Your Cart is Empty
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
Thank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart
|Posted on February 6, 2013 at 7:15 PM||comments (101)|
The clock is an archetype of the old classical physics. What we have in the quantum mechanics is something that is not at all like that. A new way of thinking is required.
Einstein was at the crosswords between the old world and the new one. He said: "Behind the tireless efforts of the investigator there lurks a stronger, more mysterious drive: it is existence and reality that one wishes to comprehend." (Einstein, 1934) We all wish to comprehend reality, but what is our expectation about how that reality will show up?
Intrinsic properties have been defined as unique enduring properties that identify an object. Galileo made a distinction between primary and secondary qualities. He wrote" I think that tastes, odours, colours and so on are no more than mere names and they reside only in consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped away and annihilated." Secondary qualities are colour, smell, taste, sound, warmth. Primary qualities are size, shape, location, movement, contact, mass.
The failure of classical realism
The mystery is from the point of view of quantum physics: are these primary qualities truly primary? Is there a world of intrinsic objects or is the world intrinsically subjective - is it the world of experience?
Two great theories of modern physics
Relativity, which is a revolution in our understanding of space and time and simultaneity becomes significant only at high velocity. Quantum mechanics, which has revolutionised our understanding of light and matter becomes relevant only at small scales such as atoms.
Thought experiment. A relativistic challenge. To fit a 25cm pole in a 20cm long barn. Classically it is impossible because the pole is too long to fit in the barn. However at 75% the speed of light, the pole shrinks when seen from the barn to 18cm. If the barn is observed moving at 75% the speed of light towards the pole, the barn will shrink to 14 cm. Any object that moves becomes shorter in the direction of moving. Viewed from the barn the pole fits inside. Viewed from the pole, the pole is too long. These two views are classically inconsistent, but consistent from a relativistic point of view both are true, but with respect to two different observers, two different frames of reference.
What you are looking for is always in a context, a relationship. When you are asking what is the single true state of affairs you are presuming there can be a view from nowhere - no person just a situation with its own truth. When we forget the context we come into great difficulties. Difference reference frames create different contexts and lead to different understandings. The vantage point is absolutely important to even something like size. Every primary property is affected by relativity. From a standpoint of physics we have to keep into account the frame of reference of the observer. There is no privileged reference frame. Each observer has the same claim to truth.
Length shortening, time slowing and the relativity of simultaneity make analysis in terms of objects inappropriate and this becomes the new framework for understanding the new physics. David Bohm: "The analysis of the world into constituent objects has been replaced by its analysis in terms of events and processes" (Special theory of relativity) We so much want the world to be made up of objects - cells, neurons, atoms but this is a wrong view. We have phenomena and processes arise in time and they give the appearance of objects of enduring nature, but what is primary is the process.
It is a wrong view to look for a single objective state of affairs that everyone will see in a consistent way.There is a fundamental observer dependence (real or imagine). There is always a vantage point. To forget the observer is a fallacy. We find that primary atributes are relative. Properties are relational - they depend on the relationships that we experience. We are always looking for the objective reality beyond experience, we are looking for something other than experience to support experience, but this, on the basis of Einstein's theory is not a good choice. When you look ever more deeply you find context dependent relationships that give rise to phenomena that may be more and more subtle. What one has context dependent experience and there is no need for any foundation other than that. We need to not be stuck in a vantage point. If you get stuck on a vantage point you see everything from your own side and you fight from that truth.
A reality which you circle - you actually learn to take the point of view and position of others. Engaging with something different gives a fresh view on reality.