User:Dankal.naveen/Sandbox
Limitations of Heisenberg's Scientific Method
[edit]Heisenberg’s Scientific Method forms the basis of present day Quantum Mechanics. Heisenberg’s principles have been successful in mathematically explaining a wide range of phenomenon occurring at quantum domain, yet they fail to give a plausible explanation of some of the outcomes of the experiments conducted during the last century along with other naturally occurring quantum phenomenon. One such intriguing natural phenomenon is the absence of Dineutrons in Universe. Heisenberg’s methodology, upon which our current day quantum mechanics has evolved, fails to provide a reasonable physical interpretation of it apart from a mathematical one . Some of the highlights of the talks between various scientists and Heisenberg point out at a sense of disparity that is expressed with Heisenberg’s way of describing quantum phenomenon.
Heisenberg’s Scientific Method
[edit]Heinseberg tried to expel any metaphysical idealism from the process of scientific discovery:
In "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory" of Physics and Philosophy he states explicitly that quantum theory does not contain genuinely subjective features, since it does not introduce the mind of the physicist as part of the atomic event, and that the transition from possible to actual in the act of observation is in the physical and not the psychical act of observation”.
According to Heisenberg, it’s not the aim of science to discover the hidden mechanisms underlying the phenomena, as one could wish, motivated by a personal idealism supported by a trust in the causality principle. He stated that to look for physical mechanisms is metaphysics, and must be eliminated from the process of scientific research. From his viewpoint, only observable quantities are of the interest to science.
Paradoxically, Heisenberg’s criterion sometimes brings results which are in total disagreement with the observed experimental results, as for instance the case of the electron’s orbits: while the experiment of the fog chamber shows us that electron’s trajectory indeed exists, Heisenberg proposed to eliminate the concept of trajectory in Quantum Mechanics, as he did not believe in the existence of electronic orbits within the atom.
Such a hypothesis of Heisenberg (that electron’s orbit does not exist within the atom) is inconsistent not only to the fog chamber experiment but also to the experiment made by the Nobel Laureate Hans Dehmelt. His experiment shows that the electron pursues the space between two orbits in the electrosphere of atoms. This result certainly stands against the principles of Quantum Mechanics.
Discussion with Einstein in 1926
[edit]A book( 1 ) reproduces Heisenberg’s lecture in 1968, where he spoke about his scientific criterion. He tells about his discussion with Einstein in 1926, when the father of relativity asked him to explain the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics:
- What was the underlying philosophy to such a strange theory? The theory seems to be very beautiful, but what do you mean with observable quantities?
And Heisenberg answered him:
- I don’t believe so long in the existence of electronic orbits, in spite of the traces within the chamber fog.
And Heisenberg said that he felt the need to go back to the quantities that, indeed, could be observed; because that was the sort of philosophy used in the relativity too: Einstein abandoned the absolute time and introduced time as observable in only one’s own co-ordinate system. Einstein laughed, and said:
- But you have to understand that you are completely wrong
And Heisenberg replied:
- But why? Isn’t true that you did use the same philosophy?
- Oh, yes – answered Einstein – I may have used it, but even so it’s nonsense.
In Physics and Beyond Heisenberg recalls that "Einstein would not admit that it was impossible, even in principle, to discover all the partial facts needed for a complete description of a physical process".
THE DICE OF GOD: EINSTEIN, HEISENBERG, AND ROBERT COOVER
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1344901
A theory that cannot be tested and validated by experiments is merely a hypothesis, not a theory. Is there a reverberation of 'positivism' here? Heisenberg (16) who had also been concerned about this issue in the past with respect to quantum mechanics, had described his views, which bear on the experimental verification of a theory, thus, "…I thought it was probably the idea of introducing only observable quantities….Einstein had pointed out to me that it is really dangerous to say that one should only speak about observable quantities. Every reasonable theory will, besides all things which one can immediately observe, also give the possibility of observing other things more indirectly."
CHOWK:HISTORY: END OF PHYSICS: http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:oSZJVjXCHEwJ:www.chowk.com/articles/5048+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=br
Popper On Heisenberg
[edit]Popper explains the basis for the schism in physics as follows: On the one hand Einstein was a determinist, who believed that the statistical nature of quantum theory is due to the physicist's ignorance of the underlying deterministic laws, which have not yet been discovered. Therefore Einstein chose a subjective interpretation of probability based on the scientist's ignorance. On the other hand Heisenberg was an indeterminist, but because the only objective interpretation of probability available at the time was the frequency interpretation, Heisenberg's introduction of the observer's disturbance of the quantum phenomenon by the measurement apparatus resulted in the combination of both the objective and subjective interpretations of the probability function in the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum theory. HISTORY OF TWENTIETH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE = Thomas J. HickeyHSIFICATIONIST CRITICISM http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:KK8sZfg5fccJ:www.philsci.com/book5-3.htm+popper+einstein+heisenberg&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=br
Einstein vs Heisenberg
[edit]“Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.” • Objecting to the placing of observables at the heart of the new quantum mechanics, during Heisenberg's 1926 lecture at Berlin; related by Heisenberg, quoted in Unification of Fundamental Forces (1990) by Abdus Salam ISBN 0521371406 Albert Einstein http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:3K1eMHrUYekJ:en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22+nonsense&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=br
At the heart of laser action is perfect alignment of the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light. Their location and momentum must be theoretically knowable. But this violates the holiest canon of Copenhagen theory: Heisenberg Uncertainty. Bohr and Von Neumann proved to be true believers in Heisenberg's rule. Both denied that the laser was possible. When Townes showed them one in operation, they retreated artfully." Forgotten History = Caroline Thompson's Physics http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:rpbxfoxYlqUJ:www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Science%26Forteana/%2BDoc-Science-General%26Msc/ForgottenHistoryOfScience.htm+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22+nonsense&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=br
The two shorter lectures by Heisenberg and Dirac, each roughly half the size of its predecessor, from a series of evening talks in 1968 on the theme 'From a life of Physics,' given during a conference at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, which Salam founded and directs. Heisenberg's is somewhat fuller of personal detail, explaining his interactions with Sommerfeld, Bohr, and others, and in particular bringing out the importance of Eistein's comment that one could not speak of observation in a theory-free manner. Both lecturers discuss the role of mathematics. Heisenberg takes the view that it can be a brake on progress in physics, a fault for which he criticises Pauli.
Review: The physicist's gift of the gab
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:gWfgF2LZ56YJ:www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817414.800-review-the-physicists-gift-of-the-gab-.html+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=br
Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein
by Gerald Holton Jefferson Physical Laboratory Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138
At that encounter, Heisenberg once more tried to draw attention to having not dealt with unobservable electron orbits inside atoms, but with observable radiation. He reports having said to Einstein: "Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits." To this Einstein is said to have responded, "But you don't seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?" Heisenberg goes on, "In astonishment, I said: I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory....Einstein replied: Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense (Unsinn)." And then came Einstein's famous sentence: "Only the theory decides what one can observe."[1]
[1] Heisenberg, Der Teil und das Ganze (Munich: R. Piper & Co., 1969), p. 49. http://www.ashp.cuny.edu/nml/copenhagen/Holton.doc
Repercussions of Heisenberg’s Scientific Methods
[edit]Since the very beginning, Heisenberg’s scientific philosophy was totally inconsistent to some of the experimental findings, as for instance the existence of electron’s trajectory within the chamber fog. Also, it’s obvious that something is missing in his solution concerning the dineutron, because from an abstract mathematical concept such as the isospin one cannot explain the origin of the repulsive force that does not allow a dineutron to be formed from the interaction of the strong force. Heisenberg’s physics was successful for the development of technology. However, probably it can fail in a most deep level of research. Such conclusion is obvious, because since the beginning Heisenberg’s criterion did not consider some of the fundamental mechanisms existing in Nature (the electron’s trajectory and the repulsive force within the neutron). But along the 20th Century all the theories of Modern Physics have been developed by following the Heisenberg’s criterion. Among them we can mention the prevailing theories such as the Standard Model, the Supersymmetry and the String Theory.
Today the physicists hope to get experimental confirmations for these prevailing theories, when the LHC starts functioning.
Absence of Dineutrons
[edit]According to the current structure of neutron, two neutrons do not have Columbic repulsion but a strong nuclear attraction (bourn out of strong nuclear force) when they approach each other at a distance of the order of 2x10-15m. Therefore, as there is no force of repulsion but only attraction between the two neutrons, the two neutrons should coalesce together to form a dineutron 0n2 and never separate as and when they interact at distances of the order of 2fm . And the Universe should be filled with a great quantity of dineutrons.
However a dineutron does not exist in Nature, because a dineutron is never formed. Why?
Heisenberg tried to explain this absence of dineutrons by proposing the concept of isospin. Unfortunately isospin is purely a mathematical concept.
As the two neutrons in the hypothetical structure of a dineutron would exhibit a force of attraction, obviously such a force of attraction must be surpassed by a 'force of repulsion, in order to separate the two neutrons because only a force of repulsion can neutralize the effect of a force of attraction.
Physicists believe that a pure mathematical concept, such as isospin, cannot produce a force of repulsion. According to them Heisenberg’s mathematical solution only describes what happens between two neutrons. His solution does explain why it happens.
Heisenberg’s solution does not show what is the cause responsible for the fact that a dineutron is never formed.
References
[edit]1- A. Salam, P. Dirac, W. Heisenberg, Unification of Fundamental Forces, Syndicate of the Press- University of Cambridge, 1990
2- W. Guglinski, Quantum Ring Theory-foundations for cold fusion, Bäuu Press, 2006