The Philosophy of

Quantum Theory
The progression of physics in the 19th and 20tht centuries is analyzed. With a greater emphasis on
the quantum revolution, this paper probes deeply into at how the theory evolved, and investigates the
politics surrounding its development and its philosophical implications. In particular, the philosophy of
Neils Bohr and Einstein is explored.
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 1

Students are traditionally taught the natural sciences in terms of laws and equations, concepts and

mathematical formulations, experiments and observations. In particular, quantum mechanics, in a usual

undergraduate course is introduced as a series of postulates. However most of these laws and facts

have been born out of thought processes, personal opinions and philosophies of scientists which they

then went on to create a formalisms for. The physicists idea, inspiration, intuition, belief, whatever it is

termed as, is the starting point for any theory. As Stengers puts it, every time the possibility of

understanding arises, it benefits from a favorable a-priori. Scientists have a propensity for considering

that possibility to be true. It seems plausible to them.[CITATION Isa10 \p 16 \l 1033 ] This plausibility is

not empirical; it is guided by the physicists faith. Physicists will want to try and prove what they believe

to be true. Relevant textbooks might as well be considered an amalgamation of the beliefs, compromises

and consensus of different physicists. Professor Allan Adams of MIT said in his introductory QM class

Physics doesnt tell you some abstract truth about why the universe is the way it is. Physics gives you

models to understand how things work and predict what will happen next. It took decades for this point

to view to become the popular one among physicists. That physics, by itself cannot provide answer to

fundamental questions of reality is a view Stengers supports.

In the development of quantum theory as it is presently understood, we see precisely this physicists

faith at play. Quantum theory has to do with microscopic behavior. The first conception of the

microscopic was the atom proposed by the Greek philosopher Democritus in 400 BC. Aristotle rejected

this theory saying that matter consisted of four basic elements: earth, fire, water and air. Skipping

forwards to the 1800s, botanist Robert Brown observes the haphazard motion of pollen grains

suspended in fluid with no apparent cause. Despite being a botanist, this behavior intrigued Brown who

investigated further to ascertain that the movement was not due to any life; that completely inert,

undoubtedly dead particles exhibited the same behavior. During this time period, physicists belonged to

two schools of thought: those who believed in atoms (the atomists) and those who did not. Ernst Mach,
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 2

the famous physicist to whom the speed of sound is attributed belonged to the latter category. As a

positivist, Mach needed empirical evidence to validate his belief. If belief in the reality of atoms is so

important to you, I cut myself off from the physicist's mode of thinking, I do not wish to be a true

physicist, I renounce all scientific respectin short: I decline with thanks the communion of the faithful. I

prefer freedom of thought. Ironically his strong disbelief in atoms contradicts his freedom of thought

because believing without empirical evidence is the same as disbelieving without empirical evidence.

Believing something to be false until proven true is the same as believing something to be true until

proven false. Since at the time there was no evidence proving either the existence or non-existence of

atoms, it all came down to the highly subjective personal opinion of the scientists. Surprisingly, the

explanation of Brownian motion that we know today, that this motion is caused by atoms that are

constantly in motion, was first explained not by physicists but by religious authorities: Jesuits and

churchmen who were trained in philosophy, logic, even some mathematics as was the norm of the time.

Father Joseph Delsaulx, S.J., attributing to an unnamed colleague made the suggestion that Brownian

motion results from the constant agitation of small particles by the atoms or molecules that make up a

liquid. Delsaulx suggested vaguely that the observed amplitude of Brownian motionhow far and fast a

particle travels on each zig or zagmust have something to do with what he called the law of large

numbers.[CITATION Dav08 \p 17 \l 1033 ]. Even though the boundary between professions was

nowhere as defined as it is now, the religious figures still lacked the rigorous mathematical training to

give the sort of proof the scientific method required. Regardless, it must be recognized that Delsaulx

reached the same conclusion that Boltzman, Jean Perrin and Einstein did though he did not use their

tools of calculation and experimental verification. If the same conclusion can be reached through

different routes is it fair to regard physics as the only correct way to obtain truth? Eastern Islamic

traditions are full of such examples. For instance Imam Jaffar-al-Sadiq refuted the Aristotelian theory of

four elements in favor of the theory of atoms in the 8th century long before the debates between the
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 3

atomists and non-atomists. He also contradicted Aristotles geocentric model in favor of the heliocentric

model of the solar-system which was later confirmed in the 15 th century by astronomer and

mathematician, Copernicus [ CITATION tra00 \l 1033 ].

These people trained in religion and philosophy reached the correct answer without the help of any

modern mathematical tools. They described phenomenon qualitatively and conceptually. The scientific

method dictates that there should be quantitative, mathematical proof. However, there is no arguing

that there are other ways to reach the same conclusion even if these means are not able to provide the

proof that the scientific method seeks.

After Einsteins calculation1 in 1905 and Jean Perrins observation in 1908, atoms were accepted by the

scientific community. It is important to note that atoms were still not seen. Their existence was

confirmed via inference. The movement of particles as calculated statistically by Einstein matched (with a

high correlation) to Perrins observation. The introduction of statistics to explain physical phenomenon

caused great discomfort to scientists. Theory now contained elements that existed for sure but couldnt

be verified experimentally. For instance, in theory the atom was a particle with a position and a speed

(this is before quantum). But the experimentalist could only infer these through statistics from observed

phenomena. The temperature was determined by the average movement of particles. With classical

Newtonian mechanics prevailing, determinism was extremely important to physicists. This was the idea

that given enough information about the present it was possible to predict the future exactly. For

classical physicists, all evolution was subject to physical laws. Knowing the laws and the initial conditions

would make the future certain. The renowned mathematician Marquis de Laplace said, An intelligence

knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things

in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as

1 It was not possible for Einstein to track the movement of each particle in the fluid. So he calculated the drift, or
the average movement of the particles caused by atoms. This drift was measured by Jean Perrin.
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 4

well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all

data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain.

However, practically, calculating the movement of every single atom and molecule in a sample was

unattainable since it would require computing power so monumental that all the Earths resources

combined could not provide it.

Even so, theoretically speaking, most physicists believed that if that computing power was available,

nothing would be uncertain because nature was inherently deterministic. It was only human

intelligence that limited the information that could be extracted from reality. Statistics was just a tool

that helped physicists approximate the result in light of this limitation. Using statistics Maxwell further

developed the kinetic theory of heat. It was noted that heat flows from hot to cold bodies. In 1865, the

German physicist Rudolf Clausius claimed that entropy (measure of disorder of atoms) can only increase.

The favorable a-priori mentioned earlier fits perfectly here. The idea of entropy always increasing

appealed to Boltzman, and so he proved this via a complex mathematical theorem. In the process, he

made the assumptions that were necessary to prove his idea. Henri Poincar proved a theorem of his

own that seemed to contradict Boltzmann. Poincars theorem said that every possible arrangement of

atoms, corresponding to states with entropy. All values of entropy must occur sooner or later, in the

fullness of time. In this case, it would seem, entropy can and must decrease as well as increase[CITATION

Dav08 \p 24 \l 1033 ]. To reconcile both theorems, Boltzman had to amend his theorem and the

conclusion was that it was more probable that entropy would increase, that random arrangements of

atoms will become more disorderly overtime, but the reverse could also happen (with a lower

probability). This allowed for momentary decrease in entropy. Now, probability had been irrevocably

introduced and determinism became severely challenged. Even more so, when phenomena such as

radiation and radio-active decay emerged. The above example shows how two contradictory theories
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 5

can both be proven in mathematics. To construct any proof, there are certain axioms and assumptions

that the theorist takes into account upon which the conclusion is based. Using different assumptions,

contradictory theorems can be proven. It all depends on what the theorist wishes to prove. As we can

see scientific objectivity really did not exist.

After Rutherford discovered that atoms contain a nucleus, a model for an atom was needed that did not

violate classical physics2 . In 1912, Neils Bohr came to study with Rutherford. He proposed a model of the

atom that preserved classical physics while not violating the experimental results 3. This was the

beginning of a quantum theory. In the following decades there were many formalisms, interpretations

and theories that arose, some trying to salvage classical notions, others bringing in novel concepts. The

proponents and detractors of the multiple theories debated endlessly, proving and disproving claims,

refuting and supporting interpretations. The most prominent figures here are Bohr, Born, Heisenberg,

Schrodinger, Einstien and Bohm. Einstein used the idea of quantization to assert that light consisted of

quantized energy packets. Experimentation showed that light sometimes appeared to behave as a wave

(when not being observed) and sometimes as a particle (when observed). Though Einstein had no

problem with quantization, he could not accept that nature was inherently spontaneous. This was

Einsteins physicists faith and he spent the rest of his life trying to prove it. Bohr on the other hand

could not accept the quantization of light. Heisenberg came up with a completely novel quantum

formalism that dealt with discontinuity and discreteness. He abandoned the traditional mathematical

tools such as calculus and invented his own mathematical formulation. The formulation worked

spectacularly even though there seemed no physical cause for it. In one of their initial meetings,

2 If the atom consisted of electrons orbiting a nucleus, the electrons would radiate energy as accelerating charged
particles do and would spiral into the nucleus. This would result in the atom collapsing, and thus such an atom
could not exist. Either classical physics was wrong or the model of an atom had to be revised.
3 He proposed that electrons orbited the nucleus much like the planets orbit the sun except that the electrons
were only allowed to be in fixed orbits and have discrete quantum levels of energy. The concept of quantization
had been introduced previously by Max Plank to account for emitted radiation. Bohr used the same concept to
explain spontaneous radiation. He said that when electrons jump from a higher to lower orbits, they release the
energy difference in radiation.
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 6

Heisenberg consulted Bohr on this issue asking what was the underlying conception, the true physics of

it all? Bohr told him, the point of models was to capture as much as one could hope to say about atoms,

given the inadequacies of the ideas with which physicists were fumbling along. "When it comes to

atoms," Bohr concluded enigmatically, "language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not

nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connection."

[CITATION Dav08 \p 86 \l 1033 ]. This resonates with Barads point of view on representationalism.

According to Barad, language is given too much power with the assumption that it transmits a clear

picture of reality, that it conveys ideas clearly and perfectly. For Barad, this is not so. She draws a parallel

between language and observation saying that just as language is thought to be a transparent medium

that transmits a homologous picture of reality to the knowing mind, in scientific theory observation is

taken to be the benign facilitator of discovery, a transparent lens passively gazing at the world. She goes

on to say that just as words provide descriptions or representations of a preexisting reality, observations

reveal preexisting properties of an observation-independent reality. [CITATION Kar \p 97 \l 1033 ]. Barad

talks about Bohrs philosophy-physics, since the two disciplines were so inseparable to Bohr that he

considered them as one practice. Bohr essentially tells Heisenberg that his new mathematical formalism

is a language that cannot depict reality exactly, as is its limitation, but that he should not be concerned

since the poet is not as concerned with describing facts than creating images, or by analogy getting to

the broader picture.

Despite of Bohrs encouraging words to Heisenberg, he did believe that the language of classical physics

was indeed essential and could somehow be used to describe quantum phenomenon. Viennese physicist

Irwin Schrodinger, too, believed in the power of classical physics and did not like the discontinuity that

Heisenbergs formulation brought in. So, predictably, he set out to adapt classical formulations of

calculus and differential equations to quantum theory, which he did so in his wave mechanics. Although

this too gave correct results, Heisenberg rejected Schrodinders wave equation saying that it did not
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 7

make sense physically. He disagreed with Schrodinger on the interpretation of the equation, not on its

results. How could a single particle be dispersed in space like a wave. It had to be located somewhere.

Thus a wave equation to describe a particle made no sense to him. Max Born solved this problem by

proposing that the waves did not describe the actual particles, but their probabilities. It was proven that

both formulations, that of Heisenberg and Schrodinger were mathematically equivalent. Both physicists

proved what they believed physics should be. If one were to accept Borns conclusion, one would also

conclude that determinism did not exist in nature. Born wrote in 1926, "there is no question of any

causal description. One gets no answer to the question, what is the state after the collision but only to

the question, how probable is a specified outcome of the collision. Here the whole problem of

determinism comes up. I myself am inclined to give up determinism in the world of the atoms. But that is

a philosophical question for which physical arguments alone are not decisive." Like Bohr, Born placed an

emphasis on philosophy saying that physical arguments alone are not decisive to discuss determinism.

Stengers point of view is reinforced here that physics should not make the claim to know (or claim that it

is possible to know) everything. Answers can arise from other disciplines too. In particular, philosophy is

very important to physics as it is here that one starts to question fundamental concepts.

Dirac, Pauli and Heisenberg concluded independently that there was no way to measure the position and

momentum of a particle simultaneously. The uncertainty principle measures the extent to which the

scientist influences the properties of the observed objects through the process of measurement. The

philosophical implications of this were profound. Scientists could not play the role of detached

observers, they were part of the world they observed. If the observer and the system were inextricably

linked then the world was not a collection of independent objects but consisted of a web of relations

between the various parts of a unified whole.[ CITATION htt2 \l 1033 ]. Bohr and Heisenberg did not

agree on the interpretation of the uncertainty principle, and that is the basis of Frayns play. For Bohr, it

is not that we cannot know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously, but that definite
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 8

values of position and momentum cannot exist simultaneously. For Heisenberg, in measuring one

characteristic we disturb its premeasurement values. For Heisenberg, the limitation is experimental. The

limitation is that of the observer. For Bohr, there is no limitation, observation essentially dictates what

characteristic a particle has. Bohr is making a point about the very ontology of reality, of the nature of

reality, while Heisenberg is commenting on its epistemology. According to Barad, Bohr is calling into

question an entire tradition in the history of Western metaphysics: the belief that the world is populated

with individual things with their own independent sets of determinate properties. There is something

fundamental about the nature of measurement interactions such that given a particular measuring

apparatus certain properties become determinate while others are specifically excluded. Which

properties become determinate is not governed by the desires or will of the experimenter but rather by

the specificity of the experimental apparatus. Barad emphasizes Bohrs point of view that We are not

outside observers of the world. Neither are we located at particular places in the world. Rather we are a

part of the world in its ongoing intra-activity. (Barad 184) We are essentially a part of the nature that we

seek to understand. Here we are reminded of Latours hybrid model. The apparatus and the observer

form one system.

Einstein and Schrodinger fought for restoration of classical concepts and rebelled against probabilistic

descriptions of reality. On the other side Bohr and Heisenberg pushed for the probabilistic interpretation

of Quantum Mechanics. For Einstein, uncertainty was not inherent in nature. That probabilities arose

was a sign that the quantum theory was incomplete. He proposed that every theory in fact contains

unobservable quantities. Thus employing only observable quantities simply cannot be consistently

carried out. He also found the very concept of observation problematic. Every observation 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
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 9

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. [ CITATION htt1 \l 1033 ] Here Einsteins view that observation is not a clear lens is in accord

with Barads view of representationalism mentioned earlier.

Despite the differences of the physicists who advertently or inadvertently (in the case of Einstein) led the

quantum revolution, it was clear that philosophical ideas were at the heart of their beliefs. All of them

had been trained in philosophy and understood its importance to physics. This makes us ponder why

modern physicists like Lawrence Krauss see no use for it. In 2012 Krauss described philosophy as

obsolete, saying that philosophy has no impact on physics whatsoever, , science progresses and

philosophy doesn't[ CITATION htt3 \l 1033 ]. Other modern physicists like Stephen Hawking have also

expressed their disdain for philosophy. In the first page on his book The Grand Design Hawking claims

that philosophy is dead and that philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science,

particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for

knowledge. This is exactly the kind of pretentions attitude of scientists that Stengers warns against. We

hold these quotes in contrast to the following by Einstein, So many people todayand even

professional scientistsseem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen

a forest [i.e those who do not do philosophy]. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background

gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are

suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight isin my opinionthe mark of distinction

between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. What has caused this massive shift of

attitude in physicists in such a short period of time? It is perhaps, as Stengers and Latour would argue

that the boundaries between professions have sharpened and that has encouraged professionals to

remain confined within their practice while simultaneously disregarding other practices. What is needed
 The Philosophy of Quantum Theory 10

is for these boundaries to be broken so that disciplines are not conceptualized within these categories

but thought of as a unified whole with relationships between its numerous components.

Bibliography
https://sites.google.com/site/dlhquantum/educational/einstein-heisenberg.

http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/wisdoms/uncowisd.htm.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-
religion-obsolete/256203/.

Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway.

Lindley, David. Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science.
New York: Anchor Books, 2008.

translated by Kaukab Ali Mirza. Imam Jafar Ibn Muhammad As-Sadiq A.S. The Great Muslim
Scientist and Philosopher. Willowdale Ont: Research Committee of Strasburg University, 2000.

Stengers, Isabelle. Cosmopolitics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.