark matter* photon which can interfere with the tangible photon occasionally but not with any other photons, and that generally speaking it is a negative twin or carbon copy which has the same characteristics except it is not visible. Deutsch does go on to talk about "shadow" frogs and "shadow" him writing another book in another universe, which seems like too much of a stretch for such a small observance as a seeming interference by an invisible photon, but the detail he put into the explanation before he gets to that point, and just using those as examples to illustrate the strange nature of the photon cleared up a few things for me, but I'm such a novice at all this, that could be why. I tend to see Many Worlds as a scientific religion idea, but just before the theory goes diving off the deep end, it does seem to have some merit..I'll have to re-read the chapter to explain myself better.

In addition to paying close attention to Stephen's words in this thread, one can learn more about this issue by listening to David Harriman's excellent lectures, The Crisis in Physics--and Its Cause and The Philosophic Corruption of Physics.

Thanks! I'm going to check those out.

[Zoso]

If we accept a volitional entity can act differently under the same physical circumstances without violating identity, then why is it logically impossible for a non-volitional entity do likewise?

Because "non-volitional" is a negation of "volitional," and the volitional freely chooses among alternatives. There are no alternatives available to matter; it acts in the single way possible that is in accord with its nature and the physical circumstances that it is within.

You mean, why can't we re-define "non-deterministic" to mean "deterministic?" Well, we can, but that would be silly. Our job is to recognize the facts of reality, not obliterate them. That which is volitional is not deterministic; that which is not volitional is determinstic. (And, hey, don't blame me for this. I just report the facts of reality as they exist. I am not responsible for creating them.)

Like I said, I'm no expert by any means, but I have trouble taking your words over people who are experts. From what I understand, there is no proof that quantum mechanics is undetermined but, the more we look at it, the more it looks like that might be the case. Maybe I'm just choosing bad experts or something, but I have never heard a single physicist try to refute quantum randomness. It seems to be pretty generally accepted.

[Zoso]

If you cannot be bothered by substantiating your assertion, then come back to the subject when you can.

I don't even have the book here. Can't you just take my word for it that he speaks against the HUP? I'm not making it up, I swear.

[Dominique]

In addition to paying close attention to Stephen's words in this thread, one can learn more about this issue by listening to David Harriman's excellent lectures, The Crisis in Physics--and Its Cause and The Philosophic Corruption of Physics.

Egad! $100 for the two of those. I'm sure they are worth every penny but I am tapped out on my Ayn Rand fund (and every other fund honestly) at the moment. Any other resources, maybe online essays or the like-which you can point me to? I've read the one on ARI about the corruption of Physics, but it doesn't do much to explain physics itself, only what's wrong with it. I'm very interested in learning and my only resources have been so far out in their explanations. I'd love to read an Objectivist resource. If you know of one, thanks in advance

[Hal]

Because "non-volitional" is a negation of "volitional," and the volitional freely chooses among alternatives. There are no alternatives available to matter; it acts in the single way possible that is in accord with its nature and the physical circumstances that it is within.

This is an assertion, not an argument. Why can it not be in the nature of matter to act in a non-deterministic manner? Obviously non-volitional entities are not going to make volitional choices, but there may be other types of indeterminism in nature (such as metaphysical randomness). If you are allowing certain types of entities to function indeterministically without violation of identity, then it seems a bit presumptious to immediately claim that indeterminism is prohibited for all other types of entity on account of identity.

"Man functions non-deterministically because it is the nature of man to make choices"

"Electrons function non-deterministically because it is in the nature of electrons to move randomly"

What is the fundamental difference?

You mean, why can't we re-define "non-deterministic" to mean "deterministic?"

No, and I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

[stephen_speicher]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it seems seems sensible-just not so ridiculous as it had at first.... I'll have to re-read the chapter to explain myself better.

I realize that often the only approach for laymen is to read some of the popular books on physics, but you should realize some of the hazards of doing so. Most physicists who write popular books are not very good writers (or thinkers, for that matter) and in their attempt to make some highly technical issues understandable to the reader, they often make the best of physics sound worse than it is, and the worst of physics sound better than it is. The best choice is to let philosophy be your guide and do not buy into notions and concepts that in essence are contradictions of well-established philosophical principles.

I do not get my physics from popularizations; I stay current with most of the main journals in physics. I have read most all of Deutsch's technical papers over the years, and I can say with certainty that in most ways he is as bizarre as they come. Epistemologically he believes that we cannot be certain and scientific knowledge is simply a matter of conjecture and experiment, and his metaphysics permits an infinity of parallel universes, each universe composed of entities that have no effect on the entities of another. In a gentler time, one who seriously advocated such utter nonsense would be locked up in a mental institution, but today instead he is given a Centre for Quantum Computation at the institution of the University of Oxford.

[Dominique]

I realize that often the only approach for laymen is to read some of the popular books on physics, but you should realize some of the hazards of doing so. Most physicists who write popular books are not very good writers (or thinkers, for that matter) and in their attempt to make some highly technical issues understandable to the reader, they often make the best of physics sound worse than it is, and the worst of physics sound better than it is. The best choice is to let philosophy be your guide and do not buy into notions and concepts that in essence are contradictions of well-established philosophical principles.

A friend of mine recommended it (the book), so I began reading it to discuss with him. I had my doubts from the beginning but thought it was due to my inexperience with the subject matter and I should try at least to see where he was coming from. I suspected just exactly what you are saying (perhaps I should trust those little warnings more, but I still want the knowledge to discuss it properly). I mentioned I have since put Deutsch's book down and gone back to Ayn Rand, as he lost me when he started getting too far out. I do want to understand these things though, and if you have any specific reccomendations I would appreciate it, otherwise I will just take your advice and stick to philosophy for now.

[stephen_speicher]

For the record, I did not write the words that are attributed to me in the first paragraph (sentence) of the above.

[stephen_speicher]

Zoso, please be much more careful in your quotations. The first paragraph you quoted in your prior post was not written by me. I take pride in the thinking that I do, and I do not appreciate having words attributed to me that I have not said. (Especially words with which I disagree.)

Like I said, I'm no expert by any means, but I have trouble taking your words over people who are experts.

First, I am an expert on this subject. Second, you should not simply take anyone's words for your own.

From what I understand, there is no proof that quantum mechanics is undetermined but, the more we look at it, the more it looks like that might be the case.

You understand wrong.

Maybe I'm just choosing bad experts or something, but I have never heard a single physicist try to refute quantum randomness.  It seems to be pretty generally accepted.

It is generally accepted -- especially by many theorists -- but fortunately most physicists leave such nonsense at the door to their labs, where the actual physics gets done.