Ignorance of Uncertainty

There is a branch of science which concerns itself with understanding how the universe works. It is called physics and it has been around since man achieved the ability to ask "how?" Along the trail of physics from that time has come the like of Sir Isaac Newton and his famous apple on the head. He did much to create "rules" that said "this is how things work, and you can count on it". This allowed other sciences to create great works from artillery cannons to airplanes. His rules worked fine for a long time and are still relevant for most things in our everyday lives.

A problem arose when physicists went from looking at macro things like planets and baseballs, and started looking at micro things like atoms and electrons. When we watch a baseball fly through the air, we can see it because light pours from the sun or stadium lights, hits the ball and bounces off to be absorbed by the backs of our eyes. We are sure of the position, direction, and speed of the baseball because the light bouncing off travels much faster than the ball and yet the light does not change how the ball moves no matter how bright or dim the light may be.

Or so we thought.

Once the baseball was reduced to the size of an electron, all of a sudden the light started pushing it around. The very act of looking to see where it is - changes where it is. All we can hope to know is where it was. A very smart physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901 - 1976) studied this problem very closely. Unfortunately he used twentieth century mathematics rather than electrons and light. This led him to conclude that the more certain one was about the position of our tiny baseball, the less certain one would be about which way it was going. This became known as the "Uncertainty Principle" and is all the rage in mathematical physics. It basically excuses anyone from providing a correct answer. Can you imagine if home plate umpires were given this luxury? He may say that the ball moved through the strike zone, but couldn't say in which ballpark. Thank goodness umpires do not rely on mathematics.

This pitfall of physics is rooted in the concept of probability statistics, a terribly flawed branch of mathematics that continuously states the absurd with a straight face. We often hear probability statistics quoted in connection with gambling and the weather. If we took statisticians at their word, we would expect to be hit by lightning three time before winning the lottery. However an informal poll of lottery winners finds that very few have ever been struck by lightning even once. At the heart of this dilemma is a subtle but critical misunderstanding.

When one flips a quarter, probability statisticians say that there is a 50% chance it will land heads up, and a 50% chance it will land tails up. This is absolutely wrong! There is a 100% chance it will land the way it lands, and a 0% chance it will land any other way. Just like when you buy a lottery ticket there is a 100% chance you will win or a 100% chance you will loose. All probability can do is suggest the likelihood that you can guess the outcome correctly prior to learning the truth. As another example consider the drawing of lots. You and four friends write your names on slips of paper and place them in a hat. One name will be drawn. Probability statisticians would say that each individual has a 20% chance of having their name drawn.

Actually one person has a 100% chance that their name will be drawn and four people have a 0% chance of the same. All probability calculations can offer is to predict the likelihood that you can guess the name the correct person prior to learning the results of the event. The calculations have no effect on the event itself.

So if we go back to our misguided physicists we can look again at how they got into this mess. By misinterpreting statistics, they accepted the idea that small things like electrons behave according to probabilities where large things do not. Because we cannot see an electron they say that it can never (and they mean NEVER) have a specific position and direction (they call the direction momentum). When really they mean we just haven't found a way to guess it's position and momentum without looking at it. The fact remains that the electron has an exact position and momentum even if we are ignorant of its value.

But since when is science about living with guesses? It may start with guesses, but it needs to end in realities. Physics has gone so far off track with mathematical probabilities taken as reality that some purport that every time a spec of light shines from something, an entire parallel universe spawns identical to our own, right down to the broken lace on my shoe. Even worse, they say (with a straight face) that if you flip a coin and clamp your hand over it without seeing which side is up, the coin is BOTH heads up and tails up at the same time, until we peek under our hand (a slight simplification of the "theories" but accurate enough for the point made).

So how to we reign in these well meaning and hard working physicists (this math stuff they do is neither fun nor easy). I can't guaranty this as a foolproof solution, but I think it's worth a try. The problem lies in the subtleness of the language. "Uncertainty Principle"--it sounds so cool. Some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century never hesitated to stand-up and challenge their peers with the cry "but that idea violates the 'uncertainty principle'!".

Let's think about uncertainty. When are we uncertain? We are uncertain when we are ignorant of some number of facts. We are uncertain of the safety of diving across a puddle when we are ignorant of its depth. We are uncertain of the spelling of a word if we are ignorant of the words origin, use, and the rules of spelling.

Our degree of uncertainty is directly proportional to our ignorance. That is, the greater our ignorance the greater our uncertainty. If asked how to greet someone in Hawaii, you may think "my ignorance of such things is small and therefore my uncertainty is small, I would not hesitate to say Aloha". If asked how to greet someone in Cameroon your ignorance--and thus uncertainty--might be larger.

I suggest that if we rename the "Uncertainty Principal" to the equivalent "Fundamental Ignorance", and always use the term ignorance in place of uncertainty, the physicists themselves will resolve the matter in due time. After all, who would stand-up and proudly challenge "That idea violates my fundamental ignorance"?

Now let's look at the concept of statistical "probability". Probability is a useful tool when looking at general trends in large groups. Insurance industries and gambling casinos make their living by probability calculations, but only for general trends across large groups. You will never find anyone from either industry claim that a probability calculation would be valuable if they had only one customer for one day. They need large groups of people over long periods of time.

So why do physicists insist that probabilities are applicable to individual entities and events? Because their mathematics tells them so, or rather it offers no "real" answers so they have no choice but take what they get. The mathematics is incapable of the accuracies required and thus leaves them ignorant of the truth. So how to we correct this? Let's try a variation of our treatment of uncertainty. While uncertainty was directly proportional to ignorance (as one grows larger, the other grows larger), probability is inversely proportional to ignorance.

Consider meteorologists tracking a hurricane. When predicting the path of the storm, they employ statistical probabilities. They know that the storm exist somewhere specific, and they know that it will end up some place specific, but they are ignorant of the details before they occur. Now the science of meteorology has spent decades educating itself by observing nature. In doing so, the level of ignorance is smaller now than in the past. As a result, a meteorologist is capable of more accurate predictions about the path the storm and where it is likely to come ashore.

They convey these predictions by mapping the probability that the storm will cross a certain point. The point they feel is the most likely landing site will have the highest probability. Points off of that course will have lower probability. For example, traveling indefinitely in a figure eight would have a very low probability. They can state this because they have a lot of knowledge that hurricanes usually travel in an east to west direction. To state it in terms of ignorance, while meteorologists are not so ignorant as to think that hurricanes travel in figure eights, they are ignorant enough to acknowledge that it could hit both Maine and Florida while they are most confident that it will hit North Carolina. They do not say that the storm can't hit Maine because they are still somewhat ignorant of why storms do not follow a specific path. But they are less ignorant of the reasons it would keep a smooth course under the given conditions, and thus they state that it is more probable the storm will hit NC. As ignorance goes down, probability goes up.
So to help our physicists, lets describe probability in terms of ignorance. Instead of saying "there is a low probability of this event happening" we would say "I am highly ignorant of the reasons such an event would occur". This subtle change would again leverage their human pride to come up with precise answers such as "I am 100% sure of what will happen because I am 0% ignorant".

"Those who look up at the night sky and see a moon instead of a cloud of matter waves, just do not understand quantum mechanics." - The Muser