Click here to download

Indeterminacy and Reality: Heisenberg’s Paradoxesin Modern Scientific Culture
Author/s: Roberto Vignera 
Year:  2014 Issue: 105 Language: Italian 
Pages:  45 Pg. 5-49 FullText PDF:  240 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SR2014-105001
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

Considered one of the most extraordinary statements of modern physics, theHeisenberg Uncertainty Principle has had a great seductive power on scholarsof different disciplines. Its popularity, especially in the field of the social sciences,has been all the more striking as it related to a real transfiguration of itsimplications. In particular, its connection and conformity to the dictates ofcognitive relativism and to the simple interaction between observing and observedsystems.

  1. M.C. Agodi (1986), «La sociologia della conoscenza e il problema dei fondamenti delle scienze. La debolezza del programma forte», Sociologia, XX, pp. 85-171.
  2. D.Z. Albert (1992), Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Cambridge, Harvard University Press; tr. it., Meccanica quantistica e senso comune, Milano, Adelphi, 2000.
  3. A. Argyros (1990), «Deconstruction, Quantum Uncertainty, and the Place of Literature», Modern Language Studies, 20, pp. 33-9.
  4. B. Barnes (1974), Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  5. B. Barnes (1998), «Oversimplification and the Desire for Truth: Response to Mermin», Social Studies of Science, 28, pp. 636-640,, DOI: 10.1177/030631298028004006
  6. B. Barnes, D. Bloor, J. Henry (1996), Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  7. J. Bell (1987) Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; tr. it., Dicibile e indicibile in meccanica quantistica, Milano, Adelphi, 2010.
  8. M. Beller (1999), Quantum Dialogue: The Making of Revolution, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
  9. G. Birkhoff, J. von Neumann (1936) «The Logic of Quantum Mechanics», The Annals of Mathematics, 37, 4, pp. 823-43,, DOI: 10.2307/1968621
  10. D. Bloor (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press; tr. it., La dimensione sociale della conoscenza, Milano, Raffaello Cortina, 1994.
  11. D. Bloor (1981), «The Strenghts of the Strong Programme», Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, pp. 199-213,, DOI: 10.1177/004839318101100206
  12. D. Bloor (1998), «Changing Axes: Response to Mermin», Social Studies of Science, 28, pp. 624-35,, DOI: 10.1177/030631298028004005
  13. A. Bokulich (2006), «Heisenberg Meets Kuhn: Closed Theories and Paradigms», Philosophy of Science, 73, pp. 90-107,, DOI: 10.1086/510176
  14. G. Boniolo (1987), Ettore Majorana e l’interpretazione oggettivistica dell’indeterminismo sociale, in D. Antiseri, L. Infantino, G. Boniolo, Autonomia e metodo del giudizio sociologico, Roma, Armando, 1987.
  15. M. Born, H. Born, A. Einstein (1969), Briefwechsel, 1916-1955. Kommentiert von Max Born, München, Nymphenburger; tr. it., Scienza e vita. Lettere 1916-1955, Torino, Einaudi, 1973.
  16. G. Busino (2001), «Intorno alle discussioni e ricerche recenti sulla sociologia delle scienze», Revue européenne des sciences sociales, 120, pp. 145-189,, DOI: 10.4000/ress.661
  17. J. Buttner, J. Renn, M. Schemmel (2003), «Exploring the Limits of Classical Physics: Planck, Einstein, and the Structure of a Scientific Revolution», Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34, pp. 37-59,, DOI: 10.1016/S1355-2198(02)00031-X.E.Campelli(2011),Ilsoggettoelaregola.Problemidell’individuazioneinsociologia,Milano,FrancoAngeli
  18. E. Cassirer (1937), Determinismus und Indeterminismus in der Modernen Physik, Göteborg, Elanders Boktryckeri Aktieboliag; tr. it., Determinismo e indeterminismo nella fisica moderna, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1970.
  19. A. Einstein (1935), «Lettera a Karl Popper», in K. Popper (1934), Logik der Forschung, Vienna, Springer; tr. it., Logica della scoperta scientifica, Torino, Einaudi, 1970, p. 520.
  20. J. Erhart, S. Sponar et al. (2012), «Experimental Demonstration of a Universally Valid Error-Disturbance Uncertainty Relation in Spin-Measurements», Nature Physics, 8, pp. 185-9,, DOI: 10.1038/nphys2194
  21. P. Feyerabend (1968), «On a Recent Critique of Complementarity», I, Philosophy of Science, 35, pp. 309-31,
  22. P. Feyerabend (1969), «On a Recent Critique of Complementarity», II, Philosophy of Science, 36, pp. 82-105,
  23. R. Feynman (1965), The Character of Physical Law, Cambridge, Mit Press; tr. it., La legge fisica, Torino, Bollati Boringhieri, 1993.
  24. R. Feynman (1985), QED. The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Princeton, Princeton University Press; tr. it., QED. La strana teoria della luce e della materia, Milano, Adelphi, 1994.
  25. P. Forman (1971), «Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment», Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3, pp. 1-116, 27757315.
  26. G. Gembillo (1987), Werner Heisenberg. La filosofia di un fisico, Napoli, Giannini.
  27. G. Gembillo (a c. di) (1991), Indeterminazione e realtà, Napoli, Guida.
  28. H. Gernand, W. Reedy (1986), «Planck, Kuhn, and Scientific Revolutions», Journal of the History of Ideas, 47, pp. 469-85,, DOI: 10.2307/2709664
  29. I. Hacking (1999), The Social Construction of what?, Cambridge, Harvard University Press. M. Heidegger (1977), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, New York, Harper & Row.
  30. W. Heisenberg (1927), «Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik», Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, pp. 172-198; tr. it., Sul contenuto intuitive della cinematica e della meccanica quantoteoriche, in G. Gembillo (a c. di) (1991), Indeterminazione e realtà, Napoli, Guida.
  31. W. Heisenberg (1958a), The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co.; Westport, Greenwood Press, 1970.
  32. W. Heisenberg (1958b), Physics and Philosophy. The Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harper & Row; tr. it., Fisica e filosofia. La rivoluzione nella scienza moderna, Milano, Il Saggiatore, 1982.
  33. W. Heisenberg (1971), Schritte über Grenzen, München, Piper; tr. it., Oltre le frontiere della scienza, Roma, Editori Riuniti, 1984.
  34. W. Heisenberg (1984), «Ordnung der Wirklichkeit», in W. Blum, H.P. Dürr, H. Rechenberg (eds.), W. Heisenberg, Gesammelte Werke, München, Piper, p. 217; tr. it., Ordinamento della realtà, in Gembillo (a c. di) (1991).
  35. J. Hendry (1980), «Weimar Culture and Quantum Causality», History of Science, XVIII, pp. 155-180.
  36. S. Karsten (1990), «Quantum Theory and Social Economics: The Holistic Approach of Modern Physics Serves Better than Newton’s Mechanics in Approaching Reality», The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 49, pp. 385-99.
  37. T. Kuhn (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press; tr. it., La struttura delle rivoluzioni scientifiche, Torino, Einaudi, 1969. T. Kuhn (1963), «Interview of Werner Heisenberg by Thomas Kuhn», Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, Cambridge, Harvard University.
  38. T. Kuhn (1978), Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912, New York, Oxford University Press.
  39. T. Kuhn, J. Heilbron, P. Forman, L. Allen (1967), Sources for History of Quantum Physics: An Inventory and Report, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society.
  40. I. Lakatos (1970), Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, in
  41. I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; tr. it., La falsificazione e la metodologia dei programmi di ricerca scientifica, in I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (a c. di), Critica e crescita della conoscenza, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1976.
  42. B. Latour (1987), Science in Action. How to follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, Harvard University Press; tr. it., La scienza in azione. Introduzione alla sociologia della scienza, Torino, Comunità, 1998.
  43. R. Lichtman (1967), «Indeterminacy in the Social Sciences», Inquiry, 10, pp. 139-50.
  44. D. Lindley (2007), Uncertainty. Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science, New York, Doubleday; tr. it., Incertezza. Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr e il principio di indeterminazione, Torino, Einaudi, 2008.
  45. E. Majorana (1942), «Il valore delle leggi statistiche nella fisica e nelle scienze sociali», Scientia, 36, pp. 58-66.
  46. D. Mermin (1998a), «The Science of Science. A physicist Reads Barnes, Bloor and Henry», Social Studies of Science, 28, pp. 603-623,, DOI: 10.1177/030631298028004004
  47. D. Mermin (1998b), «Abandoning Preconceptions: Replay to Bloor and Barnes», Social Studies of Science, 28, pp. 641-7,, DOI: 10.1177/030631298028004007
  48. E. Nagel (1961), The Structure of Science, New York, Harcourt, Brace & World; tr. it., La struttura della scienza. Problemi di logica nella spiegazione scientifica, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1968.
  49. M. Ozawa (2003), «Universally Valid Reformulation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle on Noise and Disturbance in Measurement», Physical ReviewA, 67, pp. 1-6,, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.67.042105
  50. T. Parsons (1937), The Structure of Social Action, New York, McGraw-Hill; tr. it., La struttura dell’azione sociale, Bologna, il Mulino, 1970.
  51. K.R. Popper (1934), Logik der Forschung, Vienna, Springer; tr. it., Logica della scoperta scientifica, Torino, Einaudi, 1970.
  52. K.R. Popper (1982), Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, London, Hutchinson; tr. it., La teoria dei quanti e lo scisma nella fisica, Milano, Il Saggiatore, 1984.
  53. K.R. Popper (1985), Realism in Quantum Mechanics, in G. Tarozzi, A. van der Merwe
  54. (eds.) (1985), Open Questions in Quantum Physics, Boston, Reidel.
  55. H. Reichenbach (1928), «Raum und Zeit: Von Kant zu Einstein», Vossische Zeitung, 4; tr. ingl., Space and Time. From Kant to Einstein, in Reichenbach e Cohen (eds.) (1978).
  56. H. Reichenbach (1931), «Das Kausalproblem in der Physik», Die Naturwissenschaften, 34, pp. 713-22; tr. ingl., The Problem of Causality in Physics, in in Reichenbach e Cohen (eds.) (1978).
  57. M. Reichenbach, R. Cohen (eds.) (1978), Hans Reichenbach Selected Writings, 1909-1953, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 2 vol.
  58. P. Rossi (1979), Lo storicismo tedesco contemporaneo, Torino, Einaudi.
  59. L.A. Rozema, A. Darabi et al. (2012), «Violation of Heisenberg’s Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements», Physical Review Letters, 109, pp. 1-5,, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.100404
  60. M. Schlick (1931), «Causality in Contemporary Physics», in S. Toulmin (ed.) (1970). A. Sokal, J. Bricmont (1997), Impostures intellectuelles, Paris, Éditions Odile Jacob; tr. it., Imposture intellettuali, Milano, Garzanti, 1999.
  61. O. Spengler (1923), Der Untergang des Abendlandes, München, Beck; tr. it., Il tramonto dell’Occidente, Parma, Ugo Guanda, 1995.
  62. G. Sposito (1969), «Does a generalized Heisenberg Principle operate in the Social Sciences? », Inquiry, 12, pp. 356-61.
  63. G. Tarozzi, A. van der Merwe (eds.) (1985), Open Questions in Quantum Physics, Boston, Reidel.
  64. S. Toulmin (ed.) (1970), Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics, New York, Harper & Row.

Roberto Vignera, Indeterminacy and Reality: Heisenberg’s Paradoxesin Modern Scientific Culture in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 105/2014, pp. 5-49, DOI:10.3280/SR2014-105001


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content