The "Uncertainty Principle" proposed by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 states that we cannot precisely measure both the position and momentum(velocity) of an electron.This is because we normally observe things as light(photons) bounce back from that object.To observe a tiny particle as an electron we need electromagnetic waves of smaller wavelength like gamma radiations.Now photons of the gamma radiation colliding with a tiny electron can alter it's position and momentum introducing a factor of uncertainty into the measurements.
We can think of a man walking through a pitch dark street.As he turned on his torch he saw a stray dog walking away.But it might so happen that the dog was sleeping,disturbed by the beam of light woke up and walked away.So to certain extent we have altered the state of the dark street which we wanted to observe.
Uncertainty Principle back then (and even now) raised a lot of controversy and debate in the communities of scientists and philosophers.Heisenberg took an example of electron in the quantum realm to explain his theory and stated this uncertainty in measurement of some typical conjugate variables some scholars found a much far reaching impact of this theory.The Newtonian world of classical mechanics is deterministic.In that realm using the laws of physics we can predict the position and behaviour of all particles in the Universe at a given points.This concept of uncertainty and randomness shattered down the deterministic worldviews.Einstein never accepted this probabilistic behaviour of nature and that was reflected in his famous quote: 'God does not play dice'.
Uncertainty Principle has also led to an introspection into the basic nature of Reality.Reality or Objective Reality is something that exists beyond our perceptions and independent of human observer.Some deny the very existence of this reality as a conclusion from Uncertainty Principle.Reality as per those school of thoughts is what we observe and there is no reality without a conscious human observer.Somehow I cannot agree to this.It is true that our observations is altering the state of the object we intend to observe.So this is a limitation of human knowledge and understanding.Our current scientific theories and methods are not accurate and fails to provide a true view of reality.The world we see around us is not the real one but constantly emerging out of interactions of a conscious observer with it it's surrounding.It is the world we bring forward through a complex chain of interactions and events.This idea forms the building blocks of modern Systems Theory where focus is shifted from parts to the whole, from objects to their relationships.Systems Theory is a great tool to analyse and understand the observable world but that should not mean that what we cannot see does not exists.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Excellent dog analogy. A nice read.
I hope I have your permission todisagree. Uncetainty principle is basic to nature at sub-atomic level. To attribute this to lack of human knowledge and understanding will be wrong. I am greatfan of Einstein, but in this case he was wrong. He had given a though experiment to prove that uncertainty principle is incorrect: let's assume you split a sub-atomic particle and send them in two different directions. The you should be able to find the position of one and velocity of the other and by tracing back should be able to determine both position and velocity. Last year the scientists finally managed to dothis and guess what? When one particle separated from the other by kilometers was stopped to determine position, the other particle stopped right there, as if the information was conveyed from one to another instantaneously. Feynman has give an even better explanation of the uncertainty principle. Oh well the comment is already huge. Perhaps I will post it in my blog.
Cheers!
@amitabh: Thanks for your comments.
Sure sir you have every rights to disagree.
But in very essence I don't think we are disagreeing.Because human knowledge and understanding is evolving graduually our interpretations are changing.But in the history of this evolution we are always faced with systems so complex that we fail to take note of all the involved state variables in a correct fashion.We measure some and assume some.Assumptions of one generation is measured by the next.Yes we are progressing in that sense.But still truth is left to interpretations with certain degree of tolerance.
Post a Comment