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)

It is widely known that Hegel is a proponent and defender of the market economy. But why exactly does Hegel think that the market economy is superior to other economic systems? In this paper, I argue that Hegel's answer to this question has not been sufficiently understood. Commentators, or so I want to claim, have only identified one part of Hegel's argument—but have left out the most original and surprising dimension of his view: namely, Hegel's conviction that we should embrace (...) the market economy for its educational impact. Indeed, Hegel thinks that the market, by creating a sphere of life apart from traditional norms and expectations, teaches us something about ourselves, about others, and about the world we inhabit together—something that we could not learn anywhere else, but that we inevitably need to live well as individuals. (shrink)

In nine essays and lectures composed in the last years of his life, Werner Heisenberg offers a bold appraisal of the scientific method in the twentieth century--and relates its philosophical impact on contemporary society and science to the particulars of molecular biology, astrophysics, and related disciplines. Are the problems we define and pursue freely chosen according to our conscious interests? Or does the historical process itself determine which phenomena merit examination at any one time? Heisenberg discusses these issues (...) in the most far-ranging philosophical terms, while illustrating them with specific examples. (shrink)

It is widely known that Hegel's Philosophy of Right recognizes poverty as one of the central problems of modern civil society. What is much less well known, however, is that Hegel sees yet another structural problem at the opposite side of the economic spectrum: a problem of affluence. Indeed, as I show in this essay, Hegel's text contains a detailed—yet sometimes overlooked—discussion of the detrimental psychological and sociological effects of great wealth and how to counter them. By bringing this discussion (...) to the fore, we get a more complete picture of Hegel's theory of civil society and shed light on an aspect of Hegel's social philosophy that speaks to problems we face today. (shrink)

Available here for the first time in English, "Reality and Its Order" is a remarkable philosophical text by Werner Heisenberg, the father of quantum mechanics and one of the leading scientists of the 20th century. Written during the wartime years and initially distributed only to his family and trusted friends, the essay describes Heisenberg’s philosophical view of how we understand the natural world and our role within it. In this volume, the essay is introduced by the physicist Helmut (...) Rechenberg and annotated by the science historian Ernst Peter Fischer. The content, particularly within its historical context, will be of great interest to many physicists, philosophers and historians of science. (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)

In this paper, I argue that Kant’s philosophy of history underwent a significant change be- tween his 1784 Idea for a Universal History and his 1790 Third Critique. My proposal is that in between these two texts Kant decisively revised his conception of the sources of historical, i. e. cultural and political, progress: In 1784, he conceived of historical progress as primarily accomplished through social antagonism among human beings, whereas beginning in 1790, he elevates ethical cooperation into a second, significant (...) source of progress. Between 1784 and the 1790s, in other words, Kant re-conceived the collaboration between moral agents as a driving force of history and of the progressing cultivation of humankind. In this paper I offer evidence for this change and suggest reasons why it might have occurred. (shrink)

It is widely acknowledged that Hegel holds the view that a rational social order needs to reconcile us to our status as natural beings, with bodily needs and desires. But while this general view is...

Este artigo destina-se a introduzir a conferência de Heisenberg "A doutrina goethiana e newtoniana das cores à luz da física moderna", proferida em 1941, cuja tradução é aqui publicada. Analisa-se primeiramente o projeto filosófico de uma ordenação da realidade, desenvolvido pelo físico no início da década de 1940, o qual subjaz à discussão sobre as doutrinas das cores em Goethe e Newton. No segundo momento, faz-se uma exposição de algumas das implicações filosóficas da teoria quântica, com ênfase na interpretação (...) da assim denominada escola de Copenhague. Por fim, procura-se mostrar como a querela entre Goethe e Newton é utilizada para defender as abstrações da física teórica dos ataques da assim denominada "física ariana" e, ao mesmo tempo, preservar o valor das considerações intuitivas de Goethe. This paper aims at exposing the Heisenberg's conference "The teachings of Goethe and Newton on colors in the light of modern physics", presented in 1941, whose translation is presented here. In the first place the paper analyzes the philosophical project of an ordination of the reality, developed by the physicist in the early 1940s and which is the basis for the discussion of the "Teachings of Goethe and Newton on colors". Secondly it exposes some philosophical implications of the quantum theory by emphasizing the point of view of the Copenhagen school. Finally, it shows how the dispute between Goethe and Newton is exploited to defend the abstractions of the theoretical physics against the attacks of the so called "German physicists" and, at the same time, to preserve the worth of the Goethe's intuitive analysis. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Hegel's Value: Justice as the Living Good by Dean MoyarThimo HeisenbergDean Moyar. Hegel's Value: Justice as the Living Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Pp. 384. Hardback, $110.00.Hegel's Philosophy of Right is one of those texts that make it easy to miss the forest for the trees. On the argumentative journey from private property and punishment, via the "emptiness" of Kant's moral law to Hegel's vision of a (...) rational social order, it is easy to lose sight of the overall arch of Hegel's argument. Indeed, this kind of problem is confounded by an ever-growing literature on individual ideas and sections of the text (from Hegel's conception of agency to his argument for the market economy), which, while interesting and rewarding on their own, direct our attention to parts of his argument, rather than to the Philosophy of Right as a whole.Dean Moyar's new book is devoted to making us see the forest again—albeit while never leaving the trees out of sight. Indeed, to stretch the metaphor of forest and trees a little bit further, Moyar builds his ambitious endeavor on two new interpretative theses, which enable him to show us completely new paths through and clearings in the forest, bringing to light previously underappreciated aspects of the argument and adding refreshing new takes on the parts of Hegel's view that are already well known.The first of Moyar's two central theses concerns Hegel's methodology in his Philosophy of Right. Moyar maintains that the structure of the Philosophy of Right can be understood as a "teleologically inferentialist" account: the content of the norms of right is developed through use, where at each stage of the argument the content of those norms is refined by sublating previous failures of application. But while this Hegelian process is dynamic, relying on conflicts and their resolution, the process is—in contrast to some pragmatist forms of inferentialism—not open-ended: instead, or so Moyar convincingly argues, it leads to a point of inferential equilibrium as telos of the text (Hegel's vision of Ethical Life), in which some dynamism persists but further development of right is no longer necessary.This kind of interpretation, Moyar argues, has several advantages: it renders the methodology of the Philosophy of Right consistent with the method of Hegel's Logic, but it also provides us with a general template (which Moyar calls the "basic argument" [30 and passim]) on which to understand all the different transitions in the Philosophy of Right as structurally analogous, thereby showing Hegel to be both intertextually and intratextually consistent. Even more, using this basic argument as a template, Moyar puts himself in a position to generate interesting understandings of all the major and minor transitions in Hegel's text, focusing not merely on the most well-known (the transition from Morality to Ethical Life), but also on those that have traditionally received much less attention (such as the minor transition that leads from the contradiction between right [Recht] and welfare [Wohl] to the Good).The second of Moyar's two central theses concerns the importance of the concept of value to Hegel's project. Indeed, Moyar argues that even though the word 'value' (Wert) may not appear frequently in the published version of Hegel's lectures, the concept of value is at work everywhere in the text. Moyar, consequently, traces the presence of this concept throughout the Philosophy of Right, using it to understand many of the forbiddingly [End Page 327] difficult passages, from the dense section on the "Alienation of Property" early on in the part on Abstract Right, to Hegel's later views on the relationship between right and duty, his precarious theory of the "circulation of value" on the market, and finally his view of history at the end of the Philosophy of Right.In this way, Moyar extracts a rich interpretative bounty: he defends a heterodox reading of Hegel as a legal positivist, reconstructs a Hegelian doctrine of public reason, and argues against an "amoral" reading of Hegel's account of history. Most important, perhaps, is his interpretation of the relationship... (shrink)

Philosophers today do not think of Goethe’s Faust as an important contribution to the philosophy of money. But to discount the work in this way is a mistake, I argue. Underneath Faust’s lyrical form, Goethe develops a comprehensive view of money that came to be an important influence on left-wing (Karl Marx) and right-wing (Oswald Spengler) discussions of money. Centrally, Goethe argues that modern economic practices have transformed money obsession (long conceived of primarily as an individual vice) into a structural (...) problem: social structures are now set up to systematically require individuals to engage in quasi-obsessive behaviors towards money (e.g. persistently talking about/sacrificing for money) independently, to a significant degree, from their individual choices. This structural power, Goethe proposes, requires a rethinking of how behavior towards money should be morally evaluated – and, importantly, a critique of moral attitudes that individualize what is, in truth, a social problem. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Kant’s philosophy of history underwent a significant change between his 1784 Idea for a Universal History and his 1790 Third Critique. My proposal is that in between these two texts Kant decisively revised his conception of the sources of historical, i. e. cultural and political, progress: In 1784, he conceived of historical progress as primarily accomplished through social antagonism among human beings, whereas beginning in 1790, he elevates ethical cooperation into a second, significant source (...) of progress. Between 1784 and the 1790s, in other words, Kant re-conceived the collaboration between moral agents as a driving force of history and of the progressing cultivation of humankind. In this paper I offer evidence for this change and suggest reasons why it might have occurred. (shrink)

To us today, it seems intuitive that an ideal society would secure for its citizens some time for leisure that is, some time to do “whatever they want” after having attended to their various responsibilities and natural needs. But, in this essay, I argue that—in 19th century social philosophy—the status of leisure (Muße) in an ideal society was actually surprisingly controversial: whereas J.G. Fichte makes a strong case for leisure as part of an ideal society (going even so far as (...) considering it its central good), G.W.F. Hegel implicitly argues against this idea. For him, leisure is a crook that we only need as long as the social conditions are not sufficiently ideal—whereas a truly rational society would create a new type of work that subsumes the benefits of leisure into work itself. In this essay, I reconstruct this largely forgotten disagreement and argue that although both positions contain an important overstatement, each includes an important lesson for the contemporary debate on leisure and society. (shrink)

In neuroethology, the nervous system and behavior are analyzed in the context of the animal's natural habitat and evolutionary history. For the last 30 years the influence of genetics on neuroethology has steadily grown, particularly in Drosophila. Genetic variants reveal new properties of neurons; they help to dissect neuronal circuits and complex behavioral systems; genetics provides new methods to visualize certain brain structures and to assign behavioral functions to them; and, finally, genetic variants can be used to test ecological models. (...) While single‐gene mutations can have highly specific behavioral effects, molecular analysis of the corresponding genes reveals that the latter normally have a much broader functional scope. The ‘graininess’ of a functional model of the brain, therefore, is defined by the independent regulatory units of the genes rather than by the genes themselves. (shrink)

Sommaire: Tradition ancienne et tradition nouvelleHistorique de la théorie des quantaL'interprétation de CopenhagueLa théorie quantique et les racines de la science atomiqueLe développement des idées philosophiques depuis Descartes et la nouvelle situation en théorie quantiqueRapports entre la théorie quantique et les autres sciences expérimentalesThéorie de la relativitéCritiques et contre-propositions à l'interprétation de CopenhagueThéorie quantique et structure de la matièreLangage et réalité en physique actuelleRôle de la physique moderne dans l'évolution actuelle de la pensée humaine.

Much attention has been paid to the role that Hegel, in his mature ethical theory, attributes to what he calls the social or political body i.e. to the institutions of the social order. Ironically, by comparison, much less attention has been paid to the role the physical body plays in the same theory. This paper attempts to level the scale, by reconstructing Hegel’s ethical theory of the physical body from the Philosophy of Right and the Encyclopedia. Hegel’s leading thesis here, (...) I argue, is that developing and maintaining a good relationship with one’s physical body is not only rather demanding, but also requires the right kind of social institutions – and that absent these institutions, individuals will (for the most part) be unable to see and to treat their body in the right kind of way. Achieving a good relationship to their body, hence, is something that individuals cannot just do on their own, on Hegel’s view, but something that requires them to collaborate with others, creating and sustaining social institutions that help them be at home in their bodies. (shrink)

Dorsal closure (DC), the closure of a hole in the dorsal epidermis of Drosophila embryos by the joining of opposing epithelial cell sheets, has been used as a model process to study the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying epithelial spreading and wound healing. Recent studies have provided novel insights into how different tissues function cooperatively in this process. Specifically, they demonstrate a critical function of the epidermis surrounding the hole in modulating the behavior of the amnioserosa cells inside. These findings (...) shed light not only on the mechanisms by which the behavior of different tissues is coordinated during DC, but also on the general mechanisms by which tissues interact to trigger global morphogenesis, an essential but yet poorly explored aspect of embryogenesis. (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.

Heisenberg, in constructing quantum mechanics, explicitly followed certain principles exemplified, as he believed, in Einstein's construction of the special theory of relativity which for him was the paradigm for radical theoretic change in physics. These were the principles of scientific realism, stability of background knowledge, E-observability, contextual re-interpretation, pragmatic continuity, model continuity, simplicity. Fifty years later, in retrospect, Heisenberg added the following two: a principle of non-proliferation of competing theories - scientific revolutions are not a legitimate goal of (...) physics - and a principle of tenacity - existing theories are to be conserved as far as possible. The conservative as well as the revolutionary potential of these principles is then discussed. A more penetrating philosophical criticism of these principles is postponed. (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)

Despite quantum theory’s remarkable success at predicting the statistical results of experiments, many philosophers worry that it nonetheless lacks some crucial connection between theory and experiment. Such worries constitute the Quantum Measurement Problems. One can broadly identify two kinds of worries: (1) pragmatic: it is unclear how to model our measurement processes in order to extract experimental predictions, and (2) realist: we lack a satisfying metaphysical account of measurement processes. While both issues deserve attention, the pragmatic worries have worse consequences (...) if left unanswered: If our pragmatic theory-to-experiment linkage is unsatisfactory, then quantum theory is at risk of losing both its evidential support and its physical salience. Avoiding these risks is at the core of what I will call the Pragmatic Measurement Problem. Fortunately, the pragmatic measurement problem is not too difficult to solve. For non-relativistic quantum theory, the story goes roughly as follows: One can model each of quantum theory’s key experimental successes on a case-by-case basis by using a measurement chain. In modeling this measurement chain, it is pragmatically necessary to switch from using a quantum model to a classical model at some point. That is, it is pragmatically necessary to invoke a Heisenberg cut at some point along the measurement chain. Past this case-by-case measurement framework, one can then strive for a wide-scoping measurement theory capable of modeling all (or nearly all) possible measurement processes. For non-relativistic quantum theory, this leads us to our usual projective measurement theory. As a bonus, proceeding this way also gives us an empirically meaningful characterization of the theory’s observables as (positive) self-adjoint operators. But how does this story have to change when we move into the context of quantum field theory (QFT)? It is well known that in QFT almost all localized projective measurements violate causality, allowing for faster-than-light signaling; These are Sorkin’s impossible measurements. Thus, the story of measurement in QFT cannot end as it did before with a projective measurement theory. But does this then mean that we need to radically rethink the way we model measurement processes in QFT? Are our current experimental practices somehow misguided? Fortunately not. I will argue that (once properly understood) our old approach to modeling quantum measurements is still applicable in QFT contexts. We ought to first use measurement chains to build up a case-by-case measurement framework for QFT. Modeling these measurement chains will require us to invoke what I will call a QFT-cut. That is, at some point along the measurement chain we must switch from using a QFT model to a non-QFT model. Past this case-by-case measurement framework, we can then strive for both a new wide-scoping measurement theory for QFT and an empirically meaningful characterization of its observables. It is at this point that significantly more theoretical work is needed. This paper ends by briefly reviewing the state of the art in the physics literature regarding the modeling of measurement processes involving quantum fields. (shrink)

E=mc 2 is found to be a special case ofE=σ ±1cn, where σ is any one of four susceptibilities, namely electric, magnetic, gravitational, and elastic. Letl be length,t time,Δt time dilation, andΔl a measure of Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. A particle is stated to be the manifestation of a collection of susceptibilities which arise when(Δl)/1=(Δt)/t. Then(ΔE)/E=5 (Δt)/2t=±(Δσ)/σ. Corresponding to susceptibility, special energy particles are postulated which exhibitSU(3) symmetry, Related to the susceptibilities are five new Heisenberg uncertainty relations. Three new conservation laws (...) for particles are proposed. (shrink)

For an observation time equal to the universe age, the Heisenberg principle fixes the value of the smallest measurable mass at mH=1.35×10-69\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$m_\mathrm{H}=1.35 \times 10^{-69}$$\end{document} kg and prevents to probe the masslessness for any particle using a balance. The corresponding reduced Compton length to mH\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$m_\mathrm{H}$$\end{document} is, and represents the length limit beyond which masslessness cannot be proved using a metre ruler. In turns, (...) is equated to the luminosity distance dH\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$d_\mathrm{H}$$\end{document} which corresponds to a red shift zH\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$z_\mathrm{H}$$\end{document}. When using the Concordance-Model parameters, we get dH=8.4\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$d_\mathrm{H} = 8.4$$\end{document} Gpc and zH=1.3\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$z_\mathrm{H}=1.3$$\end{document}. Remarkably, dH\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$d_\mathrm{H}$$\end{document} falls quite short to the radius of the observable universe. According to this result, tensions in cosmological parameters could be nothing else but due to comparing data inside and beyond zH\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$z_\mathrm{H}$$\end{document}. Finally, in terms of quantum quantities, the expansion constant H0\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$H_0$$\end{document} reveals to be one order of magnitude above the smallest measurable energy, divided by the Planck constant. (shrink)

The aim of the famous Born and Jordan 1925 paper was to put Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics on a firm mathematical basis. Born and Jordan showed that if one wants to ensure energy conservation in Heisenberg’s theory it is necessary and sufficient to quantize observables following a certain ordering rule. One apparently unnoticed consequence of this fact is that Schrödinger’s wave mechanics cannot be equivalent to Heisenberg’s more physically motivated matrix mechanics unless its observables are quantized using this (...) rule, and not the more symmetric prescription proposed by Weyl in 1926, which has become the standard procedure in quantum mechanics. This observation confirms the superiority of Born–Jordan quantization, as already suggested by Kauffmann. We also show how to explicitly determine the Born–Jordan quantization of arbitrary classical variables, and discuss the conceptual advantages in using this quantization scheme. We finally suggest that it might be possible to determine the correct quantization scheme by using the results of weak measurement experiments. (shrink)

We improve on and generalize a 1960 result of Maltsev. For a field F, we denote by $H(F)$ the Heisenberg group with entries in F. Maltsev showed that there is a copy of F defined in $H(F)$, using existential formulas with an arbitrary non-commuting pair of elements as parameters. We show that F is interpreted in $H(F)$ using computable $\Sigma _1$ formulas with no parameters. We give two proofs. The first is an existence proof, relying on a result of (...) Harrison-Trainor, Melnikov, R. Miller, and Montalbán. This proof allows the possibility that the elements of F are represented by tuples in $H(F)$ of no fixed arity. The second proof is direct, giving explicit finitary existential formulas that define the interpretation, with elements of F represented by triples in $H(F)$. Looking at what was used to arrive at this parameter-free interpretation of F in $H(F)$, we give general conditions sufficient to eliminate parameters from interpretations. (shrink)

Werner Heisenberg made an important – and as yet insufficiently researched – contribution to the transformation of the modern conception of science. This transformation involved a reassessment of the status of scientific knowledge from certain to merely hypothetical – an assessment that is widely recognized today. I examine Heisenberg’s contribution in particular by taking his conception of “closed theories” as an example according to which the established physical theories have no universal and exclusive, but only a restricted validity. (...) Firstly, I characterize the historical process of hypothetization of claims to validity. Then, secondly, I reconstruct Heisenberg’s conception, as far as it can be derived from his popular writings, relating it to the process of hypothetization. Finally, I touch on the history of its reception and compare it with conceptions of science that emphasize the significance of the hypothetical for the modern theories of natural sciences. Compared to these conceptions, Heisenberg’s contribution turns out to be rather independent. (shrink)

The existence of probability in the sense of the frequency interpretation, i.e., probability as “long term relative frequency,” is shown to follow from the dynamics and the interpretational rules of Everett quantum mechanics in the Heisenberg picture. This proof is free of the difficulties encountered in applying to the Everett interpretation previous results regarding relative frequency and probability in quantum mechanics. The ontology of the Everett interpretation in the Heisenberg picture is also discussed.

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)

We revisit Heisenberg indeterminacy principle in the light of the Galois–Grothendieck theory for the case of finite abelian Galois extensions. In this restricted framework, the Galois–Grothendieck duality between finite K-algebras split by a Galois extension \ and finite \\) -sets can be reformulated as a Pontryagin duality between two abelian groups. We define a Galoisian quantum model in which the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle can be understood as a manifestation of a Galoisian duality: the larger the group of automorphisms (...) \ of the states in a G-set \ , the smaller the “conjugate” algebra of observables that can be consistently evaluated on such states. Finally, we argue that states endowed with a group of automorphisms \ can be interpreted as squeezed coherent states, i.e. as states that minimize the Heisenberg indeterminacy relations. (shrink)

The appearance of negative terms in quasiprobability representations of quantum theory is known to be inevitable, and, due to its equivalence with the onset of contextuality, of central interest in quantum computation and information. Until recently, however, nothing has been known about how much negativity is necessary in a quasiprobability representation. Zhu :120404, 2016) proved that the upper and lower bounds with respect to one type of negativity measure are saturated by quasiprobability representations which are in one-to-one correspondence with the (...) elusive symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements. We define a family of negativity measures which includes Zhu’s as a special case and consider another member of the family which we call “sum negativity.” We prove a sufficient condition for local maxima in sum negativity and find exact global maxima in dimensions 3 and 4. Notably, we find that Zhu’s result on the SICs does not generally extend to sum negativity, although the analogous result does hold in dimension 4. Finally, the Hoggar lines in dimension 8 make an appearance in a conjecture on sum negativity. (shrink)

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)

A ruptura estabelecida pela física quântica em relação à física clássica conduziu a uma redefinição da objetividade científica, que desde então se baseou no formalismo matemático para o conhecimento das funções de onda. Essa concepção de uma "objetividade fraca" motivou Werner Heisenberg a recorrer ao idealismo de Platão para explicar a constituição interna do mundo material a partir de estruturas geométricas. Entretanto, face a um paradigma idealista incompatível com a ciência moderna, Heisenberg concebeu que a filosofia de Kant (...) seria a referência mais aceitável para interpretar os fenômenos quânticos dentro dos limites empiricistas da pesquisa científica. O presente artigo apresenta o idealismo de absoluto de Hegel como horizonte filosófico para uma possível superação da rigidez dos limites kantianos, visando a uma interpretação metafísica da física quântica. (shrink)

In a series of "educational films" of the 80s devoted to various phenomena and effects from the field of natural sciences, Vladimir Kobrin sometimes refers to the technique he developed, which he calls "the method of obtaining a movie image using a running beam." In particular, in the film "The Physical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics", this technique is used to create a visual image of the well-known Heisenberg uncertainty relation. The article attempts to show that the effect of the (...) technique developed by the director goes beyond just a technical way of visualizing an abstract scientific and theoretical representation. It is suggested that this technique in Kobrin's later films, which are characterized by fragmentary, allegorical images, a shift from the expression of movement to the plasticity of transformations, the replacement of the spectator-observer figure with the spectator-witness figure, acts as a kind of condensation mechanism, a technique of "awakening to recognition" beyond the capabilities of the spectator assembly of film editing. (shrink)

No presente artigo analisamos o entendimento e o uso da filosofia kantiana pelo físico filósofo alemão Werner Heisenberg, prêmio Nobel de Física de 1932, formulador do princípio de incerteza. Heisenberg parece adotar uma compreensão neokantiana da natureza da ciência, segundo a qual a ciência não trataria do real em si, mas apenas do modo como ele aparece, o que depende, inescapavelmente, da interação entre o sujeito e o objeto do conhecimento. No entanto, a despeito de tal posição, (...) class='Hi'>Heisenberg considera que as definições kantianas de “espaço”, “tempo” e “causalidade” não são compatíveis com os desenvolvimentos da mecânica quântica. Nesta oportunidade nos deteremos com mais atenção na concepção de ciência e no problema da causalidade. (shrink)

Příspěvek se zaměřuje na zavádějící příběh o tzv. kodaňské interpretaci kvantové mechaniky, již jako údajně nerozpornou či jednotnou vytvořili a sdíleli na základě tzv. kodaňského ducha kvantové teorie její tvůrci v roce 1927. Článek bude vycházet z role, kterou v tomto příběhu sehráli především N. Bohr a W. Heisenberg. První část příspěvku seznamuje s variacemi toho, co se v literatuře považuje za kodaňskou interpretaci. Druhá část odhaluje, že zatímco kvantová mechanika vznikla ve dvacátých letech 20. století, kodaňská interpretace je (...) veskrze problematickým a především Heisenbergovým produktem z let padesátých. Jednou z hlavních motivací, kvůli níž vystoupil s tzv. kodaňskou interpretací, byla obrana vůči množícím se kritikám obhájců kvantové teorie. Jelikož mezi členy tzv. kodaňské školy nepanovala žádná jednotná či nerozporná interpretace kvantové mechaniky, zaměřuje se poslední část příspěvku na několik vybraných rozdílů hlavně mezi Bohrovým a Heisenbergovým výkladem kvantové teorie. (shrink)

Apresentaremos as possíveis aplicações pedagógicas das suas reflexões, como a utilização da imprecisão científica de Heisenberg e da concepção de técnica em Heidegger, a partir da análise histórico-filosófica dos seus escritos, tomando-os como fundamentação a necessária e significativa melhoria da educação técnico-científica.

Resumen Cuando el 6 de agosto de 1945 los científicos del proyecto atómico alemán dirigido por el físico Werner Heisenberg escucharon desde su encierro en Farm Hall la noticia de que Estados Unidos había arrojado una bomba nuclear que había destruido Hiroshima, comenzó la construcción de la historia: la versión que Heisenberg ofreció en su autobiografía intelectual fue que sabía que el proyecto era inviable a corto y medio plazo y, por tanto, no había riesgo en asumir la (...) investigación. Siguiendo las tesis de filosofía de la historia de Benjamin, pasaré el cepillo a contrapelo a esta construcción de la historia de la ciencia para sacar a la luz varias razones que la desmontan. Para ello recurriré a la filosofía de la ciencia de Popper, Kuhn y Lakatos y a la critica de Marcuse a la racionalidad tecnológica. La finalidad es triple: cuestionar la visión de la ciencia sostenida por Heisenberg, mostrar la influencia que ejercen los grandes proyectos científico - tecnológicos sobre el modo de pensar y actuar de los individuos y salvar los dos abismos denunciados por el físico y novelista C. P. Snow, uno entre ciencias y humanidades y otro entre quienes poseen conocimiento especializado y quienes no.When, on August 6, 1945, the scientists ofthe German atomic project led by physicist Werner Heisenberg heard the news from their confinement in Farm Hall, England, that the United States had dropped a nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, the construction of history began: Heisenberg's version in his intellectual autobiography was that he knew the project was unviable in the short and medium term and, therefore, there was no risk in advancing the research. Following Benjamin's theses on the philosophy of history, I will brush against this construction of the history of science to bring to light several reasons that dismantle this construction. To do this I will resort to the philosophy of science of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos and Marcuse's criticism of technological rationality. The aim is threefold: to question the vision of science held by Heisenberg, to show the influence of the great scientific-technological projects on the way of thinking and acting of individuals and to bridge the two abysses denounced by the physicist and novelist C. P. Snow, one between sciences and humanities and the other between those who have specialized knowledge and those who do not. (shrink)

Werner Heisenberg's 1925 paper ‘Quantum-theoretical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations’ marks the beginning of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg famously claims that the paper is based on the idea that the new quantum mechanics should be ‘founded exclusively upon relationships between quantities which in principle are observable’. My paper is an attempt to understand this observability principle, and to see whether its employment is philosophically defensible. Against interpretations of ‘observability’ along empiricist or positivist lines I argue that such readings (...) are philosophically unsatisfying. Moreover, a careful comparison of Heisenberg's reinterpretation of classical kinematics with Einstein's argument against absolute simultaneity reveals that the positivist reading does not fit with Heisenberg's strategy in the paper. Instead the appeal to observability should be understood as a specific criticism of the causal inefficacy of orbital electron motion in Bohr's atomic model. I conclude that the tacit philosophical principle behind Heisenberg's argument is not a positivistic connection between observability and meaning, but the idea that a theory should not contain causally idle wheels. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics has raised in an acute form three problems which go to the heart of man's relationship with nature through experimental science: (r) the public objectivity of science, that is, its value as a universal science for all investigators; (2) the empirical objectivity of scientific objects, that is, man's ability to construct a precise or causal spatio-temporal model of microscopic systems; and finally (3), the formal objectivity of science, that is, its value as an expression of what nature is (...) independently of its being an object of human knowledge. These are three aspects of what is generally called the "crisis of objec tivity" or the "crisis of realism" in modern physics. This crisis is. studied in the light of Werner Heisenberg's work. Heisenberg was one of the architects of quantum mechanics, and we have chosen his writings as the principal source-material for this study. Among physicists of the microscopic domain, no one except perhaps Bohr has expressed himself so abundantly and so profoundly on the philosophy of science as Heisenberg. His writings, both technical and non-technical, show an awareness of the mysterious element in scientific knowledge, far from the facile positivism of Bohr and others of his contemporaries. The mystery of human knowledge and human SUbjectivity is for him an abiding source of wonder. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to examine in detail the similarities and dissimilarities between Werner Heisenberg’s account of closed theories and Thomas Kuhn’s model of scientific revolutions. My analysis draws on a little‐known discussion that took place between Heisenberg and Kuhn in 1963, in which Heisenberg, having just read Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, compares Kuhn’s views to his own account of closed theories. I conclude that while Heisenberg and Kuhn share a holist conception of (...) theories, a revolutionary model of theory change, and even a notion of incommensurability, their views diverge fundamentally when it comes to the issue of scientific realism. I show that, contrary to popular opinion, Heisenberg is not an instrumentalist, but rather a pluralistic realist. (shrink)