Nobel Laureate Werner Heisenberg: GOD Is Waiting at the Bottom of the Glass

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 22:12

Author/Compiler: Tihomir Dimitrov (http://nobelists.net; also see http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/issue/view/3)

WERNER HEISENBERG – NOBEL LAUREATE IN PHYSICS

Nobel Prize: Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976) was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics “for the creation of quantum mechanics, the application of which has, inter alia, led to the discovery of the allotropic forms of hydrogen.” In 1927 Heisenberg published the famous principle of uncertainty (indeterminacy) that bears his name.

Nationality: German.

Education: Ph.D. in physics, University of Munich, Germany, 1923; Dr. Phil. Habil., University of Goettingen, Germany, 1924.

Occupation: Professor of Physics at the Universities of Copenhagen (Denmark), Leipzig, Berlin, Goettingen, and Munich.

♦♦♦

1. “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” [“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.”] (Heisenberg, as cited in Hildebrand 1988, 10).

2. In his autobiographical article in the journal Truth, Henry Margenau (Professor Emeritus of Physics and Natural Philosophy at Yale University) pointed out: “I have said nothing about the years between 1936 and 1950. There were, however, a few experiences I cannot forget. One was my first meeting with Heisenberg, who came to America soon after the end of the Second World War. Our conversation was intimate and he impressed me by his deep religious conviction. He was a true Christian in every sense of that word.” (Margenau 1985, Vol. 1).

3. In his article Scientific and Religious Truth (1973) Heisenberg affirmed:

“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” (Heisenberg 1974, 213).

4. “Where no guiding ideals are left to point the way, the scale of values disappears and with it the meaning of our deeds and sufferings, and at the end can lie only negation and despair.

Religion is therefore the foundation of ethics, and ethics the presupposition of life.” (Heisenberg 1974, 219).

5. Einstein believed in strict causality till the end of his life. In his last surviving letter to Einstein, Heisenberg writes that while in the new quantum mechanics Einstein’s beloved causality principle is baseless, “We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the particles, and thus He could let the causality principle continue to have validity.” (Heisenberg, as cited in Holton 2000, vol. 53).

See also Heisenberg’s articles:

- Heisenberg, Werner. 1970. “Erste Gespraeche ueber das Verhaeltnis von Naturwissenschaft und Religion (1927).” Werner Trutwin, ed. Religion-Wissenschaft-Weltbild. Duesseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, pp. 23-31. (Theologisches Forum. Texte fuer den Religionsunterricht 4.)

- Heisenberg, Werner. 1973. “Naturwissenschaftliche und religioese Wahrheit.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 24 Maerz, pp. 7-8. (Speech before the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, on acceptance of the Guardini Prize, 23 March 1973).

- Heisenberg, Werner. 1968. “Religion und Naturwissenschaft.” Bayer, Leverkusen. Sofort-Kongress-Dienst 24, 1-2.

- Heisenberg, Werner. 1969. “Kein Chaos, aus dem nicht wieder Ordnung wuerde. Drei Atomphysiker diskutieren ueber Positivismus, Metaphysik und Religion.” Die Zeit 24, No. 34, 29-30.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

Comments

hspal

Sat, 11/05/2011 - 22:45

Quote: Einstein believed in strict causality till the end of his life. In his last surviving letter to Einstein, Heisenberg writes that while in the new quantum mechanics Einstein’s beloved causality principle is baseless, “We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the particles, and thus He could let the causality principle continue to have validity.” (Heisenberg, as cited in Holton 2000, vol. 53).

I think Einstein is correct here. I cannot believe that like us God also suffers from uncertainty. Yes, it is true that at our level there is uncertainty, but that does not mean that at deeper level also there will have to be the same sort of uncertainty. At our level we know that light has a speed of 300,000 km/sec. But we see that in its own reference frame light cannot have any speed; actually it cannot move at all, because from special theory of relativity we have come to know that for light any distance it will have to traverse is reduced to zero. So if light has nowhere to go, then how can it have a speed? Or, how can it move? So we see here that there are two types of truth: 1) Truth that appears to us as true, but that is not true at deeper level. We can call it apparent truth, 2) Real truth.
In case of particle's position and momentum also we can similarly say that there are apparent truth and real truth. The apprenet truth is that we cannot exactly pinpoint the position of a particle, because when we attempt to locate its position, we will have to see it by focussing some sort of light on it, but the energy of the light particle disturbs its position. But at deeper level there might be other forms of light of which we cannot have any idea. This light may have so low level of energy that if the particle is observed with this light, then its position will not be disturbed at all, and thus there will be no uncertainty.

I am repeating again that it is unbelievable that God can suffer from any uncertainty of knowledge. At deeper level universe is deterministic. My own experience of life (mystical and others) also confirms it.

hspal

Mon, 11/07/2011 - 21:51

When we human beings want to observe something, whatever that something may be, we will have to focus some light on it. Without light we cannot observe anything. This light is the created light. It may be argued that God also cannot do without light for observing anything. But why should that light have to be created light? Would that not mean that before creation God could not see anything and that He was completely in the dark before creation? But that cannot be. It cannot be that before creation God was in the dark, and that when He created light then only He could see everything. As it is not plausible that God would be in the dark at any time, and as it is also not plausible that He could not see anything due to the absence of all sorts of light, so from this we can come to the conclusion that light was already there before creation also, and that God Himself was that light. So the most basic and primary element of the universe must have to be light and light only, it cannot be otherwise. In one of my earlier essays (If God created the universe, then who created God?) I have also pointed out that if there is really a God, then that God can be light only, and nothing else. Here also we see that there must have to be light before creation also. So when God will observe the position of any subatomic particle, He will observe that with His own light. Why will He require any created light for observing that particle? And how do we come to know that this un-created light has so high an energy value like the created light that this un-created light also will dislocate the sub-atomic particle from its original position, and that in consequence there will also be uncertainty of knowledge about its position at God's level?

hspal

Sat, 11/12/2011 - 01:42

Heisenberg has written: “We can console ourselves that the good Lord God would know the position of the particles, and thus He could let the causality principle continue to have validity.”
Here father of the uncertainty principle himself is admitting that he does not know whether this principle holds at deeper level also.
Now compare his agnosticism with the atheism of some modern scientists. These scientists pretend as if they have already come to know everything that can be known about this universe, and therefore they think that this knowledge has given them some sort of right to openly declare that uncertainty principle works at each and every level of the universe. But mathematician Peter Woit has written in one of his blogs that physicists have so far been able to explain only 4% of the universe, the rest 96% being dark matter and dark energy. So, with only 4% knowledge of the entire universe how do these scientists boast that they have known everything? Therefore I think that agnosticism can be a respectable philosophy, but atheism cannot be. Atheism is another name for dogmatism.