Focusing on a selection of key texts from early quantum mechanics, the essay examines the concept of the quantum of action and the role it has played in the positing of the photon and electron as real objects within a supporting epistemological imaginary—an imaginary that stands metonymically for the objective world. Since physicists imagine themselves as a certain form of subject within the imagined world evoked by these texts, an encounter with subatomic particles as basic objects within that world entails a novel form of imagined work as well. The import of this novel subject and the work that it does with particles as objects qua objects depends, in large part, on the extent to which the physicists, while rhetorically subverting that imagined subject’s presence within the text, nonetheless privilege it as an ideal.
Focusing on a selection of key texts from early quantum mechanics, the essay examines the concept of the quantum of action and the role it has played in the positing of the photon and electron as real objects within a supporting epistemological imaginary—an imaginary that stands metonymically for the objective world. Since physicists imagine themselves as a certain form of subject within the imagined world evoked by these texts, an encounter with subatomic particles as basic objects within that world entails a novel form of imagined work as well. The import of this novel subject and the work that it does with particles as objects qua objects depends, in large part, on the extent to which the physicists, while rhetorically subverting that imagined subject’s presence within the text, nonetheless privilege it as an ideal.
The more science tells us about the world, the stranger it looks. Ever since physics first penetrated the atom, early in this century, what it found there has stood as a radical and unanswered challenge to many of our most cherished conceptions of nature. It has literally been called into question since then whether or not there are always objective matters of fact about the whereabouts of subatomic particles, or about the locations of tables and chairs, or even about the very contents of our thoughts. A new kind of uncertainty has become a principle of science. This book is an original and provocative investigation of that challenge, as well as a novel attempt at writing about science in a style that is simultaneously elementary and deep. It is a lucid and self-contained introduction to the foundations of quantum mechanics, accessible to anyone with a high school mathematics education, and at the same time a rigorous discussion of the most important recent advances in our understanding of that subject, some of which are due to the author himself.
The idea of the photon has stirred the imaginations of physicists ever since 1905 when Einstein originally proposed the use of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. This concept is formalized in the quantum theory of radiation, which has had unfailing success in explaining the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter, seemingly limited only by the ability of physicists to perform the indicated calculations. Nevertheless, it has its conceptual problems—various infinities and frequent misinterpretations. Consequently an increasing number of workers are asking, “to what extent is the quantized field really necessary and useful?” In fact the experimental results of the photoelectric effect were explained by G. Wentzel in 1927 without the quantum theory of radiation. Similarly most electro-optic phenomena such as stimulated emission, reaction of the emitted field on the emitting atom, resonance fluorescence, and so on, do not require the quantization of the field for their explanation. As we will see, these processes can all be quantitatively explained and physically understood in terms of the semiclassical theory of the matter–field interaction in which the electric field is treated classically while the atoms obey the laws of quantum mechanics. The quantized field is fundamentally required for accurate descriptions of certain processes involving fluctuations in the electromagnetic field: for example, spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift, the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and certain aspects of blackbody radiation. (The Compton effect also fits here, but see later under references 8b and c.) Here we will outline how the photon concept originated and developed, where it is not required and is often misused, and finally where it plays an essential role in the understanding of physical phenomena. In our discussion we will attempt to give a logically consistent definition of the word “photon”—a statement far more necessary than one might think, for so many contradictory uses exist of this elusive beast. In particular consider the original coining of the word by G. N. Lewis: “[because it appears to spend] only a minute fraction of its existence as a carrier of radiant energy, while the rest of the time it remains an important structural element within the atom…, I therefore take the liberty of proposing for this hypothetical new atom which is not light but plays an essential part in every process of radiation, the name photon!” (our exclamation point). Clearly the present usage of the word is very different.
Scientific realism has traditionally maintained that our best scientific theories can be regarded as more or less true and as representing the world as it is (more or less). However, one of our very best current theories—quantum mechanics—has famously resisted such a realist construal, threatening to undermine the realist stance altogether. The chapters in this volume carefully examine this tension and the reasons behind it, including the underdetermination generated by the multiplicity of formulations and interpretations of quantum physics, each presenting a different way the world could be. Authors in this volume offer a range of alternative ways forward: some suggest new articulations of realism, limiting our commitments in one way or another; others attempt to articulate a ‘third way’ between traditional forms of realism and antirealism, or are critical of such attempts. Still others argue that quantum theory itself should be reconceptualised, or at least alternative formulations should be considered in the hope of evading the problems faced by realism. And some examine the nature of these issues when moving beyond quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. Taken together they offer an exciting new set of perspectives on one of the most fundamental questions in the philosophy of modern physics: how can one be a realist about quantum theory, and what does this realism amount to?
This article examines the epistemological views of key quantum physicists of the Copenhagen circle (Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and Léon Rosenfeld). The discussion begins with a presentation of their conception of measurement, indeterminacy and complementarity, and goes on to focus on their views regarding the nature of being and knowledge. The author identifies the basic areas of consensus in the Copenhagen circle as well as the disagreements and disputes that arose between its members. Three main points are argued: (1) The fundamental epistemological consensus in the group was that subject and object are inseparable; that the subject participates in the formation of images of reality, which are multiple and depend on how the subject is concretely constituted historically; the disagreements within the group did not arise with logical inevitability from the principles of quantum mechanics but largely stemmed from ideological clash in the Cold War context. (2) Being linked to specific configurations of the subjects, knowledge is always relative; but it does not follow that knowledge is illusory or inadequate; on the contrary, it is the pretension of attaining the ultimate nature of things “in themselves” that leads to devaluation of any concrete knowledge. (3) The world is something external, generally independent of our desires and will, but at the same time is constructed as concrete objects through the specific configuration of each concrete subject.
In resisting attempts to explain the unity of a whole in terms of a multiplicity of interacting parts, quantum mechanics calls for an explanatory concept that proceeds in the opposite direction: from unity to multiplicity. Being part of the Scientific Image of the world, the theory concerns the process by which (the physical aspect of) what Sellars called the Manifest Image of the world comes into being. This process consists in the progressive differentiation of an intrinsically undifferentiated entity. By entering into reflexive spatial relations, this entity gives rise to (i) what looks like a multiplicity of relata if the reflexive quality of the relations is not taken into account, and (ii) what looks like a substantial expanse if the spatial quality of the relations is reified. If there is a distinctly quantum domain, it is a non-spatial and non-temporal dimension across which the transition from the unity of this entity to the multiplicity of the world takes place. Instead of being constituents of the physical world, subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules are instrumental in its manifestation. These conclusions are based on the following interpretive principle and its more direct consequences: whenever the calculation of probabilities calls for the addition of amplitudes, the distinctions we make between the alternatives lack objective reality. Applied to alternatives involving distinctions between regions of space, this principle implies that, owing to the indefiniteness of positions, the spatiotemporal differentiation of the physical world is incomplete: the existence of a real-valued spatiotemporal background is an unrealistic idealization. This guarantees the existence of observables whose values are real per se, as against “real by virtue of being indicated by the values of observables that are real per se.” Applied to alternatives involving distinctions between things, it implies that, intrinsically, all fundamental particles are numerically identical and thus identifiable with the aforementioned undifferentiated entity.
The philosophy of quantum mechanics has often been conceived by physicists as a collection of dogmas concerning what can be measured, observed and known. To this branch of dialectics the present paper does not attempt to contribute, chiefly because it is written from the conviction that no part of science, nor any philosophy, can safely predict what may be feasible or knowable. Rather, this brief essay endeavors to expose the epistemology of quantum physics in a way which allows it to be recognized as an extension of the ordinary processes of cognition, as the continuation of a line which starts in sensory perception, leads straight through the methods of classical physics into quantum mechanics and shows no signs of terminating even there.