Dear Organlearners,
Ben Compton <bcompton@enol.com> writes in LO15550
> There are three things we might consider when talking about measurements
> and measuring:
...snip...
> 2- The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle certainly has an affect on our
> organizations: By measuring them we change them. Ultimately we're left
> with a measurement of the past, and that's about it. Outside of dialogue,
> I know of no way to measure the "present moment" or it's capacity to
> create a desired future. Intuition seems to be our best tool for grasping
> the "hear and now."
Making use of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (UP) in human
organisations provide wonderful insights. For example, I will argue near
the end of this contribution that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (UP)
necitates a Learning Organisation. Unfortunately, this principle became
the host to many myths which may lead us into dead ends. Thus it is time
to also clear up some of these myths.
The contribution will be lengthy and contain some elementary mathematics.
Skip it now if this will trouble you. Ben, this contribution is not
directed against you!
Heisenberg's UP is a outcome of Quantum Mechanics (QM). There is no way
how we can argue the UP from Newtonian Mechanics (NM). Thus there must be
something peculiar to QM and absent from NM which led to Heisenberg's
discovery of the UP. What is this peculiarity?
In NM it is assumed that all its measurable quantitities (such as position
X, mass M, time T, velocity V, momentum P, force F and total energy E)
exist independently so that they can be controled and observed
independantly and thus the laws of science be discovered after having made
measurements. Or to use terms more familiar to many of you, it is assumed
that the quantities may be measured without having to take their innate
relationship in some sort of primordial organisation into account. What NM
then does, is to provide a organisation (system of relationships) for
these quantities AFTER CONTROLING and MEASURING them in experimental
setups. Thus controlable measurements preceded the organisation of NM
(logico-empirically formulated laws).
For more than two hundred years this viewpoint fired both the further
development of NM and its applications, noteably the industrial
revolution. However, some anomalies began to develop. More and more
measurements were made which could not be fitted into the organisation of
NM. It was especially measurements made on the atomic scale and the
astronomical scale which could not be fitted into the organisation of NM.
The fact was that the observers could not completely control the changes
on these way out scales. In other words, they were confronted by
measurements which did not fit their paradigm (mindset).
The vast majority of scientists making a living out of "normal science" (a
term created by Thomas Kuhn), could not be bothered by these anomalous
measurements. However, these anomalies were driving a FEW scientists
concerned with the integrity and coherency of the organisation of science
into dispair.
One of them was Max Planck. He tried to reconcile the newest branch of
physics, namely thermodynamics, with electromagnetism by studying the
electromagnetic radiation of a heated black body. Thus he was truly a
square peg in a round hole because the other fringe physicists were trying
to reconcile thermodynamics with NM itself. [In doing so, they interpreted
the mysterious quantity entropy of thermodynamics notoriously as chaos.]
Planck could not predict the emprical data with the the theory of
electromagnetism. But he made a curious logico-empirical discovery. He
could predict the data perfectly if he assumed that the energy E of the
radiation is proportional to its frequency F. [In symbols: E = h.F where h
is a Planck's constant. It soon became clear that h is a universal
constant.]
The only problem was that all the existing traditional organisation of
science (laws of physics) neither predicted nor allowed that "the energy
of the radiation is proportional to its frequency". Planck hesitated a
number of years before publishing his finding because he knew that
scientists would not allow this Davidian finding to challenge the Goliath
organisation which they have so carefully build up. He was right. He was
considered as an unwelcome ignoramus.
But by then two other physicists also concerned with the integrity and
coherency of the organisation of science began with their own
revolutionary reorganisations: Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Bohr took
Planck's assumption, applied it to atomic measurements and developed a
lone organisation (the Bohr model of the atom) which was much more
successful than the traditional organisation of science could ever hope to
be. Einstein took Planck's assumption, applied it to photo-electricity and
also developed a lone organisation which was equally successful whereas
the traditional organistion was impotent. Suddenly the Goliath
organisation saw two pebbles in the hand of a David. And Planck? He was
not considered an ignoramus anymore.
But where is the third pebble? Again it was Einstein who fitted it in the
sling - Relativity Theory (RT). In RT he made use of the Relativity
Principle (RP): all the laws of physics (mechanics, elctromagnetism, etc)
have the same form when expressed in all inertial frames of reference
which are equivalent for expressing these laws. The RP is deceptively
simple, but had far reaching consequences. One consequence was that matter
is only another form of energy - the famous equation E = Mc^2. The other
consequence was that space and time could not be measured independently
anymore to construct afterwards an organisation like NM upon them. A
minimum of organisation had to be accepted before measurements could be
made and any further organisation could be constructed on such
measurements. In the case of space and time the minimum organisation was
provided through their relationship by the velocity c of light, a
constant.
Thus the RP and its two consequence became the third pebble which
eventually slained the giant Goliath. A bunch of bright, daring, young
scientists (De Broglie, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schroedinger and others) began
to play with all sorts of revolutionary ideas. Louis de Broglie played
with (E = Mc^2) , (E = hF) and (LF =c) and produced the equation P= h/L
where P is the momentum and L the wavelenth of something which has an
energy E related to its frequency F. Again the existing traditional
organisation (laws of physics) neither allowed nor predicted "that
momentum is proportional to the inverse of wavelenth".
Hence a crazy situation developed. Two of the most important quantities of
physics (momentum P and energy E) were related to two quantities
(wavelength L and frequency F) of waves in a manner which the traditional
organisation neither allowed nor predicted. Slowly the paradigm (mind set)
"a minimum of organisation had to be accepted before measurements could be
made and any further organisation could be constructed on such
measurements" began to take effect. Why not take a HARMONIOUS wave
function like A = sin {2p(X/L - F.T)} and substitute for the wavelenth L
the momentum P and for the frequency F the energy E? (p is the constant
"pie" = 3.1415927....) Thus the result will become A = sin {2p/h(X.P -
E.T)}.
What a crazy result: four of the most important quantities in physics,
namely length (position) X, momentum P, energy E and time T sitting
ALREADY ORGANISED as (X.P - E.T) in the INPUT (argument B) of a HARMONIUS
function A= sin B. Their primordial organisation in the input was of no
use to even this daring bunch of revolutionists. Somehow these quantities
had to be transformed from the input to the output of the function to try
and relieve them from this primordial organisation.
It was then time for the genius of Erwin Scroedinger. A wave is harmonius
because "the changes of the changes of any wave appear to be a negative
copy of the original wave". Using this property, he set up his famous wave
equation which gave birth to Quantum Mechanics. He managed to transform
the measureable quantities X, P, E and T from the input of the harmonius
function to its output. Only thereafter could these measureable quantities
be used to construct futher organisation (patterns).
Soon afterwards, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (UP) was discovered.
The action/consequence of the UP was clearly evident on an atomic scale.
Thus the UP could not be doubted. The UP says that physical quantities may
be grouped in pairs (called complementatry pairs) such that it is
impossible to measure SIMULTANEOUSLY both members of a pair to the same
high accuracy. The more the accuracy of one member is known through
measurement, the less known is the accuracy of the other member.
Since its discovery, the UP remained a mystery to scientists. Most of them
believed that this mystery had to be accepted and employed - that it is
not possible to understand the mystery. However, now after more than half
a century, it is possible to understand a little bit of this mystery.
Allow me to try and explain it to you.
Two important complementary pairs are (momentum P, position X) and (energy
E, time T). Now remember that these two pairs occur in the primordial
organisation of the harmonious function as 2p/h(P.X - E.T). This
expression can be broken up into the parts 2p/h(P.X) and 2p/h(E.T). Each
of these parts are without physical units. In other words, in 2p/h(P.X)
the units of h, P and X cancel each other out! Since 2p/h(P.X) is a pure
number, it does not have units and thus it cannot be measured! Measurement
always requires units, scaling and standardisation. What can we conclude
from this?
The input of the harmonious function, namely 2p/h(P.X - E.T), has to be
thought of as a primordial organised monad/holon (whole organ). It is
impossible to cut this monad/holon into its finest parts and know
simultaneously and independently all the parts to any high accuracy.
Since P and X have to be combined together with h to give a pure number (a
unitless quantity), they form a complementary pair.(The same happens to E
and T). If we try to pry into the monad/holon to obtain P and X, the more
accurate we know the one (say X), the less accurate we will know the other
one (i.e. P). In other words, Heisenberg's priciple QUANTIFIED what
Leibniz discovered intuitively 300 years ago - the existence of
monads/holons. A minimum primordial organisation has to be assumed before
measurements can be taken and any further organisation be constructed upon
it.
This minimum primordial organisation has the following effect. All
measurements produce IRREVERSIBLE disturbances. In other words, if we
measure a quantity P, its value after measurement will not be the same as
its value before measurement. (This one of the consequences of the Law of
Entropy Production.) Now, as soon as we measure one member of a
complementary pair, say P of (P, X), the irreversibility of the
measurement brings a change about in not only P, but also its complement
X! In other words, the disturbance caused by the measurement on P is
"propagated" via the primordial organisation to also appear as a
disturbance in X. The disturbance (uncertainty, error) dP in P and the
disturbance dX in X is releated by Heisenberg's famous uncertainty
relationship dP.dX > 2h.
I have enjoyed Ben's comment
> Our measurement systems, while important, create a type of corporate
> myopia. We need to put them in their proper perspective.
But Ben's comment also makes me very sad. I have just argued that
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle arises because it is impossible to deny
a minimum primorial organisation - the monad of Leibniz or the whole of
Jan Smuts' holism. Even worse, it is impossible to fragment this
monad/holon into pieces and expect the whole to be the sum of the pieces.
No. The whole is more than the sum of the pieces! Yet people try to
assemble the parts into a whole without allowing for an emergence.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Priciple is a good exmaple of what will happen.
Allow me to explain.
I, as a scientist amongst my other faculties, have tried to explain as
best as I can what the UP is about. But in the past five years, as
theories about chaos and complexity become more fashionable, I have read
many foolish accounts of the UP by people who have no scientific faculty.
A typical foolish account is the claim that Quantum Mechanics completely
destroyed the determinancy and certainty of Newtonian Mechanics. No!
Heisenberg's principle DOES NOT SAY that accuracy and determinancy have
vanished form the earth. The UP says something quite different. It says
that quantities have to be grouped in a complementary fashion and this
places a cost on accuracy - the more accurate the one member of a
complementary pair is measured, the less accurate the other member can be
measured.
What we have to understand, is that we cannot fragment a monad/holon to
obtain absolute determinancy and certainty. In our knowledge we have to
honour monadicity as one of the seven essentialities of creativity and
thus emergences.
A human person is also a monad/holon. If we expect that person to
specialise as a scientist, i.e develop his/her scientific faculty and no
other complementary faculty, then that scientist will tell you with great
certainty what Quantum Mechanics is about, using the most exquisite
mathematics possible. Consequently you who had to specialise in a
complementary faculty, say economics or personnel management, will have
little certainty about that "very clear" explanation - the mathematics
will leave you dumb. You and the scientist will act as a Heisenberg
complementary pair!
Consequently, we cannot expect each person to specialise in only one of
his/her faculties and then eventually try to add all such specialised
persons to obtain a whole. The sum will still be less than the whole. The
specialised faculty of a person is not the minimum primordial organisation
required! The minimum primordial organisation required is the WILLINGNESS
of each person to develop also his/her other faculties and the subsequent
development of these faculties IN THE corporate structure. In other words,
eventhough the person has mastered a particular faculty, the person must
also learn from other persons who each have mastered another faculty. Let
me articulate the previous sentence again: it is required of each person
to transform the corporate structure into a Learning Organisation!!!!!
In order to accomplish this transformation, we need to know what is
emergent learning. What then is learning? I will not answer this question
here. What is emergence? When two or more creations (holons) come
together, something new may happen. It is called an emergence.
Unfortunately, more and more people are claiming that we will never know
how an emergence happens. Are they correct?
Yes, if they do not operate from a paradigm which will make them sensitive
to emergences. They will remain basically ignorant of anything which has
to do with emergences. By "basically ignorant" I mean that they will be
able to memorise a lot of propositions (true and false) concerning
emergences and present these propositions in a complex manner which
pleases the fashion. However, whatever they do, it will lack integrity and
coherency.
However, a paradigm shift is happening which makes it possible to
understand much of emergences. Prigogine discovered that emergences in the
material world happen when entropy dissipation (production) drives
material systems far from equilbrium. (Prigogine's discovery has nothing
to do with the abstract world - for that you will have to study my own
discoveries.) If the claim of these people is true that emergences will
remain a mystery, Prigogine's Nobel prize winning work is a farce.
If these people claim that brain (material world) and mind (abstract
world) have nothing in common, then it might be safer to claim that we
will know nothing of mental (spiritual) emergences. Unfortunately, we will
then not be able to know what is emergent learning. Emergent learning will
remain a mystery. Hence its effect on a collective basis, namely the
transformation of a corporate structure (the sum exactly equal to the
parts) into a Learning Organisation (the sum more than its parts) cannot
happen knowingly.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>