a quantum critique of progress

Uncategorized March 16, 2015

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of progress, particularly a critique of the idea of linear or cumulative progress in contemporary society/culture. I’ve also been reading a lot of texts/papers/letters by the founders of quantum mechanics. It’s probably not surprising, then, that the two have fused together in my mind in a strange, not altogether unsympathetic fashion.

Specifically, I’ve been thinking of Heisenberg’s intuition that the particle tracks visible in Wilson’s cloud chamber images did not represent the trajectory of the particle. The particle did not have a path which could be directly observed. Thus, for Heisenberg, the idea of electron paths should not even appear in the theory. The apparent continuity of the paths is produced by many, discrete (i.e. not connected), particle collisions and ionisations. And because each random collision changes the motion of the particle in an unpredictable way, it is not possible to assign a definite location and speed at each and every point along the path.

I like this as a metaphor for a different reading of the concept of progress. Here, progress is no longer a clear trajectory moving towards some sort of perfection of behaviour or being. Rather, it’s progress understood as a series of discrete historical points, where random events cause unpredictable changes in society. Progress with its own uncertainty principle built in seems infinitely more interesting, challenging and intriguing than one which hubristically assumes human society is travelling ever-closer to the perfection of its own society/science/technology/etc.

“For the first time, therefore, I now had the opportunity to talk with Einstein himself. On the way home, he questioned me about my background, my studies with Sommerfeld. But on arrival, he at once began with a central question about the philosophical foundation of the new quantum mechanics. He pointed out to me that in my mathematical description the notion of “electron path” did not occur at all, but that in a cloud chamber the track of the electron can of course be observed directly. It seemed to him absurd to claim that there was indeed an electron path in the cloud chamber, but none in the interior of the atom. The notion of a path could not be dependent, after all, on the size of the space in which the electron’s movements were occuring. I defended myself to begin with by justifying in detail the necessity for abandoning the path concept within the interior of the atom. I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path. And since it is but rational to introduce into a theory only such quantities as can be directly observed, the concept of electron paths ought not, in fact, to figure in the theory.

To my astonishment, Einstein was not at all satisfied with this argument. He thought that every theory in fact contains unobservable quantities. The principle of employing only observable quantities simply cannot be consistently carried out. And when I objected that in this I had merely been applying the type of philosophy that he, too, has made the basis of his special theory of relativity, he answered simply: “Perhaps I did use such philosophy earlier, and also wrote of it, but it is nonsense all the same.”… …He pointed out to me that the very concept of observation was itself already problematic. Every observation, so he argued, presupposes that there is an unambiguous connection known to us, between the phenomenon to be observed and the sensation which eventually penetrates into our consciousness. But we can only be sure of this connection, if we know the natural laws by which it is determined. If, however, as is obviously the case in modern atomic physics, these laws have to be called into question, then even the concept of “observation” loses its clear meaning. In that case, it is the theory which first determines what can be observed.”

– from Heisenberg’s Encounters with Einstein, published in 1983.


Uncategorized March 10, 2015


Research visit to ONKALO, one of the very few nearly active long-term nuclear waste storage sites in the world. Onkalo is 430 metres below ground, taking advantage of Finland’s naturally stable gneiss bedrock. Final disposal is scheduled to begin in 2020 with the repository scheduled to be sealed in 2120.

ONKALO is situated on the site of the Olkiluoto power plants in the west of Finland, and I was also able to visit the Olkiluoto 3 power plant, currently under construction, to see the as yet unfinished reactor hall.

Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.40.14 Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.41.54 Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.40.33 Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.41.29 Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.40.50

I brought a field camera on the trip. Some of the images from the 4×5.

Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.55.44 Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.55.13 Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.54.53 Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 08.54.10

the “facts” never speak for themselves

Uncategorized March 2, 2015

The anthropological observer selects data according to an implicit cultural framework. The “facts” never speak for themselves. You might, when travelling in Africa, describe an event you see as follows: “Bert got into his jeep and drove off.” However, an African tribesmen might describe it very differently: “White man is sucked in by iron monster and is carried away.” Contained in what you take to be a simple neutral account of the facts are all the ingredients of your tacit point of view: that people act freely; that they act intentionally; that machines are inanimate; that they can be made to move; that science differs from magic. When do these implicit presuppositions of yours become explicit? On what common ground can they ever be confronted by those of your African counterpart?

Reuben Abel, Man is the Measure (123)