3.188 education and universities, cont. (86)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA)
Fri, 30 Jun 89 00:09:55 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 188. Friday, 30 Jun 1989.
(1) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 10:23 EDT (56 lines)
From: John Lavagnino <LAV@brandeis.bitnet>
Subject: Universities and education and quantum mechanics
(2) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 16:34:07 EDT (9 lines)
From: Daniel Boyarin <BOYARIN@TAUNIVM.bitnet>
Subject: Re: 3.187 education and universities, cont. (74)
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 10:23 EDT
From: John Lavagnino <LAV@brandeis.bitnet>
Subject: Universities and education and quantum mechanics
Here are some objections from an ex-physicist to Sheldon Richmond's
account of quantum mechanics.
> The mathematical formalism in words is: the product of momentum and
> position of micro-particles is more or less equivalent to Planck's
> quantum constant.
A few important words are missing here: it's ``the product of the
uncertainties in,'' not just ``the product of.'' There is a more
accurate statement a few sentences later (which however needlessly omits
the point that as one uncertainty goes up the other necessarily goes
down):
> However, Heisenberg provides a more limited interpretation: when we
> obtain a precise measurement of position, we cannot obtain an equally
> precise measurement of momentum; and, vice versa.
On the theory of measurement:
> Bohr, in his popular writings, interpreted this mathematical formalism
> to mean that the physicist is like the psychologist in that when he
> observes nature, he interferes in nature.
This isn't only something that comes up in popular writings. There is
no way to determine the position of a subatomic particle except by
bouncing other particles off it, particles which can't be much smaller,
and which therefore are going to push the original particle around some.
It's not a wild claim, but an everyday problem in doing that kind of
physics. Humanists, though, usually deal with bigger things (angels
apart) for which this effect, while present, is so tiny that it can be
ignored.
> Furthermore, among physicists there has been a long debate, beginning
> with Einstein, that attempted to show that quantum mechanics is
> incomplete--and that quantum mechanics cannot be the last word contrary
> to Heisenberg, Bohr and Born.
``Attempted'' is the key word here. It's never actually been done, and
the Copenhagen interpretation is still the one physicists use. As with
evolution, some people would like the theory to go away or say something
different, but it's a big step from that to having another theory that
works as well.
---Which doesn't mean that I agree with the usual humanist's use of
quantum mechanics. It is a theory appropriate for the description of
tiny particles of matter; it's only a metaphor when you apply it to,
say, psychology. It may help us to see new things, or to provide
suggestive analogies for things we already know, but any belief that it
provides ``scientific'' support for such insights is unfounded.
John Lavagnino (English and American Literature, Brandeis University)
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------17----
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 16:34:07 EDT
From: Daniel Boyarin <BOYARIN@TAUNIVM.bitnet>
Subject: Re: 3.187 education and universities, cont. (74)
The points about humanists jumping on a rickety bandwagon with Heisenberg
seem very well taken, but I don't understand why the position that
all interpretation is construction is glossed by you as anti-intellectualism.
Most of the people working out such positions in literary, anthropological
and historical theory seem to me very committed to the life of the mind.