Filip Keri

Professor Thomas
CNX110
9/24/2014
Natures Dichotomies
If science is supposed to be the epitome of objectivity, one can only wonder why it
encompasses so many opposing concepts, so-called dichotomies. For instance, light can be
perceived as a bundle of particles or as waves, time as reversible or irreversible, radioactive decay
as probabilistic or deterministic. Even though dichotomies may not be the most ideal representation
of nature, they help us understand nature to the best of our ability.
The perception of light as a bundle of particles was first put forward by Newton with his
corpuscular theory. However, this theory could not explain, for instance, herons strange fishing
technique1. Herons stand in shallow waters, motionless, waiting for fish to appear. When the fish
appears within their sight they swiftly grab them. However, they do not go straight for the fish as
we see it. Light, when it passes from one medium to another, changes its direction due to refraction.
This means that herons see the fish under an angle, and that their brains are programmed to
compensate by going for what seems to be empty space, but is actually a tasty protein mouthful.
Indeed, Newtons corpuscular theory of light could not explain refraction, so a new theory was
needed the wave theory of light, introduced by Huygens in the late seventeenth century. The view
of light as a wave stayed prevalent till the early twentieth century, when scientists like Max Planck
and Albert Einstein gave rise to Modern Physics. The new phenomena that were discovered could
not be explained simply by using the wave theory, so the theory of light had to be revised. One of
these phenomena is the photoelectric effect, discovered by Albert Einstein. The photoelectric effect
is the experiment, which shows that the electrons would be emitted when light is shined upon a

1
Thomas, 2014, in-class discussion

metal sheet. Even though this could be explained with the wave theory, problems arose when the
intensity of light changed. The wave theory suggests that the higher intensity light has a higher
energy, and therefore the electrons should be emitted with a higher speed. However, the experiment
showed that with the higher intensity the speed of electrons did not change, only the number of
emitted electrons increased. Further experiments showed that the higher the frequency of light, the
higher the velocity of emitted electrons. To solve this problem, Einstein thought about light as a
bundle of particles, building on Plancks equation. Max Planck proposed that light consists of little
packets of energy (quanta) called photons, where each photon has the following energy: =
(h = Plancks constant, f = light frequency). It is evident from the given formula that the energy of
photon is higher with its frequency, which is consistent with the experiment. The corpuscular
properties of light can also be seen in space, where light rays are bent around the Sun because of
gravity. Although the wave properties of light are very different compared to its corpuscular
properties, they complement each other, each explaining different aspects of the behavior of light.
Time in physics was always very ambiguous, both among past natural philosophers and
more recent scientists. For instance, Newtons and Einsteins formulae show a complete
reversibility of time they would work the same with time running either backwards or forwards.
The problem here is that our personal experience suggests that there is an arrow of time, i.e., our
world is not reversible as suggested by mathematics. A cup of tea would never heat up
spontaneously - it always cools down2. Even though classical mechanics and relativity give
unsatisfying answers, the matter at hand gets even more disconcerting in the case of quantum
mechanics. To explain the idea of quantum world, we can use the Schrdingers cat thought
experiment. A cat is put inside a box along with a vial of cyanide, a hammer, and a radioactive

2
P. Coveney and R. Highfield, The Arrow of Time, p. 55

element. The decay of the radioactive element would trigger the hammer to crush the vial of
cyanide, which would, consequently, poison and kill the cat. However, because the decay of
radioactive element is not deterministic, we cannot be sure whether the cat is alive or dead at a
moment in time (the walls of the box are opaque). One option is to conclude that cat is both alive
and dead. Schrdinger identifies those states with a mathematical model called a wavefunction. It
contains the probabilities of all possible outcomes, which can occur at any point of time. This
property of the wavefunction shows that the wavefunction is completely time symmetric past,
present and future do not matter. Although quantum mechanics disappoints in this aspect, there is
one property of wavefunction that is asymmetric the wavefunction collapse3. Schrdingers cat
experiment has two possible outcomes, and at each point of time we can know the probability of
each outcome. But when we finally open the box we know for sure if the cat is alive or dead.
Simple observation reduced all the possible outcomes to only one outcome, collapsing the
wavefunction. The reconciliation between physics and our personal experience could be found in
the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law simply states that an isolated system is running down
to complete disorganization, reaching the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, i.e., state of
maximum entropy. Put more simply: heat can only flow from a hotter body to a cooler one, that
snowmen melt and statues crumbleThis irreversible loss is connected with our sense of the
passage of time.4 The Second Law of Thermodynamics could also be connected with the world of
quantum, where wavefunctions collapse in a way that would raise the entropy of a closed system.
Nonetheless, time in physics remains a very ambiguous topic, and is actually getting more
complicated as we delve deeper into the world of quantum.

3
P. Coveney and R. Highfield, The Arrow of Time, p. 129-p. 131
4
P. Coveney and R. Highfield, The Arrow of Time, p. 32-p. 33

Radiometric dating is the essential technique in determining the age of terrestrial matter.
However, even though radiometric dating is currently the best way to determine the age of
something, it comes with its own problems. To calculate the age of a specimen we need it to be in
an approximately closed system with an appropriate radioisotope. For instance, let our radioisotope
be carbon-14, and the object whose age we are trying to determine a prehistoric wooden tool.
During their lifetime, trees have a constant ratio of radioactive carbon-14 and stable carbon-12,
where approximately one out of trillion carbon atoms is radioactive carbon-14. Even though carbon14 isotopes are decaying as tree lives, the ratio stays constant because it is continuously being
replenished through ingestion, being in the state of dynamic equilibrium. After the death of the tree,
the number of carbon-14 isotopes will decrease due to radioactive decay, while the number of
carbon-12 isotopes remains constant, altering the ratio between two isotopes. Although a particular
radioisotope decays after an indefinite amount of time, through numerous experiments scientists
have discovered that statistically after some definite time, so-called half-life, the number of still
active radioisotopes would halve. For example, the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years5, so after
5730 years there should be one carbon-14 isotope out of two trillion carbon atoms. However, it
would only approximately halve. If we toss a coin there is an equal chance of getting heads or tails.
Even though there is a 50:50 chance, after, for instance, six tosses, we cannot always expect to get
exactly three heads and three tails. However, as we toss the coin more and more times, our ratio is
getting closer to 50:50, as suggested by the law of large numbers. The same principle can be applied
to the probabilistic nature of radioisotopes. Even though a particular radioisotope is probabilistic, a
large number of radioisotopes can be considered deterministic, allowing us to determine the age of
the specimen. Still, radiometric dating has to make pretty big assumptions to work. We cannot be

5
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/94839/carbon-14-dating

sure that some other processes have not altered the ratio of isotopes, or the rate of the decay. Also,
since we need a large number of carbon-14 isotopes for the system to be deterministic, we can only
use radiocarbon dating for specimen younger than approximately fifty thousand years, since there is
not enough carbon-14 left to maintain accuracy. This is why it is important to use an appropriate
radioisotope, for instance, if we want to determine the age of the oldest rocks, potassium-40 isotope
would suffice because its half-life is 1.3 billion years. For the even greater precision, systems with
more than one radioisotope are used. An example of that are zircon minerals, which have two
clocks with different half-lives that can be compared: uranium-235 and uranium-2386. Even though
radioisotopes are unpredictable on their own, they behave in a deterministic manner when in large
numbers, helping us date our world.
Science has always strived to understand the world around us, to go beyond the limits of our
senses, and discover the ultimate truth. Despite all our efforts, our pursuit to understand nature has
led us to confine its workings in miniscule, humanly understandable boxes, having to dichotomize
the theories that did not fit. According to the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant, our minds create
space and time in which we perceive the world, i.e., we see the world that is filtered by our senses
and means of understanding, so we cannot perceive what is really out there, independent of our
minds. This way of thinking resonates with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics:
the world we observe seems to be independently real but is nevertheless suspended on an unreal,
microscopic worldwe cannot hope to give description of quantum processes as they really are.7
The observer tries to understand nature, but ultimately he/she fails. Even though the title of this
essay is Natures Dichotomies, it is not nature that has dichotomies - it is science.

6
Thomas, 2014, in-class discussion
7 P. Coveney and R. Highfield, The Arrow of Time, p. 124-p. 125