Heisenberg and the wave–particle duality (original) (raw)
Related papers
Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Heisenberg and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics By Kristian Camilleri Cambridge Uk Cambridge University Press 2009, 2009
was a pivotal figure in the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, and also one of its most insightful interpreters. Together with Bohr, Heisenberg forged what is commonly known as the 'Copenhagen interpretation'. Yet Heisenberg's philosophical viewpoint did not remain fixed over time, and his interpretation of quantum mechanics differed in several crucial respects from Bohr's. This book traces the development of Heisenberg's philosophy of quantum mechanics, beginning with his positivism of the mid-1920s, through his neo-Kantian reading of Bohr in the 1930s, and culminating with his 'linguistic turn' in the 1940s and 1950s. It focuses on the nature of this transformation in Heisenberg's thought and its wider philosophical context, which have up until now not received the attention they deserve. This new perspective on Heisenberg's interpretation of quantum mechanics will interest researchers and graduate students in the history and philosophy of twentieth-century physics.
In search of Schrödinger's electron - and Einstein's atom !
This article continues to explore a possible physical interpretation of the wavefunction that has been elaborated in previous papers (see http://vixra.org/author/jean\_louis\_van\_belle). It zooms in on the physical model it implies for an electron in free space, but then also discusses the wavefunction for particles (including non-charged particles) in general. While it basically concludes that the mainstream interpretation of quantum physics (the Copenhagen interpretation) is and remains the most parsimonious explanation, it also argues that one or two extra assumptions-the wavefunction as a two-dimensional self-sustaining electromagnetic or gravitational oscillation in space-would make more frivolous explanations (many worlds, pilot wave, etcetera) redundant.
“Bohr’s Complementarity Principle is wrong because electrons have the properties of particles and sometimes the properties of waves together.” Adrian Ferent “The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong because Bohr’s Complementarity Principle is wrong.” Adrian Ferent “The wave-particle duality explained: the electron contains a photon, this means in some experiments the electron behaves as a wave.” Adrian Ferent “For Einstein wave-particle duality was a new kind of difficulty, but was not a difficulty and was explained with Ferent Quantum Gravity.” Adrian Ferent “I am the first who explained the wave-particle duality for the electron: the electron is a photon around Dark Matter.” Adrian Ferent “I discovered what the electron is and I explained the wave-particle duality with Ferent Quantum Gravity.” Adrian Ferent “All the physicists, the greatest scientists, the Nobel Laureates…did Not explain the wave-particle duality.” Adrian Ferent
Bohr, Heisenberg and the divergent views of complementarity
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2007
The fractious discussions between Bohr and Heisenberg in Copenhagen in 1927 have been the subject of much historical scholarship. However, little attention has been given to Heisenberg's understanding of the notion of complementary space-time and causal descriptions, which was presented for the first time in Bohr's lecture at the 1927 Como conference. In this paper, I argue that Heisenberg's own interpretation of this notion differed substantially from Bohr's. Whereas Bohr had intended this form of complementarity to entail a choice between a space-time description of the electron in an atom, and defining the energy of a stationary state, Heisenberg interpreted the 'causal' description in terms of c-function in configuration space. In disentangling the two views of complementarity, this paper sheds new light on the hidden philosophical disagreements between the proponents of these two founders of the so-called 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum mechanics. r
Schrödinger's interpretation of quantum mechanics and the relevance of Bohr's experimental critique
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 2006
E. Schro¨dinger's ideas on interpreting quantum mechanics have been recently re-examined by historians and revived by philosophers of quantum mechanics. Such recent re-evaluations have focused on Schro¨dinger's retention of space-time continuity and his relinquishment of the corpuscularian understanding of microphysical systems. Several of these historical re-examinations claim that Schro¨dinger refrained from pursuing his 1926 wave-mechanical interpretation of quantum mechanics under pressure from the Copenhagen and Go¨ttingen physicists, who misinterpreted his ideas in their dogmatic pursuit of the complementarity doctrine and the principle of uncertainty. My analysis points to very different reasons for Schro¨dinger's decision and, accordingly, to a rather different understanding of the dialogue between Schro¨dinger and N. Bohr, who refuted Schro¨dinger's arguments.
A new interpretation to quantum theory
Physics Essays, 2009
In the present paper, in order to explain the phenomenon, transmittance T = finite for particles having energy E Ͻ V 0 , on the basis of particle nature of matter particles, a theory has been proposed searching out such a cause because of which this phenomenon actually takes place. The cause is that the spin motion in any body develops the tendency of linear motion in the direction of its spin angular momentum L s . Consequently, every spinning body possesses direction of its linear motion. In order to verify its truth, solid evidence has been given from the well-established existing knowledge. The spin motion in the body develops spin momentum p s in the direction of its L s , and when the body starts traveling along the direction of its L s , the p s of the body together with its linear momentum p lin conserve its motional momentum p m ͑=p lin + p s ͒. In order to verify its truth, solid evidence has been given from the well-established existing knowledge. When the body starts traveling along the direction of its L s , the velocity v of the body varies with the frequency of its spin motion . An expression has been established describing how these vary. The truth of this expression has been verified for electrons. Applying it to the orbiting electrons, the expression for frequency of spectral lines ͑͒ of the hydrogen atom has been deduced, which agrees exactly with the expression obtained by Bohr's theory. The present deduction is comparatively more sound and convincing The important point with the present concept ͑i.e., searched out cause͒ is that, it gives very clear picture of how ͑i.e., the way͒ the phenomenon T = finite actually behaves, which unfortunately we do not at all find with the concept of the wave nature of the matter particles. Further, the concept of wave nature gives rise to number of very serious such questions of which no explanation can be given, which implies that the concept of wave nature is not true. Pointing out and discussing some such serious questions, it has been tried to prove that the concept of their wave nature is not true. Applying the searched out cause, it has also been tried to explain how and why the spectral lines and their fine structures are obtained, how and why their frequency, intensity and thickness vary. The present explanation gives a very clear and complete picture of almost all the events of the phenomenon such that they can very easily be visualized by us in our imagination as to how they take place in actual practice. With existing theories, we do not find so. There has been deduced an expression for intensity of spectral lines, too, along with the deduction of an expression for their frequency. In the deduction of an expression for frequency of spectral lines applying Bohr's theory, there have been pointed out three very serious flaws. In the last, it has been tried to explain and prove that the velocity of a photon ͑c͒ varies with its frequency of spin motion . An expression to explain how c of a photon varies as varies has also been deduced. The current concept that the photons are the discrete quanta of energy h, which provide mass h / c 2 and momentum h / c to them, is not true. The photon is the radiation energy carrier ͑like an electron which carries charge͒, and the radiation energy contained in the photon gives its mass according to the mass-energy equivalence relation of the theory of relativity. This mass is its rest mass, which has been determined. The existing concept that, after attaining relativistic velocity by the electron when its velocity v starts decreasing, its mass m e starts increasing in order to maintain the conservation of its kinetic energy and linear momentum, is not true. The frequency of spin motion of an electron in fact starts increasing in order to maintain the conservation of its motional energy ͑i.e., kinetic energy+ spin energy͒ and motional momentum ͑i.e., linear momentum+ spin momentum͒, because it actually possesses the motional energy and motional momentum, not only kinetic energy and linear momentum.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Particle-Wave Duality
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Particle-Wave Duality, 2020
Imaginary Conversation between fictional physicists Dr. Hup: You cannot know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time. The more you know about one, the less you know about the other. If you are 100% certain about one, you would know zero about the other. Dr. Klass: You cannot know the momentum or speed of an object UNLESS you know its location in at least two points in time and space. If you don't know the particle's location, then you can't know its speed or momentum. As you probably figured out, HUP stands for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Klass stands for the classical approach to understanding physics. How can there be such a clash between quantum and classical physics that these subfields of physics tell us opposite things? Do these characters (Hup and Klass) live in the same universe, or do they live in parallel universes where the laws of physics are different? A New approach to quantum physics is emerging whose advocates are trying to revise quantum physics and make it more classical and understandable to the rational mind. Particle physicist, Fritjof Capra, and others have made us aware that the founders of quantum physics were largely influenced by Eastern mysticism, and we see much of that influence injected into the theory such as the role of consciousness in determining the outcome of an experiment, contradictions existing in the same theory, particles being in multiple states at the same time, the observer and observed being inseparable, and there being no mind-independent, objective reality. The initiate to quantum physics is told that quantum theory is counterintuitive and cannot be understood with common sense or rationality. Of course, every dilettante in physics knows of Erwin Schrodinger's famous cat-box thought experiment in which he attempts to reduce to absurdity the mysticism of the Copenhagen Interpretation and the role of consciousness in determining the fate of the poor cat. The intent of the new approach is to remove this mysticism from quantum physics and return physics to scientific realism. This approach is sometimes called the Reconstruction of Quantum Physics.
The Schrödinger's wave function can naturally be realized as an 'instantaneous resonant spatial mode' in which quantum particle moves and hence the Born's rule is derived after identifying its origin. This realization facilitates the visualization of 'what's really going on?' in the Young's double-slit experiment which is known to be the central mystery of quantum mechanics. Also, an actual mechanism underlying the 'spooky-action-at-a-distance', another mystery regarding the entangled quantum particles, is revealed. Wheeler's delayed choice experiments, delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and delayed choice entanglement swapping experiments are unambiguously and naturally explained at a single quantum level without violating the causality. The reality of Nature represented by the quantum mechanical formalism is conceptually intuitive and is independent of the measurement problem. Quantum mechanics is an extremely successful theoretical description of Nature, especially in the sub-atomic world where the classical mechanistic concepts seem to fail completely. Nevertheless, for more than ninety years, there is no consensus about what kind of physical reality is being revealed by the quantum formalism irrespective of its ability to predict accurately the exact outcomes of various experiments. According to Prof. Feynman, the central mystery of quantum mechanics is contained in the Young's double-slit experiment which is about the wave-particle duality of a single quantum [1]. Twenty years later, he once again declared that the entanglement of two or more particles is one more deep mystery in the quantum world [2]. It is not only important but also unavoidably necessary to conceptually visualize the true picture of reality described by the quantum formalism not only for solving the above mentioned mysteries, but also for further progress in fundamental physics like quantum gravity, unification of fundamental forces, quantum cosmology e.t.c. In Young's double-slit experiment, a monochromatic source emits coherent light which passes through a double-slit assembly to a detector screen where an interference pattern reminiscent of wave nature is formed. On the other hand, photoelectric effect, Compton effect, Raman effect, e.t.c., strongly suggests the existence of particle nature of light. The usual intuition about particle is that it is a localized entity present at some definite position in space, whereas the wave is a delocalized one and hence they are incompatible with each other. But, light seems to possess both natures simultaneously; however, only one nature seems to be observable at a given moment. These mutually exclusive natures of light's behavior is generally known as wave-particle duality. Not only light, but all material particles like electrons, protons, atoms, molecules e.t.c., are known to exhibit the wave-particle duality [3–7]. The quantum formalism itself never imposes any limitations on its validity only to microscopic objects and it can, in principle, be applied to materials of any scale. See the Fig. 1 below representing the Youngs's double-slit experiment. Consider the single particles to be photons. In this case, each photon is fired at the double-slit one-at-a-time such that the time interval between consecutively fired photons may be greater than the time of arrival of any one photon from the source to the screen. This assures that, each and every photon is really independent and they don't know each other. As a large number of photons are being collected on the screen, an interference pattern gradually emerges. If slit-1 (slit-2) is blocked, then a clump pattern corresponding to single slit diffraction of slit-2 (slit-1), supposed to be of particle nature, appears on the screen. This suggests that every individual photon is aware of whether one or both slits are open. The interference pattern suggests to infer that a single particle-like photon 'somehow' passes through both the slits simultaneously. A surprise occurs when a detector observes through which slit a photon is really passing through. It always appears as going through slit-1 or slit-2 like a particle but never through both the slits simultaneously like a wave. However, now the interference pattern disappears and two clump patterns appear which look like a proof for the observed particle behavior at the respective slits. This is generally known as quantum enigma i.e., when photons are watched, they appear to go through only one slit like particles. But, when they are not watched, then they seem to go through both the slits simultaneously like a wave. Now, consider the Wheeler's delayed-choice situation [8]. The screen is removed quickly exposing the twin telescopes, after a photon has already passed through the double slits. The interference pattern which would have occurred on * Electronic address: dr.n.gurappa@gmail.com