Schrodinger vs Heisenberg

D   
ifferences in the philosophical approach to physics of these two men is fundamental to understanding why modern physics is failing as an intellectual endeavor.

There are two elements to existence without which it cannot be. These are:

  • Absolute chance (modern)
  • Deterministic logic (premodern)
As I have already shown, the assumption of one of these contradictory principles leads inevitably to the other. That is, we cannot have a classical deterministic physics without injecting some bit of chance into it in order to remove the restrictions of "perfect symmetry" while the assumption of total absolute chance bars any form of consistent interactivity (i.e. logical) - except as a wild improbablility.

The atomic model as pictured by Schrodinger is (at its philosophical base) a deterministic one. He envisions a wave of "whatever" which possesses the well defined properties of a visual object, i.e. position, motion ... an activity analogous to that perceived by man in the general real world.

Heisenberg views the atom (at philosophical base) as a set of relationships between abstract parameters, i.e. there is nothing there which is comprehensible to man in the way of visual objects.

Schrodinger favors determinism - Heisenberg favors indeterminism.

Modern physics, by removing determinism, has left the field of "explanation" (as the transmissible record of one's understanding) by redefining what it means to understand.

To the modern physicist, an understanding consists of naming the attributes of an entity thus differentiating it from all others without placing that entity into a hierarchical "map" of all other entities (more precisely, "logic trees").

He identifies entities (differentiates them from all others) and concomittantly lists their differences (some of their relationships to others) but does not place them into a scheme such that one logically subsumes the other.

To place an object or idea into a hierarchical scheme (giving one preference/predominance over another) is anathema to modern physics. It reflects the dominant 20th century philosophy of egalitarianism, i.e. everything is on the same level.

I have had it asserted to me by college physics professors that there is no electron revolving around the nucleus of an atom. "There are no orbits only quantum mechanical orbitals." (meaning electron "clouds")

The bone I wish to pick here is :
"How do you know that there are quantum mechanical clouds as opposed to clear wavelike orbits? Have you been there to see the non-existence of classical Bohr orbits?"
Since when has the absence of knowledge constituted a proof of one hypothesis over the other?

The conscious or subconscious purpose of the Einstein / Schrodinger / deBroglie faction was true understanding (and to a large extent Bohr as well). This type has died out by way of the failure of its adherents to comprehend the underriding post WWWI nihilist philosophy which Einstein complained of (as in "... without being run over by the buffaloes")

These guys stumbled badly.

The crowd which has taken their place has no intention of fulfilling the age-old Aristotelian charter of science - the Explanation of Existence - for the purpose of providing man with a comprehensive view of reality to which he might refer for guidance in all imaginable situations.

They intend, rather, to take up space. To occupy a position of undeserved respect. To be "great men" without the necessity of expending the effort required. To "get paid" for generating nonsense words to describe that which is incomprehensible to the uninitiated.
Or, more exactly, to belly up to the public trough.

If you are in college and this is what you intend to do,
find another vocation - lawyer? politician? insurance?

In the narrow area of atomic models a balance must be struck and it is accomplished in the following way:

  • Both descriptions are true each covering an aspect of reality
  • The integral orbit model covers the deterministic part
  • The cloud model is the probability of finding an electron which has no well defined position.

Reality is simply the motion of the electron's "locus of activity".

Meaning that, if it were possible to observe the electron continuously, we would see it jumping around all over the place but the average position would revolve around the nucleus in classical fashion. Of course this can't be proven since we cannot, in principle, observe an individual electron. But we are logically forced to composite the necessary principles in order to form a viable model with respect to both conflicting parameters.

(And once again, if you can't observe in principle, why would the default qualitive form of the electron be that posited by the "scientific elite"? Is the "cloud form" their vision of formlessness?)




Next Page


Ebtx Home Page