Making the Quantum of Relevance

Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):223-241 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The two Heisenberg Uncertainties entail an incompatibility between the two pairs of conjugated variables E, t and p, q. But incompatibility comes in two kinds, exclusive of one another. There is incompatibility defineable as: & or defineable as [ & ] ↔ r. The former kind is unconditional, the latter conditional. The former, in accordance, is fact independent, and thus a matter of logic, the latter fact dependent, and thus a matter of fact. The two types are therefore diametrically opposed. In spite of this, however, the existing derivations of the Uncertainties are shown here to entail both types of incompatibility simultaneously. ΔEΔt ≥ h is known to derive from the quantum relation E = hv plus the Fourier relation ΔvΔt ≥ 1. And the Fourier relation assigns a logical incompatibility between Δv = 0, Δt = 0. An incompatibility, therefore, which is fact independent and unconditional. How can one reconcile this with the fact that ΔEΔt exists if and only if h > 0, which latter supposition is a factual truth, entailing that a ΔE = 0, Δt = 0 incompatibility should itself be fact dependent? Are we to say that E and t are unconditionally incompatible on condition that E = hv is at all true? Hence, as presently standing, the UR express a self-contradicting type of incompatibility. To circumvent this undesirable result, I reinterpret E = hv as relating the energy with a period. Though only one such period. And not with frequency literally. In this way, the literal concept of frequency does not enter as before, rendering ΔvΔt ≥ 1 inapplicable. So the above noted contradiction disappears. Nevertheless, the Uncertainties are derived. If energy is only to be defined over a period, momentum only over a distance resulting during such period, thus yielding quantized action of dimensions Et = pq, then energies will become indefinite at instants, momenta indefinite at points, leading, as demanded, to ΔEΔt = ΔpΔq ≥ h's.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,594

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Can Quantum Theory Be Applied to the Universe as a Whole?Claus Kiefer - 2010 - Foundations of Physics 40 (9-10):1410-1418.
Quantum Random Walks and Decision Making.Karthik H. Shankar - 2014 - Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (1):108-113.
Quantum Logic, Realism, and Value Definiteness.Allen Stairs - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (4):578-602.
Is Quantum Probability Rational?Alasdair I. Houston & Karoline Wiesner - 2013 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3):291 - 292.
Toward a Physical Theory of Quantum Cognition.Taiki Takahashi - 2014 - Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (1):104-107.
Quantum Mechanics and Metaphysical Indeterminacy.George Darby - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):227-245.
Time in a Quantum Universe.Peter D. B. Collins & Euan J. Squires - 1993 - Foundations of Physics 23 (6):913-921.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-04

Downloads
7 (#1,036,228)

6 months
1 (#418,924)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Complementarity.P. K. Feyerabend & D. M. MacKay - 1958 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 32 (1):75-122.
Time as Non‐Observational Knowledge: How to Straighten Out ΔEΔt≥H.Constantin Antonopoulos - 1997 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (2):165 – 183.

Add more references