Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:50 pm Post subject: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger
What is different about the discipline of science because of the contribution of each of these scientists?
Bohr:
- "stationary states" of electron orbits around the atom, rejecting the Rutherford's unstable "solar system" model, exists in stratified quantum states (123) - made more conclusive with spectroscopy, Balmer's spectral lines corresponding to the orbits (124), now has a "numerical agreement between experiment and theory" (127)
- "process" itself is therefore discontinuous - matter at the atomic level behaves differently than it does at higher levels - Newtonian mechanics cannot apply at the atomic level - a "reform movement in physics", an overthrow of the "authoritarian" thought that the universe is "governed by mechanistic cause and effect" (127)
- the state of an electron is NOT PREDICTABLE! this is HUGE! a total departure from the previous methodology of science, the concept that everything is rigidly defined and can be objectively determined - electrons are "individual", demonstrate "free choice" (128)
- physics not about determining "what nature is", but "what we can say about nature" (129)
- hey guess what! wave and particle theories of light/matter are equally valid, and equally invalid - it depends on how you set up your experiment! experimentation naturally enforces "classical" understanding on quantum areas - necessarily limits! they're complementary! "side by side in their seeming paradox and contradiction"!!! WHERE'S YOUR DIALECTIC NOW, SCIENCE?!?!?! (137-138)
Heisenberg:
- rejection of the visual model, opting instead for finding truth only in pure mathematics - truth lies only in numbers and statistics (132)
- took Bohr's "intuition" about atoms and assigned to it a mathematical framework through matrix algebra (132)
- the uncertainty principle!!! there exists limits in what we can derive on the atomic scale - can't determine both position and velocity of an electron - things on that level can't actually be determined all at once!!! what is science!!! nothing is real!!! (136)
Schrodinger:
- wave theory of matter - in the same way that light acts as a wave, so too does matter at the atomic level , proposed as an alternative to quantum theory; turns out, they're mathematically the same thing (134)
- essentially tries to make classic mechanics work again (134)
- basically serves as a foil to Bohr for him to come to his "complementarity" resolution
Bohr's idea that atoms are not predictable, "an atom in a stationary state may in general even be said to posses a free choice between various possible transitions." (p.128) This changes the discipline of science by changing the way people view and do scientific experiments. If an atom is not predictable that could mean that many other things are not predictable and there are no rules and order to science which makes the methodology different in that it has to work around this new non-orderly reality. Bohr's idea that the theory of particles and the theory of waves could both be accepted as true definitely influenced the discipline. This is a completely new (at least in what I've read) way of interpreting results. He had the idea that we (humans) imposed upon what we were observing and that our experiments created limits in our knowledge. "The equipment is large, the interior of atoms small, and between the two must be interposed a necessary limiting translation." (p.137)
Heisenberg's idea that numbers were more important than models was significant because it decreased the value of pure theory and increased the value of pure evidence. Although Heisenberg did not come up with matrix algebra he and his colleagues came up with quantum mechanics which was a new foundation for scientific study, this definitely changed the discipline because it was a different methodology for understanding atomic physics. His idea of the uncertainty principle was significant because it took human power away, it gave limits to our knowledge.
I do not think that Schrodinger's work changed the discipline but I think that he did effect science. His wave theory made use of quantum mechanics and it emphasized their significance. Although Bohr disagreed with his theory, it was still helpful to the field of physics, "You have thus brought atomic physics a decisive step forward." (p.135)
[/quote]
I think that Bohr's major departure from science, and how he affected the discipline, is with his impact on the goals of the discipline. Through his discovery that atoms are unpredictable he combatted the idea that everything in the world is orderly and predictable. Throughout history scientists had been trying to understand the natural structure and rules of the universe, but Bohr instead saw science as a humans observing and commenting on the nature of nature.
Like Mark said, Heisenberg saw science purely in mathematics. There was no value and proof without the mathematics to support it.
I think I need some more clarification on what Schrodinger did for the discipline of science because I had less of a clear picture for him than the other two.
I disagree with the prospect that any of these scientists changed the discipline of science in any way, so I'll go into my opinions on that instead of trying to justify something I don't believe.
We defined a discipline as being a combination of 3 things: methodology, topic, and goal. The methodology of science has remained consistent from the time of Newton to today. We may have different tools and different means of completing these methodologies, but the essence of the methodology we go through from hypothesis to conclusion has remained the same for the past few hundred years. The topic of big-S Science hasn't changed either, as science still encompasses the entire universe as we know it, from planets to fish, volcanoes to atoms. The topics of science may have increased in quantity as we discover new things, but that's the entire goal of science - to discover and find truth in a universe where so much is unknown. And with that said, the goals of science haven't changed either. Just as scientists hundreds of years ago wanted to learn about the world around them and how it worked, scientists of today find themselves asking the very same questions.
Did people like Heisenberg and Bohr change the way we think about the universe? Yes, of course! Their work and many others about the inner workings of the atom - from spectral lines to quantized orbitals - not only were great discoveries, but were discoveries that changed the very foundations of out knowledge in the sciences... NOT of the sciences themselves. Nobody, after these experiments, said "welp, since we didn't figure this stuff out until now I guess this means we have to change our entire methodology and stop experimenting and collecting data." -- an exaggeration, of course, but hopefully you see my point.
In short, I wouldn't call progress a divergence from something that's very definition is progress and change in knowledge. Just because we think of something differently after an experiment doesn't mean that discipline in which we conducted that experiment is changing -- rather it means it's working.
Bohr changed how we think about atoms, giving us the idea that electrons have "free choice" (p. 128) and that it is impossible to imagine them because of this. He moved the discipline of science more towards the attitude that not everything can be explained or even understood fully. He was very Aristotelian, and Heisenberg was even more so.
Heisenberg felt very strongly that if you do an experiment with electrons, the experiment will ruin the results by changing the action of the electron in the process. This idea is extremely Aristotlian, as Aristotle was against all experiments, believing that they disrupted natural processes.
Heisenberg also made an impact on science with his attitude that mathematics is the only way to go and that models are not a helpful or correct way to figure things out.
It seems to me that Schrodinger didn't make that much of a difference to the discipline of science. For one, a lot of the things he said weren't totally right. (That's true for all of them but it seems to be more true for him). Also, I don't understand most of the things he said at all. That's also true of the rest of them (to a lesser extent), but for Heisenberg and Bohr, I can still see very clear ways they changed the discipline of science, and for Schrodinger I can't. I know that's pretty weak evidence but it's hard to disprove something.
Joined: 01 Apr 2014 Posts: 8 Location: United States
Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:04 pm Post subject:
What is different about the discipline of science because of the contribution of each of these scientists?
Bohr introduced the idea of "stationary states", which changed how people thought of the structure of the atom (123). By proposing that the electron is unpredictable and undetectable, and by explaining the quantum jump and how it relates to color. This brought up new topics of how electrons behave to quantum physics, therefor changing the focus of research. Bohr also changed the idea that there is only one possible truth in physics, by concluding that "the solution...is to accept the different and mutually exclusive results as equally valid...Light as particle and as wave, matter as particle and matter as wave, were mutually exclusive abstractions that complemented each other" (128).*
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle "meant the end of of strict determinism in physics: because if atomic events are inherently blurred, if it is impossible to assemble complete information about the location of individual particles in time and space, then predictions of their future behavior can only be statistical" (136). The uncertainty principle made a lot of room for exploration in physics and made it less concrete. This might be a stretch, but his "inherent limits to how precisely events could be known" (136) seem very un-Kantian to me, and I think that is a major shift in thinking. Sorry if that connection is unhelpful.
Schrodinger made the math of quantum mechanics more efficient, and by taking a different route he provided a second proof, which made quantum physicists very happy. Here is what I think is the change in the discipline is this: "In Bohr's atom electrons navigated stationary states in quantum jumps that resulted in the emission of photons of light. Schrödinger offered, instead, multiple waves of matter that produced light by the process known as constructive interference, the waves adding their peaks of amplitude together" (134). He came up with the interference pattern thing!
*I understand the idea of multiple truths in this context, but I'm having a hard time grasping the "complementarity" thing. If someone understands that can they try to explain it? That would be greatly appreciated.
I would have to agree with Tino. Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrodinger did not change Science as a discipline. They were incredibly influential to science, but they did not in any way change the already well established idea of Science and its methodology.
I am conflicted, because I understand what Naomi was saying about how they changed our pre conceived notion that everything could be explained and that everything was definable. Schrodinger’s thought experiment with the cat in box and the uncertainty of whether the cat was alive or dead, revolutionized the way we see the universe. The idea that the cat not only could be either alive or dead, but was both until it was observed, was earth shattering. PS. I know this was not what the article was on, but I felt it needed to be said.
Heisenberg was hugely important because he made technical was Bohr could only show. He put into mathematical terms Bohr’s atomic model. The uncertainty principle boggled my mind and made me cry a bit on the inside.
Bohr kinda bored me a bit. Pun intended. No but actually he was very important. His idea of the state of an electron really changes the question of what is life, because if an electron enables free choice, that wow that is crazy. Sorry that is not scientific, I just don’t know what else to say. Sorry if this was not very helpful. I agree with Mark on most of the points he made, but I still don’t see how any of it changed the discipline.
These three men contributed enormously to science, but (I somewhat agree with Tino) only moderately to the capital-s discipline of Science, if at all.
Bohr and Heisenberg "developed what Heisenberg calls 'a coherent mathematical framework, one that promised to embrace all the multifarious aspects of atomic physics" (132). This was a change in both topic (the addition of quantum mechanics to the study of physics) and methodology (an ever-increasing dependence on math). Schrödinger incorporated this math into his own work.
Heisenberg rather unsuccessfully advocated for a further pursuit of this math-based methodology: he wanted not to use it to aid the use of models (such as particle and wave theories of light), but to use it exclusively, "abandoning models entirely" (139).
Another methodological shift was Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which Emma C. explained well.
Bohr intended to create a methodological shift as well, by calling attention to the way that humans' equipment for measuring activity on the atomic or near-atomic scale inherently changed the physical results. Although he argued that such tiny things were inherently too small to know, this could also lead to a push for better equipment and therefore methodology.
This reading was so exciting for me! It felt like a glimpse into how I view Science, and maybe I guess *why* I view Science the way I do. I totally identify with Bohr saying that he tries not to articulate ideas that are any clearer than his thinking, but I will try to keep this as concise as possible.
I think the discipline of Science underwent a complete revolution thanks to Bohr. He seemed to realize that post-Newtonian physics couldn't really function with the same methods and assumptions as the past; the need for a new paradigm was the solution to the fact that Newtonian methods, assumptions, and topics/goals were essentially bled dry. After previous experiments that had proven Newtonian physics were incorrect, I think there was essentially a scattering of all previous methods and assumptions - like a giant heap, for lack of a better phrase, without categorization or allegiances. Bohr, by talking about each change in the state of an atom becoming an individual process, showed that Science was much more about assembling your own structure of truth from this heap of methods and assumptions. This also implies that how we approach Science cannot be in an absolute way: one instance of truth produced by certain theories and laws does not apply to the entirety of the physical world. This meant that Science could now be split up into topics/schools of thought, and scientists could split up toward what they were naturally strong at. By shifting the idea of Science from a master truth to more of a composite of topical/individual truths, strength could be born from the unity: "only wholeness leads to clarity." (Throughout the reading, I thought of Science as a puzzle: some people like to lay out all the pieces first - which I think is comparable to the Newtonian-era - and others assemble as they go, and rely on interconnectivity of pieces to lead to new ideas about where the next pieces should be laid. In Science, these connections, these pieces, are made through synergy, by revisiting old ideas and improving on them, rather than redefining old truths. As such, each piece is its own composite of truths, and is equally useful as a part and as a piece of a whole.)
There's way more to be said about Bohr, I think, but I'll keep it to that. Heisenberg's contribution in his uncertainty principle was more about the goals of Science as a discipline. I think he shifted them from being about a search for truth as a big and mystical concept, to a search for truth in the natural world [/i]as we relate to it[/i]. This isn't really new - I think Aristotle kind of hinted at this with his work - but I think it came simply at the right time, which is probably why it was recognized and influential. (The same could be said for Bohr). Schroedinger's input being essentially unique to Heisenberg's contribution (in that uncertainty/dualism are valid approaches to the discipline, that relative truths are equally valid in their limitations) shows that Science was moving toward a methodology that regarded structure as necessary for truth: what was being searched for, the goals, remained a hunt for personal truth, but Schroedinger's assertion of dualism transformed Scientific methodology into a search about providing a structure for truth. Essentially, Schroedinger realized that regardless of how truth is given its shape - regardless of its structure - the same idea is being discussed. Therefore, deviating from an originally discovered truth's structure doesn't change its significance, simply how it is accessed.
Essentially, Schroedinger proved what I've been suspicious about for the past few readings: any personal truth can be proven, with the right methodologies and assumptions. Schroedinger accepted this, and because Bohr had sort of laid this foundation for Science to keep progressing (by revitalizing the accepted methodologies and assumptions), he also brought it one step further, by allowing the search for truth to include not only the truth itself (for ex, an atomic model), but also how the truth works in its structure (how the atom behaves).
Sorry, I know this is long but I'm buzzing with ideas and I think these are only the beginning.[/i]
I don't think any of these men affected the methodology or purpose of Science. One could argue that they did change the topic: Bohr with the radically improved atomic model and complementarity paradigm, Schroedinger with his classical physics waves of matter, and Heisenberg with his combination of the wave and particle theories of matter to create a mathematical quantum model. But I believe that the original topic of Science accounted for these and all new discoveries/views/innovations that come out of study within the discipline. One cannot change the discipline of Science without changing the methodology, the purpose is fairly resolute and the topic encompasses all that it needs to. That being said I can't tell if discovering a new topic that had been previously unexplored is a "change" to the old one? [Also, although in some ways Bohr did define the purpose of the discipline differently than many of his contemporaries, I find it hard to believe this was a wholly original concept (129). He was also talking about physics specifically.]
** Also are "assumptions" now one of the things that determine a discipline? These seem to have crept their way into the definition in the last week and I think it's a pretty important distinction to make whether or not they should be included, it will certainly change the way I'm approaching things.
Last edited by rrose2014 on Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:00 pm; edited 2 times in total
Bohr: He came up with the concept that atoms are unpredictable, which changed everyone's idea that the world is in order. As Naomi said, he combatted everyone's misconception that everything can be explained in it's entirety. He also introduced the idea that atoms have "free choice", and are therefore impossible to percieve.
Heisenberg: As Mark and Max said, everything must be supported by Mathematics, and nothing can be proven without the necessary arithmetic evidence. His blue crystal meth also provided deep insight into the discipline of Science as a whole.
Schrodinger: I'm not quite sure on this one yet. I'd like to discuss how his Cat experiment had an effect on the discipline of science tomorrow though, and how it ties into this whole discussion.
Change the discipline of Science? I think this question can be thought in varieties ways. Science in the big S is different from the science with the small s is because science is just the record of the explanation of the world, but Science is the study of science. So these three people can change the way of how to understand science.
Bohr: Bohr's part started with talking about Planck and Einstein, these two kind of use the same quantum theory to explain different things, thermodynamics and light, Bohr began with following the same way to try to use the theory to explain the models, but later in the butterfly wing part, he is using the idea instead of theory. I think that changed the way of just using the theory.
Heisenberg: He distasted the visualized model! That is pretty important because others were trying to make the model. What he made was just probably leave science as a mystery, all the things we see is just the possibility.
Schrodinger: I am not sure about this one, but I think he kind of connected Bohr and Heisenberg together. Usually, people learn science, they continue to prove the theory or directly disprove the theory. Schrodinger did was connect two theory together and make both of the theories work.
SO I JUST GOT HOME AND DID NOT KNOW THIS WAS DUE AT 11 AND COULD NOT HAVE DONE THIS FOR 11 SO I HOPE THIS WILL DO.
Teachers: please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please forgive me and don't let this ruin my homework grade!!!!
The 3 scientists did not change the methodology or goals or topics of the discipline of science. It seems pretty obviously that their methodology was very similar if not the same as the Newton's. Some were more mathmatically than others but it was generally the same. The topics did not change because things like particles, lights, and waves were already beingt alked about. the topics may have morphed but I wouldn't say they really changed. It seems like these 3 scientists built a lot off of previous scientist. The goals did not really change a lot either. In fact I would argue only a couple of times does the goal of a discipline change throught history. Indaviduals goals might change and if you are hegel that means the whole thing is affected however on a larger scale it is much more rare. They did study some new things and that changed science with a little s. Did they change Science? I dont know. Not really by our definition but i wonder if anytime you change science in a way do you change Science? Not sure. It would be great when people are posting though if they could make sure they are clear which they are reffering to? thanks
Bohr changed the way we look at science by giving it an unpredictable quality. This goes against what was previously thought. Before this, Science was the quest to discover and explain the world and it was believed that the world had a definite way of working to be found out. Bohr changed that by bringing in the idea that it is impossible to know exactly how everything works because pieces of it, electrons for example, are ever changing.
Heisenberg considered everything as mathematical. Interestingly enough this was the opposite of what other scientists were trying to do, but Heisenberg had other plans.
Schrodinger offered a different way of looking at how light works. He ties his theory into quantum theory, showing new connections in the field of Science.
What I think is really cool about this reading and all three of these scientists is the way they interacted with each other. The process of each of them coming to their conclusions all involved interacting with each other. I thought the fact that Bohr inspired Heisenberg was particularly cool. Collaboration is key.
Well, w/r/t Bohr, I was pretty surprised (and excited) to see his description of the atom compared to Kierkegaard's description of faith (I think the writer was referring to what Kierkegaard called knights of faith and knights of infinite resignation, primarily because he invokes the phrase "leaps of faith"). To the best of my understanding, what Kierkegaard does in Fear and Trembling is -- by establishing that there is no ethical explanation for Abraham's actions in relation to Isaac -- construct a complicated description of faith as something predicated on a "teleological suspension of the ethical." The analogy to me seemed a bit flawed -- I don't think any scientist could construct the kind of arguments (they're more like super-contradictory delineations, actually) that Kierkegaard made and still be taken seriously. But anyway, I was quite taken with this comparison, because it made me think that essentially what Bohr did was, by acknoweldging a certain sense of unknowability, was able to afford certain structures a new sense of higher stability (a pretty paradoxical process, I think). Perhaps it was an oversimplification -- it seemed like at a certain point the author began to condense Bohr for people who aren't big science wienies -- but I was quite smitten with Bohr's approach to science, especially the line "I try not to speak more clearly than I think." Also, in the Artistotle essay, a lot of what I thought about was the way in which the form (in many cases, language) overrides the content, and how the way in which we write about something is -- to a large degree -- how we come to define a specific event/phenomenon: and so I was very excited to read that Bohr said, "Physics concerns what we can say about nature."
In all honesty, I wasn't able to get as much out of the Heisenberg portion of the reading, and I guess my main takeaway was that he supplied a mathematical explanation for Bohr's theories. I'm also a bit embarrassed by the fact that my favorite parts of these readings are when they talk about their friendships and the "summer light" that "flooded in through the wide-open windows." (Wait!! I started writing this when I thought the Heisenberg bit was over and now I realize how stupid and dismissive what I wrote sounds!!!!!)
Actually, the uncertainty principle seems like a pretty profound extension of what Bohr was saying; and I also see a huge connection between Heisenberg's theories and what Hegel said about the relationship between the knower and the known. It seems to me to be a pretty significant abstraction of understanding reality, something that at the time must have seen pretty exciting/axiom-shattering to the discipline of scientists.
Ugh, so now we have mutually exclusive abstractions that contradict one another. Not absolute relativism, but it eliminates the notion of some kind of absolute Truth, right?! Cool!
Did I miss something with Schrodinger? It seems like he was -- in the context of this reading, at least -- just some atavistic guy who opposed team-Bohr, and who helped the progression of the discipline of Science simply by combatting it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
