Can we not say that modern science provides us a closer, a more approximate representation of nature which is more adequately supported by reason and logic?

Does modern science provide us a representation of nature? The question is a hotly contested one in Quantum Mechanics but also in General Relativity both of which were proposed in the twentieth century.

It is probably better and easier to start with General Relativity. Newtonian mechanics explains the planetary rotation around the Sun as due to a gravitational force between the planets and the Sun. This force, F, depends on the solar and planetary masses, M and m, respectively and on the distance between the Sun and the planets, R. The exact relationship is given by F=k(Mm)/(r²).  K is the gravitational constant. This simple equation explained most of the planetary motion and is widely used even nowadays in a variety of fields. Einstein, however, over turned the Newtonian paradigm in 1915 by introducing his General Relativity theory. According to Einstein there is no such thing as a gravitational force and planets rotate round the Sun due to the Sun distorting the local spacetime.  The success of the Newtonian Mechanics is due to the fact that the Newtonian force equation very closely matches the General Relativity equation for weak gravity. So it is clear that Newtonian mechanics is certainly not a representation of nature. Is Einstein’s General Relativity a representation of Nature, i.e., is spacetime really there in nature?

The question of representation is even more convoluted in Quantum Mechanics. I will discuss 2 examples here to make my point:

Example 1

According to non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics all fundamental particle like electrons, protons, quarks, atoms and molecules can be represented by wavefunctions which reside in a special mathematical space called Hilbert space. Hilbert space is a unitary, complex linear vector space. All the operators which represent Quantum Mechanical observables like energy and momentum operate on the wavefunctions in the Hilbert space. This approach has yielded good agreement with all experiments at least in theory. This raises the question as to whether the wavefunctions of the particles are representations of the particles or are the particles themselves. To understand the problem, think of human beings. We are made of electrons, protons, atoms etc. If the fundamental particles reside in the Hilbert space then we who are made up of these particles should also be residing in this Hilbert space. Have any of you seen a Hilbert space? After all if we are residing in it we should have seen it. So where is it? So is the wavefunction of an electron a representation of an electron?

Example 2

Another famous example that shows up the problems of interpretation of modern science is called the Schrödinger’s cat problem.  This is a gedanken (thought) experiment first suggested by Schrödinger. Imagine a box in which a cat is kept. The box also contains a vial of poison gas. The vial can be opened by a machine. The machine is designed in such a way that it can randomly open the vial in which case the box will be filled with the poison gas in a given time or it will not open the vial in which case the cat will live. So if you are an experimenter then you will set up the experiment with the cat and the poison vial in the box and cover the box with some cloth and then leave the room for say 1 hour. What will you see after one hour? What does Quantum Mechanics say? It says that the wave function, WF, of the entire set up will be a linear superposition:

WF= (a₁)(cat alive)(poison vial closed) + (a₂)(cat dead)(poison vial open).

A₁ and a₂ are two coefficients. Quantum Mechanics says that the WF will change with time according to some equation. The implication is that the cat will be both dead and alive at the same time as long as no one is watching the cat. What happens if you go back into the room and lift the cloth and look at the cat? The Copenhagen school of Quantum Mechanics (Niels Bohr) says that you will see either a dead cat or a living cat. You will never see a cat both living and dead at the same time!  If that is true then can you say that WF is a representation of the cat and the vial? If you ask the Copenhagen school of the meaning of  this WF then it will answer, “Shut up and calculate”. According to the Copenhagen school the 2 branches of WF (branch 1=(cat alive)(poison vial closed) and branch 2=(cat dead)(poison vial open)) collapse to just one branch when an observer watches. When an observer is not watching then the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

The interpretation of WF gets even more bizarre if you insist that the WF is indeed a representation of the cat and the vial. This bizarre interpretation is known as the Many Worlds interpretation of Everett. Everett says that the Copenhagen school is playing a dirty trick when it arbitrarily throws out one of the branches while insisting that the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is correct. Everett says that it is true that in our universe only one branch is seen; either the cat is alive (branch 1) or the cat is found dead (branch 2). No one sees a cat that is both alive and dead. That does not mean that the 2 branches collapse as is claimed by Bohr’s Copenhagen school. Everett says what happens is that the branch that we do not see in our universe happens in a parallel universe. Thus if we see a dead cat here then a clone of that cat will be happily mewing in a parallel universe!

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (28)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by narensomu, 2009-10-30 08:22:15

Dear Pradipda
Thankyou for the detailed reply-comments.
The many universe theory is what writer Richard Bach uses in his " One" -it seemed fantastic to read.
The information about dream states is very interesting-the self while in that state certainly sees , hears, smells , tastes and feels...Guess we will have to wait and watch if Science tackles the concept of consciousness sometime.
There are many sthala puranas where people get info about a moorthy through their dreams.
Some people I know , through dreams ,have known things that were to happen in future .
They can also differentiate between ordinary dreams and those that can predict the future.
Had been baffled by that-guess their selves operate in that state of consciousness more actively compared to that of others.
Anyway the world is richer thanks to the intuition of a Srinivasa Ramanujan or many like him.
Thank you again.
Warm regards
ns

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Raju, 2009-10-29 13:00:37

Dear Pradip,

Science:
Maps are isomorphic of the things they map in the same way mental representation is representation grounded in isomorphism. This is valid as human mind is isomorphic to nature. We can say this based on our observations and many laws of science. Progress of science is not possible without intuition. In other words 99 percent perspiration is required but not sufficient without 1% inspiration. In my view isomorphism is the basis of intuition. It is based on these I say that science based on reason alone cannot explain or know nature.

Beyond science:
In my view science cannot explain reason why is there isomorphism? and why do humans have power of intuition? We also run into difficulties in explaining basis of quantum mechanism or consciousness. There are many speculations/ parallels between quantum mechanism and consciousness. Only thing we can say that these things point to same source. I believe one way to know nature is to go beyond nature. This is where we start getting into the discussion of difference between ontology and epistemology.

Regards,
Rajput

------------------------------------
Here are two comments that were lost
Comment By: Pradip
Dear Rajput,

Rajput

Dear Pradip,

I agree Einstein's GR theory or Schroedinger's equation or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are not considered as hypothesis as far as I know.
I was talking about source of hypothesis of above scientifically established truths.

I agree the source of scientific hypothesis is intuition.
Next question - What is the source of intuition?

Regards,
Rajput

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-10-29 11:07:39

Dear NS,

So the cat is never really not there?
It exists somewhere in some parallel universe but never really disppears?

The Everett many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is saying more than what you have written. What it says is that since the cat has 2 choices in this universe and say you found the cat to be dead in this universe then there must be another identical cat in a parallel universe that is alive. If on the other hand you found the cat in your universe alive then the identical cat in another parallel universe would die in order to satisfy the Quantum Mechanical equations. Thus there are at least 2 identical cats although we can see only 1.

There is another implication of Everett's theory. That implication is that if you do an experiment in this universe where a quantum system has many choices then all those choices occur in parallel universes. So if there were 10 choices then all those choices will actually occur in 10 universes. That would then imply that all of us have innumerable clones in uncountably large number of parallel universes. This idea is fully compatible with the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics. The standard interpretation called the Copenhagen interpretation just throws out all the branches except the one in our universe.

Best Wishes

Pradip da

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by narensomu, 2009-10-29 08:58:38

Pradipda. Dwai and other Medhavis
Regarding intuition, it is not only about the famous benzene discovery , we also wonder about what genius mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan saw in his dreams that led him write down his famous theorms.
His ishta Devata is said to have given him the theorms .
What really goes on with the dreams? Why do some people " see" the future in their dreams? If subconscious can "see" something about to happen in future , how do we explain it?
What of people who meet their dear departed in the dreams where the departed predict the future,accurately?
Can modern science find answers to these questions/get there by the road they are taking at present?Any change of route is needed?
Sorry, if these sound like too many questions, but been thinking of them since sometime.
Regards
ns

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by narensomu, 2009-10-29 08:48:22

While I Struggled with connectivity, Schrodinger's cat seems have been busy.
So the cat is never really not there?
It exists somewhere in some parallel universe but never really disppears?
This sounds very close to the line of thinking we are used to culturally speaking.
Regards
ns

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Yoganidra and information
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-10-29 07:25:01

Dear Partha and Dwai,

It is well known that sometimes solutions to problems flash in one's mind after a good night's sleep. So it is not surprising that information becomes accessible after Yoganidra. The question is what is the significance of this phenomena. Scientists will say that what happens is that our subconscious mind continues to work and comes up with solution during sleep. This may be completely wrong. Nevertheless you can't prove it to be wrong. Here again we are at a junction between matter and consciousness and it is impossible for hard science to come up with a definitive answer.

I was wearing my scientific hat when I was writing about intuition.

Best Wishes

• 
• +0
• 
• 

intuition = prajna?
written by rudra, 2009-10-29 06:50:50

If Intuition can be equated to Prajna, then source of Intuition lies beyond reason, imho.

I agree with Partha in his statement about Yoga Nidra, etc. In course of Tai Chi and Yoga practice, I have often found information suddenly accessible to me.

I think that is because we can access that which cannot be described in states induced by Yoga, Tai Chi meditation and other similar practices.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

No science this
written by P. Desikan, 2009-10-29 06:21:41

Pradip's reply tp Rajendra which I found from my yahoo mail inbox seems to be as follows;
Dear Rajput,

• both;">

• 
  
  What does it do for the status of the witness/observer then? What are it's philosophical implications?
  
  It certainly elevates the status of the observer. Einstein used to ask the question as to whether the moon exists only when we see it!" I will discuss the philosophical implications in my answer to the third question.
  
  Does it change or simply reaffirm the pre-eminence of the observer, in line with what the Introspective traditions of the world purport?
  
  Certainly Quantum Mechanics does not support the naive realistic view of people like Nanda. What we are seeing is the breakdown of Cartesian dualism that mind and matter are separate. We may also be seeing the limitation of the scientific reductionist approach in handling consciousness. The real problem is that Quantum Mechanics operates at the junction of science and consciousness and consciousness remains a mystery as far as science is concerned. At the very least the cat example shows that it is not easy to reject the great introspective traditions of the world. A recent book "Quantum Enigma" even mentions tha Vedic tradition in its discussion of the problems of Quantum Mechanics.
  
  Best wishes
  
  Pradip da