Originally posted by firefighter
The one thing that Heisenberg seemed certain about was his Uncertainty Principle but, in light of the understanding that models may need correction or replacement, we must continue to ask: Does nature really operate on the basis of chance?
Not random chance but calculable probability, which can be determined. And this is crucial to understanding the transition between activity at the quantum level and the macroscopic level. A single quantum event has a probability of occurring; taken alone this appears as simple chance, a random event. Thus the event of radioactive decay of a specific atom cannot be determined; yet in a macroscopic amount of matter the probability over such a large range of events is so regular as to be considered a constant.
"Although radioactive decay involves discrete events of nuclear disintegration, the number of events is so large that it can be treated like a continuum and the methods of calculus employed to predict the behavior. The result from the decay probability can be put in the differential form:"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/halfli2.html
If it is a matter that the results of black body radiation experiments were misinterpreted because the theorists of the time lacked the knowledge of how to explain the results on the basis of cause and effect, then should theorists continue to accumulate ignorance of specific causal chains under the umbrella of "chance"?
The science of physics takes place, primarily, as mathematical calculations based upon empirical results. In this arena, physics has a history of accuracy that is almost scary. The primary area of controversy is in theoretical physics and it is in this arena that we have seen such paradigm shifts such as relativity and uncertainty. But note that much of the mathematical relationships and most of the data necessary for these shift were accrued under a radically different paradigm. It's not the data and the mathematical equations that explained the relationships between the data that were altered but the theoretical model by which we conceptualize them.
All of the data and most of the equations required for relativity lay in Maxwell's work. The genius of Einstein was in inventing a much better model for us to work with... one that explained these equations far more simply than previous ones. Similarly, black-holes, were imagined far in advance, while laboring under 'incorrect' notions of gravity and light. But they were properly predicted because the data and the mathematics were accurate.
Likewise, it is reasonable to expect that future shifts will be of a similar nature. The data is accurate, the mathematical relationships are accurate. How we conceptualize these relationships may undergo a radical change in the future that allows us to explain more of the unknown areas, but we are not 'accumulating ignorance'.
Was this a consideration during the popularization of Heisenberg's theory? If so, how did acausal theory make its way into mainstream physics? Was there a cause? Is gravity just happening or is it caused?
Acausality, nonlocality, indeterminism... quantum theory and discovery has challenged much of our common sense conceptions of the Universe. Quite simply, the Universe does not work at a quantum level the way that it works for us on the macroscopic level. Relativity was also a shock at first but has become rather commonly accepted. It must be accepted that it is quite possible that we will never come to a complete understanding of why things work the way they do. We might never know if there is something that causes particles to appear at random, out of nothing. But the fact remains that they do.
If we live in an irrational, random-action universe that makes no sense, what is the point of cause-and-effect reasoning?
You cannot apply quantum theory directly to macroscopic objects. A particular electron may phase into two photons and back again, thousands of billions will not.
Are Heisenberg's mathematical abstracts useful models of reality or has modern physical theory disconnected us from reality?
Thus far they have proved very useful and reliable. It is unlikely that they will ever not be, although they might be incorporated into something larger. Einstein did not invalidate Newtonian physics, he incorporated it. Newtonian physics is still very useful and accurate in describing and predicting the trajectory of a cannonball or the motion of planets... it's just not very useful for describing what happens to light. Similarly, relativity is not very useful for describing what happens to individual photons. We change the models to fit the data, we don't toss out the data.
~Raithere
