What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics
Werner Heisnberg was one of a small group who created the science of quantum physics. Aware that the new physics necessitated deep changes in philosophical outlook, he labored to present this important new material to a more general intellectual community. THese essays, which originally appeared under the title Philosophical problems of Nuclear Science, present an illuminating view of the development and significance of quantum theory.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1979
6 people are currently reading
508 people want to read
About the author
Werner Heisenberg
124 books385 followersWerner Heisenberg (AKA W. Heisenberg) was a German theoretical physicist who made foundational contributions to quantum mechanics and is best known for asserting the uncertainty principle of quantum theory. In addition, he made important contributions to nuclear physics, quantum field theory, and particle physics.
He won the 1932 Nobel prize in physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has, inter alia, led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen".
He won the 1932 Nobel prize in physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has, inter alia, led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 1, 2009
This along with his "Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science" and Schrodinger's "What Is Life?" are what you want to read instead of "The Tao Of Physics" and "Dancing Wu Li Masters."
June 6, 2024
A SERIES OF ESSAYS EXPLORING IMPLICATIONS OF QUANTUM THEORY
Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976) was a German theoretical physicist and one of the key creators of quantum mechanics, but perhaps best known for his ‘Uncertainty Principle.” He has written other books such as ‘Physics and Philosophy’ and ‘Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory.’
He notes, “the assumption could therefore be dropped … which declares two events simultaneous even if they do not occur in the same place. We call events ‘past’ if we can, at least in principle, find out about them through some observation. We call them ‘future’ if we can still, at least in principle, intervene in their course. It corresponds with our daily experience to believe that events capable of observation are separated from those still open to change only by an infinitely short instant which we call ‘present.’ … In fact there lies between what we have just called past’ and what we have just called ‘future’ a small but finite time interval. Its duration is determined by the position of the observer who is deciding on ‘past’ or ‘future’ and by the location of the events whose course in time is being investigated.” (Pg. 12)
He explains, “The effect of the means of observation on the observed body has to be conceived as a disturbance… in the region of the dividing line…it is the reason for the appearance of
statistical laws of nature in quantum mechanics… the accuracy up to which it is useful to employ these concepts to describe nature intelligibly is limited by the so-called uncertainty relations… This uncontrollable part of the disturbance provides a wonderful method… of fitting together at the dividing line, without contradictions, the fields of the laws of classical and of quantum theory. Thus an entity of law arises… An appreciation of this fact also helps to dispose of an objection frequently made against the finality of quantum mechanics; namely, that behind the interrelations statistically formulated by it, there may be hidden yet another system of determinist laws concerning hitherto defining data of nature… these new natural laws would soon be involved in contradictions with the strictly determined results of quantum mechanics… Any attempt to make good the uncertainties of quantum theory, by additions in places determined by certain processes of nature, would … bring to light the contradictions between quantum mechanics and the proposed addition.” (Pg. 15-16)
He suggests, “I may be allowed to say that it should not be taken as skepticism if I suspect that the concepts of modern physics too will have to be revised. On the contrary, it is only another expression of the conviction that our every-extending field of experience will bring to light ever more new harmonies.” (Pg. 52)
He states, “This search for the mathematical structure of phenomena, as taken over from antiquity has, however, given rise to an accusation. It is said that it illuminates only certain and, at that, not the most essential aspects of nature and, rather than being of help in an immediate and general understanding of nature, it is actually a hindrance… the precondition for an active, practical intervention in the material world, is just this conscious knowledge of mathematically formulated natural laws. Behind this, however, there is a direct understanding of nature unconsciously accepting these mathematical structures and mentally recreating them. All human beings are capable of this understanding if they are willing to enter into a more intimate receptive relation with nature.” (Pg. 59)
He points out, “True, with a comparatively moderate demand for accuracy, we can speak of the position and velocity of an electron: true also that, compared with our daily experience, this accuracy is quite considerable. But measured by an atomic scale it is insufficient, and a law characteristic for this miniature world prevents us from determining position and velocity with the desired accuracy… Nature thus escapes accurate determination, in terms of our commonsense ideas, by an unavoidable disturbance which is part of every observation. It was originally the aim of all science to describe nature as far as possible as it is… We now realize that this is an unattainable goal. In atomic physics it is impossible to neglect the changes produced on the observed object by observation.” (Pg. 73)
He observes, “Quantum theory did in fact satisfy all the demands which… could be made on atomic physics. The theory enabled us, at least in principle, to calculate---and to that extent ‘explain’----the properties of macroscopic matter… Thus we are perhaps justified in believing that we have reached a level of research comparable to that of the knowledge of the mechanics of the heavens after Newton. We may say that we are capable of a quantitative ‘calculation’ of the properties of matter in all cases where mathematical complications do not prevent the execution of this task in practice. A heavy price, however, had to be paid for the achievement of this ambition. It meant, in simplest form, the loss of just that nineteenth century scientific conception of nature or… the loss of that conception of reality on which Newton’s mechanics rested.” (Pg. 85)
He proposes, “the changes introduced by quantum theory have affected the position of theories of perception in such a way that those aspects of reality characterized by the words ‘consciousness’ and ‘spirit’ can be related in a new way to the scientific conception of our time… Improved modern technique of observation and the enrichment of positive knowledge resulting from it has finally forced us to revise the fundamentals of science and has convinced us that there can be no such firm foundation of ALL perception.” (Pg. 92-93)
He outlines, “At the end of the Middle Ages man discovered… yet another reality of material experience. That was ‘objective’ reality which we experience through our senses or by experiment… But this view of nature has also become undermined during our century. Fundamental attitudes of thought lost their absolute importance as concrete action moved more and more into the centre of our world. Even time and space became a subject of experience and lost their symbolic content. In science we realize more and more that our understanding of nature cannot begin with some definite cognition… but that all cognition is, so to speak, suspended over an unfathomable depth.” (Pg. 117)
He states, “You may, of course, object that the great mass of people has no access to this truth and that it can therefore exert little influence on the attitude of people. But at no time did the great mass of people have direct access to the centre and it may be that people today will be satisfied to know that though the gate is not open to everyone there CAN be no deceit beyond the gate. We have no power there---the decisions are taken by a higher power. People have used different words … for this ‘centre.’ They called it ‘spirit’ or ‘God.’... there are many ways to this centre… and science is only one of them. Perhaps we have no longer a generally recognized language in which we can make ourselves intelligible. That may be the reason why so many people cannot see it, but it is there today and it has always been, and any world order must be based on it. Such a world order must be guided by men who have not lost sight of it.” (Pg. 119)
This brief book will be of great interest to those studying the implications of Quantum physics.
Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976) was a German theoretical physicist and one of the key creators of quantum mechanics, but perhaps best known for his ‘Uncertainty Principle.” He has written other books such as ‘Physics and Philosophy’ and ‘Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory.’
He notes, “the assumption could therefore be dropped … which declares two events simultaneous even if they do not occur in the same place. We call events ‘past’ if we can, at least in principle, find out about them through some observation. We call them ‘future’ if we can still, at least in principle, intervene in their course. It corresponds with our daily experience to believe that events capable of observation are separated from those still open to change only by an infinitely short instant which we call ‘present.’ … In fact there lies between what we have just called past’ and what we have just called ‘future’ a small but finite time interval. Its duration is determined by the position of the observer who is deciding on ‘past’ or ‘future’ and by the location of the events whose course in time is being investigated.” (Pg. 12)
He explains, “The effect of the means of observation on the observed body has to be conceived as a disturbance… in the region of the dividing line…it is the reason for the appearance of
statistical laws of nature in quantum mechanics… the accuracy up to which it is useful to employ these concepts to describe nature intelligibly is limited by the so-called uncertainty relations… This uncontrollable part of the disturbance provides a wonderful method… of fitting together at the dividing line, without contradictions, the fields of the laws of classical and of quantum theory. Thus an entity of law arises… An appreciation of this fact also helps to dispose of an objection frequently made against the finality of quantum mechanics; namely, that behind the interrelations statistically formulated by it, there may be hidden yet another system of determinist laws concerning hitherto defining data of nature… these new natural laws would soon be involved in contradictions with the strictly determined results of quantum mechanics… Any attempt to make good the uncertainties of quantum theory, by additions in places determined by certain processes of nature, would … bring to light the contradictions between quantum mechanics and the proposed addition.” (Pg. 15-16)
He suggests, “I may be allowed to say that it should not be taken as skepticism if I suspect that the concepts of modern physics too will have to be revised. On the contrary, it is only another expression of the conviction that our every-extending field of experience will bring to light ever more new harmonies.” (Pg. 52)
He states, “This search for the mathematical structure of phenomena, as taken over from antiquity has, however, given rise to an accusation. It is said that it illuminates only certain and, at that, not the most essential aspects of nature and, rather than being of help in an immediate and general understanding of nature, it is actually a hindrance… the precondition for an active, practical intervention in the material world, is just this conscious knowledge of mathematically formulated natural laws. Behind this, however, there is a direct understanding of nature unconsciously accepting these mathematical structures and mentally recreating them. All human beings are capable of this understanding if they are willing to enter into a more intimate receptive relation with nature.” (Pg. 59)
He points out, “True, with a comparatively moderate demand for accuracy, we can speak of the position and velocity of an electron: true also that, compared with our daily experience, this accuracy is quite considerable. But measured by an atomic scale it is insufficient, and a law characteristic for this miniature world prevents us from determining position and velocity with the desired accuracy… Nature thus escapes accurate determination, in terms of our commonsense ideas, by an unavoidable disturbance which is part of every observation. It was originally the aim of all science to describe nature as far as possible as it is… We now realize that this is an unattainable goal. In atomic physics it is impossible to neglect the changes produced on the observed object by observation.” (Pg. 73)
He observes, “Quantum theory did in fact satisfy all the demands which… could be made on atomic physics. The theory enabled us, at least in principle, to calculate---and to that extent ‘explain’----the properties of macroscopic matter… Thus we are perhaps justified in believing that we have reached a level of research comparable to that of the knowledge of the mechanics of the heavens after Newton. We may say that we are capable of a quantitative ‘calculation’ of the properties of matter in all cases where mathematical complications do not prevent the execution of this task in practice. A heavy price, however, had to be paid for the achievement of this ambition. It meant, in simplest form, the loss of just that nineteenth century scientific conception of nature or… the loss of that conception of reality on which Newton’s mechanics rested.” (Pg. 85)
He proposes, “the changes introduced by quantum theory have affected the position of theories of perception in such a way that those aspects of reality characterized by the words ‘consciousness’ and ‘spirit’ can be related in a new way to the scientific conception of our time… Improved modern technique of observation and the enrichment of positive knowledge resulting from it has finally forced us to revise the fundamentals of science and has convinced us that there can be no such firm foundation of ALL perception.” (Pg. 92-93)
He outlines, “At the end of the Middle Ages man discovered… yet another reality of material experience. That was ‘objective’ reality which we experience through our senses or by experiment… But this view of nature has also become undermined during our century. Fundamental attitudes of thought lost their absolute importance as concrete action moved more and more into the centre of our world. Even time and space became a subject of experience and lost their symbolic content. In science we realize more and more that our understanding of nature cannot begin with some definite cognition… but that all cognition is, so to speak, suspended over an unfathomable depth.” (Pg. 117)
He states, “You may, of course, object that the great mass of people has no access to this truth and that it can therefore exert little influence on the attitude of people. But at no time did the great mass of people have direct access to the centre and it may be that people today will be satisfied to know that though the gate is not open to everyone there CAN be no deceit beyond the gate. We have no power there---the decisions are taken by a higher power. People have used different words … for this ‘centre.’ They called it ‘spirit’ or ‘God.’... there are many ways to this centre… and science is only one of them. Perhaps we have no longer a generally recognized language in which we can make ourselves intelligible. That may be the reason why so many people cannot see it, but it is there today and it has always been, and any world order must be based on it. Such a world order must be guided by men who have not lost sight of it.” (Pg. 119)
This brief book will be of great interest to those studying the implications of Quantum physics.
April 1, 2013
Read this book. The man is a genius—not only a brilliant physicist, but an incredible philosopher and thinker who lays out a profound description of life and existence.
March 1, 2017
Werner Heisenberg elegantly and concisely intertwines the realms of romantic and classical understanding (for those who have read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) in this book. He elucidates the different forms of human understanding and demonstrates how science, as an abstraction of our thoughts, ultimately extends our line of sight. Anyone pursuing a scientific career will benefit from reading this book.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews