|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Quantum mechanics|cTopic=[[Interpretation of quantum mechanics|Interpretations]]}}
| | Seniors gеnerally do not have а gooԁ diet. Easy to put together food can continue to help make sure a senior citizen ɡеts correct nutrition. This pοst will present you with some great suggestions to assist stability your diet program while not having to make a siƶable dinner.<br><br>Lots of people do not possess adeգuatе prօtein with theiг diet plan even with how signifiсant it сan be to great wellness. Lean meats, species of fish, poultry offer good quality proteins. Fowl is a wonderful supply of protein аnd likes fantastic, as is pork. Health proteins gives you the entire experіencing so you may not consume unhealthy foods.<br><br>All-natural food products will always be your best optіon when looking for probably the moѕt ԝholesome alternative. You can considerably reduce your consumption of unhealthy fats along with other poisonous substances by picking meɑls which cаn be new and get not bеen maintаined or highly processed.<br><br>Make fruits shakes in your house. Mߋst premade healthy smoothie itеmѕ are loaded with sugars and fillerѕ. Goveгning the elements is the simpleѕt way to guarɑntee it can be nourishing. Also, yߋu are able to moԀify it to suit your needs. Concеntrate on components like bananas, Ancient greek yogurt, peanut butter and skim whole milk. This makes it healthier and tasty.<br><br>Learn [http://adpublisher.in/author/anwinkler/ vigrx plus how to use] to make fruits or plant smoothiеs. The people you receive at the store have a lot of calorie consumption. Ԝhen you allow it to bе oneself, you realize what's inside it. That way you can actually have it matсh youг daily diet. Try using ѕubstances like bananas, new or iced fruits, skim dairy, and Ԍгeek low fat yogurt to get a reԁuced-calories healthful fruit smoothie.<br><br>Eating oгganic food items is a wonderful method for getting more nutrients and vitamins into the diet. Installing scientific evidence shows that organic and natural food products are increaseɗ in vitamins and minerals, and lower in nitгates. Organic and natural food items are defіnitely more likе what Mother Nature meant them to be. Preference one partіϲular, and yоu'll buy it.<br><br>If ƴou beliеve consuming breakfast is not requireԀ, you happen to be establishing yourself up for catastrophe. Lots of people think that not ingesting your morning meal is the best way to eat significantly less calօrie consumptіon. That is certainly not true, bypassing bгeakfast time can creatе eager, which makes it more inclined which you will snack food more as being the wߋrking ԁay goeѕ on. You may cօnsume more calorie consumption thɑn if you just consumeɗ your morning mеal.<br><br>Food prepaгation a vegetarian food a few times every weeк can do miracles fօr your nutrients. This should help you decrease the quantity of excesѕ fаt you eat and you will see that veggie meals tastes great.<br><br>Ensure you're carefully deciding on your milk prodսcts. Whilst dɑiry foods consist of potassium, calcium supplement, healtɦ ρroteins and vitamin D, you must staʏ with fat totally free or low-fat choices. Consume lowеr-extra fat or skim dairу, because this redսces energy however, not the vitamins and minerals. Ιf lactose leads to trouble for you, prefer from soy oг lactosе-cost-[http://www.Ducatibazar.eu/author/cosilvey/ free vigrx plus trial] selections. Most cheеses also inclսde satuгated fat, sօ ѕelect the reduced-extra fat ϲhеeseѕ.<br><br>Aѕ a wаy to remove excess ƅody fat, use wateг tօ cook vegetableѕ rɑtheг than gɑs. You'll be Ьlown away at hoԝ good steamed and [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boiled+vegetables boiled vegetables] stack up to fried greens [http://meaningmakerbootcamp.com/groups/does-vigrx-plus-work-yahoo-increase-your-food-consumption-with-one-of-these-basic-nutrients-recommendations/ vigrx plus in walmart] relation to style. In the event you can't seе a way to preνent a small amount of oils іn a distinct dish, remember that utilizing a littlе veggie oils is healthier than using margarine οr butter.<br><br>Natural veggies ɑre healthy, smart snack foods. Ιt is possible to curb your present craѵings for fooԁ рang by feeling whole for some timе, which happens to Ƅe reаl given thе vitamins аnd minerals yoս just place in yoսr abdomen. They're not a whole lot more difficult to prеpare than unhealthy foods is. Unhealthy foods arе even ɑ lߋt messier and harder to deal with. Raw greens get thе best snacks.<br><br>Fiѕh is usually championed by nutritionalists as bеing a ѡholesomе օption to other meat. Τhe significɑnt amoսnt of omega-3, which can be unsaturated, eѕsential fatty acids found in sea food helр support the healthіer functioning from the circulatory system and heart. There is a wide variety of sea food and еverʏ features its own flavor ɑnd structure.<br><br>You have to take in sufficient food items that contаin cobalt, since yoս will have difficulty metabolizing B natural vitamins, especially nutritional B12 (otherwise known as cobalamin). Cobalt can be found by ingesting dim, leafy veggies, for example kale. Nonetheless, ideal resources likеwise incorporate dog filtering organs, liverѕ and hearts.<br><br>Eggplants are really soft, which mɑkes tɦem thе гight go with foг other smooth meals like baba ghanoush. Eǥgplants have several nutrition including potassiսm, folic acid, and several [http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&global=1&q=vitamin+antioxidants vitamin antioxidants].<br><br>Yoս should ingeѕt beef. The protein you receive from ѵarious meats can promote your musclе tisѕue ցrowth. It doesn't make a difference if you eat beef, pοrk or chicken. Juѕt get the nutrients that you desire. Aim tߋ eat twenty ounces of various meats еvery day.<br><br>Ɗeprivation is rarеly exciting. There is no need to minimize every one of the poοг stuff away from your diet program. You simply neeԁ to take in the good ѕtuff most of the time along with the bad informatiоn only ѕometimeѕ. This article has presented numerous ways to increase your nutrition in yoսr own life. |
| :''This article is intended for those already familiar with quantum mechanics and its attendant interpretational difficulties. Readers who are new to the subject may first want to read the '''[[introduction to quantum mechanics]]'''.''
| |
| | |
| The '''relational approach to quantum physics''' is an alternative approach to and [[interpretation of quantum mechanics]]. It asserts that the physical world can only be studied accurately in terms of ''relationships'' between systems, as all experimentally verifiable facts about the world result explicitly from interactions (such as the interaction between a light field and a detector). According to the relational approach, the assumption that objects possess absolute properties (such as an absolute particle, independent of any detection frame) inevitably leads to ambiguities and paradoxes when these objects are studied closely. The approach was adopted, in a time span of 1992-1996, by Q. Zheng, S. Hughes, and T. Kobayashi in the [[University of Tokyo]].<ref>[http://www.quantum-relativity.org/Quantum_Optics_as_a_Relativistic_Theory_of_Light.pdf Zheng ''et al.'' (1992, 1996)]</ref> As early as in 1985, S. Kochen suggested that the paradoxes of quantum physics could be overcome by developing a relational approach, which was needed at one time to solve the paradoxes of relativistic physics of space and time.<ref>S. Kochen, Symposium of the Foundations of Modern Physics: 50 Years of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment, (World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1985), pp. 151-69.</ref><ref name=Kochen2>For later work, see [http://www.springerlink.com/content/24x7719049737074/ John Conway and Simon Kochen] ''The Free Will Theorem''.</ref> It is also hoped that this entry will serve as a complement to Rovelli’s [[relational quantum mechanics]] (RQM).
| |
| | |
| Historically, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were intertwined with each other and the compatibility between both theories was a main theme throughout the Bohr-Einstein debate.<ref>M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, (Wiley, New York, 1974), p. 109.</ref> In both theories the physicists emphasized that only measurable quantities, that is, observables, belong in a theory. Bohr compared his approach to Einstein’s theory of relativity and asserted that in the treatment of quantum processes the [[complementarity (physics)|complementarity]] of the measuring results cannot be ignored, just as in high-speed phenomena the relativity of observation cannot be neglected when the simultaneity comes into question. But Einstein replied: “A good joke should not be repeated too often.” <ref>P. Frank, Einstein-His Life and Times, (Knopf, New York, 1947), p. 216.</ref> The debate continued in connection with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen [[EPR paradox|(EPR) paradox]], and Bohr proposed the relational conception of quantum states.<ref>M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, (Wiley, New York, 1974), p. 197.</ref> Through their analysis [[David Bohm|Bohm]] and Schumacher concluded that the characteristic feature of this debate is the failure to communicate due to the absence of a full harmony of quantum mechanics with relativity.<ref>D. Bohm and D. L. Schumacher, On the failure of communication between Bohr and Einstein, (Preprint, 1972).
| |
| </ref>
| |
| | |
| Modern attempts to embrace a relational approach with interpretations of quantum mechanics have been tried many times, ranging from [[Hugh Everett|Everett]]'s [[Many-worlds interpretation|relative-state interpretation]] (Everett, 1957), sigma algebra of interactive properties (Kochen, 1979), quantum reference systems (Bene, 1992), quantum theory of the universe ([[Lee Smolin|Smolin]], 1995), to relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996). They more or less emphasize the relational nature of quantum states. For more information, please refer to the further reading list.
| |
| | |
| ==Background==
| |
| As is well known, Einstein's theory of relativity, which involves a profound analysis of time and space, introduced radical changes, not only in our basic concepts, but also in our modes of physical reasoning. The essence of Einstein's theory was to adopt a relational approach to the notions of time and space,<ref>D. Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity (Benjamin, New York, 1965).</ref> which mathematically can be expressed through the Lorentz space-time transformations.
| |
| | |
| Although the mathematical structure of the [[Lorentz ether theory]], which leaves the speed of light ''in vacuo'', ''c'', a universal constant, is equivalent to that of Einstein's, there is nevertheless a drastic difference in the way to conceive it. On the one hand, Lorentz began with retaining the customary concepts of [[absolute time and space]] of the older Newtonian mechanics, and by considering changes in the observing instruments. The invariant nature of ''c'', as measured experimentally from the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], was successfully explained by the so-called '[[Lorentz contraction]]', moving through the hypothetical ether. However, this theory led to the difficulty that the exact values of the 'true' distances and times, with respect to a detection scheme at rest in the ether, became somewhat ambiguous and unknowable. Einstein, on the other hand, by commencing with the observed facts, regarded time and space a ''priori'' as a certain class of 'coordinates' merely expressing ''relationships'' of an event to the measuring instruments. On the basis of a constant speed of light, both time and space become ''relative'' concepts, fundamentally dependent of the observer.
| |
| | |
| The developments of quantum formulation early this century has also led physicists to question the Newtonian concepts of physical objects, such as 'particle' and 'wave', which are basic ideas in all of classical physics. Subsequently, [[Werner Heisenberg|Heisenberg]] in his pioneering paper <ref>W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927). For an English translation, see Quantum Theory and Measurement ed. J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek (Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey, 1983), pp. 62-84.</ref> developed a conceptual framework that in a way retained all the classical concepts, and plays a great role in the [[Copenhagen interpretation]]. This basic new step was to study the disturbance of observing instruments, and for this purpose, Heisenberg constructed the famous ''gedanken'' microscope experiment to measure very accurately the position of an electron. It was found that since the individual quanta of action must be taken into account in the measurement process, the irreducible disturbance rendered it impossible to assign ''simultaneously'' the precise values of position and momentum. Consequently, by considering the uncontrollable influence from the observation itself, the notion of particle into quantum mechanics was preserved, and the [[uncertainty principle]] was born.
| |
| | |
| ==Inherent ambiguity in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle==
| |
| In spite of its successes however, the Heisenberg theory has also brought about the problem, in a similar manner to the Lorentz theory,<ref>D. Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity (Benjamin, New York, 1965), p. 40.</ref> that the ''fundamental concepts'', e.g., the notion of particle in the interpretation, are in fact ''completely ambiguous''. For it is deduced on the basis of the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]] that no means could ever give precisely a 'true' particle simultaneous values of position and momentum. This has been the object of severe criticisms from some other famous physicists, like [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]], who has always believed that even in quantum theory there must exist precisely definable elements or dynamical variables to determine the actual behavior of each individual system.<ref>D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 166 (1952).</ref> In view of this fundamental ambiguity, it seems evident that a careful analysis of the notion of particle based on the actually measured facts is required, in parallel to Einstein's analysis of time.
| |
| | |
| In a paper published in 1996,<ref>Q. B. Zheng and T. Kobayashi, Physics Essays 9, 447 (1996).</ref> Zheng ''et al.'' developed a relational approach to [[wave-particle duality]] which avoids the ambiguity associated with the Heisenberg theory. They emphasize, in parallel with Einstein's theory of [[special relativity]], that for the proper analysis of [[quantum optics]] measurements with different frames of detection, one must consult a conceptual map of events which takes into account the perspective of the observer implicitly. The importance of events in quantum theory has been emphasized recently,<ref>C. F. von Weizsäcker and Th. Görnitz, in Symposium on the foundations of Modern Physics 1993 ed. P. Busch, P. Lahti, and P. Mittelstaedt (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).</ref> which for quantum optics can be described mathematically in terms of light detection, pioneered by [[Roy J. Glauber]].<ref>R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529-2539 (1963).</ref>
| |
| | |
| The presence of a physical object can be established by ''interaction'' in which detection events serve as ''relationships'' between the object and the class of the measuring instrument. In other words, all our actual knowledge of a physical object is based on, at least in principle, the experimentally detected relationships between the object and a suitable detector.
| |
| | |
| In the quantum theory of radiation, the electric field operator in the Coulomb gauge may be written as the sum of positive and negative frequency parts, Eq. (1):
| |
| | |
| : <math>E (\mathbf{r}, t) = E^{(+)}(\mathbf{r}, t) + E^{(-)}(\mathbf{r}, t)</math>
| |
| | |
| where
| |
| | |
| : <math>E^{(-)}(\mathbf{r}, t) = E^{(+)}(\mathbf{r}, t)^\dagger</math>
| |
| | |
| One may expand <math>E^{(+)}(\mathbf{r}, t)</math> in terms of the normal modes as follows:
| |
| | |
| : <math>E^{(+)}(\mathbf {r}, t) = i\sum_{i}[\frac{\hbar\omega_{i}}{2}]^{1/2}\hat{a}_{i}\mathbf{\varepsilon}_{i}e^{i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} - \omega_{i}t)}</math>
| |
| | |
| where <math>\mathbf {\varepsilon}_{i}</math> are the unit vectors of polarization; this expansion has the same form as the classical expansion except that now the field amplitudes <math>\hat{a}_{i}</math> are operators.
| |
| | |
| Glauber has studied the way in which light is detected, and showed that, for an ideal photodetector situated at a point <math>\mathbf {r}</math> in a radiation field, the probability of observing a photoionization event in this detector between time <math>{t}</math> and <math>{\it t} + d{\it t}</math> is proportional to <math>W_{I}(\mathbf {r}, t)d{\it t}</math>, where, Eq. (2):
| |
| | |
| : <math>{W_{I}(\mathbf {r}, t)} =\langle \psi | {E^{(-)}(\mathbf {r}, t)} \cdot
| |
| {E^{(+)}(\mathbf
| |
| {r}, t)}| \psi\rangle</math>
| |
| | |
| and <math>|\psi\rangle</math> specifies the state of the field. If one considers the one-dimensional propagation problem of one-photon states, constructed by Glauber.<ref>R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2531 (1963).</ref>
| |
| | |
| : <math>{| \psi\rangle} =
| |
| \sum_{k}c_{k}{\hat{a}_{k}}^{\dagger}| 0\rangle </math>
| |
| | |
| and
| |
| | |
| : <math>{E^{(+)}({x, t)} =
| |
| {\sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{2}}}\sum_{k}\sqrt{k}{\hat{a}_{k}}
| |
| e^{i(kx - \omega t)}} </math>
| |
| | |
| Subsequently, the detection probability propagating along the <math>{x}</math> direction becomes:
| |
| | |
| : <math>{W_{I}(x, t)} =
| |
| \frac{\hbar c}{2}\mid \sum_{k}\sqrt{k}c_{k}e^{i(kx - \omega t)} \mid
| |
| ^{2}</math>
| |
| | |
| This probability of observing photoionization ''in'' detectors also reproduces the probabilistic wave of quantum phenomena. The Glauber detection theory differs from the Born probabilistic interpretation,<ref>M. Born, Z. Phys. 37, 863 (1926). For an English translation, see Quantum Theory and Measurement ed. J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey, 1983, pp. 52-55.</ref> in that it expresses the meaning of physical law in terms of relationships, counting signals in the detection processes, without assuming the particle model of matter. These concepts quite naturally lead to a relational approach for the notion of physical object, and one can say that, in terms of actually measurable counting signals, the detection events follow laws of probability.
| |
| | |
| Here, one does not regard the above result as a deduction from the Heisenberg theory, but as a ''basic hypothesis'' which is well established experimentally. This needs little explanation, e.g., in terms of the disturbance of instruments, but is merely our starting point for further analysis; as in Einstein's theory of [[special relativity]], we start from the ''fact'' that the speed of light is a constant.
| |
| | |
| ==Analysis of the concept of localizability==
| |
| One can continue to consider an object's position measurement, in order to see more clearly what this hypothesis implies with regard to the notion of ''localizability'' in physics, similar to the discussion of [[relativity of simultaneity|simultaneity]] in Einstein's theory of special relativity.<ref>D. Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity (Benjamin, New York, 1965), p. 52.</ref>
| |
| | |
| In Newtonian mechanics, one can measure an object's position with the aid of a detector. The outcome of a detection event (resulting from the interaction between a detector and the object), or the occurrence of a detection event at a point in space, indicates the position of the object. But as far as Newtonian mechanics is concerned, it is assumed that there is only one position corresponding to an object. This implies that given any detection event at a position (as registered by an accurate detector), similar procedures will produce other detection outcomes in which the measurements will all be co-located at the same point in space as the first event. As a result, no detector carrying out proper position measurements on the object will ever produce results that are different from each other. If this is the case, then it makes sense to ascribe a definite (or "absolute") position to the object, and to say that the object is localized at a point in space.
| |
| | |
| This is not what is found in quantum theory, however. For instance, the detection of light is described by the measurement of one-photon states. From a general property of Fourier transforms, the wave packet at a given time <math>E^{(+)}(\mathbf{x}, 0)</math>, with a spectrum width <math>\Delta k</math>, indicates that the detection of an event can no longer be localized to a specific point in space — i.e., a definite position for the photon — but instead covers a range specified by <math>\Delta x</math>, where
| |
| | |
| : <math>\Delta k \ \Delta x \geq 1 </math>
| |
| | |
| This is a major break with older ideas, because different detection events do not agree on the position of a photon. It must be emphasized, however, that whether localizability can be established is based only on an ''indirect deduction'', the result of a statistical analysis, which expresses the deviation for the detection. Localizability is therefore not an ''immediate fact'' by which an object can be described simply as a point mass condensed at a spot in space. Instead, it is seen to depend largely on a purely conventional means of taking into account the deviation of the detected signals. This convention seems natural to our common sense, but it leads to unambiguous results — a definite position for a physical object — only in cases where Newtonian mechanics is a good approximation. When the characteristic widths of <math>\Delta x</math> and <math>\Delta k</math> can no longer be regarded as effectively infinite, then the results of empirical experiment make it clear that the measurements depend on the characteristic deviations for the problem in question.
| |
| | |
| It follows from the above discussion that localizability is not an ''absolute'' quality of objects; rather, its significance is dependent upon objects' characteristic deviations, for example the widths of <math>\Delta x</math> and <math>\Delta k</math>.
| |
| | |
| Consequently, although the mathematical structure of the above approach is equivalent to that of the Heisenberg theory (which leads to the uncertainty principle), the underlying conceptual framework is vastly different. In the Heisenberg theory, one deduces the uncertainty relation as a consequence of the disturbance of observing instruments, as they irreducibly participate in the observation process; subsequently, this infers that a causal description is impossible for quantum theory, and <math>\Delta x</math> is therefore interpreted as the uncertainty of position. On the contrary, by adopting a relational approach, one begins with the experimentally well-confirmed hypothesis of the probability of detection events, as ''actually observed''. With this starting point, the above inequality implies that the concept of absolute position is no longer meaningful in quantum theory, where <math>\Delta x</math> specifies the deviation of detection. Indeed, once it is clear that the absolute position underlying localizability is not valid in quantum mechanics, it immediately follows that new concepts are needed to describe quantum processes, which contain the particle as a limiting case.<ref>To emphasize the vast difference in this conceptual framework, the discussion proceeds in contrast with the standard interpretation of the uncertainty relation; see, for example, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloë, Quantum Mechanics Vol. 1, (Wiley, New York, 1977), pp. 21-31.
| |
| </ref>
| |
| | |
| ==Analysis of particle and wave concepts in terms of frames of detection==
| |
| From the above discussion, it is shown that an outcome of detection (an event) specifies only a relationship between that object and a certain detection; however it is not sufficient to consider only the result of an individual detection. The real significance of our detections arises from the fact that the properties of physical objects can be regularized and ordered in terms of ''frames of detection''. For example, in a particle detection frame of light, one arranges a series of photodetectors in the propagation direction, by which one can define ''invariant quantities'' such as the velocity of the light signal propagation ''c'' (emission and absorption). This allows one not only to establish a 'trajectory' but also relate it to a portion of energy, ''E'', and momentum, ''p'', (a photon), transferred from a light field to a detector, to form a ''particle picture'' (''p'' = ''E''/''c'').
| |
| | |
| There also exists a wave frame of detection, where, for example, light is divided into two paths so as to interfere with each other. To measure and analyze such an effect, one also needs to place an array of detectors on the interfering plane, from which one can infer an additional set of quantities such as the frequency, wavelength, and also the phase velocity from the interference fringes; thus one constructs a ''wave picture''. However, as far as Newtonian mechanics is concerned, such a wave frame of detection seems to be not necessary, and with the localizability discussed above, it makes sense to ascribe only the concept of particle to the cases investigated in the Newtonian domain.
| |
| | |
| Of course, all this experience depends on the condition that the de Broglie wavelength is so small that on the ordinary scale of distance and time, the wave modulation in the detection can be neglected; this is equivalent to assuming an infinitely small wavelength of matter. When a finite de Broglie wavelength is taken into account, new problems of '[[wave-particle duality]]' do in fact arise, which ran through the famous Bohr-Einstein debate and is still a key issue in recent discussions.<ref>M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, (Wiley, New York, 1974); J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Quantum Theory and Measurement, (Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey, 1983).</ref>
| |
| | |
| In terms of detection frames, the implications of the relational approach implies that there is, in fact, no absolute significance to particle and wave pictures, but rather, their meaning is fundamentally dependent on how a frame of detection is constructed, i.e., on the observer. However, this concept of 'relativity', can only be expressed in precise quantitative form by Glauber's theory of light detection that logically unifies the two pictures of particle and wave.
| |
| | |
| From the relational viewpoint, physical phenomena in the quantum theory of light detection are described in terms of ''fields'' <math>E (\mathbf{r}, t)</math> [Eq. (1)] and their ''detection'' <math>{W_{I}(\mathbf {r}, t)}</math> [Eq. (2)], which are organized, ordered, and structured so as to correspond to the characteristics of radiation systems that are being studied. In the aforementioned theory, de Broglie's concepts are now manifested by <math>E(\mathbf {r}, t)</math>, in terms of annihilation operator <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}</math> (and creation operator <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}^{\dagger}</math>) as field amplitudes modulated by phase factors <math>e^{i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} - \omega_{i}t)}</math> (and the conjugated <math>e^{-i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} - \omega_{i}t)}</math>). The key point that we wish to establish is that <math>E(\mathbf {r}, t)</math>, contains information concerning the propagation properties of light in both the particle and wave frames of detection since on the one hand, the propagation characteristics of the operators <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}</math> and <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}^{\dagger}</math>, which physically describe the absorption and emission of light, indicate a particle frame of detection where the light signal travels at the speed ''c''. On the other hand, the phase factor <math>e^{i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} -
| |
| \omega_{i}t)}</math>, implies a wave frame of detection, regulated by interference effects in the detection.
| |
| It seems clear then that in the quantum theory of light detection, the particle and wave pictures are united as two sets of relative features of the same field in different frames of detection; thus they can be related to each other in such a way that Eq. (1) is left invariant - ''the [[principle of relativity]]''. This unification can be characterized by a term called ''particle-wave'' rather than 'particle or/and wave', the hyphen emphasizing the new kind of unification.
| |
| | |
| It should be noted that in spite of the above-described unification of particle and wave pictures brought about in the quantum theory of detection, there remains a rather important and peculiar distinction between them, resulting from the fact that <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}</math> and <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}^{\dagger}</math> are operators but the phase factors <math>e^{i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} -
| |
| \omega_{i}t)}</math> (<math>e^{-i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} - \omega_{i}t)}</math>) are c-numbers. On the basis of this distinction, it also clear that the modulation by the phase factors in the probability expression of Eq. (2) at a velocity (the phase velocity) greater than ''c'', for example, in de Broglie matter systems, in no way confuses us on the maximum speed of propagation of the signals, provided that a signal propagation is ''physically'' described by the annihilation and creation operators <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}</math> and <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}^{\dagger}</math>.
| |
| | |
| ==Mathematical structure of quantum theory as a conceptual map==
| |
| One can conclude that the Newtonian analysis of the world into constituent objects has been replaced in terms of a kind of ''interactive'' pattern between the fields and their detection by the observer. The implications of this approach avoids much of our confusion about the wave-particle duality, if we regard the quantum theory of light detection as a kind of conceptual map of the ''events'' in the world, in a similar manner to the [[Minkowski diagram]] in Einstein's theory of special relativity.<ref>D. Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity (Benjamin, New York, 1965), p. 173.</ref>
| |
| | |
| Because of the relativistic unification of the particle and wave pictures into the single expression of Eq. (1), there appears an illusion of co-existence of these two pictures. However, a little reflection shows that this view of the quantum theory of light detection is very far from the truth indeed. Let us say, for example, that an observer wants to measure the speed of a light signal. He or she must then construct a particle frame of detection that registers where, and when, a light signal is emitted and then absorbed. (We note that the propagation of a light signal is, in fact, what Einstein studied in the development of his special relativity theory). Such an observer cannot survey the whole of Eq. (1); he or she can only obtain the propagation details of the operators <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}</math> and <math>{\hat{a}}_{i}^{\dagger}</math>. Therefore, the exact information of the phase factor <math>e^{i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} -
| |
| \omega_{i}t)}</math> (<math>e^{-i(\mathbf {k}_{i}\cdot\mathbf {r} - \omega_{i}t)}</math>) is unknown to the observer; for this, an interference experiment is required.
| |
| | |
| Thus, the quantum theory of light detection can be envisioned as a conceptual map, having an invariant structure, containing the 'real' set of fields and their detection which can be observed experimentally. "In all maps (conceptual or otherwise) there arises the need for the user to locate and orient himself by seeing which point on the map represents ''his'' position and which line represents the direction in which ''he is'' looking".<ref>D. Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity (Benjamin, New York, 1965), p. 182.</ref> In doing this, one recognizes that every act of ''actualization'' yields a unique perspective on the world. But with the aid of the quantum theory of light detection, one can relate what is seen from one perspective (the particle frame) to what is seen from another (the wave frame). In this way one can abstract out what is invariant under a change of perspective, which leads to an ever-improving knowledge and understanding of the actual character of the radiation system under investigation. Therefore, when an observer, performing experiments with different frames of detection, tries to understand what is observed, he or she need not puzzle about which view is 'correct' and which view is 'wrong' (wave or particle). Rather, he or she consults the map provided by Eq. (1) and tries to come to a common understanding of why in each way detecting the same field has a different perspective. Different frames may be related to one another, for example, by employing the de Broglie relation, <math>p=h/\lambda</math>.
| |
| | |
| ==Notes==
| |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| | |
| ==Further reading==
| |
| *{{citation|first1=Q.|last1=Zheng|first2=T.|last2=Kobayashi|title=Quantum Optics as a Relativistic Theory of Light|journal=Physics Essays|volume=9|year=1996|page=447|doi=10.4006/1.3029255|bibcode = 1996PhyEs...9..447Z }}. Annual Report, Department of Physics, School of Science, University of Tokyo (1992) 240.
| |
| *S. Kochen, Symposium of the Foundations of Modern Physics: 50 Years of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment, (World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1985), pp. 151–69.
| |
| *H. Everett, Rev. of Modern Phys. 29, 454 (1957).
| |
| *G. Bene, Physica, A242, 529 (1992).
| |
| *S. Kochen, The interpretation of quantum mechanics, (Preprint, Princeton Univ., 1979).
| |
| *L. Smolin, The Bekenstein bound, topological quantum field theory and pluralistic quantum field theory, (Preprint, Penn State, 1995).
| |
| *C. Rovelli, Int. J. of Theor. Phys. 35, 1637 (1996).
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| {{multicol}}
| |
| * [[Interpretation of quantum mechanics]]
| |
| * [[Many-worlds interpretation]]
| |
| * [[Philosophy of information]]
| |
| * [[Philosophy of physics]]
| |
| * [[Quantum information]]
| |
| * [[Quantum entanglement]]
| |
| * [[Coherence (physics)]]
| |
| * [[Quantum decoherence]]
| |
| * [[EPR paradox]]
| |
| * [[Local hidden variable theory]]
| |
| | |
| {{multicol-break}}
| |
| * [[Quantum Zeno effect]]
| |
| * [[Measurement problem]]
| |
| * [[Measurement in quantum mechanics]]
| |
| * [[Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory]]
| |
| * [[Objective collapse theory]]
| |
| * [[Wave function collapse]]
| |
| * [[Quantum gravity]]
| |
| * [[Pondicherry interpretation]]
| |
| * [[Penrose interpretation]]
| |
| {{multicol-end}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Concepts in physics]]
| |
| [[Category:Quantum mechanics]]
| |
| [[Category:Philosophy of physics| ]]
| |