Those who study the physical reality are, after the foundation of quantum theory discussion of chance or determinism gave very strongly in particular between Einstein and Bohr , a discussion that lasted almost 30 years and the end neither could see end. Einstein's position was very similar to Poicare who said that chance is the measure of our ignorance, Einstein defined it as another way that God does not play dice.
I think what bothered most Einstein was not that God played dice, but it craps out all
The last work on quantum theory of Einstein was precisely to show that the version of the theory Quantum was wrong and was conducted in conjunction with Nathan Rosen and poldosky and is called the EPR paradox by the name of the authors.
I'll try to explain it, let's assume you throw a coin, may fall or face shield. But just falls, using a magical is divided into two parts leaving the part of the seal and the shield apart, even without seeing the result, given the part that fell up to someone and the party fell down to someone else. Both people are going in different directions and after a year or 30 years, is one which is having in his pocket and realizes he is a shield, so far could be heads or tails, but the time really gives you view it, is said to collapse the wave function * and therefore know the other person is the part that is expensive. Although the other person has not seen and the currency remains undetermined having in his pocket.
This is a very subtle and intelligent argument to say that chance is only our ignorance of the facts and proof that there are "hidden variables." Bohr spent nearly 6 weeks (a record for speed) to prove the falsity of that argument. The end I convinced my much less Einstein.
American Physicist Bohm again bring the subject up in 1953 when I make a theory which took into account such hidden variables. I also make a popular book that allowed almost anyone to create a particular physics-based mysticism.
But most of all sought to destroy the theorem von Neumann, one of the most influential mathematicians in our lives (I think modern computers and helped to create the fusion bomb), because in the 30's realized the implications of quantum theory and made a theorem to show that the randomness was inherent in everything, not just the atoms or electrons if not all.
He said that if when a microscopic system is paired with a measuring instrument Macroscope, the effect of pairing is that the microscopic system to behave as if they were absent the interference effects.
words, the state of the macro seems to be reduced to a superposition of waves, or exclusive alternative realities.
But that does not mean that reduced to "a reality" as another result of the match is transferring the effects of interference to the measuring device and this device is reduced to a reality we need another and another and another and another. Since
started to wonder when a quantum random phenomenon lapsed, How many atoms are needed in order to begin to behave as classical particles? ¿2 atoms? "50 atoms? A mole? The
Plank constant is very small, too small and it is for this reason that its effects are not often seen in daily life, but the important thing is not constant in itself but H barred it h/2π
In a book published at that time try to find the axiomatic basis of quantum theory, but from a mathematical point of view more than physical.
This treatment was quickly superseded by the theory of Dirac , which is more consistent and avoid misconceptions unless the wave function Scrödinger **.
But the important thing is that it could address the problem of determinism against the non-determinism in logical way and created a theorem that quantum mechanics can not be derived by statistical approximation of any deterministic theory.
And basically that quantum effects do not disappear, but can be made very small-in macro systems. Therefore, this keyboard has even quantum effects.
But as things looked like they were still in place and not disappear and appear, it was believed that there was a failure and it was pure mathematics without practical applications in the world. And incredibly Einstein
waste for that reason to believe it was a pure mathematical speculation
In developing his argument von Neumann had a small misconception because their training was in physics. But if it was broadly correct.
A mid- 50 Bell took advantage of that little conceptual error to develop his theorem which could put an end to the discussion vs.no-deterministic determinism, one consequence of his theorem is the inequality of Bell, said in his original work that;
In a theory in which the parameters (such as may correspond toIt is the basis of a new vision of reality that needed theory here is that say that the theory of relativity is local. Therefore the town is the base of the problem. Since any such hidden variable theory which Einstein had thought to be non-local
new forces) are added to quantum mechanics to determine
results of individual measurements, without changing
statistical predictions, has
to be a mechanism where the establishment of a
measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, albeit remote
. Furthermore, the signal
involved must propagate instantaneously so the theory
would be a Lorentz invariant ***
(the theory that I Bohm hidden variables with non- was local therefore it provided a means signals could travel faster than light)
And the proof of impossibility of bell shows that the town is the only kind of mechanism that can account for these correlations. You can not have local realism of Einstein and quantum theory. There can be only local realism of Einstein and quantum theory. Another quality
Bell's theorem is that it is quantitative in the sense that the distinction between local realism and quantum theory is a proposition that can be checked.
local theories lead to different correlations in quantum theory. This difference is known as unequal Bell, and therefore something that is apparent in the laboratory.
Until then nobody had a clear idea of \u200b\u200bhow to do an experiment to see who was right (Einstein and Bohr) now knew that the results could mean.
thought
When performing these experiments believed to use the spin of the particle, a spin can not put into words because it is something very abstract, we can say that is another quality of angular momentum, we do not see everyday anything with that property.
At least the electron has spin ½, and therefore can point in two directions in the presence of a magnetic field.
The way was found spin is curious as it was found before I knew it was.
Otto Stern and Gerlach found space quantization silver atoms when heated in an oven and then extracted a beam of these atoms which passed through a strong magnetic field. The direction of this field is what defines the spatial axis (a particle with spin 1 has three directions) and as they knew nothing of the spin assumed that the trajectory of the silver atoms are randomly modified, and to prove the deposit left on a lamina. They were surprised when atoms are placed only in two thin lines separated by less than a fraction of a millimeter. And that nothing
physics I could explain classical.
As you see the spin of a particle was ideal for the experiment, since it has two related measures and the Heisenberg principle is known to accurately measure more uncertain is the other. And that made
Bohm, I plan to experiment with the spin, but technical problems were enormous, but is weighed out, but at that time nobody knew how to interpret the results, so the results were ambiguous ..
is easier to work with photons and focused on that aspect of new experiments. You could make a beam of polarized light in one direction say 45 ° degrees after posing as two polarizers who changed their polarization every hundredth of a million seconds, so the polarization was changed while the photons had not yet reached and discarded the communication between the detectors. This and subsequent course has been made completely rule out the version of Einstein. Naturally
completely rule out such experiments and determinism.
The world just keeps order because Planck's constant is very small, but that does not prevent affected.
Although this problem is resolved once Feymann richard said concerning these experiments
"we have always had great difficulty in understanding the picture that represents"
quantum mechanics. At least for me, since I'm old enough
I have not gotten to the point where all that stuff is obvious to me. More
well I get nervous with it. There has been obvious to me that there is no real problem
therefore suspect that there is a problem, but I'm not sure
there is no real problem
(This manner of expression was typical of Feymann )
This means that reality (and perhaps why the confusion of Feymann) is completely random and unpredictable. Since the end of the day are composed of atoms and these atoms is exposed to the eccentricities of the quantum world, more seriously, the electrons that are essential for communication between neurons and the same understanding of what we see.
the introduction to this post appears in Opuscrisis
philosophy, philosophy , physical, physical , science, science ,
0 comments:
Post a Comment