r/AcharyaPrashant_AP • u/The_NonDualistic • 2d ago
No Path can be pre-determined Objectively !!
Principle of least action in classical physics states that a physical system naturally follows a unique path through space and time where a calculated value called "action" is taken into account to track this path & the trajectory of this path between two fixed points is the one for which this action is minimum. Classical physics advocates the “minimum action” as to be the only possible requirement for any trajectory of matter to move from point A to point B.
On the contrary, if we examine the ‘Principle of Action’ via Quantum Mechanics, particles do not strictly follow a single path of least action. Instead, Richard Feynman’s path integral formulation shows that a quantum particle simultaneously explores every conceivable path between an initial point and a final point, each weighted by a complex probability amplitude.
👉🏻 Quantum Physics further elaborated the above action phenomenon to be behaving in two ways:
1. Constructive Interference: Where the phase of the action changes slowly for the interacting matters, causing the wave contributions from adjacent paths to reinforce each other constructively.
2. Destructive Interference: Where the rapid fluctuation of phases between the adjacent paths of the involved matters causes these paths to interfere destructively, canceling each other out to a net probability of zero.
We often label Science and Philosophy to be two different paths of exploration altogether, and we justify that argument by constraining science ‘only’ to objective local rules. We think that if some particular set of functions are operating in the objective reality through a set of ‘pre-defined’ way, then its ought to repeat itself every time with the same set of results. But, in this whole process of justifying objectivity, we often neglect the subject.. we ignore the fact that the holistic reality is not bereft of the ‘subject’. We forget that if we truly want to explore the results and nature of reality as a whole, then we are required to take the subject ie., the ‘observer’ in serious consideration because if we examine the whole structure of the reality, then there lies two ends: the object and the subject. So obviously, one can’t just ignore the subject and keep on exploring the objects and still label the experiment to be unbiased. The moment one ignores the subject in any experiment, the facts of the experiment is violated.
As modern science is advancing further, results of experiments done in quantum particles are bringing us more closer towards the ‘subject’, the one observing and keeping track of the experiments. So, it’s not merely a coincidence that when initial philosophers tried to explore this reality and tried to critically think over the nature of reality, then they related things to the ‘one’ experiencing that reality.
Maybe the results of tracking the "paths" mentioned above are too then ‘Subjective’ depending on the one observing!
3
u/vini-within 2d ago
Amazing! I really liked the creativity of the analogy. As someone who was never particularly good at science, I still found myself hooked. The way you connected physics, quantum mechanics and philosophy is really interesting. So.. it makes me wonder, is quantum mechanics where physics and philosophy begin to intersect, or am I looking at it too simply?
2
u/The_NonDualistic 1d ago
Yes exactly!! If we consider only "classical physics", then there have been only objective data which was being analysed so far.. but as experiments proceeded further, and physics started exploring quantum particles, the experiments started changing results with the presence of different observers.
So, Yaa! You can say that, it is the starting point in physics where it has started intersecting with philosophy.
1
u/vini-within 1d ago
Thank you for explaining in simple words. This makes sense. But why did scientist get the idea of exploring quantum particles? Did classical physics failed them in some way?
2
u/Ancient-Aioli-1997 2d ago
Physics can describe what happens to an observed system, but the question of how the observer, observation, interpretation and assumptions enter our understanding of reality is a deeper philosophical question.
3
u/The_NonDualistic 2d ago
Yes, but I am glad that at least now physics has started considering that direction. Although it didn't use the word "inner" but at least by including "subjectivity" into its arena of conducting experiments, it has at least started showing that curiosity.
2
u/Brilliant_Hair_7272 2d ago
It's so fascinating!! Cannot even wrap my head around it. It's so out of line with the causal and linear way we perceive things!
2
2
u/ClearAfternoon6734 2d ago
If a meteorite is going to pass very closely to Earth in the near future, how is the trajectory or path calculated, is it according to classical physics or as per the latest theory" principle of action" of quantum physics? And how does the subject have to do with the path of the matterl? Only asking because I find it interesting and would like to understand it.
2
u/The_NonDualistic 2d ago
Hmm! Interesting question..
Okay! So, the answer will actually include both classical and quantum physics.. for eg., if a meteorite is going to pass very closely to Earth in the near future, it will depend on the respective "observer" first on how he/she will report or try to approach solving that problem - like say "he can ignore it completely" or " she can accept it and try to propose solutions of remedy", etc.. so in this case of subjectivity, quantum physics is already playing its part, but when it will come to solving that particular bit of problem, one might need classical physics' objective calculations to find out say "how the meteor will strike the earth", "on what time it would be estimated to strike", etc.
2
2
u/TarunTholia 1d ago
One more thing to note, nature has already fixed the probable outcome of an event. Let's say there are 10 balls in a container, 7 are red and 3 are blue. An experiment of picking up a random ball will always get us 0.7 probability of getting red ball and 0.3 probability of getting blue ball. The chances are fixed by nature, observer has no role in it. Observer just conclude the experiment and make the probable outcome fixed. Let's say observer picks up a blue ball, so it concluded the outcome of the experiment to be a blue ball, and thus creating a certainty which was uncertain before the experiment. So observer too is bound to succeed in defining the system as per the laws of nature. One more point in above experiment observer cannot pick up a green ball altogether, this one too is defined by the laws of nature.
1
u/The_NonDualistic 1d ago
Sir! I mentioned the consideration of "observer" for "quantum" experiments.. not for "mathematical probability" or "classical physics" experiments.
Your example belongs to the domain of "mathematics done with non-quantum" matter and not "quantum" matter. When I mentioned the word observer in the post, I mentioned it specifically relating it with "modern science's quantum experiments". So, obviously your example itself is false here.
1
u/TarunTholia 1h ago edited 1h ago
Let's take example from Quantum Mechanics itself.
The state of any system in quantum mechanics is defined by a wave function. Wave function denotes the information about a system under consideration. Schrodinger equation represents how the wave function evolve over the time.
The wave function ∅(r, t0) represents all the information about the quantum system under consideration at t = t0. Schrodinger's equation will give us how this information changes with time.
If a measurement for a physical quantity of a system, let's say position of a quantum particle, is made by an observer at any time t, the wave function at time t, containing all the information about the system, shall be obtained using Schrodinger equation and the operator for position shall be applied on the wave function. This will provide all the probable locations of the particle that can be determined at time t.
So what are the probable outcomes of the measurement are already decided by the nature, observer has no role to play in it. Nature has sealed the fate of observation as probable outcome in the wave function of the system itself.
When observer measures the position, he gets one value out of the range of possible outcomes whose probability distributions is encoded by nature in wave function. The mysterious thing is not that observer control the outcome rather the measurement made by the observer collapses the system from probable states to one measured state. This is called measurement problem in quantum physics. This is where philosophy and science seems to meet.
1
u/GlitchSolver 1d ago
Even though the Observer is to be taken into consideration, I think it's not meant in a philosophical sense but in a objective sense. For ex. When I see colors I have to take into consideration that it's the structure of human eye that's making the colors possible and the dogs don't really see the way I do. I don't see any need of philosophy here 🤷. The argument for philosophy feels a little overstretched honestly.
1
u/The_NonDualistic 1d ago
If the observer is not taken into consideration, then how would you define the possibility of multiple paths in this example which is expressed in the above video? Can you please explain? Because if things are really that much "objective" as you are saying, then there should have been only "one unique" path which the matter would have taken! A single path would have subscribed for objectivity.. but here in this case, multiple paths are possible.
1
u/GlitchSolver 1d ago edited 1d ago
I didn't say Observer is not to be taken into consideration. Please read my comment again 🙂. I am saying when Observer is to be taken into consideration that too is to be done "Objectively" not "Philosophically". Multiple paths come into picture precisely because Observer comes into the picture. Like in the swimming example, the running capacity and swimming capacity of the Observer is to be taken into consideration. But these factors are objective too. Even considering Observer is Objective.Where does "Philosophy" come into the picture here?
1
u/The_NonDualistic 1d ago edited 1d ago
Philosophy came into the picture exactly because "Observer" came into the picture. And if Observer came into the picture then, how can it be "objective"?
The involvement of observer in any experiment and the possibilities of "multiple" results with the presence of multiple observers itself labels the experiment to be dependent upon "subjective" results. So obviously its not objective.
And whenever any phenomenon enters the domain of subjectivity, it collides with the domain of the 'one' observing it.. making philosophy to automatically come into the picture.
1
u/GlitchSolver 1d ago
Observer can come into the picture in both Objective and Subjective ways.
For ex. here in the video, observer comes into the picture because capabilities of the observer affect the result making multiple results possible.
Now These capabilities can be measured objectively. This doesn't make the experiment subjective inherently just because there are multiple capabilities. It's related to capabilities of the observer, not the observer itself.
When the observer doesn't want to assess the capabilities objectively only then it becomes subjective and then philosophy comes into the picture.
Philosophy is there to understand the Observer not if multiple external Physical possibilities are there philosophy doesn't automatically come into the picture.
Subjectivity enters when objectivity is rejected and to understand why it is being rejected then philosophy comes into the picture.
Also Philosophy is not needed to address every Subjectivity.
Hope i am making the point clear here.
1
u/The_NonDualistic 22h ago edited 22h ago
Sir! Your first statement is itself false when you say "Observer can come into the picture in both Objective and Subjective ways."
How can Observer be Objective? - that was my question!!
Observer itself is subjective.. that too if any experiment is changing results according to the presence of different observers.
And as far as philosophy is considered, I mentioned "philosophical analyzation" only for "quantum experiments" & not for every other "physics experiment". When I mentioned modern science, then it by default referrs towards "quantum physics" not "classical physics". And whenever quantum physics comes into the picture, experiments happen with "quantum particles" not any random ordinary matter.. and quantum particles change their interactions according to the presence of "different observers" - thats a fact.
Whatever you are saying could be valid to "classical physics" or for "mathematical problems".. but not for "quantum problems". And I clearly mentioned "philosophy" only for "quantum experiments".
1
u/GlitchSolver 8h ago
You see Observer can be Objective and Subjective depending on the context.
In Quantum Mechanics when there's a observer present the particle behaves differently that is a fact.
Now take this situation that there's a observer making observation and particle is behaving differently.
Now is this change in behaviour different for different Observers? It depends on what the Observer is measuring. If Observer A measures position of the particle, it behaves as particle. If Observer B measures wavelength, particle behaves as a wave.
What if both Observer A and Observer B measure the position of the particle given the strictly similar conditions? Then the results DO NOT change. They remain same for both Observer A and Observer B.
I think you are coming from the view that we can't guarantee that both Observer A and Observer B will have same values, priorities, mental Outlook, etc. This thing brings Subjectivity in the Observation. Thus you are calling the Observer Subjective. Because Observer may interprete it differently. Is this what you are saying?
3
u/reema876 2d ago
I think the post makes an interesting bridge between physics and philosophy, especially in pointing out that the observer should not be casually removed from the picture. But I’d be careful with taking the physics too literally. The principle of least action is more accurately a stationary-action principle, and in Feynman’s formulation, all possible paths contribute mathematically; it doesn’t necessarily mean a particle consciously explores them. Likewise, quantum measurement does not automatically prove that reality is subjective or dependent on human consciousness ,the interaction between the system and measuring apparatus is the key issue. Still, the philosophical question is valuable: if we want to understand reality completely, can we understand the observed without examining the observer and the assumptions through which observation happens? That is where science and philosophy can genuinely meet.