It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
French physicist Bernard d’Espagnat has won the annual Templeton Prize with its purse of $1.4 million; the prize is often given to scientists who find common ground between religion and science. Professor d’Espagnat, 87, worked with great luminaries of quantum physics but went on to address the philosophical questions that the field poses [BBC News].
Physicists may be more open to seeing a higher power behind the great mysteries of the universe than scientists in other disciplines.
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bernard d'Espagnat
Originally posted by Pellevoisin
Of course, his word goes beyond that but the point is that Consciousness is an area heretofore uncharted by modern science, and the good professor's work points to a huge new area of research and philosophy ... which I suspect will leave the "scientific method" as we learnt it will be like cave painting to future scientists and philosophers and the broad vistas of discovery that they will see unfurl.
D’Espagnat argues that such experiments show that quantum mechanics only gives us a glimpse of a “veiled reality” that is beyond our comprehension.
“Quantum mechanics introduced another point of view, which consists essentially that the aim of science is not to describe ultimate reality as it really is,” d’Espagnat recounted by phone Friday from Paris. “Rather, it is to make account of reality as it appears to us, accounting for the limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities” [The Christian Science Monitor]. D’Espagnat, a Catholic, says that leaves open the possibility that a greater power is involved in what he sees as a deeper level of reality. “I would accept calling it God or divine or Godhead but with the restriction that it cannot be conceptualised for the very reason that this ultimate reality is beyond any concept that we can construct” [Times Online], says D’Espagnat.
Originally posted by cognoscente
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bernard d'Espagnat
The only quote of his I really happen to disagree with... He's saying that if some consciousness were not present to observe some phenomenon, then the phenomenon would cease to exist. Ostensibly, the results of current experimentation actually supports this hypothesis. I think this more a reflection of our lack in technological ability. I'm sure people in the future will look back on that quote and find it humorous; it might appear in some high school physics textbook as some marginal historical anecdote.
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." Bernard d'Espagnat
In this respect, let it be noted that the question “reality or just model?” never comes to light in the articles physicists write. The latter wisely remain on “secure ground,” which means that their theoretical constructions, elaborate as they may be at the level of equations and methods, are left by them very much “open” regarding concepts. In fact, when they work on such constructions the condition they impose on them is just that they should be highly general models, correctly accounting for what we observe in a great variety of experiments. Consequently it is without qualms that they ground them—tacitly at least—on the basic principles of “standard” quantum mechanics, without being in the least worried by the fact that, as we shall see, some of these principles impart a fundamental role to such notions as “measurement” and “preparation of system states.” Now, this fact—the occurrence of a reference to human action within the very axioms of physics—is sometimes explicitly stated. Often it is kept implicit. But in any case it implies that the theories built up in this way markedly depart from a principle that was one of the main guidelines of all classical ones. I mean the rule that basic scientific statements should be expressed in a radically objectivist language, making no reference whatsoever, be it explicit or implicit, to us (“operators” or “measurers”).