“We can no longer speak of the behaviour of the particle independently of the process of observation. As a final consequence, the natural laws formulated mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with the elementary particles themselves but with our knowledge of them. Nor is it any longer possible to ask whether or not these particles exist in space and time objectively. Science no longer confronts nature as an objective observer, but sees itself as an actor in this interplay between man and nature.” (W. Heisenberg, The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, Arnold Pomerans, trans., Harcourt Brace, 1958). Here we have Werner Heisenberg being uncharacteristically “certain” in his principles with regard to the “observer” based implications of quantum mechanics. There is a very famous, and much quoted, reaction by a physics professor when one of his students wished to discuss the profoundly important philosophical implications of this stunning statement by one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century. The response was simply to ignore the implications of this statement. Just “shut up and calculate”. This quote has been attributed to Richard Feynman but I can find no proof of this (and I find it hard to believe that he would make such a comment as much of his writing describes his awe and wonderment regarding the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics). It seems that these days the “shut up and calculate” team are totally in control of the teaching of physics. Indeed associates of mine who are actually university lecturers in the subject have told me, off the record, that to focus in any way upon the “mystic” aspects of what QM tells us about the inner-workings of “reality” is to jeopardise one’s career. Such is the control wielded by the “guardians of the old-order” that articles discussing such implications are not allowed to appear in peer-reviewed” scientific journals. Indeed in initiating this censorship materialist-reductionist academics can stop any independent thinking in its tracks. But there is another “advantage” of such an approach. If papers dealing with the philosophical implications of QM are not published then, it can be argued, that “serious science” has no time for such “unscientific” speculation and such articles will never get through the rigid peer-review processes. And who decides whether such articles are published? The very academics who have issues with such “speculation”. It is therefore a self-fulfilling loop. For example the major criticism made of mavericks like Rupert Sheldrake is that their more “speculative” articles are not appearing in “peer-reviewed” journals and therefore lack scientific credibility. But these articles will never be allowed into such periodicals because of their content. I cannot help but wonder if great thinkers such as Werner Heisenberg, David Bohm, Ervin Schrödinger and Louis De Broglie would be similarly denied their voice within the modern-day world of controlled academic tenure. Better to just “shut up and calculate” because it is only by doing this that a future career in academia can be assured ....... and this, for me at least, is very sad.
Posted on: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:05:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015