|
==Devrim Sonrası: dördüncü aşama==
Einstein, bu tartışmalar sırasında yazdığı son belgede, görüşlerini git gide daha da katı bir biçimde savundu. Bilim camiasındaki bir çoğunluğun o dönemki haliyle kuantum teorisinindeki rastlantısallığın doğru olduğunu düşünmeleri onu çok rahatsız etmişti. [[bilimsel konsensüs|Bilimsel çoğunluk]], Einstein'ın rastlantısallık hakkındaki görüşlerine katılmasa da, atom teorisinin eldeki bilgiler ile tamamlanmış olarak kabul edilmeyeceğini düşünenler de yoğunluktaydı. Bilim insanlarının bu bölünmüşlüğünden dolayı da kuantum mekaniğindeki determinizm hala çürütülmüş değildir. ([[Kuantum mekaniğinin yorumları]] sayfasına bakınız)<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bishop|first1=Robert C.|editor1-first=Robert|editor1-last=Kane|title=The Oxford Handbook of Free Wil|accessdate=2013-02-04|edition=Second|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford, New York|isbn=978-0-19-539969-1|page=90|chapter=Chaos, Indeterminism, and Free Will|url=http://books.google.nl/books?id=kzcFDsWg0GEC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=Bell+1987,+1-13,+29-39;+Bohm+1952a,+1952b;+Bohm+and+Hiley+1993;+Bub+1997,+40-114,+Holland+1993;+see+also+the+preceding+essay+in+this+volume+by+Hodgson&source=bl&ots=5in429oGBd&sig=VuIoYZcukMN7fKCMC2EBalkb7g4&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=d9kQUbTCLqnW0QXtlIG4DA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Bell%201987%2C%201-13%2C%2029-39%3B%20Bohm%201952a%2C%201952b%3B%20Bohm%20and%20Hiley%201993%3B%20Bub%201997%2C%2040-114%2C%20Holland%201993%3B%20see%20also%20the%20preceding%20essay%20in%20this%20volume%20by%20Hodgson&f=false|quote=The key question is whether to understand the nature of this probability as epistemic or ontic. Along epistemic lines, one possibility is that there is some additional factor (i.e., a hidden mechanism) such that once we discover and understand this factor, we would be able to predict the observed behavior of the quantum stoplight with certainty (physicists call this approach a "hidden variable theory"; see, e.g., Bell 1987, 1-13, 29-39; Bohm 1952a, 1952b; Bohm and Hiley 1993; Bub 1997, 40-114, Holland 1993; see also the preceding essay in this volume by Hodgson). Or perhaps there is an interaction with the broader environment (e.g., neighboring buildings, trees) that we have not taken into account in our observations that explains how these probabilities arise (physicists call this approach decoherence or consistent histories<sup>15</sup>). Under either of these approaches, we would interpret the observed indeterminism in the behavior of stoplights as an expression of our ignorance about the actual workings. Under an ignorance interpretation, indeterminism would not be a fundamental feature of quantum stoplights, but merely epistemic in nature due to our lack of knowledge about the system. Quantum stoplights would turn to be deterministic after all.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Baggott|first1=Jim E.|title=Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy, and the Meaning of Quantum Theory|accessdate=2013-02-04|year=2004|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford, New York|isbn=0-19-852536-2|page=203|chapter=Complementarity and Entanglement|chapterurl=http://books.google.nl/books?id=uVdjwsqrgz8C&pg=PA203&dq=scientific+consensus+determinism+bell+theorem&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=4v8PUaL5MarK0QWk8oCwBw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=scientific%20consensus%20determinism%20bell%20theorem&f=false|quote=So, was Einstein wrong? In the sense that the EPR paper argued in favour of an objective reality for each quantum particle in an entangled pair independent of the other and of the measuring device, the answer must be yes. But if we take a wider view and ask instead if Einstein was wrong to hold to the realist's belief that the physics of the universe should be objective and deterministic, we must acknowledge that we cannot answer such a question. It is in the nature of theoretical science that there can be no such thing as certainty. A theory is only 'true' for as long as the majority of the scientific community maintain a consensus view that the theory is the one best able to explain the observations. And the story of quantum theory is not over yet.}}</ref>
== Ayrıca bakınız ==
|
