Quantum theorem shakes foundations
The wavefunction is a real physical object after all, says researcher.
At the heart of the weirdness for which the field of quantum mechanics is famous is the wavefunction, a powerful but mysterious entity that is used to determine the probabilities that quantum particles will have certain properties. Now, a preprint posted online on 14 November1 reopens the question of what the wavefunction represents — with an answer that could rock quantum theory to its core. Whereas many physicists have generally interpreted the wavefunction as a statistical tool that reflects our ignorance of the particles being measured, the authors of the latest paper argue that, instead, it is physically real.
“I don't like to sound hyperbolic, but I think the word 'seismic' is likely to apply to this paper,” says Antony Valentini, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum foundations at Clemson University in South Carolina.
_______________________
Max Born introduced Heisenberg to matrix mechanics. He also gave us the statistical interpretation of the wave function.
Here's what Born said at the time: "Anyone dissatisfied with these ideas may feel free to assume that there are additional parameters not yet introduced into the theory which determine the individual event."
Try finding that little quip in the standard textbooks. Today we call these additional parameters "hidden variables." They are also known as the missing "elements of reality" postulated by EPR.
For those just now joining the discussion, my mild suggestion comes down to this: The so-called secondary qualities of observation just are these variables and are only "hidden" in plain view.
Notice that this move addresses another minor issue:
“I don't like to sound hyperbolic, but I think the word 'seismic' is likely to apply to this paper,” says Antony Valentini, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum foundations at Clemson University in South Carolina.
_______________________
Max Born introduced Heisenberg to matrix mechanics. He also gave us the statistical interpretation of the wave function.
Here's what Born said at the time: "Anyone dissatisfied with these ideas may feel free to assume that there are additional parameters not yet introduced into the theory which determine the individual event."
Try finding that little quip in the standard textbooks. Today we call these additional parameters "hidden variables." They are also known as the missing "elements of reality" postulated by EPR.
For those just now joining the discussion, my mild suggestion comes down to this: The so-called secondary qualities of observation just are these variables and are only "hidden" in plain view.
Notice that this move addresses another minor issue:
What we see depends on light entering the eye. Furthermore we do not even perceive what enters the eye. The things transmitted are waves or—as Newton thought—minute particles, and the things seen are colors. Locke met this difficulty by a theory of primary and secondary qualities. Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colors, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter.
Why should we perceive secondary qualities? It seems an unfortunate arrangement that we should perceive a lot of things that are not there. Yet this is what the theory of secondary qualities in fact comes to. There is now reigning in philosophy and in science an apathetic acquiescence in the conclusion that no coherent account can be given of nature as it is disclosed to us in sense-awareness, without dragging in its relation to mind.
~Whitehead, The Concept of Nature
0 comments:
Post a Comment