Diogenes

A Burning Question: Einstein's Paradox of Correlations

O. Costa de Beauregard

Published Jun 1, 1980• 0 citations

Abstract

In 1927 at the fifth Solvay Council, that reunited all the aristocracy of theoretical physics, Einstein, regarding with solicitude the new-born “quantum mechanics” of Louis de Broglie, Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Dirac, discerned with his usual sagacity an indelible mark that was destined to become, with time, a subject of passionate discussion among those whose vocation is to adulate this enigmatic and capricious personality. In 1926 Born had given the prophetic stroke to the portrait. Turning to probability as to the official factotum of the reconciliation of the continuous and the discontinuous-here, the associated wave and particle-he transmuted the waves of de Broglie and Schr6dinger into an undulatory calculus o f probabilities, deducing, from a surprising principle, consequences that were even more surprising but always verified through experiment. Parting from the idea that the intensity of the wave is the probability of the detection of the particle at a given point and time, Born replaced the classic principle of addition of partial probabilities with his “principle of the addition of partial amplitudes” that are, as in classical optics, represented by “complex” dimensions, with one real part and one imaginary part. In general, the square of the module of the sum of amplitudes will be the probability. This expression contains, of course, the terms “square” and “rectangular.” The first, if they were alone, would give the former law; as for the second, they express the existence of phenomena of interference that are at the origin of the thousand and one well verified paradoxes of the “new mechanics “-the one thousand and first being the one under consideration here.

DOI: 10.1177/039219218002811005

Related papers

From Appearance to Reality (Bohr, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrödinger, Dirac)

James Hopwood Jeans

The new physics just described was still based largely on Newtonian ideas. Indeed, in its theoretical aspects, it might not unfairly be described as a final attempt to explain the world in materialistic terms—as particles being pushed and pulled about in space and time. Nevertheless, the new physics had found it necessary to abolish most of the forces of pushing and pulling, replacing the gradual changes of motion of the particles under these forces by sudden and unpredictable jumps. These appeared to involve violations of the law of causality, both in the disintegration of radioactive atoms and also in the internal changes of ordinary atoms. We seemed to see Fate defying this law as she picked out certain atoms for disintegration or collapse and, by her apparently capricious acts, sent the universe along one path or another according to her whim. On such lines the new physics had explained many phenomena which had hitherto seemed inexplicable, but it had by no means met with complete success. For instance, while it gave a perfect interpretation of the simplest spectrum of all, namely that of the hydrogen atom, it failed with more complex spectra. This was not necessarily a fatal objection; a few emendations and possibly a few new ad hoc assumptions might have effected a complete reconciliation, although this seems improbable.

Cambridge University Press eBooksJul 20, 20090 citations

Historical perspective

Franck Laloë

The founding fathers of quantum mechanics had already perceived the essence of the difficulties of quantum mechanics; today, after almost a century, the discussions are still lively and, if some very interesting new aspects have emerged, at a deeper level the questions have not changed so much. What is more recent, nevertheless, is a general change of attitude among physicists: until about 1970 or 1980, most physicists thought that the essential questions had been settled, and that “Bohr was right and proved his opponents to be wrong”. This was probably a consequence of the famous discussions between Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, de Broglie, and others (in particular at the Solvay meetings [1–3], where Bohr's point of view had successfully resisted Einstein's extremely clever attacks). The majority of physicists did not know the details of the arguments. They nevertheless thought that the standard “Copenhagen interpretation” had clearly emerged from the infancy of quantum mechanics as the only sensible attitude for good scientists. This interpretation includes the idea that modern physics must contain indeterminacy as an essential ingredient: it is fundamentally impossible to predict the outcome of single microscopical events; it is impossible to go beyond the formalism of the wave function (or its generalization, the state vector ∣ψ) and complete it.

Cambridge University Press eBooksAug 30, 20121 citation

The Bohr—Einstein confrontation: phenomena and physical reality

Sandro Petruccioli

As Quine wrote in 1961, what strikes us in a paradox is its initial air of absurdity, which develops into a sort of psychological discomfort when we compare the conclusions of the reasoning with the apparently irrefutable arguments on which it is based. However, as he went on to observe, ‘More than once in history the discovery of paradox has been the occasion for major reconstruction at the foundations of thought’. Catastrophe may therefore lurk even in the most innocent-seeming of paradoxes and force us to recognize the arbitrary nature ‘of a buried premise or of some preconception previously reckoned as central to physical theory, to mathematics or to the thinking process’. More recently, ideas of this kind have been used to assert in general that the role of paradox in the growth of knowledge is to generate category switches and to construct new universes of discourse. It could also be argued that paradoxes constitute elements of the logic of discovery capable of amplifying and thus making intelligible the still obscure phases accompanying paradigm shifts. Paradoxes would thus represent points of accumulation for the tension created between a given system of conceptual representation and a theory or empirical discovery that violates it. Historians of science have tried different interpretative approaches in their attempts to unravel the thought process that was to lead Einstein in 1905 to the formulation of special relativity and the simultaneous demolition of the classical conception of space and time.

Cambridge University Press eBooksNov 18, 19930 citations

The Solvay Councils, de Broglie's brothers, and the development of wave-particle duality

Alessio Rocci, Franklin Lambert

The meeting patronized by Ernest Solvay in 1911, the first Solvay Council, marked the beginning of what can be called the first quantum revolution. Maurice de Broglie was one of the secretaries of the Council. He participated in the two following conferences and contributed to the third Council with his work. Louis de Broglie collaborated and discussed with his elder brother. Departing from Maurice's achievements, Louis developed his approach to the wave-particle duality of light and extended it to other particles. He presented it at the fifth meeting in 1927. This paper investigates the connection between the two scientists and the Solvay Councils, arguing that this link was essential in developing the first quantum revolution, a process that ended, according to Werner Heisenberg, at the fifth Solvay Physics Council.

arXiv:2411.18524Nov 27, 20240 citations

Introduction

Sandro Petruccioli

‘Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One’. These views were contained in a letter written by Albert Einstein to Max Born in December 1926. Though the following year would see the completion of work on the theoretical foundation of the modern physics of atoms and particles, Einstein was never to change his judgement and remained firmly convinced that ‘this business […] contains some unreasonableness’. He was unwilling to sacrifice his own ideas as to the cognitive scope of science even in the face of the important results being achieved by the new theory. To the undeterministic findings of quantum mechanics he opposed his belief in the ‘possibility of giving a model of reality, a theory, that is to say, which shall represent events themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence’. For this reason he chose to live with the isolation of his scepticism and dissent, ironically accepting the reputation as a obstinate heretic that he had won over the years among his colleagues, and worked to the end on his own research programme to develop a unified field theory of rigorously causal nature. As is generally known, Einstein carried on a strong scientific and philosophical dispute with the defenders of the so-called official interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooksNov 18, 19930 citations

The theory of the double preparation: discerned and indiscerned particles

Michel Gondran, Alexandre Gondran

In this paper we propose a deterministic and realistic quantum mechanics interpretation which may correspond to Louis de Broglie's "double solution theory". Louis de Broglie considers two solutions to the Schrödinger equation, a singular and physical wave u representing the particle (soliton wave) and a regular wave representing probability (statistical wave). We return to the idea of two solutions, but in the form of an interpretation of the wave function based on two different preparations of the quantum system. We demonstrate the necessity of this double interpretation when the particles are subjected to a semi-classical field by studying the convergence of the Schrödinger equation when the Planck constant tends to 0. For this convergence, we reexamine not only the foundations of quantum mechanics but also those of classical mechanics, and in particular two important paradox of classical mechanics: the interpretation of the principle of least action and the the Gibbs paradox. We find two very different convergences which depend on the preparation of the quantum particles: particles called indiscerned (prepared in the same way and whose initial density is regular, such as atomic beams) and particles called discerned (whose density is singular, such as coherent states). These results are based on the Minplus analysis, a new branch of mathematics that we have developed following Maslov, and on the Minplus path integral which is the analog in classical mechanics of the Feynman path integral in quantum mechanics. The indiscerned (or discerned) quantum particles converge to indiscerned (or discerned) classical particles and we deduce that the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave is the correct interpretation for the indiscerned quantum particles (wave statistics) and the Schrödinger interpretation is the correct interpretation for discerned quantum particles (wave soliton). Finally, we show that this double interpretation can be extended to the non semi-classical case.

arXiv:1311.1466Nov 6, 20130 citations