In a related manner, Heisenberg’s uncertainty turns into a ‘scientific’
explanation about why one apparently can’t be an objective observer, and so
becomes a permanent ‘get-out-of-jail-free’card: "Don’t blame me for
distorting the story, it’s the uncertainty principle!" As author Susan Orlean
told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on Jan. 27, "I hate the pretend objectivity
of some journalism - that omniscient, third-person voice. I spend so much
time with my subjects that I'm bound to have an effect on anything I observe.
It's a bit like the Heisenberg Principle in physics - so why not acknowledge it
by putting myself in the story?"
Trouble is, none of this relates to Heisenberg, or quantum mechanics or the
uncertainty principle at all. At its most basic, the uncertainty principle states
that you cannot precisely measure the dynamic attributes of a sub-atomic
particle (notably, its position and velocity) at the same time. The more
accurate the measurement of position, the less accurate the determination of
velocity, and vice versa. Step back a little from this demand for absolute
exactitude, and there is the appearance of definite position and definite
velocity. Step back further into the realm of Newtonian physics and cars and
trucks, and measurement can yield definite results (at least for all practical
purposes).
The mere fact of uncertainty in the real world is not predicated upon the
existence of uncertainty at the quantum level; and what’s more, even
uncertainty at the quantum level is limited to a series of calculable
probabilities. That’s why Heisenberg himself noted the fascinating distinction
between a quantum world of potentialities and a very real observable world
of phenomenal facts. And that’s why scientists and philosophers are still
arguing seventy years on about what it all really means, and how can these
two world views be reconciled.