An appreciation of John Stewart Bell

[BaalChatzaf]

John Stewart Bell, the creator of the famous Bell Inequalities was a contrarian and a heretic with regard to the mainstream of physics. Bell was a -realist-. That is to say, he believed that correct physical theories are descriptive and predictive of what actually exists and what actually happens in physical reality independent of how we think about them or observed them. The following Wiki article gives a good precise of Bell's work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell

From the article:

Bell remained interested in objective 'observer-free' quantum mechanics. He stressed that at the most fundamental level, physical theories ought not to be concerned with observables, but with 'be-ables': "The beables of the theory are those elements which might correspond to elements of reality, to things which exist. Their existence does not depend on 'observation'."[8] He remained impressed with Bohm's hidden variables as an example of such a scheme and he attacked the more subjective alternatives such as the Copenhagen and Everett "many-worlds" interpretations.[9]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mainstream thinking in physics tends toward the instrumentalist or machian view of theories. Theories are for predicting outcomes of experiments (i.e. dial readings and such) and do not necessarily describe what is really going on Out There. The Machian view regards theories rather like Boyle's Law, a compact formula which correctly stores pressure and volume values for a gas at a given temperature, but in no wise indicates why it is so. Contrast this to the realist position taken by Einstein who insisted that theories deal with real events, real objects and are not merely schemes or models that happen to predict laboratory experiments correctly. Correct predictions are a necessary property of good theories, but are not sufficient.

The importance of Bell's critique was brought to my attention when I read -The Infamous Boundary:Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics- by David Wick, Copernicus, 1995 ISBN 0-387-94726-4.

Wick is a mathematician, not a physicist, but he has a grip on the basic problems plaguing current physics. He uses Bell's work as a launch pad for his rather trenchant, mordant and witty observations of the current fads and flaws of physics. The main part of the book does not make many mathematical demands on the reader, but it in no way "dumbs down" the basic issues. For those folks with more math there is an appendix by William G. Faris that deals with Bell's famous inequalities.

The book is extremely witty, as well as informative. He does a job and a half on the Copenhagen Interpretation and he has shown the kind of muddle that results from the exclusion of philosophical (ontological and epistemological) considerations from the day to day doings of physicists. He makes a very convincing case. If I may inject a personal note here, he has caused me to question my instrumentalist inclinations. I am over 70 years old and it takes a jolt to get an old coot such as I am to reconsider a position held for decades (but did did it). He even convinced me that Richard Feynman (a hero of mine) might have one or two toes made of clay. Feynman's willful denial of the relevance of philosophy has produced a kind of opaqueness or muddle as the basis of his thinking. This in no wise denies his magnificent contributions to Quantum Electrodynamics for which he (rightly) won a Nobel Prize. However his basic point about quantum theory is that it is based on a mystery, i.e. a phenomenon incapable of being explained realistically or logically (the two slit experiment). I find this assumption rather off putting.

Wick made a rather nifty remark. He says that realism is the engine that powers our imagination and experimentation is the rails which guide our imagination. Not a bad insight. Read the book. Stephen B., if you have not already read this boo, pray do. I think you will find it a treat.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 25, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

The mainstream thinking in physics tends toward the instrumentalist or machian view of theories. Theories are for predicting outcomes of experiments (i.e. dial readings and such) and do not necessarily describe what is really going on Out There.

Really??

[UncleJim]

The mainstream thinking in physics tends toward the instrumentalist or machian view of theories. Theories are for predicting outcomes of experiments (i.e. dial readings and such) and do not necessarily describe what is really going on Out There.

Really??

Otherwise the idea it conceptualizes would not be theoretical but instead intellectual.