Abstract
IN his strictures on Dr. Langmuir's opinions Mr. Bateman1 affirms that it is “important to distinguish clearly between concept and reality”. I agree. But has not Mr. Bateman confused the issue by his statement that the uncertainty principle “is a concept which has no bearing. . . on the reality, which is that at any moment a particle has both a definite position and a definite velocity, and that both are determined by its external and internal conditions”. A little reflection will reveal that Mr. Bateman's “reality” (he does not tell us the source of his inside knowledge of this realm) is in fact composed of at least four concepts, namely, moment, particle, position and velocity. These objects are merely abstractions derived from our experience of the flux of events ; we have no more reason to suppose that natural entities are ultimately composed of particles than that they are bounded by lines ; and the status of moments and positions is at least as old as Zeno. What meaning is to be attached to “the internal conditions” of a particle I frankly cannot imagine.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
NATURE, 151, 450 (1943).
"Concept of Nature", 171.
"The Principle of Relativity", 6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
WIGHTMAN, W. Science, Common Sense and Decency. Nature 151, 589 (1943). https://doi.org/10.1038/151589a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/151589a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.