In physics today it often happens that experimental data is interpreted as proof of a phenomenon that has not been directly observed, but for which phenomenon there is a theoretical model. With the obtained data acting thereby as proof, the model then becomes recognized as “real,” after which the theoretical phenomenon that the model describes also then becomes recognized as “real” – that is, the heretofore purely theoretical phenomenon is acknowledged as a physical reality, even though it has never been observed, by either instruments or human senses. This relatively new situation, in which unobserved phenomenon come to be treated as if they had been directly observed, has lead modern physics into deep epistemological crisis of which it is not yet aware. The purpose of this article is both to identify the epistemological crisis created by this situation, as well as to present a solution to overcoming this crisis.
In physics today it often happens that experimental data is interpreted as proof of a phenomenon that has not been directly observed, but for which phenomenon there is a theoretical model. With the obtained data acting thereby as proof, the model then becomes recognized as “real,” after which the theoretical phenomenon that the model describes also then becomes recognized as “real” – that is, the heretofore purely theoretical phenomenon is acknowledged as a physical reality, even though it has never been observed, by either instruments or human senses. This relatively new situation, in which unobserved phenomenon come to be treated as if they had been directly observed, has lead modern physics into deep epistemological crisis of which it is not yet aware. The purpose of this article is both to identify the epistemological crisis created by this situation, as well as to present a solution to overcoming this crisis.
The epistemological interpretation of quantum mechanics is still in an unacceptable status. This becomes obvious if looking on the variety of interpretations currently under discussion. However, the physical community together with philosophers seem not to be willing to really face the problem and to find an explanation for the oddness of the foundation of nature, as the mathematical treatment of quantum physics can be judged as finished and perfect for the use. The epistemology of quantum physics is often treated as a negligible side effect, not worth to put effort in, as any outcome will not affect the calculation results at all. For the sake of human curiosity and to get a better understanding of the universe we are living in, this attitude should be changed. A possibly interesting new approach is outlined in this article, which may help to adjust the focus.
We have now concluded our summary of the findings of modern physics, and may turn to consider how these findings affect the practical problems of philosophy and of everyday life. But let us first recapitulate the conclusions we have reached in our scientific discussion. Recapitulation Because we are human beings and not mere animals, we try to discover as much as we can about the world in which our lives are cast. We have seen that there is only one method of gaining such knowledge—the method of science, which consists in a direct questioning of nature by observation and experiment. The first thing we learn from such questioning is that the world is rational; its happenings are not determined by caprice but by law. There exists what we have called a ‘pattern of events’, and the primary aim of physical science is the discovery of this pattern. This, as we have seen, will be capable of description only in mathematical terms. The new quantum theory explained in the preceding chapter has provided a mathematical description of the pattern of events which is believed to be complete and perfect. For it enables us—in principle at least—to predict every possible phenomenon of physics, and not one of its predictions has so far proved to be wrong. In a sense, then, we might say that theoretical physics has achieved the main purpose of its being, and that nothing remains but to work out the details.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
The deadlock in physics is explained due to moral-epistemological aspects of basic principles and adopted methodology. A way out of crisis is suggested. It has shown that the long-term infertility of physical science is not due to technical difficulties (limited opportunities of mathematics, insufficient experimental means, etc.) as it is usually represented. However, the crisis in physics has arisen due to arbitrary, non-critical interpretation of key facts and with imposed speculative-artificial instructions. Building a harmonious and self-consistent physics becomes an implementable task with returning to cause-effect, conceptual representation of phenomena and to naturally analytical methodology Key words: Physics ’ problems, Einstein, Schrodinger, de Broglie, elementary particle, nuclear structure 1. Critical review of the current state The crisis of basic science can be considered as an accomplished fact, despite the recent experimental results with LHC, the new impressive theories, high awards and media-company inspiring opposite. Nevertheless, the oppressed new questions permanently become more than the received answers, if we look at the reality deeply-pragmatically,
AbstractQuantum physics has overturned the classical view of the world by introducing probability, indeterminacy and the participation of the observer. It is not merely a scientific revolution, it reshapes causality, reality and knowledge, opening the way to an epistemology of relation. From Bohr to Rovelli, from Heisenberg to Morin, contemporary thought recognizes that reality no longer appears as an independent structure, but as a network of interactions. This relational conception of the world crosses the boundary between science and philosophy and invites us to rethink human responsibility in the production of knowledge. Knowledge thus becomes an act of co-creation, articulating scientific rigor, reflexivity and awareness of interconnectedness : a new humanism grounded in complexity and relation. Keywordsquantum mechanics, indeterminacy, causality, reality, observer, relation, epistemology, complexity, complementarity, entanglement, Bohr, Heisenberg, Rovelli, Morin, humanism, responsibility, knowledge, interaction, philosophy of science, ethics of knowledge