Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. It was one of their medical observations: that human bone is one of the few tissues that can re-grow after injury. Hippocrates knew that and hoped that power could be harnessed for healing. Now, 2400 years later, reports from commercial and university laboratories suggest that scientists have begun to do just that: to grow bones and cartilage virtually at will. “This is exciting because we are mimicking the natural process of development,” said Dr. A. HariReddi, a professor of biology and orthopedics at the John Hopkins medical center in Baltimore, who has worked on bone growth for more than thirty years. “We are following the same steps that occur in the first week after conception.” The success is one of several in the new field of tissue engineering, the growing of spare parts for the body. The new power to grow human tissues and organs is a result of years of basic research followed by rapid progress in molecular biology and genetic engineering. Among the tissues now grown successfully, at least in the laboratory, are skins, bone cartilage, liver, kidney and teeth. The new work on bones is among the most advanced, and researchers say that the new treatment will soon be available for a variety of conditions in which the body needs to grow new bones but cannot. The key to the recent success is the family of molecules known as BMPs, for bone morphogenic proteins. They are made when an injury occurs and set off the formation of new bone and cartilage by homing in on certain immature or unspecialized cells, and inducing them to proliferate and become one of several specialized tissues, like bone and cartilage. All this was learned over the last few decades, as scientists labored to find the magical molecules that would produce natural bone growth. They pulverized bones and removed the calcium from the resulting powder, working with the remaining material to isolate the factor that was causing bone growth.

“But the work for many years went like a snail,” Reddi said. Then in recent years, with the new techniques of molecular biology, scientists were able to isolate both the proteins responsible for bone growth and the genes responsible for producing them. Roughly, 20 protein molecules have been identified that could induce bone growth. Each of the molecules also seems to have the power to stimulate other to begin growing. Reddi says that he and other scientists had found that the genes that made the BMPs were both ancient and general. Even fruit flies, which have no bones, use them to set off growth of specialized tissues like wings. “These are not just bone signals but are general signals to initiate differentiation in many tissues,” he said, referring to a wide variety of tissues ranging from kidneys to brain to gonads. “What we are working with, is the body’s own signaling molecules that cells tell to go ahead, ‘you be bone’ or ‘you be muscle’,” said Dr. Charles Cohen, chief scientist at Creative Biomolecules, one of the companies working on making products from bone proteins. “There are two steps,” he said. “The BMP signal to the cells says, ‘Go!’” he said. “Then information the cells get from the neighborhood where they live tells them to be bone or cartilage. “Over the last five or six years, dozens of papers have shown that researchers can reliably stimulate natural bone growth in mice, rabbits, dogs and monkeys. Now the first tests from human experiments are coming in, and they show success as well, researchers say. Two small studies in humans were presented at scientific meetings last month by representatives of the Genetic Institute Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts. One was a study at four universities in which twelve dental patients with bone loss in their upper jaws underwent oral surgery in which BMP-2 and a sponge made of artificially produced collagen, a central component of skin and bone, were implanted in the area where was none, and all went on to get implants. The standard treatment for all these cases would have involved surgery of the mouth and also surgery of the harvest bone from the hip for implantation in the mouth. Such procedures are frequently successful, but they are expensive and lengthy and simply cutting down on surgery reduces risk. “We are talking about an outpatient procedure versus the current treatment which involves hospital stay and surgery,” said Dr. Gerald Riedel, at the bone protein project.

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. This brings us to the central philosophical issue of quantum mechanics, namely, “ What is it that quantum mechanics describes?” Put another way, quantum mechanics statistically describes the overall behavior and/or predicts the probabilities of the individual behavior of what? In the autumn of 1927, physicists working with the new physics met in Brussels, Belgium, to ask themselves this question, among others. What they decided there became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Other interpretations developed later, but the Copenhagen Interpretation marks the emergence of the new physics as a consistent way of viewing the world. It is still the most prevalent interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. The upheaval in physics following the discovery of the inadequacies of Newtonian physics was all but complete. The question among the physicists at Brussels was not whether Newtonian mechanics could be adapted to subatomic phenomena ( it was clear that it could not be ), but rather, what was to replace it. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the first consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Einstein opposed it in 1927 and he argued against it until his death, although he, like all physicists, was forced to acknowledge its advantages in explaining subatomic phenomena. The Copenhagen Interpretation says, in effect, that it does not matter what quantum mechanics is about. The important thing is that it works in all possible experimental situations. This is one of the most important statements in the history of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics began a monumental reunion which was all but unnoticed at the time. The rational part of our psyche, typified by science, began to merge again with that other part of us which we had ignored since the 1700s, our irrational side.

The scientific idea of truth traditionally had been anchored in an absolute truth somewhere “out there”—that is, an absolute truth with an independent existence. The closer that we came in our approximations to the absolute truth, the truer our theories were said to be. Although we might never be able to perceive the absolute truth directly—or to open the watch, as Einstein put it—still we tried to construct theories such that for every facet of absolute truth, there was a corresponding element in our theories. The Copenhagen Interpretation does away with this idea of a one-to-one correspondence between reality and theory. This is another way of saying what we have said before. Quantum mechanics discards the laws governing individual events and states directly the laws governing aggregations. It is very pragmatic. The philosophy of pragmatism goes something like this. The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue). Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. The extraordinary importance of the Copenhagen Interpretation lies in the fact that for the first time, scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought. It was this that Einstein could not accept. “The most incomprehensible thing about the world”, he wrote, “is that it is comprehensible.” But the deed was done. The new physics was based not upon “absolute truth,” but upon us. Henry Pierce Stapp, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, expressed this eloquently: [The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics] was essentially a rejection of the presumption that nature could be understood in terms of elementary space-time realities. According to the new view, the complete description of nature at the atomic level was given by probability functions that referred, not to underlying microscopic space-time realities, but rather to the macroscopic objects of sense experience. The theoretical structure did not extend down and anchor itself on fundamental microscopic space-time realities. Instead it turned back and anchored itself in the concrete sense realities that form the basis of social life…. This pragmatic description is to be contrasted with descriptions that attempt to peer “behind the scenes” and tell us what is “really happening.”

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions.
This brings us to the central philosophical issue of quantum mechanics, namely, “ What is it that quantum mechanics describes?” Put another way, quantum mechanics statistically describes the overall behavior and/or predicts the probabilities of the individual behavior of what? In the autumn of 1927, physicists working with the new physics met in Brussels, Belgium, to ask themselves this question, among others. What they decided there became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Other interpretations developed later, but the Copenhagen Interpretation marks the emergence of the new physics as a consistent way of viewing the world. It is still the most prevalent interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. The upheaval in physics following the discovery of the inadequacies of Newtonian physics was all but complete. The question among the physicists at Brussels was not whether Newtonian mechanics could be adapted to subatomic phenomena ( it was clear that it could not be ), but rather, what was to replace it. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the first consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Einstein opposed it in 1927 and he argued against it until his death, although he, like all physicists, was forced to acknowledge its advantages in explaining subatomic phenomena. The Copenhagen Interpretation says, in effect, that it does not matter what quantum mechanics is about. The important thing is that it works in all possible experimental situations. This is one of the most important statements in the history of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics began a monumental reunion which was all but unnoticed at the time. The rational part of our psyche, typified by science, began to merge again with that other part of us which we had ignored since the 1700s, our irrational side.

The scientific idea of truth traditionally had been anchored in an absolute truth somewhere “out there”—that is, an absolute truth with an independent existence. The closer that we came in our approximations to the absolute truth, the truer our theories were said to be. Although we might never be able to perceive the absolute truth directly—or to open the watch, as Einstein put it—still we tried to construct theories such that for every facet of absolute truth, there was a corresponding element in our theories. The Copenhagen Interpretation does away with this idea of a one-to-one correspondence between reality and theory. This is another way of saying what we have said before. Quantum mechanics discards the laws governing individual events and states directly the laws governing aggregations. It is very pragmatic. The philosophy of pragmatism goes something like this. The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue). Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. The extraordinary importance of the Copenhagen Interpretation lies in the fact that for the first time, scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought. It was this that Einstein could not accept. “The most incomprehensible thing about the world”, he wrote, “is that it is comprehensible.” But the deed was done. The new physics was based not upon “absolute truth,” but upon us. Henry Pierce Stapp, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, expressed this eloquently: [The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics] was essentially a rejection of the presumption that nature could be understood in terms of elementary space-time realities. According to the new view, the complete description of nature at the atomic level was given by probability functions that referred, not to underlying microscopic space-time realities, but rather to the macroscopic objects of sense experience. The theoretical structure did not extend down and anchor itself on fundamental microscopic space-time realities. Instead it turned back and anchored itself in the concrete sense realities that form the basis of social life…. This pragmatic description is to be contrasted with descriptions that attempt to peer “behind the scenes” and tell us what is “really happening.”

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. This brings us to the central philosophical issue of quantum mechanics, namely, “ What is it that quantum mechanics describes?” Put another way, quantum mechanics statistically describes the overall behavior and/or predicts the probabilities of the individual behavior of what? In the autumn of 1927, physicists working with the new physics met in Brussels, Belgium, to ask themselves this question, among others. What they decided there became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Other interpretations developed later, but the Copenhagen Interpretation marks the emergence of the new physics as a consistent way of viewing the world. It is still the most prevalent interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. The upheaval in physics following the discovery of the inadequacies of Newtonian physics was all but complete. The question among the physicists at Brussels was not whether Newtonian mechanics could be adapted to subatomic phenomena ( it was clear that it could not be ), but rather, what was to replace it. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the first consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Einstein opposed it in 1927 and he argued against it until his death, although he, like all physicists, was forced to acknowledge its advantages in explaining subatomic phenomena. The Copenhagen Interpretation says, in effect, that it does not matter what quantum mechanics is about. The important thing is that it works in all possible experimental situations. This is one of the most important statements in the history of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics began a monumental reunion which was all but unnoticed at the time. The rational part of our psyche, typified by science, began to merge again with that other part of us which we had ignored since the 1700s, our irrational side.

The scientific idea of truth traditionally had been anchored in an absolute truth somewhere “out there”—that is, an absolute truth with an independent existence. The closer that we came in our approximations to the absolute truth, the truer our theories were said to be. Although we might never be able to perceive the absolute truth directly—or to open the watch, as Einstein put it—still we tried to construct theories such that for every facet of absolute truth, there was a corresponding element in our theories. The Copenhagen Interpretation does away with this idea of a one-to-one correspondence between reality and theory. This is another way of saying what we have said before. Quantum mechanics discards the laws governing individual events and states directly the laws governing aggregations. It is very pragmatic. The philosophy of pragmatism goes something like this. The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue). Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. The extraordinary importance of the Copenhagen Interpretation lies in the fact that for the first time, scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought. It was this that Einstein could not accept. “The most incomprehensible thing about the world”, he wrote, “is that it is comprehensible.” But the deed was done. The new physics was based not upon “absolute truth,” but upon us. Henry Pierce Stapp, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, expressed this eloquently: [The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics] was essentially a rejection of the presumption that nature could be understood in terms of elementary space-time realities. According to the new view, the complete description of nature at the atomic level was given by probability functions that referred, not to underlying microscopic space-time realities, but rather to the macroscopic objects of sense experience. The theoretical structure did not extend down and anchor itself on fundamental microscopic space-time realities. Instead it turned back and anchored itself in the concrete sense realities that form the basis of social life…. This pragmatic description is to be contrasted with descriptions that attempt to peer “behind the scenes” and tell us what is “really happening.”

Read carefully the passages given below and answer the questions. This brings us to the central philosophical issue of quantum mechanics, namely, “ What is it that quantum mechanics describes?” Put another way, quantum mechanics statistically describes the overall behavior and/or predicts the probabilities of the individual behavior of what? In the autumn of 1927, physicists working with the new physics met in Brussels, Belgium, to ask themselves this question, among others. What they decided there became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Other interpretations developed later, but the Copenhagen Interpretation marks the emergence of the new physics as a consistent way of viewing the world. It is still the most prevalent interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. The upheaval in physics following the discovery of the inadequacies of Newtonian physics was all but complete. The question among the physicists at Brussels was not whether Newtonian mechanics could be adapted to subatomic phenomena ( it was clear that it could not be ), but rather, what was to replace it. The Copenhagen Interpretation was the first consistent formulation of quantum mechanics. Einstein opposed it in 1927 and he argued against it until his death, although he, like all physicists, was forced to acknowledge its advantages in explaining subatomic phenomena. The Copenhagen Interpretation says, in effect, that it does not matter what quantum mechanics is about. The important thing is that it works in all possible experimental situations. This is one of the most important statements in the history of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics began a monumental reunion which was all but unnoticed at the time. The rational part of our psyche, typified by science, began to merge again with that other part of us which we had ignored since the 1700s, our irrational side.

The scientific idea of truth traditionally had been anchored in an absolute truth somewhere “out there”—that is, an absolute truth with an independent existence. The closer that we came in our approximations to the absolute truth, the truer our theories were said to be. Although we might never be able to perceive the absolute truth directly—or to open the watch, as Einstein put it—still we tried to construct theories such that for every facet of absolute truth, there was a corresponding element in our theories. The Copenhagen Interpretation does away with this idea of a one-to-one correspondence between reality and theory. This is another way of saying what we have said before. Quantum mechanics discards the laws governing individual events and states directly the laws governing aggregations. It is very pragmatic. The philosophy of pragmatism goes something like this. The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore, it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue). Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience. The extraordinary importance of the Copenhagen Interpretation lies in the fact that for the first time, scientists attempting to formulate a consistent physics were forced by their own findings to acknowledge that a complete understanding of reality lies beyond the capabilities of rational thought. It was this that Einstein could not accept. “The most incomprehensible thing about the world”, he wrote, “is that it is comprehensible.” But the deed was done. The new physics was based not upon “absolute truth,” but upon us. Henry Pierce Stapp, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, expressed this eloquently: [The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics] was essentially a rejection of the presumption that nature could be understood in terms of elementary space-time realities. According to the new view, the complete description of nature at the atomic level was given by probability functions that referred, not to underlying microscopic space-time realities, but rather to the macroscopic objects of sense experience. The theoretical structure did not extend down and anchor itself on fundamental microscopic space-time realities. Instead it turned back and anchored itself in the concrete sense realities that form the basis of social life…. This pragmatic description is to be contrasted with descriptions that attempt to peer “behind the scenes” and tell us what is “really happening.”