Greg+Silva+-+Week+9

The development of quantum mechanics, in addition to determining how miniscule particles interact and how those interactions may (or may not) be measured, was a development of the very nature of truth itself.

Niels Bohr, in his article, “Discussion with Albert Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics”, defends the adequacy of quantum mechanics in describing the interactions of particles (which are also waves) that is responsible for light, electricity, and ultimately everything. Arguing against the very validity of the statement “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity” (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen) in determining the causes of seemingly paradoxical phenomena, such as the dual-slit experiment which indicates that light (and electricity) act sometimes as waves and sometimes as particles, claiming that:

[The] finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails - because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose - the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. (Bohr)

Bohr finishes his defense of quantum physics by recalling “the old saying of the two kinds of truth. To the one kind belong statements so simple and clear that the opposite assertion obvious]y could not be defended. The other kind, the so-called 'deep truths,' are statements in which the opposite also contains deep truth” (Bohr). Bohr’s defense objects to the classical sense of absolute truth in favor of a more relative or apparent truth as the goal of scientific research. This shift in attitude, which would define much of the work physicists accomplished in the 20th century, helps us understand the role of science today not as a quest for total knowledge, but as a method of explaining what we can (and can’t) observe.