Surprisingly enough the questions that you pose are as much philosophical as they are scientific. And I am positive that you also understand that these questions can not be answered with what we presently understand about quantum mechanics, unless of course we have discovered our own little unified theory, but it can make for an interesting discussion, so here goes…
The statement that you make about quantum theory “disbanding” Einstein’s ideas about determinism is somewhat troubling – since neither quantum point of contention determinance or indeterminance, has been indisputably validated. So we can’t say that one necessarily trumps another. But, what I think I hear you saying when you mention the unified theory revitalizing thoughts about determinism is that you hold a belief that Einstein will eventually be vindicated for maintaining his determinant position on quantum characteristics.
It should be remembered that Einstein largely broke with the great minds of his day as he maintained that "GOD does not play with dice." The essence of his statement was to say that just because we do not presently have the ability to measure and determine quantum behavior, does not mean that quantum behavior is indeterminate.
These beliefs ran contrary to many of the scientists at the time such as Heisenburg, Schrodinger, and Bohr, who based their belief system of quanta mechanics with theories supporting indetermination. These scientists and others combined to form what was called the Copenhagen Interpretation of thoughts on quantum behavior which was the largely accepted theory of the time, and in many ways is still maintained today.
Heisenburg of course, is famous for the Uncertainty Principle, which states that the simple act of measuring quanta requires an intrusion into its miniscule realm, which in itself invalidates the measurement through the added energy of “looking.” Schrodinger’s Cat explains determining quantum characteristics in much the same way but with a much more entertaining visual. A cat locked in a box with a glass vial full of poison gas which will break upon the random decay of some unknown radioactive material. How would you know if the cat in the box had died or remained yet alive. You don’t! You can only know if you open the box and look, but in the act of looking will you accelerate or cause the radioactive decay? In this way, Schrodinger maintained, the cat can be said to be both dead and alive.
It should be noted that Stephen Hawking’s feelings about these ideas were such that he said that every time he heard the Shrodinger’s Cat explanation for quantum mechanics he wanted to reach for his gun and shoot someone.
The basis for stating that your original question is as much philosophical as it is scientific is that it represents a great hold out in the scientific community in the random nature vs order and intelligent design debate. For some scientists the notion of random patterns of chance as it deals with indeterminism in quanta, is an ontological debate, not just an epistemological debate. In others words, people feel that we are not just talking about a simple scientific fact, we are dealing with the very fabric of the cosmos and how everything is that is. One side saying ahh-haa, the universe has random order and can’t be described with an equation. The other side postulating, at least in part, that order would indicate an intelligent design in that all things have a mathematical component or description.
It would be naive not to characterize the role that philosophy plays in this specific question as a distinct movement within the scientific community. Scientific minds in the time of Einstein were desperately looking for breaks from the metaphysical world, or that which was difficult to explain without scientific methods. Describing quantum characteristics in terms of the randomness of nature (indetermination), had a really good secular look and feel about it and was embraced, notwithstanding the criticisms of Einstein, and later, Hawking. For these reasons, uncertainty as it deals with quantum mechanics is still widely held. This is not to say that all the proponents of determinism espouse the concept of intelligent design, it is just that they believe that all things may be described mathematically, which definitely hints of order in the universe. Eventually, when we have the ability to look unintrusively and measure to the degree of sensitivity required to define quanta, they believe it will be revealed that all particles follow an orderly pattern which may be determined with an equation.
The suggestion that you make about a unified theory resurrecting determinism may yet prove to be true. It does seem a little ironic that scientists are looking for the Holy Grail in a unified theory that explains how everything in the universe operates while still espousing the belief that quantum mechanics are indeteminant.
No comments:
Post a Comment