-
Contents
- Mystery Meteorite: The case for (and against) a rock from Mercury
- Hard Times for Theorists in a Post-Higgs World: The Large Hadron Collider’s big success leaves no clear avenue for new physics
- In the Eye of the Tiger: Global spread of Asian tiger mosquito could fuel outbreaks of tropical disease in temperate regions
- subscribe
- give a gift
- renew
- RSS Feeds
- email alerts
- Digital Edition
- Podcast
- Past issues
-
Contents
- Infection time: Disease is more severe when it hits in the morning, at least in mice
- Explainer: Our bodies’ internal clocks: Biological clocks determine hunger, sleepiness and other daily rhythms
- Flu in the air: Germs tiny enough to pass through surgical masks may cause half of all cases
Web edition: November 5, 2010
Print edition: November 20, 2010; Vol.178 #11 (p. 36)
In a 1905 paper, Albert Einstein proposed that light could travel in the form of particles later called photons. It was one of the pioneering papers in the research that led to quantum mechanics, the mathematical framework for describing matter and energy on a fundamental level. But in his later years, Einstein expressed grave dissatisfaction with quantum mechanics. He was especially unhappy with its description of reality in terms of probabilities, a view developed by the German physicist Max Born. Einstein preferred the deterministic cause-and-effect rigor of classical physics, expressing his displeasure by saying “God does not play dice.” But Einstein’s views on quantum mechanics are often oversimplified. For observable phenomena, he accepted the statistical view of quantum mechanics; his main concern was its incompleteness (in his view) in describing reality. To investigate those views, Science News Editor in Chief Tom Siegfried conducted an “interview” with Einstein via of a number of the physicist’s writings and statements.
In a nutshell, what’s wrong with quantum mechanics?
Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in space and time; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance.
Why were you so upset about quantum theory when much of it was based on your own work?
Yes, I may have started it but I always regarded these ideas as temporary. I never thought that others would take them so much more seriously than I did.
Do you believe the world is totally deterministic, so each effect follows from its causes with complete predictability?
From the point of view of immediate experience there is no such thing as exact determinism.... The question is whether or not the theoretical description of nature must be deterministic. Beyond that, the question is whether or not there exists generally a conceptual image of reality (for the isolated case), an image which is in principle completely exempt from statistics.
Quantum mechanics has been extremely successful. How can you oppose a theory that always gets the right answers?
I consider the methods of quantum mechanics fundamentally unsatisfactory. I want to say straight away, however, that I will not deny that this theory represents an important, in a certain sense even final, advance in physical knowledge.... Probably never before has a theory been evolved which has given a key to the interpretation and calculation of such a heterogeneous group of phenomena of experience.... In spite of this, however, I believe that the theory is apt to beguile us into error in our search for a uniform basis for physics, because, in my belief, it is an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics). The incompleteness of the representation leads necessarily to the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws.
So then are you saying that a statistical interpretation is necessary for observable “material points”?
Experiments lead to the conclusion that energy values lying between the quantum values do not exist…. It seems to be clear, therefore, that Born’s statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible one.
David Bohm proposed a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1952 — what about that?
That way seems too cheap to me.
You say that quantum statistics apply only to ensembles of systems rather than individual particles. Is it possible that nature allows no deeper insight into single systems than quantum mechanics provides?
To believe this is logically possible without contradiction; but, it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot forgo the search for a more complete conception.
So do you believe quantum mechanics is not the final word as a basis for physical theory?
There is no doubt that quantum mechanics has seized hold of a good deal of truth, and that it will be a touchstone for any future theoretical basis.... If one wants to consider the quantum theory as final (in principle), then one must believe that a more complete description would be useless because there would be no laws for it. If that were so then physics could only claim the interest of shopkeepers and engineers; the whole thing would be a wretched bungle.
For sources of Einstein’s comments, visit www.sciencenews.org/einstein
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
Too bad that Science News does not have the intellectual courage to do a similar interview with "global warming" (sorry, that's "climate change", ops, I meant "global climate disruption") skeptics.
GeV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10e−8 kg) at which
quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, the description of sub-atomic particle interactions
in terms of quantum field theory breaks down (due to the non-renormalizability of gravity). At the Planck
scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable to the other forces, and it is theorized that
all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale, but the exact mechanism of this unification remains unknown. Traditionally in theoretical physics the Planck scale is the highest energy scale and all dimensional parameters are measured in terms of the Planck scale. In models of large extra dimensions the fundamental scale is much lower than the Planck. This occurs because the power law of gravity changes. Until we understand the quantum nature of gravity Einstein's "scientific instinct" will continue to remain mere speculation nothing more.
[See"Visualizing the void; How to capture a black hole]
www b2cjersey.us
jordan air max oakland raiders $34--39;
Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;
Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;
gstar coogi evisu true je ans $35;
coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;
coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;
CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $32;
jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $37;
EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $16;
coach okely Adidas CHANEL DG Sunglass $18;
www b2cjersey.us
28Dec09 Updated Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
Hidden Dimensions?
It Is Space-Distance, Not Space-Time
A suggested something that's worth a "work on".
The science establishment would undoubtedly dismsiss it...
Black holes of ALL sizes are constrained-energy mass formats. Like biosphere(s) they require energy to survive temporarily, to avoid as long as possible their energy used to fuel the ongoing cosmic expansion. So are ALL mass formats in the universe.
28Dec09 Updated "Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)] "
the-scientist
A. Its essential statement
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold."
E = Energy content of the universe
m = mass content of the universe
D = distance, Total = in all spatial directions, from the point of Big-Bang, of singularity's energy-mass superposition
At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm, E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
The increase of D is the initial inflation, followed by the ongoing expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.
At 10^-35 seconds, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity starts. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the energetic space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.
B. Some of its further essential implications beyond Einstein-Hubble and re classical-quantum physics
And again and again : "On The Origin Of Origins"
www.the-cientist
1. It promotes commonsensical scientific critical thinking beyond Einstein-Hubble.
The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.
Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.
The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - BY DISPERSION - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.
2. There is no call, no need, for any dark energy. The energy of the universe is conserved. The mass of the universe is conserved in the form of energy, the energy fueling the clusters expansion. At the next universal singularity, at the next D = 0, there will again be E = m for a small fraction of a second...just wait and see...
Following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters and the laws that drive it, based on the E/ m/ D relationship suggested above..
3. There is no call, no need, for a Higgs Particle.
The resolution of energy-mass superposition is reverted when D = 0. Shockingly sad, but must be soberingly faced rationally.
C. Its implications re the origin and nature of life beyond Darwin, re selection for survival
For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of energy within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.
Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.
For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.
The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on direct solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.
D. Towards nothingness, or impansion?
At infinitely large D, at m = nearly 0, E is still constant due to high D. When mass diminishes to near zero, energy does not diminish. This is rational as since the Big-Bang, since the resolution of E/m superposition, E continues - Newtonwise - to impart energy to m, and - quantumwise - to temporarily survive m. When there is no m, at very high D, there is only E left...
So where is the universe heading? Is it heading towards nothingness, or towards impansion? What might happen when very high D is reached? Will this be the oblivion into nothingness, or will this be the start of impansion back towards a cosmic E/m superposition?
Commonsense rational would expect an impansion. Not that it matters to us. It has no bearing on our present or future life. Rationally it is more convenient to accept the rationality of a cyclic cosmos than of a one-time cosmos. It is easier to accept that at some very large D value
there will come into play the cosmic space texture, the gravity monotheism, the space texture laid and memory-strained since inflation.
It is easier to accept that gravity will eventually overcome the fuel-starved expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity. This is easier to accept, even if its origin and nature are still beyond our comprehension.
Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
the-scientist
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.