In this blog post, we explore the essence of scientific research, focusing on the discussions between Heisenberg, Burton, and Dirac.
‘Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations’ is a book recording conversations, debates on various topics with numerous people encountered while researching atomic physics, and the author’s own reflections. This book goes beyond merely explaining physics theories; it deeply explores the background and context of the academic debates among scientists at the time. Consequently, there is no single argument running through the entire text; instead, each chapter is structured around independent themes. Among these, the author intends to focus particularly on the discussion concerning atomic physics and the pragmatic way of thinking. This discussion reveals the scientific paradigm shift surrounding quantum mechanics and the conflicts between various interpretive perspectives.
The background to these discussions was as follows. Heisenberg was advocating the Uncertainty Principle, which greatly aided in interpreting quantum mechanical phenomena, and traveled to the United States to lecture on it. There, American physicists readily embraced his theory, which Heisenberg found highly perplexing. He was astonished by the American academic community’s willingness to accept the new theory so readily, a difference stemming from the contrasting academic atmospheres in Europe and America at the time. The discussion centered on conversations between Heisenberg, the American physicist Burton, and his colleague Paul Dirac. The opinions of these three individuals differed, and these differences led to divergent scientific approaches.
Burton emphasized a pragmatic acquisition of knowledge in this new realm of physics. He believed that natural laws were merely a form of expression for our practical use. In other words, he saw the purpose of science not as exploring the essence of nature, but as explaining natural phenomena in a way humans could understand and utilize. Burton prioritized the practical utility of scientific concepts over their interconnectivity. This stance was a common view in American academia at the time, emphasizing the application of scientific research outcomes to real-world industrial and technological development. He likened this to engineers building bridges, who add appropriate formulas whenever they consider new factors, such as wind variables. In other words, the purpose of science was to function as a tool for solving practical problems.
Heisenberg countered this by emphasizing the vast interconnectedness and simplicity of natural laws. He argued that the true purpose of science was to achieve a deep understanding of natural phenomena and grasp their fundamental principles. For example, comparing Newtonian mechanics with Einsteinian mechanics, he explained that the way Einsteinian mechanics encompasses domains beyond Newtonian mechanics’ reach represents not a simple refinement but the introduction of a new paradigm. In other words, scientific progress occurs not through gradual refinement but through discontinuous leaps. He emphasized that scientific theories gain strength through the process of simplifying and deriving consistent natural laws via connections, citing the example of Newtonian mechanics explaining planetary motion far more simply than Ptolemy’s complex astronomical explanations.
Dirac viewed science as developing through step-by-step interpretations of partial domains. He believed scientific paradigms progressed gradually based on empirical data, rather than leaping abruptly as Heisenberg argued. This position emphasized the gradual development of science grounded in experimental facts, reflecting the importance of experimental physics at the time. Dirac stressed that in science, explaining new concepts and phenomena necessarily requires first collecting experimental data and interpreting it. He also believed that scientific laws are established through this gradual process, ultimately enabling a correct understanding of natural laws. For him, the grand interconnectedness of nature was secondary.
Among these three viewpoints, the author aligns most closely with Dirac’s position. When understanding Burton’s new concept of science, approaching it in a manner similar to an engineering approach has limitations. While engineering focuses on applying established scientific theories to a certain extent, such a pragmatic approach in cutting-edge fields of science still in development can hinder the essential understanding of science. Interpreting complex and challenging theories like quantum mechanics solely from a practical perspective risks overlooking their depth. I believe scientific theories should aim not merely to explain, but to foster a deeper understanding of natural phenomena.
Heisenberg’s emphasis on the simplicity of natural laws is intuitively appealing, but not all scientific research necessarily follows this path. Particularly in the early stages of research, many theories may appear complex and difficult to grasp, and the explanations of natural phenomena derived from them may be incomplete. Nevertheless, Heisenberg’s argument retains validity in that the ultimate goal of science lies in discovering nature’s simple laws.
Ultimately, Dirac’s approach seems to me the most akin to how science actually progresses. He viewed science as developing gradually based on empirical facts, which is a very realistic approach in the actual research process of science. While pursuing a correct understanding of new phenomena, the process of deriving overall laws based on partially acquired knowledge is crucial. I believe scientific research requires not merely stopping at explanation, but advancing through that explanation towards a deeper understanding of natural phenomena.
