The seminal work by one of the most important thinkers of the twentieth century, Physics and Philosophy is Werner Heisenberg's concise and accessible narrative of the revolution in modern physics, in which he played a towering role. The outgrowth of a celebrated lecture series, this book remains as relevant, provocative, and fascinating as when it was first published in 1958. A brilliant scientist whose ideas altered our perception of the universe, Heisenberg is considered the father of quantum physics; (...) he is most famous for the Uncertainty Principle, which states that quantum particles do not occupy a fixed, measurable position. His contributions remain a cornerstone of contemporary physics theory and application. Book jacket. (shrink)

The seminal work by one of the most important thinkers of the twentieth century, Physics and Philosophy is Werner Heisenberg's concise and accessible narrative of the revolution in modern physics, in which he played a towering role. The outgrowth of a celebrated lecture series, this book remains as relevant, provocative, and fascinating as when it was first published in 1958. A brilliant scientist whose ideas altered our perception of the universe, Heisenberg is considered the father of quantum physics; (...) he is most famous for the Uncertainty Principle, which states that quantum particles do not occupy a fixed, measurable position. His contributions remain a cornerstone of contemporary physics theory and application. (shrink)

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is usually taken to express a limitation of operational possibilities imposed by quantum mechanics. Here we demonstrate that the full content of this principle also includes its positive role as a condition ensuring that mutually exclusive experimental options can be reconciled if an appropriate trade-off is accepted. The uncertainty principle is shown to appear in three manifestations, in the form of uncertainty relations: for the widths of the position and momentum distributions in any (...) quantum state; for the inaccuracies of any joint measurement of these quantities; and for the inaccuracy of a measurement of one of the quantities and the ensuing disturbance in the distribution of the other quantity. Whilst conceptually distinct, these three kinds of uncertainty relations are shown to be closely related formally. Finally, we survey models and experimental implementations of joint measurements of position and momentum and comment briefly on the status of experimental tests of the uncertainty principle. (shrink)

It is well known that, in classical theory, Liouville's theorem shows that if an ensemble of systems is distributed over a small element of volume in phase space, the ensemble fills a region of equal volume at all later instants of time. In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is associated with the products of the errors in conjugate coordinates and momenta, and such products can be interpreted in terms of volume elements in phase space. Comparison of these two facts (...) leads to the assertion in the interesting volume on “Statistical Mechanics” recently published by J. E. and M. G. Mayer that “The Liouville theorem is essential for the complete understanding of the uncertainty principle. (shrink)

The research has three objectives: 1) to study the concept of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, 2) to study the concept of reality and knowledge in Buddhist philosophy, and 3) to analyze the concept of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in Buddhist philosophical perspective. This is documentary research. In this research, it was found that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle refers to the experiment of thought while studying physical reality on smaller particles than atoms where at the present no theory (...) of Physics can clearly explain such properties. In this respect, the mentioned principle is utilized to predict the pairs of a certain attribute of physics, position, and momentum, for instance. The accuracy of position, however, cannot be precisely yielded in advance by such a principle. In other words, it is impossible to measure the position and momentum of a quantum particle at the same time. In the study of the ultimate reality on the matter in the Buddhist philosophy, it showed that corporeality in nature is conditioned by cause and effect and thereby falling under the three common characteristics: 1) impermanence, 2) state of suffering, and 3) state of non-substantiality. In the study of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in the Buddhist philosophical perspective, this research was found that the processes in acquiring certain knowledge of Heisenberg and Buddhist philosophy are by one another in the sense that such knowledge is methodologically acquired through experience, rationality, and intuition because both see the Reality in the same manners, that is, the physical reality is viewed by Heisenberg as the thing that goes under changing state of wave-particle all the times, and the matter is seen by Buddhist philosophy as the impermanence and change depending upon its factors involved and thereby is not-self. However, in the different aspect, on the one hand, Buddhist philosophy utilizes the knowledge on the matter to develop the morality and ethics by which the cessation of suffering could be respectively made, but on the other hand, Heisenberg somehow applies the certain knowledge on physical objects into quantum technology to accommodate the physical comfortability in living life. Suggestions in the application of knowledge gained from this research into benefit were that while Buddhist philosophy can make use of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to provide certain help at the time of explanation of three common characteristics being done through the scientific method, science also can utilize knowledge gained from Buddhist philosophy to expand the framework of scientific knowledge which is aimed at studying only the physical objects to be able to study the mental objects through the integration of three epistemological methods as well. (shrink)

In this paper we critically analyse W. Heisenberg’s arguments against the ontology of point particles following trajectories in quantum theory, presented in his famous 1927 paper and in his Chicago lectures (1929). Along the way, we will clarify the meaning of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation and help resolve some confusions related to it.

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a milestone of twentieth-century physics. We sketch the history that led to the formulation of the principle, and we recall the objections of Grete Hermann and Niels Bohr. Then we explain that there are in fact two uncertainty principles. One was published by Heisenberg in the Zeitschrift für Physik of March 1927 and subsequently targeted by Bohr and Hermann. The other one was introduced by Earle Kennard in the same journal a couple (...) of months later. While Kennard’s principle remains untarnished, the principle of Heisenberg has recently been criticized in a way that is very different from the objections by Bohr and Hermann: there are reasons to believe that Heisenberg’s formula is not valid. Experimental results seem to support this claim. -/- . (shrink)

We consider the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of position and momentum in 3-dimensional spaces of constant curvature K. The uncertainty of position is defined coordinate independent by the geodesic radius of spherical domains in which the particle is localized after a von Neumann–Lüders projection. By applying mathematical standard results from spectral analysis on manifolds, we obtain the largest lower bound of the momentum deviation in terms of the geodesic radius and K. For hyperbolic spaces, we also obtain a (...) global lower bound \, which is non-zero and independent of the uncertainty in position. Finally, the lower bound for the Schwarzschild radius of a static black hole is derived and given by \, where \ is the Planck length. (shrink)

This paper considers the relationship between quantum uncertainty and the problem of God. Among the issues considered are the existence and essence ofGod, divine action, human freedom, and personal identity. In recent discussions concerning the relative merits of science and religion, thinkers like Ian Barbourand John Haught have suggested several such credible, albeit tentative, connections between the two on the basis of the epistemological limit imposed upon human knowledge by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

This paper considers the relationship between quantum uncertainty and the problem of God. Among the issues considered are the existence and essence ofGod, divine action, human freedom, and personal identity. In recent discussions concerning the relative merits of science and religion, thinkers like Ian Barbourand John Haught have suggested several such credible, albeit tentative, connections between the two on the basis of the epistemological limit imposed upon human knowledge by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The uncertainty on measurements, given by the Heisenberg principle, is a quantum concept usually not taken into account in General Relativity. From a cosmological point of view, several authors wonder how such a principle can be reconciled with the Big Bang singularity, but, generally, not whether it may affect the reliability of cosmological measurements. In this letter, we express the Compton mass as a function of the cosmological redshift. The cosmological application of the indetermination principle unveils the differences (...) of the Hubble-Lemaître constant value, $$H_0$$, as measured from the Cepheids estimates and from the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation constraints. In conclusion, the $$H_0$$ tension could be related to the effect of indetermination derived in comparing a kinematic with a dynamic measurement. (shrink)

In The Structure of Science, Ernest Nagel finds fault with Werner Heisenberg’s explication of the uncertainty principle. Nagel’s complaint is that this principle does not follow from the impossibility of measuring with precision both the position and the momentum of a particle, as Heisenberg intimates, rather it is the other way around. Recent developments in theoretical physics have shown that Nagel’s argument is more substantial than he could have envisaged. In particular it has become clear that there (...) are in fact two uncertainty principles; as a result, there are four pairs of quantities to examine, whereas Heisenberg considers only one. These findings throw new light on Nagel’s criticism. They enable us to see that his intuition was surprisingly apposite, but also make clear where his argument misses the mark. (shrink)

We show that the strong form of Heisenberg’s inequalities due to Robertson and Schrödinger can be formally derived using only classical considerations. This is achieved using a statistical tool known as the “minimum volume ellipsoid” together with the notion of symplectic capacity, which we view as a topological measure of uncertainty invariant under Hamiltonian dynamics. This invariant provides a right measurement tool to define what “quantum scale” is. We take the opportunity to discuss the principle of the symplectic (...) camel, which is at the origin of the definition of symplectic capacities, and which provides an interesting link between classical and quantum physics. (shrink)

Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy or uncertainty has led most theoretical physicists and philosophers to two important steps: 1) the denunciation of the law of physical causality; 2) the decision of biological and psychological problems in favor of indeterminism.

The contributions of few contemporary scientists have been as far reaching in their effects as those of Nobel Laureate Werner Heisenberg.

In this paper, the main outlines of the discussions between Niels Bohr with Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger during 1920–1927 are treated. From the formulation of quantum mechanics in 1925–1926 and wave mechanics in 1926, there emerged Born's statistical interpretation of the wave function in summer 1926, and on the basis of the quantum mechanical transformation theory—formulated in fall 1926 by Dirac, London, and Jordan—Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle in early 1927. At the Volta Conference (...) in Como in September 1927 and at the fifth Solvay Conference in Brussels the following month, Bohr publicly enunciated his complementarity principle, which had been developing in his mind for several years. The Bohr-Einstein discussions about the consistency and completeness of qnautum mechanics and of physical theory as such—formally begun in October 1927 at the fifth Solvay Conference and carried on at the sixth Solvay Conference in October 1930—were continued during the next decades. All these aspects are briefly summarized. (shrink)

Stringy corrections to the ordinary Heisenberg uncertainty relations have been known for some time. However, a proper understanding of the underlying new physical principle modifying the ordinary Heisenberg uncertainty relations has not yet emerged. The author has recently proposed a new scale relativity theory as a physical foundation of string and M theories. In this work the stringy uncertainty relations, and corrections thereof, are rigorously derived from this new relativity principle without any ad-hoc assumptions. The (...) precise connection between the Regge trajectory behavior of the string spectrum and the area quantization is also established. (shrink)

In this work I propose an analogy between Pythagoras's theorem and the logical-formal structure of Werner Heisenberg's "relations of uncertainty." The reasons that they have pushed to me to place this analogy have been determined from the following ascertainment: Often, when in exact sciences a problem of measurement precision arises, it has been resolved with the resource of the elevation to the square. To me it seems also that the aporie deriving from the uncertainty principle can find (...) one solution with the resource to this stratagem. In fact, if the first classic example of the argument is the solution of the incommensurability between catheti and the hypotenuse of the triangle rectangle, one of the last cases is that which is represented from Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (shrink)

Patrick Aidan Heelan’s The Observable offers the reader a completely articulated development of his 1965 philosophy of quantum physics, Quantum Mechanics and Objectivity. In this previously unpublished study dating back more than a half a century, Heelan brings his background as both a physicist and a philosopher to his reflections on Werner Heisenberg’s physical philosophy. Including considerably broader connections to the contributions of Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, and Albert Einstein, this study also reflects Heelan’s experience in Eugene Wigner’s laboratory (...) at Princeton along with his reflections on working with Erwin Schrödinger dating from Heelan’s years at the Institute for Advanced Cosmology in Dublin. A contribution to continental philosophy of science, the phenomenological and hermeneutic resources applied in this book to the physical and ontological paradoxes of quantum physics, especially in connection with laboratory science and measurement, theory and model making, will enrich students of the history of science as well as those interested in different approaches to the historiography of science. University courses in the philosophy of physics will find this book indispensable as a resource and invaluable for courses in the history of science. (shrink)

Gregor Schiemann führt allgemeinverständlich in das Denken dieses Physikers ein. Thema sind die Erfahrungen und Überlegungen, die Heisenberg zu seinen theoretischen Erkenntnissen geführt haben, die wesentlichen Inhalte dieser Erkenntnisse sowie die Konsequenzen, die er daraus für die Geschichte der Physik und das wissenschaftliche Weltbild gezogen hat. Heisenbergs Vorstellungswelt durchzieht durch ein Spannungsverhältnis, das heute noch das Denken vieler Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler bewegt. Er ist um ein umfassendes Verständnis der Naturprozesse bemüht, zugleich aber von der Berechenbarkeit und Beherrschbarkeit von Phänomenen (...) auch dann schon fasziniert, wenn die zugrunde liegenden Prozesse erst teilweise verstanden sind. Aus der Geschichte der Physik zieht er die wirkungsreiche Lehre, daß sich die naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnis nicht kontinuierlich, sondern sprunghaft in Form von Revolutionen entwickelt. Die Reichweite des physikalischen Wissens begrenzt er in einer Schichtentheorie der Welt, nach der die komplexen Phänomene des Lebens nicht allein durch die Wechselwirkungen zwischen ihren Bestandteilen erklärt werden können. Der zunehmenden Technisierung der Welt steht Heisenberg kritisch gegenüber. Seiner Zeit weit voraus, glaubt er, daß die Technisierung der Welt eine epochal neue Stufe erreicht habe, in der der Mensch „nur noch sich selbst“ gegenüberstehe. (shrink)

Quantum uncertainty relations have deep-rooted significance in the formalism of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations attracted a renewed interest for its applications in quantum information science. Following the discovery of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Robertson derived a general form of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations for a pair of arbitrary observables represented by Hermitian operators. In the present work, we discover a temporal version of the Heisenberg–Robertson uncertainty relations for the measurement of two (...) observables at two different times, where the dynamical uncertainties crucially depend on the time evolution of the observables. The uncertainties not only depend on the choice of observables but also depend on the times at which the physical observables are measured. The time correlated two-time commutator dictates the trade-off between the dynamical uncertainties. We demonstrate the dynamics of these uncertainty relations for a spin-1/2 quantum system and for a quantum harmonic oscillator. We also present the dynamical uncertainty relation in terms of entropies, where the temporal entropic uncertainties are restricted by a time-dependent complementarity factor. The temporal uncertainty relations explored in this work can be experimentally verified with the present quantum technology. (shrink)

In contemporary science uncertainty is often represented as an intrinsic feature of natural and of human phenomena. As an example we need only think of two important conceptual revolutions that occurred in physics and logic during the first half of the twentieth century: (1) the discovery of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics; (2) the emergence of many-valued logical reasoning, which gave rise to so-called ‘fuzzy thinking’. I discuss the possibility of applying the notions of uncertainty, (...) developed in the framework of quantum mechanics, quantum information and fuzzy logics, to some problems of political and social sciences. (shrink)

According to the Rayleigh criterion of classical optics, the finite resolving power of a microscope is due to the width of the central peak of the Fraunhofer diffraction pattern produced by the microscope's finite lens aperture. During the last few decades, theories and techniques for superresolution beyond the Rayleigh criterion have been developed in classical optics. Thus, Heisenberg's microscope could also in principle be made to give superresolution and thereby appear to violate the uncertainty relation. We believe that (...) this paradox is due to the inappropriate use of a definition, based purely on experimental convenience, to support a quantum mechanical theorem. (shrink)

Recent years saw the rise of an interest in the roles and significance of thought experiments in different areas of human thinking. Heisenberg's gamma ray microscope is no doubt one of the most famous examples of a thought experiment in physics. Nevertheless, this particular thought experiment has not received much detailed attention in the philosophical literature on thought experiments up to date, maybe because of its often claimed inadequacies. In this paper, I try to do two things: to provide (...) an interesting interpretation of the roles played by Heisenberg's gamma ray microscope in interpreting quantum mechanics – partly based on Thomas Kuhn’s views on the function of thought experiments – and to contribute to the ongoing discussions on the roles and significance of thought experiments in physics. (shrink)

How certain is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is at the heart of the orthodox or Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. We first sketch the history that led up to the formulation of the principle. Then we recall that there are in fact two uncertainty principles, both dating from 1927, one by Werner Heisenberg and one by Earle Kennard. Finally, we explain that recent work in physics gives reason to believe that the principle (...) of Heisenberg is invalid, while that of Kennard still stands. (shrink)

Aberrations -- Absorption -- Accuracy and precision -- Alpha radiation -- Amplitude -- Angular forces -- Angular momentum -- Antenna -- Arago dot -- Aperture -- Archimedes's principle -- Band theory of solids -- Bernoulli's principle -- Beta radiation -- Blackbody radiation -- Bohr atom -- Bose condensation -- Bra-ket notation -- British thermal unit (BTU) -- Calculating system efficiency -- Circular motion -- Closed systems and isolated systems -- Concave and convex -- Conservation of charge -- Conservation of energy (...) -- Convection and conduction -- Cosmic radiation -- Crest and trough -- Density and specific gravity -- Diode -- Distance and area -- Distortion -- Doppler effect -- Dynamic systems theory -- Edison effect -- Eigenvectors -- Elastic and inelastic collisions -- Electric circuits: Parallel vs series, diagrams and components -- Electric potential -- Energy and power -- Enthalpy -- Entropy -- Euler's laws of motion -- Falling bodies and physics -- Faraday's law -- Feynman diagrams -- Flywheel -- Focal point -- Free body diagram -- Frequency -- Gamma radiation -- Gauss's law -- Gluon -- Gravitational potential energy -- Harmonic oscillator -- Harmonics -- Heisenberg uncertainty principle -- Higgs boson -- Horsepower -- Ideal gas law -- Joule --. (shrink)

The Cramér–Rao bound, satisfied by classical Fisher information, a key quantity in information theory, has been shown in different contexts to give rise to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. In this paper, we show that the identification of the mean quantum potential, an important notion in Bohmian mechanics, with the Fisher information, leads, through the Cramér–Rao bound, to an uncertainty principle which is stronger, in general, than both Heisenberg and Robertson–Schrödinger uncertainty relations, allowing (...) to experimentally test the validity of such an identification. (shrink)

The issue of energy and its potential localizability in general relativity has challenged physicists for more than a century. Many non-invariant measures were proposed over the years but an invariant measure was never found. We discovered the invariant localized energy measure by expanding the domain of investigation from space to spacetime. We note from relativity that the finiteness of the velocity of propagation of interactions necessarily induces indefiniteness in measurements. This is because the elements of actual physical systems being measured (...) as well as their detectors are characterized by entire four-velocity fields, which necessarily leads to information from a measured system being processed by the detector in a spread of time. General relativity adds additional indefiniteness because of the variation in proper time between elements. The uncertainty is encapsulated in a generalized uncertainty principle, in parallel with that of Heisenberg, which incorporates the localized contribution of gravity to energy. This naturally leads to a generalized uncertainty principle for momentum as well. These generalized forms and the gravitational contribution to localized energy would be expected to be of particular importance in the regimes of ultra-strong gravitational fields. We contrast our invariant spacetime energy measure with the standard 3-space energy measure which is familiar from special relativity, appreciating why general relativity demands a measure in spacetime as opposed to 3-space. We illustrate the misconceptions by certain authors of our approach. (shrink)

This article argues that a manuscript dated to the summer of 1927 by the editors of Bohr’s Collected Works was written a year earlier. The re-dating allows the conclusion that Bohr was well on his way to complementarity before his famous fight with Heisenberg over the uncertainty principle early in 1927. The literature that assumes that complementarity was Bohr’s response to Heisenberg is therefore in error. The editors of the Collected Works assigned the document the date of (...) 1927 because it refers to electron-diffraction experiments by Davisson and Germer, which were published in 1927. But as the article points out, Bohr and other leading physicists such as Max Born met Davisson in Britain in 1926 and discussed the experiments with him then. That demolished the basis of the earlier dating. Finally, the article argues that when the document takes its place between the Bohr–Kramers–Slater theory (1924) and the 1927 drafts of complementarity, everything falls neatly into place. (shrink)

It is shown that both covariant harmonic oscillator formalism and quantum field theory are based on common physical principles which include Poincaré covariance, Heisenberg's space-momentum uncertainty relation, and Dirac's “C-number” time-energy uncertainty relation. It is shown in particular that the oscillator wave functions are derivable from the physical principles which are used in the derivation of the Klein-Nishina formula.

For a simple set of observables we can express, in terms of transition probabilities alone, the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, so that they are proven to be not only necessary, but sufficient too, in order for the given observables to admit a quantum model. Furthermore distinguished characterizations of strictly complex and real quantum models, with some ancillary results, are presented and discussed.

It has been suggested that God can act on the world by operating within the limits set by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) without violating the laws of nature. This requires nature to be intrinsically indeterministic. However, according to the statistical interpretation the quantum mechanical wavefunction represents the average behavior of an ensemble of similar systems and not that of a single system. The HUP thus refers to a relation between the spreads of possible values of position and momentum (...) and so is consistent with a fully deterministic world. This statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is supported by reference to actual measurements, resolves the quantum paradoxes, and stimulates further research. If this interpretation is accepted, quantum mechanics is irrelevant to the question of God's action in the world. (shrink)

It is generally believed that the uncertainty relation Δq Δp≥1/2ħ, where Δq and Δp are standard deviations, is the precise mathematical expression of the uncertainty principle for position and momentum in quantum mechanics. We show that actually it is not possible to derive from this relation two central claims of the uncertainty principle, namely, the impossibility of an arbitrarily sharp specification of both position and momentum (as in the single-slit diffraction experiment), and the impossibility of the determination (...) of the path of a particle in an interference experiment (such as the double-slit experiment).The failure of the uncertainty relation to produce these results is not a question of the interpretation of the formalism; it is a mathematical fact which follows from general considerations about the widths of wave functions.To express the uncertainty principle, one must distinguish two aspects of the spread of a wave function: its extent and its fine structure. We define the overall widthW Ψ and the mean peak width wψ of a general wave function ψ and show that the productW Ψ w φ is bounded from below if φ is the Fourier transform of ψ. It is shown that this relation expresses the uncertainty principle as it is used in the single- and double-slit experiments. (shrink)

A theoretical physicist and feminist theorist, Karen Barad elaborates her theory of agential realism, a schema that is at once a new epistemology, ontology, and ethics.

We argue about quantum entanglement and the uncertainty principle through the tomographic approach. In the end of paper, we infer some epistemological implications.

Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics deals with these problems is reviewed. A new interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics, the transactional interpretation, is presented. The basic element of this interpretation is the transaction describing a quantum event as an exchange of advanced and retarded waves, as implied by the work of Wheeler and Feynman, Dirac, and others. The transactional interpretation is explicitly nonlocal and thereby consistent with recent tests of the Bell inequality, yet is relativistically invariant and fully causal. (...) A detailed comparison of the transactional and Copenhagen interpretations is made in the context of well-known quantum-mechanical Gedankenexperimenre and "paradoxes." The transactional interpretation permits quantum-mechanical wave functions to be interpreted as real waves physically present in space rather than as "mathematical representations of knowledge" as in the Copenhagen interpretation. The transactional interpretation is shown to provide insight into the complex character of the quantum-mechanical state vector and the mechanism associated with its "collapse." It also leads in a natural way to justification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Born probability law (P = ii iij*), basic elements of the Copenhagen interpretation. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics is generally regarded as the physical theory that is our best candidate for a fundamental and universal description of the physical world. The conceptual framework employed by this theory differs drastically from that of classical physics. Indeed, the transition from classical to quantum physics marks a genuine revolution in our understanding of the physical world.

I provide a critical commentary regarding the attitude of the logician and the philosopher towards the physicist and physics. The commentary is intended to showcase how a general change in attitude towards making scientific inquiries can be beneficial for science as a whole. However, such a change can come at the cost of looking beyond the categories of the disciplines of logic, philosophy and physics. It is through self-inquiry that such a change is possible, along with the realization of the (...) essence of the middle that is otherwise excluded by choice. The logician, who generally holds a reverential attitude towards the physicist, can then actively contribute to the betterment of physics by improving the language through which the physicist expresses his experience. The philosopher, who otherwise chooses to follow the advancement of physics and gets stuck in the trap of sophistication of language, can then be of guidance to the physicist on intellectual grounds by having the physicist’s experience himself. In course of this commentary, I provide a glimpse of how a truthful conversion of verbal statements to physico-mathematical expressions unravels the hitherto unrealized connection between Heisenberg uncertainty relation and Cauchy’s definition of derivative that is used in physics. The commentary can be an essential reading if the reader is willing to look beyond the categories of logic, philosophy and physics by being ‘nobody’. (shrink)

The principle of set theory known as the Axiom of Choice has been hailed as “probably the most interesting and, in spite of its late appearance, the most discussed axiom of mathematics, second only to Euclid's axiom of parallels which was introduced more than two thousand years ago” (Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel & Levy 1973, §II.4). The fulsomeness of this description might lead those unfamiliar with the axiom to expect it to be as startling as, say, the Principle of the Constancy of (...) the Velocity of Light or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But in fact the Axiom of Choice as it is usually stated appears humdrum, even self-evident. For it amounts to nothing more than the claim that, given any collection of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, it is possible to assemble a new set — a transversal or choice set — containing exactly one element from each member of the given collection. Nevertheless, this seemingly innocuous principle has far-reaching mathematical consequences — many indispensable, some startling — and has come to figure prominently in discussions on the foundations of mathematics. It (or its equivalents) have been employed in countless mathematical papers, and a number of monographs have been exclusively devoted to it. (shrink)

Responds to comments by G. Kempen (see record 1996-00289-001) regarding L. Frazier's (see record 1995-31821-001) comments regarding G. Kempen's (see record 1995-31826-001) comments on Frazier et al's (see record 1994-32229-001) article on processing discontinuous words. There are serious problems with Kempen's account of the data of Frazier et al. These problems involve the principle of uncertainty invoked by Kempen. It is unclear that all control items in the original Frazier et al study were open to a complex verb analysis. (...) Kempen's alternative account of the results is not only incomplete, but it is inconsistent with the English data and with half of the Dutch data, in addition to relying on a principle of parsing that is otherwise unmotivated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2000 APA, all rights reserved) (unassigned). (shrink)