Heisenberg, Congress, and War
I'm pretty sure that the pervasive criticisms of those members of Congress who suggest that things in Iraq are going quite well, based on their own observations, are actually about nuclear physics.
Even though the Senator from Arizona and the Representative from Indiana, and their aides (who all happen to be Republican, and in favor of the war, politically speaking) saw things with their own eyes, they seem to have come to a conclusion opposite that of the commanders and troops on the ground, most of the reporters who have spent substantial time in Iraq, and virtually everyone who lives there.
How could such disagreement occur?
Well, consider the following:
Delta(x) times Delta(p) is greater than or equal to h divided by 4 times Pi.
That's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It says that if you start cranking the Delta (x), which is on the left side of the equation, downwards, then something will have to give. You can't drive it to zero, because then the Delta(p) would have to be infinitely large in order for the principle to remain true.
The smaller the uncertainty in where a quantum particle is, the larger must be the uncertainty in its momentum. Or conversely, if the momentum (and therefore mass and energy) of a quantum particle is known with great exactness, its position becomes as greatly uncertain. There is a lower limit, in the universe, to how certain you can be of both at the same time. By measuring position (precisely), you lose - in fact, destroy - information about its momentum. In taking a reading of momentum you lose all detail about position. It's not because of faulty equipment. It's because of the nature of the teensy little things being studied. Infinitely tiny microscopes (or rather, collision detectors or the like) would not help. The position of the particle IS IN FACT highly uncertain, being a superposition of many states, as a result of its momentum being known.
In the world of politics and war, there's a similar problem. In order for Sen. McCain and Rep. Pence to view that market in Baghdad, they needed to observe it. In observing it, they changed its state.
They were not, as scientists used to pretend in their philosophical constructs, disembodied eyes, observing without being observed or otherwise interfering.
They brought with them, according to the NY Times article today,
Isn't it possible that the Iraq that the honorable gentlemen observed is not in fact the same Iraq that, say, an unarmed civilian without escort might observe? Might not the circumstances of their (heavily armed and closely protected) observation impact what results they saw?
In Iraq, you can be heavily protected and safe, or you can observe reality as it exists in the absence of a company of soldiers with Humvees, plus helicopters and marksmen above. But you can't do both.
Even though the Senator from Arizona and the Representative from Indiana, and their aides (who all happen to be Republican, and in favor of the war, politically speaking) saw things with their own eyes, they seem to have come to a conclusion opposite that of the commanders and troops on the ground, most of the reporters who have spent substantial time in Iraq, and virtually everyone who lives there.
How could such disagreement occur?
Well, consider the following:
Delta(x) times Delta(p) is greater than or equal to h divided by 4 times Pi.
That's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It says that if you start cranking the Delta (x), which is on the left side of the equation, downwards, then something will have to give. You can't drive it to zero, because then the Delta(p) would have to be infinitely large in order for the principle to remain true.
The smaller the uncertainty in where a quantum particle is, the larger must be the uncertainty in its momentum. Or conversely, if the momentum (and therefore mass and energy) of a quantum particle is known with great exactness, its position becomes as greatly uncertain. There is a lower limit, in the universe, to how certain you can be of both at the same time. By measuring position (precisely), you lose - in fact, destroy - information about its momentum. In taking a reading of momentum you lose all detail about position. It's not because of faulty equipment. It's because of the nature of the teensy little things being studied. Infinitely tiny microscopes (or rather, collision detectors or the like) would not help. The position of the particle IS IN FACT highly uncertain, being a superposition of many states, as a result of its momentum being known.
In the world of politics and war, there's a similar problem. In order for Sen. McCain and Rep. Pence to view that market in Baghdad, they needed to observe it. In observing it, they changed its state.
They were not, as scientists used to pretend in their philosophical constructs, disembodied eyes, observing without being observed or otherwise interfering.
They brought with them, according to the NY Times article today,
more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees — the equivalent of an entire company — and attack helicoptersas well as having traffic diverted, access restricted, and sharpshooters placed.
Isn't it possible that the Iraq that the honorable gentlemen observed is not in fact the same Iraq that, say, an unarmed civilian without escort might observe? Might not the circumstances of their (heavily armed and closely protected) observation impact what results they saw?
In Iraq, you can be heavily protected and safe, or you can observe reality as it exists in the absence of a company of soldiers with Humvees, plus helicopters and marksmen above. But you can't do both.
Posted by Eh Nonymous on
Tuesday April 3, 2007 at 7:54am
*Not all comments welcome. Flippant, facetious, fierce, or fatuous, fine. Fraudulent, felonious, fabricated, facially insufficient, and farkin' futile, fuggeddaboutit.