This volume contains articles from invited speakers at a meeting which took place in Delphi, during the week of October 12-16, 1987. The theme of the meeting was ''The concept of probability and was organized by the of Interdisciplinary (Physics Department, University of Athens) and the Theoretical and Physical Chemistry Institute of the National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens. (The Group ofInterdisciplinary Research organized two previous Meetings, 1) on the Concept of physical reality (1982) and 2) on the question of determinism in Physics (1984-. This small gathering, which was attended by scientists, mathematicians and philosophers from more than 22 countries, took place on the occasion of the 100th year from the birthday of E.Schrodinger. As the father of wave-mechanics, Schrodinger thrushed us into an era of physics where knowledge of the lV-function is considered, for most situations, as the ultimate aim and the ultimate truth. Yet, he, as well as another towering figure of 20th century physics, A.Einstein, never really felt confortable with the interpretation of the meaning oflV and of the information that it contains. With Einstein playing the leading role a debate about concepts and interpretation started as soon as quantum mechanics was born. Central theme to this debate is the concept of probability, a concept which permeates-explicitly or implicitly-all science and even our decision making in everyday life. The articles cover a broad spectrum of thought and results -mathematical, physical, epistemological, experimental, specific, general, -many of them outside the accepted norm.
This volume contains articles from invited speakers at a meeting which took place in Delphi, during the week of October 12-16, 1987. The theme of the meeting was ''The concept of probability and was organized by the of Interdisciplinary (Physics Department, University of Athens) and the Theoretical and Physical Chemistry Institute of the National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens. (The Group ofInterdisciplinary Research organized two previous Meetings, 1) on the Concept of physical reality (1982) and 2) on the question of determinism in Physics (1984-. This small gathering, which was attended by scientists, mathematicians and philosophers from more than 22 countries, took place on the occasion of the 100th year from the birthday of E.Schrodinger. As the father of wave-mechanics, Schrodinger thrushed us into an era of physics where knowledge of the lV-function is considered, for most situations, as the ultimate aim and the ultimate truth. Yet, he, as well as another towering figure of 20th century physics, A.Einstein, never really felt confortable with the interpretation of the meaning oflV and of the information that it contains. With Einstein playing the leading role a debate about concepts and interpretation started as soon as quantum mechanics was born. Central theme to this debate is the concept of probability, a concept which permeates-explicitly or implicitly-all science and even our decision making in everyday life. The articles cover a broad spectrum of thought and results -mathematical, physical, epistemological, experimental, specific, general, -many of them outside the accepted norm.
Foundational issues in statistical mechanics and the more general question of how probability is to be understood in the context of physical theories are both areas that have been neglected by philosophers of physics. This book fills an important gap in the literature by providing a most systematic study of how to interpret probabilistic assertions in the context of statistical mechanics. The book explores both subjectivist and objectivist accounts of probability, and takes full measure of work in the foundations of probability theory, in statistical mechanics, and in mathematical theory. It will be of particular interest to philosophers of science, physicists and mathematicians interested in foundational issues, and also to historians of science.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has become the standard way of explaining the physical philosophical meaning of the mathematics of microscopic behavior. It developed from the thought of people who attended the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Copenhagen during the 40 years that Niels Bohr directed it, from 1920 to 1962. Bohr took a large part in developing the Copenhagen Interpretation, he didn't escape all controversy over it (although the quote above is a bit of an exaggeration). Bohr did die before the experimental theoretical developments that have transposed the debate over the appropriateness adequacy of the Copenhagen Interpretation into a new key, he may well have been lucky to have escaped when he did. There is no authoritative codification of CI [the Copenhagen Interpretation], write T Gornitz C. E von Weizsacker of the Max Planck Institute in Starnberg, West Germany in' their formal presentation to the recent Loyola Conference on Mathematical Interpretational Problems in Relativistic Quantum Theory, and under the conditions of its origin there probably could not be one.... All prominent authors of the time who wrote on these questions, like Bohr, [Werner] Heisenberg, [Wolfgang] Pauli, J[ohn] v[on] Neumann on one side, [Albert] Einstein [Erwin] Schrodinger on the other, fell, so we feel, into some stammering when they tried to express their own positions. Nevertheless there is what might be called a Copenhagen attitude. It concentrates on observable phenomena, makes statistics probability central to its understanding, considers quantum mechanics primarily a theory of knowledge or information becomes a kind of physica negativa (analogous to a theologia negativa) in trying not to say too much about things that can't be seen or felt. For example, it doesn't much care whether the orbits of electrons in atoms are real or not and, in fact, tends to regard them as unreal. It appears in most textbooks as the standard way of looking at things.
What is 'the nature of reality’? This thought has occupied the minds of scientists and philosophers since time immemorial. This issue is examined scientifically, that, how the views of scientists and western philosophers have undergone a dramatic change over a period of time. This may then answer whether spacetime is a reality of nature or if it is just a figment of our imagination in which to view this cosmos! The article begins with the thoughts of Democritus, and the other Greek philosophers, continuing with the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. With the thoughts of Bacon, Descartes and Isaac Newton, the rise of the ‘mechanical world view’ later the decline of this view is discussed when the phenomenon in optics, electricity and magnetism could not be explained. Then the concept of ‘field’ was evolved, culminating in ‘Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetic fields’.The beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘quantum theory’, starting with the idea of ‘quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of the 20th century saw great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics - totally new ideas on ‘the nature of reality’ were being conceived. Large numbers of fundamental particles were discovered in the ensuing years. However, not much progress indeed was made in answering some of the most fundamental questions about the existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism, along with the ideas of quantum theory and the concept of consciousness, may answer some of the intricate questions about the nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from the perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions about the existence of life and the ‘nature of reality’ itself.Beginning of twentieth century saw the evolution of the concepts of ‘Relativity’, by Einstein, and the birth of ‘Quantum Theory’, starting with the idea of ‘Quanta’, originated by Planck in 1900. The first three decades of 20th century saw the great breakthroughs in the world of theoretical physics. Absolutely new ideas on ‘The Nature of Reality’ were being conceived. Large number of fundamental particles was discovered in the ensuing years. But not much progress indeed took place in answering some of the most fundamental questions on existence of human life and the nature of reality. Some interesting ideas on ‘Biocentrism’ have now evolved. Biocentrism along with the ideas of Quantum Theory and the concept of Consciousness may answer some of the intricate questions on nature of reality; these will be discussed at length. These concepts will then be viewed from perspective of Indic thoughts. The ‘Vedic’ and ‘Upanishadic’ knowledge from Indian scriptures may probably answer even more clearly some of the most intriguing questions on the existence of life and the ‘Nature of Reality’ itself.
The problem of the nature of probability laws in physics is a central one from the epistemologic point of view : perhaps the most central one for twentieth century physics, if we consider, on the one hand, the harsh debates to which it has given rise in the recent past (left unconcluded by the protagonists and most often by their successors) and the vagueness of the answers which are generally proposed by contemporary physicists when asked about this problem ; and, on the other hand, the perspectives of theoretical physics as it is developing under our eyes in the various domains - and, perhaps above all, in the "frontier" domains such as particle symmetry fields and cosmology, or, differently, dynamics of continuous media, turbulences and chaos, where probability is a - if not the - fundamental concept.
Various physical examples are displayed in which the probability distribution can be traced back to its causal origin. It is argued that probability is never irreducible, but is, in principle, always derivable from a deterministic process which determines its numerical value. It is suggested that deterministic and probabilistic theories are interlocked, each presenting a different aspect of reality, yet that no description of the laws of nature in terms of either of these concepts will ever be ultimate.
Quantum mechanics is certainly a strange place to start an investigation into the nature of the relationship between science and society. However, this article begins by integrating its history and proceeds through current conceptions of it by some physicists to examine quantum mechanics as an intersection of both science and knowledge. A famous thought experiment by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen pointed to an area that few physicists still research–a paradigm gone awry. Yet the vast majority of physiciststoday do not agonize over this uncertainty. Physics today presses forward with indominable speed and precision. But by questioning a small sample of physicists doing physics about their practice, this study aims at an everyday physicist’s understanding of the matter; a paradox that lies between the results of experiment and their interpretation or place as knowledge in society. For Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, the paradox was that we can only determine the spin of an entangled particle–it only becomes real–after measuring the spin of its partner particle. For a few contemporary physicists, the problem is how to understand the fact that a measured particle “teleports” its state instantaniously to another point in space. Practicing physicist resolve this, to put it simply, by just using it. Quantum mechanics, as with physics, is incredibly accurate–accepting it as truth yields results that physicists and society can use. By interrogating this process in its historicity and current formulation, this article sheds some light on the way physics works as knowledge. It provides a possibility for turning the scientific eye toward the very meaning of science.