Is matter completely observable?

[Viper0329]

In a philosophy class of mine, we just looked at a theory that attempts to redefine our conception of matter and energy. Without going into the theory, it makes me ask the question:

Is matter completely observable?

 

[Heisenberg]

What exactly do you mean by "completely"?

 

[Viper0329]

In all of its qualities and properties.

In a philosophy class today, we looked at Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy. Basically, he posited that there was essentially two different forms of energy: radial and tangential. It made me think about the observability of matter. One of these energies is "psychic" in nature. For this to be so, it would be a form of energy that we have not observed directly and that science essentially does not measure.

See this link for more information.

 

[f95toli]

You are confusing science and philosopy. In this case there is a difference.

In science when we talk about matter we implicitly assume that we are refering to something which has a set of parameters (mass, charge, spin etc), and as far as we know all of these parameters can at least in principle always be measured.
Now, of course this does not mean that we can be "sure" in on a more fundamental level that we know everything about matter. However, this only brings us back to the invisible pink unicorn problem (or the orbiting teapot for those into more conventional philosophy) which from a scientific point of view is meaningless.

It is a neccesary condition for ANY scientific theory that is makes predictions that can be experimentally tested. Whence, a theory that postulates the existence of a non-measurable (meaning it can not even in PRINCIPLE be measured) property of matter is not scientific.
You will find that for all practical purposes science basically works as described by Popper: His criterias (falsifiability etc) are generally implicity used when deciding if e.g a paper is suitable for publication in a peer-review journal.

Now, back to the original question. The scientific answer to you question is "it depends what you mean", we think we can measure all properties of matter (not only in principle, but in the lab) but we still don't understand why it has these properties in the first place. One obvious example is that we don't know why particles have mass, google "higgs boson" and you should be able to find mor info about this.
This is incidently one of the things people working on string theory is trying to explain.

 

[BrownTown]

well, at first i wrote a long explanation of why i have very little respect for philosopher, and why i considered philosophy (and especially metaphysics), to be a very dodgy subject, but i decdied to not post that, and instead just post this blurb saying that I feel that way.

But I mean really, philosophers jsut try to explain how they think things work based on nothing but though expiriments, scientists actually use real expiriments with verifiable proof to back up their claims, philosopers jsut use big words to try to convince you they are right.

 

[silverpig]

Yeah this question doesn't really make much sense to me either... *shrug*

 

[Viper0329]

I had begun to write a response, but I just discovered the problem that arises in my own question.

f95toli, Thanks for the time to reply. Yes, I am well aware of the distinction between philosophy and science, as I've done a fair bit of research in the subject. (I'm a philosophy major)

My question was poorly thought out as this was posted directly after a lecture without me giving much thought to it. In my haste, I mentally conflated some terms between the two disciplines that shouldn't have been.

BrownTown: At first, I thought the same thing about philosophy. But after spending 2 years studying it exclusively, it adds a wealth of information to the search for human understanding. Even though science and philosophy search for knowledge according to different methods, (Science being based upon empirical data, and philosophy using the ability of our intellects to reason) each is very important. The way you view the world right now is based upon hundreds of years of philosophical tradition. It's fascinating to study the evolution of human thought and to see how our interpretation of the world changes from generation to generation.

Philosophy can be a dodgy subject, but I think all realms of inquiry (even metaphysics) can teach us much about the world we live in and deserve to have time and effort put into them. It's easy to see though why many people feel metaphysics is worthless these days. After the Enlightenment, it's popularity dropped pretty quickly...

 

[BrownTown]

EDIT: you don't really need to read all that, jsut see that I wrote alot of stuff and assume that my previous statement is based on more than an ignorant bias agaisnt philosophers.

Originally posted by: Viper0329
I had begun to write a response, but I just discovered the problem that arises in my own question.

f95toli, Thanks for the time to reply. Yes, I am well aware of the distinction between philosophy and science, as I've done a fair bit of research in the subject. (I'm a philosophy major)

My question was poorly thought out as this was posted directly after a lecture without me giving much thought to it. In my haste, I mentally conflated some terms between the two disciplines that shouldn't have been.

BrownTown: At first, I thought the same thing about philosophy. But after spending 2 years studying it exclusively, it adds a wealth of information to the search for human understanding. Even though science and philosophy search for knowledge according to different methods, (Science being based upon empirical data, and philosophy using the ability of our intellects to reason) each is very important. The way you view the world right now is based upon hundreds of years of philosophical tradition. It's fascinating to study the evolution of human thought and to see how our interpretation of the world changes from generation to generation.

Philosophy can be a dodgy subject, but I think all realms of inquiry (even metaphysics) can teach us much about the world we live in and deserve to have time and effort put into them. It's easy to see though why many people feel metaphysics is worthless these days. After the Enlightenment, it's popularity dropped pretty quickly...

Actually, the evolution of human though is one of my personal interests, and something I wish I could take mroe classes in (though unfortunately me EE classes already keep me too busy to try to take on an even greater course load). I have perhaps come on a different road than you when it comes to philosohpy. When I was a high school senior I did alot of reading on my own in the study of philosophy, so I read books by Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Sir Thomas Moore, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, etc.., as I read these books I did in fact incorperate many of their points into my own philisophical structure. I guess I would best be classified as being a Utilitarian when it comes to moral thought, so you can classify me as such if you wish. However, after reading these books I came pretty much to the following conclusions:

1. As time progresses the nature of philosophy changes, even those like Nietzche who wriete about this end up fallign into the very trap which they so eloquently outline. IT is a fact that all of us our influenced by both our genetic predispositions, and personal expereinces, nobody can escape that, and therefore the philosophies of these people are not so much point towards a common and unifying philosophy, but instead are prisonors of their own time.

2. Philosophy has little bearing on the way people actually make descisions. Even people who have a well defined philisophical belief system rarely actually follow what they preach. This can best be seen in religious people who despite risking eternal d@mnation for sinning against God still manage to do it on a daily basis. If people are willing to break their beliefs at the risk of eternal suffering in order to satisfy greed or lust, then what could possibly make you think a secular person would act on their philosopy when it ran in contrast to their own interests. People act in their own interests in pretty much all cases, if you want someone to do something that is against their own interests you can't jsut make them beleive that it is ethically right, you have to make it NOT in their interest to disobey you.

3. When people of differnt philosophies meet it creates conflict, even when both sides beleive in mostly the same moral principals they both end up going agaisnt their own beliefs in order to try to convince the other side of their correctness. The fact of hte matter is that having 10 differnt competing philisophical viewpoints is a negative effect to our society, nto a positive one. Even though I am an atheist, and disagree very strongly with many of the beliefs of the Christian church I consider it a fact that the world woudl be better if everyone was a christian. But on the same token it would also be better if everyoen was a utilitarian, or a Jew, or a humanist. Continually searching for a correct philosophy does no good unless you can impliment it. Even if you were to find the perfect philosophy it woudl be better to have everyone agree one one moral code.

Sorry that I don't have time to proofread that and make it all cool sounding and intellectual, I'm sure that my inability to fully expound on my points will mean that they will be misinterpreted and therefore that it is almost certian that whatever you think I am trying to say is not what I am actually trying to say, but at least understand that I have come to my descision that philosphy is a no win situation only after considerable though to the matter, it is not through a lack of philisophical study that I have come to disregard most philosophy, but isntead an excess of real world study. Everything that can be explained by philosophy can be just as easy explained by science. The moral theories I have seen posited are more or less differnet ways of saying the same thing. We are born with a genetic instict of "good" and "evil", and of self interest, these philosophies simply try to put a silver coating on what is really not much more than animal instinct.

 

[Viper0329]

We are born with a genetic instict of "good" and "evil", and of self interest

Is there any emperical data to back this up? I'm honestly asking this question, because I've never heard of any gene and would love to read about it. I can see the disposition towards self-preservation, but in what way is "good" and "evil" used here?

 

[BrownTown]

I mean that insofar as its true that there is a large list of things which pretty much everyone in the world views as immoral (rape, murder, etc...) There is cetainly a genetic reason for this. Certianlly having members of the species think its OK to kill each other for no reason would not be a very good trait if you expect your species to last long. Rape allows individuals with inferior genes to pass them on instead of the superior genes which would likely be choosen over their own. you can make this argument for many other 'immoral' actions, like adultry (not even illegal), again, allows a person to spread their genetics without having to raise the child (assuming that the other man never fins out). The fact of the matter is that human by nature (genetics), are social creatures, and in order to live in a community certain rules must exist to govern behavior. Genetics works on a much larger scale than the development of technology, so we still have basically the same insticts that would govern a horde of monkeys. Certianlly today we have much more intricate systems of government, and mroe detailed systems of law, but think about the basic spirit of the laws, that every person should have an equal opertunity to further themsleves in this life?, to persue their dreams to the best of their ability?. On one hand you might laud such ideas as a progressive affirmation of universal equality, but what it really boils down to is making an even playing field to allow genetic superiority to be the sole determinant for success. Attempts at racism are similarly attempts by people who share similar genetic traits to further their own genetics instead of others.

I know it seems really bastardly and heartless to attempt to break morality down like this, and it is very easy to interpret what I am saying as being racist, or supporting eugenics, but this is NOT the case, I am simply trying to explain how genetics is the driving force behind morality, not some metaphysically ideal, or some all knowing God.



As for the origional question up at the top, no its not possible, becasue an attempt to measure a system inherently disturbs the system as explained by Heisenbergs uncertainty principle .

 

[f95toli]

The uncertainty principle is not relevant here, it merely states that the product of two conjugate variables is larger than a certain constant which is of the order of Plancks constant. Examples of variables are position/momentum and charge/phase.
However, this still means that you can measure ONE of these variables with arbitrary precision, at least as long as you don't care about the value of the other.

 

[BrownTown]

yes, but matter is not completely observable because you cannot determine all the properties at the smae point in time, and by descerning individual properties in a seriel order you are changing the result of your previous observations as you continue to test.

 

[DrPizza]

Before I answer yes or no, I need you to define three terms...
What *exactly* do you mean by "completely," "observable," and "matter."

Personally, I'd prefer to say "no." Once you get down to the atomic level (heck, the molecular level (excepting, of course, unusually large molecules)) you don't make observations of matter. You make observations of matter's interaction with whatever instruments you are using to study that matter. Or, to put it another way, do you observe air? You observe the effects it has on its surroundings, i.e. wind blowing the trees, but do you actually observe the air itself?

If by observe, you mean use one of our primary senses: sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, then there are a lot of things that these senses cannot detect.

By matter, where are you drawing the line? Atomic level? Can you observe a neutron? Is a neutron matter? Okay, how about up quarks and down quarks? Do you consider these matter? After all, protons and neutrons are "made" from 3 of these guys. Can you observe quarks? I'd say no, you can't. You can observe evidence of their existence. But evidence is not the matter itself.

 

[everman]

I don't think I understand what the definition of "completely" means here. Considering the date this conjecture was created, their definition of "completely" was much different than our definition today, as we know much more about the world of quantum physics today.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yes, but matter is not completely observable because you cannot determine all the properties at the smae point in time, and by descerning individual properties in a seriel order you are changing the result of your previous observations as you continue to test.

Sure, but that does not change the fact that we can assign a certain set of properties to matter and that all those properties can indeed be observed (measured). The fact that we can not measure them all at once does not change that fact.

DrPizza: I can't see why "indirect" observation using e.g STM (which can be used to "see" atoms and even electron orbitals) is any different from using an optical microsope?
There is no such thing as observation without interaction (well, there is non-destructive measurement techniques), we can see because electromagnetic waves hit detectors in our eyes. Therefore, I would think that even from a philosophical point of view there is no real difference between "direct" observation using our primary senses and observation using measurment intstrument. In fact, in science we usually prefer the latter.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yes, but matter is not completely observable because you cannot determine all the properties at the smae point in time, and by descerning individual properties in a seriel order you are changing the result of your previous observations as you continue to test.

Sure, but that does not change the fact that we can assign a certain set of properties to matter and that all those properties can indeed be observed (measured). The fact that we can not measure them all at once does not change that fact.

DrPizza: I can't see why "indirect" observation using e.g STM (which can be used to "see" atoms and even electron orbitals) is any different from using an optical microsope?
There is no such thing as observation without interaction (well, there is non-destructive measurement techniques), we can see because electromagnetic waves hit detectors in our eyes. Therefore, I would think that even from a philosophical point of view there is no real difference between "direct" observation using our primary senses and observation using measurment intstrument. In fact, in science we usually prefer the latter.

excellent point. However, I still see a little bit of a difference... the difference between, say, looking at a rock, and looking at a picture of a rock.

 

[beansbaxter]

it would help if we had a good definition of "matter," no? and, while we're at it, what do we mean my "observable."

does matter = truth? and by observable we are implying relativity, which means we will really never know.

then, are we only looking at the qualities of the matter or the matter in-itself--which is a very old philosophical question. are the colors that we see the matter itself, or are the colors just the light reflected off of the matter. is it not true that all we really observe is light reflected, and if so, what then is that which it is reflecting off of, if anything at all?!

observable: usually we mean by sight, taste, touch, smell, hearing. but what about mathamtically observable? what about observing subatomic particals with the aid of computers and devices that amplify and probably distort radically. a lot of what physics observes today is based on probability and mathmatical speculation, is it not?

matter: physics is saying 11 dimensions which we don't have access to!? do we count all the probable matter in those other 7 dimensions? if so, we percieve very little of what is out there and very closely and intimatly around us simotaneously and omni-directionally.

my guess: we cannot know much more than that we don't know. and what we think we know we have mostly wrong, but sometimes with luck and maybe a little help we are headed in a vague and general direction that is closer to what we are searching for, whatever that may be.

 

[beansbaxter]

Originally posted by: Viper0329Is matter completely observable?

Nope, just ask Heisenburg.

As to the idea of some form of energy which is not directly observable. That's not a terribly exotic concept. There are aspects of quantum and astrophysics which are not directly observed but are measured through their effects on other aspects of a system. e.g. A planet which is invisible to direct observation can be inferred by a wobble in the sun which it orbits.

Simply come up with a range of effects that this energy would have on the observable universe which can be measured, and which have no other possible causes. Measure these effects and you have a case for your "psychic" energy.

 

[MrDudeMan]

id be interested to know if any of you have a more than cursory understanding of what the heisenburg uncertainty principle actually entails. it sounds good to say those words, but do you know what it actually means and how it applies? SEVERAL particles and energy distributions do NOT obey the HUP and also do not obey the conservation of energy/momentum laws.

beans, actually the 11 dimensional theory can be reduced to 10, which makes a lot of the calculations more logical and probable. i just turned in a homework problem on the subject actually.

OP: matter can be described in terms of energy, and being able to completely observe energy does not sound feasible to me. on a macroscopic level, you could say you completely observe a book, but at the nuclear level, you could never, ever observe all of the constituents of a nucleus. a lot of people think protons, neutrons, and the quarks that make them are what you find in a nucleus, but that is not nearly all of the parts. not by a long shot. you could never observe a gluon field or a virtual photon or a photino, but you can certainly observe the effects they have on other more massive particles. so it comes to this - what do you mean by observe? if you mean physically see, then no, because the rayleigh criterion and the calculations that go along with it to distinguish atomic and nuclear particles is literally impossible based on our current methods.

something you may find interesting is to lookup quantum mechanic observables. in classical physics, all observables are sharp, but such is not the case in quantum mechanics. for wavefunctions of a particle to be sharp, they must be an eigenfunction of the operator for the observable. furthermore, the sharp value for the observable in this state must be the eigenvalue. if those are true, it is a sharp observable, or completely observable. since that isnt possible quantum mechanically, it is called a fuzzy observable, thus not able to be completely determined in terms of angular momentum, quantum number, spin, charge, color, etc.

 

[f95toli]

The bottom line is that the Heisenberg principle does NOT rule out matter being complettely observable.
However, if you want to go into more detail things quickly become very complicated. In quantum optics they have been able to "bend to rules" when it comes to what can and can not be expermentally observed for a couple of decades now, light is "easy" to manipulate and things like "squeezed states" can quite easitly be demonstrated.
The recent progress in quantum computing has also created the possibilty to study similar effects in other systems,e g. a solid state qubit can be seen as a "model" system for quantum metrology (this is incidently what I am working on at the moment). This is a new field but it is very interesting and it is possible that there will be some practical applications.

There was a paper on quantum metrology in a recent issue of PRL which some of you might find interesting
Giovannetti et al, PRL vol. 96,010401 (2006)

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Viper0329
In a philosophy class of mine, we just looked at a theory that attempts to redefine our conception of matter and energy. Without going into the theory, it makes me ask the question:

Is matter completely observable?

According to Berekley matter should be defined by what is observed, so yes; according to people who are objectivist about things no. Berkely is ultimately right IMO but for the pruposes of physical theory it is useful to define matter in such a way that it can be there even if not observed.

 

[beansbaxter]

Heisenberg uncertainty doesn't apply to non-quantum physics. I would describe what we commonly refer to as matter, as atoms and larger. I which case yes everything larger than an atom has observable properties which we can measure to some finite degree. However once you start talking about electrons and spin states, n + 1 all that crap, well we don't currently have some type of unifying theory which ties quantum mechanics into normal mechanics. (at least that I know of) That what Einstein spent the end of his life trying to discover, like him I believe that there has to be some definable mathematical relationship between the two. But I have my doubts about whether we will discover it within my life time. It would be funny however if it turned out to be something as elegant as special relativity.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: beansbaxter
Heisenberg uncertainty doesn't apply to non-quantum physics. I would describe what we commonly refer to as matter, as atoms and larger. I which case yes everything larger than an atom has observable properties which we can measure to some finite degree. However once you start talking about electrons and spin states, n + 1 all that crap, well we don't currently have some type of unifying theory which ties quantum mechanics into normal mechanics. (at least that I know of) That what Einstein spent the end of his life trying to discover, like him I believe that there has to be some definable mathematical relationship between the two. But I have my doubts about whether we will discover it within my life time. It would be funny however if it turned out to be something as elegant as special relativity.

the theory to unify all of the forces is not meant to make classical physics relate to quantum physics since that is already true. you can use quantum physics to describe both microscopic and macroscopic objects, but not the other way around.

 

[ForumMaster]

what about dark matter? it can not be "detected" or seen but it can be felt. Although scientists have never been able to completly prove the existence of dark matter, it's role is obvious as the "anti-gravity" force that causes our universe to expand. I suppose that would fit your discription of matter that can't be directly observed.

 

[DrPizza]

How about black holes? Can they be "observed"?