QUANTUM METAPHYSICS - E-thesis

In contrast to what is often claimed, Bohr and Heisenberg warned against interpreting the
uncertainty relationship as nothing more than disturbance caused by measurements. 527 They
stressed that the uncertainty relationship set up a limit beyond which our attribute-describing
concepts do not work. This was not just a question which concerns the ambiguity of our
observations or our knowledge because it signifies that specific mechanical concepts lose their
accurate meaning in the microscopic world. They no longer appear as clear measurable
magnitudes. 528 It is possible to speak about position and momentum, in accustomed way, only at
the macroscopic level. If an attempt is made to define both of them with complete accuracy at the
same moment, we are trying to get hold of something which does not exist. In quantum
mechanics, even if p and x are called coordinates of ”momentum” and ”position”, the words are
being employed in an unusual sense. In contrast to classical mechanics, quantum theory does not
legislate about the usage of words stating that it is possible to establish both position and
momentum with unlimited precision. 529
At least in the beginning, Heisenberg believed that the consistent formalism of quantum
mechanics was adequate for the explanation of atomic phenomena. The theory provided limits on
what could be observed, and since classical concepts such as position and momentum could no
longer be handled precisely, it was only necessary to accept that classical concepts no longer
applied in the atomic field. 530 This interpretation, i.e. that the uncertainty relationship defines the
restrictions on the scientific applicability of classical concepts, is supported, among others, by
Victor Weisskopf, in whose opinion philosophical discussion regarding uncertainty within nature
could have been be avoided if the uncertainty relationship had been named the “limitation
relationship”. 531
527
Their views are often misunderstood. For example Mark Buchanan (New Scientist 6 March 1999), when
reviewing new results on entanglement which agree with Bohr’s and Heisenbergs assumptions, claims that they
based their ideas on the wrong view that measurements cause disturbances.
528
March 1957, 112-115.
529
Nagel 1961, 301.
530
Heisenberg when interviewed by T. Kuhn. See Folse 1985, 95.
531
Weisskopf 1990, 49.
203