Phenomena, image, concept and formula in classical method science

Any knowledge of nature begins with our senses. A child touches his
wooden horse with his fingers, listens to his mother’s voice, and sucks her breast.
In short, from the very first days of his life he finds himself in a world of
phenomenon which gives rise to images. He has as yet, no name for these
phenomena and images. Only gradually he begins to recognize words
corresponding to them and learns to understand what images are hidden behind the
words of other people. Quite soon he begins to realize that the same words give
rise to different images in different persons. Finally, he finds that there are words
that are not linked directly with images, though they are begotten by them. These
are concepts.

Concepts generalize collective experiences. They are purposely deprived of

details inherit in specific images, and can therefore serve as a means of
communication between different people.

As the child develops, he begins to think using concepts. He suddenly

understands that a “wooden horse” is only one of his “toys”, and “water” is not
necessarily sea water, or water from a river, or water flowing out of a faucet., but
just simply water. The capacity for abstraction is the first indication of a grown-up
and a necessary condition for the advance of any science.

Concepts however are also not completely unambiguous, if only because

they give rise to different images in different people. Even in our everyday lives,
such ambiguity may lead to misunderstandings, but this is much more dangerous in
science because its results claim to have an objective meaning and to be
independent of the whims or opinions of any one person or a group of persons.
Therefore each science is associated with a set of symbols and numbers, and
strictly definite rules are specified for dealing with these symbols and numbers.
Only this leads to the single-valuedness that enables scientists of different
countries and generations to communicate with one another.

The linkage

Phenomenon -> image -> concept -> formula

Can be schematically depicted and explained by the example of the origin of the
concept of a wave.

Man observed various phenomena: waves at seas and circles produced by a

stone thrown in to the pond, the propagation of light and the vibration of a string.
They all gave rise to the formation of images. Gradually, it became clear that all
these different phenomena have something in common, namely they are all
associated with some periodic processes whose characteristic features are the
phenomena of interference and diffraction. Thus a new concept the wave was
formed. To make it entirely single valued it was associated with four parameters:
the amplitude A, velocity of propagation v, wavelength and frequency .

Likewise the concept of a particle does not assume that you will visualize a
specific image such as a billiard ball or dust speck. It is enough for a physicist to
know that a particle is a certain object, whose internal structure is of no interest to
him, but which has a mass m, velocity v, momentum p=mv and a trajectory of
motion that can be followed by the physicist.

The trajectory or path is still another new concept that is required to define
the concept “motion of the particle”. On the face of it, this process is infinite: to
define a concept we have to use another concept which again must be defined, etc.
but this is far from the case. In physics there exist several primary concepts which
can be defined without reference to others such as time t, coordinate x and charge e
etc.

The trajectory of the motion of a particle is specified if at each instant of

time t we can indicate the position of particle in space. ie, Its coordinate x. we must
either measure the coordinates x at the instants of time t, or calculate them. The
first problem is solved by experimental physics, the second by theoretical physics.
The second problem can be solved, however, only if we know the physical laws
according to which the particle travels.

What is a physical law? It is a constant relation between a phenomenon and

quantities written by means of mathematical symbols in the form of equations.
Each group of phenomena has its own laws of motion. There is one set of laws for
mechanics (Newton’s laws of motion) and another set for electrodynamics
(Maxwell’s equations). All of them taken together – concepts, physical laws, the
formulas that express them and their consequences, are said to constitute an exact
science.

Any completely developed science should be logically consistent. This

means, in particular, that each concept within the scope of this science can be
employed only in a single strictly definite sense, this may be hard to accomplish,
but it is unavoidable since scientists, like all other people, communicate with one
another by means of words and not through formulas. They require formulas only
for the single valued recording of the results of their investigations.

Images of motion:

Motion is one of the complex concepts of physics. The imagination is free to

link any images with it, from the rustling of leaves to the motion of a bullet. Even
the most fantastic picture of motion, however, has something in common: the
displacement of certain items in reference to others in the course of time. The
concept of motion becomes more definite after introducing the concept of
trajectory. Perhaps because it again acquires features of visualizability. Only now
this visualizability is of a special kind. When it associated with the concept of a
trajectory is misleading. Frequent repetition of the word-combination “trajectory
of motion” eliminates the distinction between the two words in one’s mind
although they only coincide for mechanical motion. Our training and development
is such that it is difficult for us to imagine any other kind of motion except the
mechanical kind. Hence, we try to comprehend all other kinds of motion with the
same concept of trajectory. In this we naturally fail, for instance when we attempt
to conceive of electrical motion. You can of course imagine a high tension power
transmission line or a telephone trunk line, and imagine that the wire is the
“trajectory” of the electric signals. Such an image, however, has no practicable
purpose; the waves of electric signals are not a liquid flowing through the wires. It
is even more complicated to define the concept of motion in quantum mechanics.

In Quantum Mechanics

We start with the definition Quantum mechanics is the science of the

structure and properties of atomic objects and phenomena”. After our numerous
attempts to answer questions on the essence of atom, we could simply say “the
atom is the sum of our present knowledge about it.” But this again not a definition.
It is simply a plausible excuse to evade one. What words can we use to define the
concept of an “atom” concisely and unambiguously?

We have seen time and again that no single word of our speech is capable of
accommodating all the diversity and complexity of this concept. Then we resorted
to the equations of quantum mechanics and with aid of formulas, bypassing words
and rigorous definitions, we have constructed an image of the atom for ourselves.
Here we intentionally followed the method employed by modern physics.

What is the essence of this method? First of all it forbids one to speak of
phenomenon by themselves, independently of the method by which they are
observed. The concept of phenomenon and its observation exist independently only
in our mind, and even then only with restricted accuracy. For a physicist these
concepts are two aspects of the same physical reality which he studies and in
whose objective existence he certainly believes.

We write relations down by means of formulas or tell about them in words.

But words alone will remain empty unless the formulas are written down alongside
them. And the formulas are still born until we find a way to explain what they
actually mean. To completely explain the combination “phenomenon-observation”
we require a harmonic concord of concepts and formulas. Only then can we form a
satisfactory image of a physical phenomenon for ourselves. At this stage the chain
of cognition of the new physics

Phenomenon image <- concept <- formula <- experiment

Is modified once again. It becomes more complicated and acquires the following
form

Phenomenon concept image

Observation formula
Present day physicist began their training with formulas. This is probably very
reasonable. Formulas however do not have precise verbal equivalents. The
teaching of modern physics therefore consists in expounding uncustomary things
with customary words, but each time from the slightly different view point. As a
great scientist said “the vital condition for any creative work is it aims to submerge
the new concepts from the sphere of logical and conscious into the sphere of
intuitive and subconscious”

The unpolished physical truth is that

“An atomic object is a physical reality the properties of which can be described by
means of the equations of quantum mechanics”

“Quantum mechanics is a system of formulas, concepts and images that enabled

the observed properties of atomic objects to be pictured, explained and predicted”.

Here comes some dilemma. Any way when these two definitions are placed
side by side they seems to mock common sense. They are nevertheless natural
within the scope of complementary principle. The point is that the concept of an
atom and quantum mechanics are complementary. So the concept of ‘coordinate’
and ‘momentum’, a ‘wave’ and a ‘particle’, a ‘phenomenon’ and ‘observation’ ,
‘probability’ and ‘certainty’ and causality’ and ‘chance’. they cannot substitute for
each other and not one of them can be defined exhaustively without taking the
another. This is what we must get used to & what Niels Bhor had done , it is the
destiny of all profound concepts. He said that you must construct the opposite
statement and if it turns out to be absurd, the initial statement was trivial. He gave
some examples to illustrate this, the assertion that “God exists” is a profound one
because the opposite one “there is no god ” is just as profound. And the statement
that “all people are mortal” is a trivial one because the opposition stament that “all
people are immortal” is absurd.

So you are trapped very well, you need to use words (formulas) by thinking
very reasonably and very certainly in Quantum mechanics. The observation of an
event in quantum mechanics is varying very much than in classical because the
probability of uncertainty that changes the variables according to observer by
observer is high though the probability of Schrodinger’s cat to live or die is fifty
percentage.
 Reference:

1. The quantum revolution: a historical perspective

–Kent A Peacock -Greenwood press- 2008

2. Introduction to quantum theory and atomic structure

-P.A Cox

3. Wikipedia

Dear Silija,

This is the work of me by taking a time of almost 1 month. I said you early that I
am very much trapped in some books.