Transcript The Parable of the Three Umpires

How Science Challenges our
Notions of Reality
The Parable of the Three
Umpires
…or three different views of reality
Umpire Number One

The naïve realist
I call them as they
are!
Umpire Number Two

The critical realist
I call them as I see
them!
Umpire Number One

The “quantum” or anti-realist
They ain’t nuthin
until I call them!
We may believe in the existence of an
external world but the real question is how
do we acquire knowledge of this world?




Naive Realist
Critical Realist
Other forms of “realist” positions
Anti-realism
The “Folly” of Being Too Literal…

Galileo and Joshua 10

If the Sun stood still

Galileo’s argument did not contradict validity
of scripture - it showed that the
GEOCENTRIC view did!

Is there more to seeing than meets the eye?
Newton’s Rules for Scientific
Reasoning
1.
2.
3.
4.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are
both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible,
assign the same causes.
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission
of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the
reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal
qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions
collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or
very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may
be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which
they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
The Hypothetico-Deductive Method
Gather Observations/Data
Formulate a hypothesis to
explain the observations
Deduce by logical extension
a possible test ie – make a
prediction
Test the prediction
YES - continue
NO – discard
hypothesis
th
19
The
Century – Consolidation and
Cracks!



In the words of Thomas Kuhn a powerful
paradigm (Classical or Newtonian Physics)
had emerged … but just what does this
mean?
At its heart it means that you “see” the world
through the paradigm
This is a controversial idea! Not all (many)
do not accept Kuhn’s position
Emergence of Chemistry, Physics and
other Disciplines





Priestly discovery of Oxygen and other unseen
gases
Dalton’s Law of Fixed Ratios – revival of the
“atomic hypothesis”
Phlogiston – explaining heat
Charles Lyell Principles of Geology
– introduces notion of deep time
Darwin’s voyage on HMS Beagle
Maxwell’s Great Synthesis (1864)

Maxwell combined electric and magnetic
phenomena into one!
The “world” was becoming increasingly mathematical and abstract
Problem of Realism





Do scientific theories “mirror” the world? – Do atoms exist
or are they theoretic constructs?
How do minds influence theories which in turn influence
observation which in turn…
Is the world “real” and knowable – Is our knowledge
gained through scientific observation accurately
describing an underlying reality?
Naïve realism – scientific theories and their constructs
“map” directly to an independently existing world
Critical realism - scientific theories and their constructs
will always operate as metaphors or incomplete models
of an independently existing world
Cracks in the Foundation!
The persistent (and annoying!) problem
of blackbody spectra
Failure of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
It’s Worse than They Thought!


How Planck and Einstein “fixed” the cracks…
The Michelson-Morley experiment revealed
something startling about the nature of time!


Time and simultaneity were not “absolute”
concepts but frame dependent - or – motion
affects time!
Mass and energy are
equivalent at a fundamental
level
Discovery of the Quantum

Even more deeply troubling was the
discovery that the universe is quantized


Light is both a particle and a wave!
A first glimpse at Quantum Weirdness!
The Wave-Particle Duality


At its core quantum physics exposes a deep
puzzle - the “basic stuff” of the universe is, in
a profoundly disturbing way, beyond our
ability to capture or “enframe” in language.
An electron, for example, can exhibit both
“wave” or “particle” behaviour depending on
how we interact with it.
The Birth of Quantum Theory…



From 1925 – 1930 a
radically new way to look
at the physical world was
developed
Quantum Theory is one
of the most successful
theories ever devised
It has yet to “fail” a test
given it
… but
Copenhagen Interpretation

There is no underlying physical reality




We create reality through our interaction with the
world
Physics cannot tell us what the world is “really
made of” – Bohr would argue that this question
ultimately has no meaning.
Quantum theory deals with possibilities and
probabilities – the world takes on an
indeterminacy
Despite this QT still is a mathematically precise
(and in a new sense) can still be a deterministic
theory
Some Highlights…
Compton
scattering
Particle
in a box
Wave-particle
duality
Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle
?
Electron
diffraction
Quantum Weirdness and
Non-locality
entanglement
Schroedinger’s Cat
QT comes in Many Flavours!
Many-Worlds and the Cat!
What do we “make of this”?



QT is the best physical theory we have ever devised! It
forms the bed-rock on which modern physics, chemistry
and biochemistry is built.
QT cannot provide us with a picture of the quantum
world that we can fully comprehend at a conceptual level
– the “quantum world” is quite unlike the macroscopic
world that we live in
Is the material world fully comprehensible?
Realist Conceptions of the World




The patterns and measurements of science,
indeed what we “see” in the world, bear a
relation to an underlying reality the existence of
which is independent of human observers
Quantum theory (certainly the Copenhagen
view) seriously challenges this
Anti-realism (including constructivism and
“participatory realism”)
What are the deeper implications for claims
come from other field of discourse – Theology?
Schroedinger’s Cat
Schroedinger’s “thought experiment” to demonstrate the absurdity of
the Copenhagen Interpretation
An Epic Poem...
Dear Cecil:
Cecil, you're my final hope
Of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schroedinger's cat
But none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said)
Is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he
Can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates.
In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, Cecil, then show me the way
And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,
Then I will and won't see you in Schroedinger's
zoo.
--Randy F., Chicago
An Epic Reply...
Dear Randy:
Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
When saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger
tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at-Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got
'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough
@#&!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to
swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed-Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried-In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."
--CECIL ADAMS
It looks like Heisenberg - I think, I’m
pretty sure, I’m not certain...
The Uncertainty
Principle