We are taking the case of ‘quantum mechanics’. The physicist Anton Zeilinger would argue: ” When analyzing the various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each understanding contains an element that escapes a complete and exhaustive description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the process of quantum measurement. It seems that the implications of this limit in any interpretation of the world are not sufficiently appreciated, with notable exceptions, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises about what features should have this philosophical foundation. Now, in particular, the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger illustrates the problem of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. He described an ideal experiment in which the overlap of two distinct atomic states can be "transferred" to a visible object, definitely going against common sense.
The reason why it is not possible to observe quantum effects in macroscopic objects, is that these are inevitably coupled in any way with the external environment. See the so-called “paradox” of Schrödinger's cat (I’d suggest to read by yourself the long story).
To underscore the difficulty in understanding the relationship between the microscopic and macroscopic world, since in the first applies the quantum superposition of states while in the second the classic behavior of cats denies. This means that the system atom + cat becomes, within a very short time, 'woven' with the external environment, so that - in fact - it is no longer described by a quantum superposition: in other terms, loses consistency.
Niels Bohr, with his usual language a bit 'dark and cryptic’ points out the “essential inadequacy in terms of the usual natural philosophy for a rational description of the physical phenomena of the type we deal in quantum mechanics". (see N. Bohr, Essays 1958-1962: Atomic Physics And Human Knowledge (Richard Clay And Company, Ltd., 1963)
As we are interested in the philosophical implications of ‘quantum mechanics’, generally speaking, the philosophical concept that is at the basis of the scientific venture we have the “paradox” of Schrödinger's cat. Summarized in the initial postulates and articulated on the analysis of the measurement process, it can not change with the succession of scientific theories. This happens also because since it regards the basic assumptions, it coincides with that of common sense rationally oriented which accompanied and supported humanity a long way in its history.
If we concentrate on the relationship between classical physics and quantum mechanics, the philosophical reference should not be changed. However, this new vision of the world registered “unavoidable philosophical consequences: « the mathematical method of investigation of physical phenomena is and remains valid, but at deeper levels of the mind the physicist is forced to open to new horizons of thought that are linked in part to the Platonic philosophy.
Then, the historical development of science shows that scientific theories can be and are inspired by philosophical positions; or that new scientific knowledge can contribute to possible changing philosophical views. This intertwining can be fruitful, but only if the fields of investigation are kept strictly separate. Assertions of the type "before measurement the photons of the pair have not defined polarization" if not amenable to experimental direct or indirect verification (and, therefore, metaphysical), may not enter within the formal descriptions (mathematized) of physics. Their use led, on the one hand, to the alleged non-locality of quantum mechanics; on the other has given nourishment to philosophical positions that helps the observer to build "reality".
In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy we read:” [in approaching] the philosophical discussion of quantum mechanics, the more one learns about the relationships about how the spaces of simple systems relate to those of complex ones, and about the equation which describes how state-vectors move through the space, the better will be one's appreciation of both the nature and the difficulty of the problems associated with the theory. The funny backwards thing about quantum mechanics, the thing that makes it endlessly absorbing to a philosopher, is that the more one learns, the harder the problems get”.
Not clear what the question is. As T.S.Kuhn argued long time-ago in 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions', experiments are also theory-ladden, e.g. you need theoretical concepts to carry out an experiment. For instance when you measure a spectrum, you must have a theory for what you are measuring. When an apple falls from the tree, you need a concept of what 'fall' or 'down' means, e.g. the earth and its center. There is no experiment in (a theoretical) vaccum. I believe this extends to philosophical implications, e.g. when you test Bell's inequalities, the experiment is already 'ladden ' with what the concept of realism and its versions. So the answer is that to the extent that an experiment that tests a philosophical concept, a) the experiment is also concept-ladden and b) within this framework it can in principle refute the concept. A better working example would IMHO be Bell's inequalities
Your question reads like you are asking whether, if experiments happen to refute a theory but that theory is not logically predicated on, or 100% inferred from, a philosophy, whether that philosophy is also belied by the experiments.
If so, then the answer is obvious - a philosophy cannot be gainsaid by experiments if it's not logically equivalent to the refuted theory. So it is indeed not quite clear what your question actually is.
Perhaps you are asking a specific question relating to QM? In which case the wider context should be taken into account, as should possible cognitive biases.
As an example of the former - there is no boundary between quantum and classical effects, but quantum effects soon become wholly occulted by statistical effects when operative numbers become large, at which time we wind up within the 'classical' realm.
As an example of the latter, cats do have consciousness and observational ability, a circumstance mostly overlooked (owing to cognitive bias) in these QM interpretations which use the agency of a conscious observation to 'collapse 'wave functions. The limits of ability to observe has not been ascertained, as it should. Some people (Jean Charon et al.) have put this limit very far down, and some mathematical considerations somewhat buttress this view (the Free Will theorem, for instance.)
A few notes on your quote " The reason why it is not possible to observe quantum effects in macroscopic objects is that they are coupled with the external environment":
1- This coupling itself is a quantum effect (called decoherence)
2- It is in fact possible to observe quantum effects at everyday scales (e.g. the Zeno quantum effect, the tunnel effect, radioactivity itself (the extra energy impetus leading to the random-time breakup of a heavy atom is borrowed from quantum virtual particles), light emission in a simple light bulb, lasers, and much more.
3- Again, statistical effects do not end, but merely hide quantum effects within the 'macroscopic' properties, which arise from statistically predictable average values resulting from extremely many quantum events (for instance, the different values of the half-lives of different radioactive elements reflect the virtual energy that must be borrowed from the quantum foam - small energy amounts being, for instance, more readily available than larger amounts and hence leading to comparatively shorter half lives - e.g., the short half-lives of beryllium-6 or boron-9 vs. the long half-lives of uranium or tungsten-180)
Gianrocco involved Philosophy into QM. That bring new thoughts!
Philosophy is said to be the "queen of sciences" and in this case very welcome.
What we need are more theories in QM. These should be thought as long as the can't find a physical valid real equivalence in nature.
QM is said to be not complete (EPR-Experiment, BELL's Theorem). So we can`t define a system for all his particles.
QM has the property that all Information about it's elements are not measureable because
a) we don't have instruments for it (they should be able to use at least 1/1000 of it real values for measuring). Till now we can't measure even the original values.
b) QM has yet created own laws by nature (Pauli-Principal, Heisenberg-Principle,...). We know they are valid.
c) What we can measure are properties in large areas of proofs, by observing a big amount of accidents (CERN in created experiments or DLR by instruments for cosmic particles)
d) what we can do is, to analyse and structure the found big data by computers and try to find new laws by statistical counting.
e) after all these the philosophical point of view is useful to find possible theories by reflecting human ways of thinking - we have to abstract new laws out of nature.
I think the Human Being created Philosophy because he needs combining theories by his own highest ability - his intelligence.
In QM we can't find valid theories till now - so Philosophy is a very welcomed science.
At the begining it will be good go to Birkhoff, G., & von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37, 823–843. I found something like this http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.4529. It's all depends How You see philosophy. At present We can say that philosophy should by generate by mathematical framework of logic. The main problem with QM is understand why this theory is not a classical theory and even not a statistical theory. All arguments came from C* algebraic formulations of classical and Quantum theories. The main theorem is Gelfand - Naymark theory - with representation we need for commutative and noncommutative algebra. Of cours we should show that all classical theories (from commutative relations) give as ordinary functions but we can also find (Birkhoff, von Neumann) that they go to something more interesting in logic structure - mainly boolean algebra. - We can confuse that all classical theories will give as just standard logic. Of cours from philosophy we know that more realistic case for us is intuitionism (better Hayting algebras ;) ). Of cours This algebras need new math like cathegory theory - I suggest if You want find something interesting search prof. Landsman works. http://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/scriptieMartijn.pdf
This could be something like You want - quantum physics from philosophy. But there still not enough for quantum physics.
In my opinion all physicists should read about how mathematicly we can show whats assumptions of classical logic are suppressed by Hilbert space and they properties. Then mayby we could avoid some wrong interpretations of physics (quantum).
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy