The Irony of Science

Isaac Newton is one of the mongo figures of history. He described the three basic laws of motion, probably invented calculus, and revamped the entire way that scientists think about the world. With Newton, science's drive to explain objective reality took off. Motion could be described through mathematical equations. We take that for granted, but in Newton's time that was a huge deal.

The idea arose that science, through measurement, experimentation and mathematics, could understand everything about nature. Predictions could be made with amazing accuracy. Seemingly, the only limitations to what science could predict were the accuracy of the equipment being used and the existence of the right kinds of math to employ.

By the end of the 19th century, scientists had the sense that everything was pretty much figured out. The only thing left was to iron out the details. An obscure scientist named Max Planck was doing some uninteresting work with light, but no one paid much attention.

Then Einstein came along. In 1905, he wrote three papers that were all landmarks in the advancement of science. One of those papers was on the photoelectric effect. It had to do with the way that light is absorbed by certain materials. He realized that the work Planck had done was far more revolutionary than Planck had ever imagined.

Other scientists jumped on board this area of science which became known as "quantum mechanics". People like Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg made remarkable discoveries concerning the nature of the sub-atomic world.

Sub-atomic particles can be in two places at the same time.
Information can be transferred between sub-atomic particles at faster than the speed of light.
Theoretically, a cat can be dead or alive, depending on whether anyone is looking at it.
Light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.
Photons know when we are "looking" at them and change their behavior accordingly.

Eventually, Heisenberg came up with his famous "Uncertainty Principle". It basically states that you can never know with absolute certainty two complimentary characteristics of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. For example, momentum and direction are complimentary. The more accurately you measure momentum, the more inexact your knowledge of direction will be for whatever you are measuring (and vice-versa). So one can never predict with complete accuracy where an electron is going to end up after a certain amount of time passes.

Initially, it was believed that this uncertainty came from the measurement being made. To "see" an electron, you have to "shine" light on it. The light was thought to affect the movement of the electron somehow, thus changing its ultimate destination beyond our ability to know. However, later scientists determined that it WASN'T the measurement that was causing the problems. It was nature itself. The reason why we can't determine the exact momentum or direction of a sub-atomic particle is because THEY DON'T HAVE CERTAIN MOMENTUMS OR DIRECTIONS. At best, they only have a POSSIBILITY of having a certain value for those characteristics.

Here is what this comes down to. To use one of Einstein's phrases, God "plays dice" with the universe. There is a certain degree of unpredictable randomness built into the most fundamental building blocks of the universe that we can NEVER crack. No machine, or mathematical theory, regardless of its power of accuracy, will ever get past that. Things happen, essentially, for no reason at all at the sub-atomic level. There is no objective way to reach certainty about anything.

The great goal of science was to objectify everything and make everything predictable. The irony is that in this endeavor, science determined that the UNIVERSE ITSELF is not entirely objective, thus making certainty about anything an impossibility. Now, some things are so likely that we may as well treat them as "definite", but that is because we "round up". Even a 99.999999999999% chance of something leaves room for something else. To me, that is like the universe is telling us that subjective "certainty" needs something more than pure objective measurement. Some people might call that something more "faith", but that begs the question - faith in what? That is the subject for another blog.

If anyone is insane enough to find this as interesting as I do, read "In Search of Shrodinger's Cat". It is quantum mechanics for the lay person. It kept me awake at night.