INTRODUCTION One of the virtues which Whitehead claims for his philosophy of organism is that it provides a conceptual framework for quantum theory ( SMW chapter 8, PR 121–2 and 145). The theory which he has in mind is the ‘old’ quantum theory, consisting of the hypotheses of Planck (1901) and of Einstein (1905) that electromagnetic energy is emitted and absorbed in quanta, together with Bohr's model of the atom (1913) in which discontinuous transitions were supposed to occur between discrete electronic orbits. The philosophy of organism was presented in a preliminary form in the Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in the same year as SMW ) and in its most systematic form in the Gifford Lectures of 1927–28 (published as PR in 1929). It was during the years 1924–28 that de Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Bohr, Dirac, and others developed the ‘new’ quantum theory, which was more systematic than the old, much more successful in its predictions, and more revolutionary in its departures from classical physics. Whitehead never refers to the new quantum theory, and it would be unreasonable to expect that even so imaginative a philosopher and scientist could have anticipated it except in the most general terms. Nevertheless, it is important in evaluating the philosophy of organism to determine how well its physical implications agree with quantum theory and with contemporary microphysical theory in general. To do this is the primary purpose of the present essay.
INTRODUCTION One of the virtues which Whitehead claims for his philosophy of organism is that it provides a conceptual framework for quantum theory ( SMW chapter 8, PR 121–2 and 145). The theory which he has in mind is the ‘old’ quantum theory, consisting of the hypotheses of Planck (1901) and of Einstein (1905) that electromagnetic energy is emitted and absorbed in quanta, together with Bohr's model of the atom (1913) in which discontinuous transitions were supposed to occur between discrete electronic orbits. The philosophy of organism was presented in a preliminary form in the Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in the same year as SMW ) and in its most systematic form in the Gifford Lectures of 1927–28 (published as PR in 1929). It was during the years 1924–28 that de Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Bohr, Dirac, and others developed the ‘new’ quantum theory, which was more systematic than the old, much more successful in its predictions, and more revolutionary in its departures from classical physics. Whitehead never refers to the new quantum theory, and it would be unreasonable to expect that even so imaginative a philosopher and scientist could have anticipated it except in the most general terms. Nevertheless, it is important in evaluating the philosophy of organism to determine how well its physical implications agree with quantum theory and with contemporary microphysical theory in general. To do this is the primary purpose of the present essay.
One of the virtues which Whitehead claims for his philosophy of organism is that it provides a conceptual framework for quantum theory (SMW chapter 8, PR 121-2 and 145).1 The theory which he has in mind is the 'old' quantum theory, consisting of the hypotheses of Planck (1901) and of Einstein (1905) that electromagnetic energy is emitted and absorbed in quanta, together with Bohr's model of the atom (1913) in which discontinuous transitions were supposed to occur between discrete electronic orbits. The philosophy of organism was presented in a preliminary form in the Lowell Lectures of 1925 (published in the same year as SMW) and in its most systematic form in the Gifford Lectures of 1927-8 (published as PR in 1929). It was during the years 1924-28 that De Broglie, Schr6dinger, Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Bohr, Dirac, and others developed the 'new' quantum theory, which was more systematic than the old, much more successful in its predictions, and more revolutionary in its departures from classical physics. Whitehead never refers to the new quantum theory,2 and it would be unreasonable to expect that even so imaginative a philosopher and scientist could have anticipated it except in the most general terms. Nevertheless, it is important in evaluating the philosophy of organism to determine how well its physical implications agree with quantum theory and with contemporary microphysical theory in general. To do this is the primary purpose of the present essay. It will appear that the agreement is only partial and that there are several crucial discrepancies both in detailed predictions and in general spirit.
Quantum theory has passed through three distinct stages during its evolution. The first is generally referred to as ‘old quantum theory’. During a period roughly between 1900 and 1925 Planck, Bohr and Einstein, among others, grappled with various experimental and theoretical crises by patching up classical mechanics with some new quantum ideas applied as band-aids. This is not to disparage the work; it was vitally important, and you can only do what is possible at the time. The quantum world is very different to the picture painted by classical physics. That being the case and given the extreme nature of some of these differences, we might question the wisdom of accepting the quantum view. Scientists can be quite disparaging about philosophy, sometimes while in the process of espousing, quite stridently, a philosophical position of their own. The chapter also presents an overview on the key concepts discussed in this book.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it became clear that some experiments cannot be explained on the basis of known physics, now referred to as classical physics. In 1900, Max Planck was able to correctly describe the distribution of blackbody radiation energy as a function of wavelength λ or frequency ν = c/λ. He had to accept the existence of energy packets (quanta) with energy E = hν. A few years later, Albert Einstein found that this unexpected relation between energy and frequency is also necessary in order to understand photoemission from metallic surfaces. A decade later, Niels Bohr arrived at the correct equation for the electronic spectrum of the hydrogen atom by applying “quantum conditions” on the motion of the electron around the nucleus and the Planck’s relation E = hν on the energy difference between the energy levels (1916). A decade later, Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan introduced “quantum mechanics” and de Broglie and Schrödinger (1925-1926) introduced “wave mechanics.”
An ontological interpretation is distinguished from other interpretations when it demonstrates the form among the facts of human experience through imaginative hypothetical deduction, and when it employs Whitehead's desiderata through the decoherence effect and its constituents in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. To further explain his cosmological scheme, Whitehead ventured three references: the “old” quantum theory, the “new” quantum theory, focusing on the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” and the other version of the “new” quantum theory, directing its attention to the “vector relationship” between potential and a prior fact. The evolution and consolidation of the “physical pole” and the “mental pole” constitute the final outcome state or the “satisfaction,” which in return has consequences in the future (believed to be the path to openness). Despite this outstanding investigation, the principle of “what happens between” the stages continues to be a mystery. Along with the stages are obligations pertaining to subjective unity, objective identity and diversity, conceptual reproduction and reversion, transmutation, subjective harmony and intensity, freedom, and determination.
Abstract The thirteenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1926, contains three supplementary volumes ‘covering recent years’. These include an entry ‘Atom’ written by Bohr, dealing largely with the theory of the periodic system, actually a rather primitive version that did not yet include spin. Bohr also mentioned briefly a new theory dating from July 1925, Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics, ‘which constitutes a bold departure from the classical way of describing natural phenomena ⃛It has in particular allowed the Balmer formula to be derived.’ In his contribution Bohr continued to treat atoms with more than one electron in terms of the old quantum theory, however, since ‘the methods of quantum mechanics have not yet been applied to [this] problem’. Another entry, by Charles Barkla, also refers to quantum mechanics: ‘A new theory ⃛ has been formulated by Heisenberg which, whether fruitful or not, promises to put quantum mechanics in much more logical form. Its physical significance, however, is not apparent.’
Many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics – notably Planck, Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Jordan, Landé, Wigner, and London – were seriously concerned with philosophical problems. In each case one can ask a question of psychological and historical interest: was it a philosophical penchant which drew the investigator towards a kind of physics research which is linked to philosophy, or was it rather that the conceptual difficulties of fundamental physics pulled him willynilly into the labyrinth of philosophy? I shall not undertake to discuss this question, but shall cite an opinion of Peter Bergmann, which I find congenial: he learned from Einstein that “the theoretical physicist is … a philosopher in workingman's clothes” ([1], q. v.). The problems with which I am preoccupied concern the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics – either epistemological, bearing on the extent, validity, and character of human knowledge; or metaphysical, bearing on the character of reality. Although quantum mechanics is not a system of philosophy, one can wonder whether it is susceptible to coherent incorporation in a philosophical system. I propose to examine the thought of three masters of quantum mechanics – Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger – not with a critical or historical intention, but in hope of finding some enlightenment concerning the problems posed by contemporary physics. I can say in advance that enlightenment will continue to elude us; nevertheless, the ideas of Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger are rich and evocative for new studies.