Can Bohr and Einstein both be right?

[Stick72]

I am not a scientist but someone interested in broad concepts, so please excuse the naivety. Just looking for answers...

I understand that single (quantum level) particles fired through a double slit created a standard wave pattern over time. Could it be (or is it) argued that every outcome for an individual particle exists at the same time? So time can be considered layered at the quantum level. 

Min this way every outcome of the particle exists at the same time and each interacts with the other.

When we interact with the particle we randomly define one of these time layers, to create our momentary reality, to the exclusion of all the other layers. Like taking a chair away in musical chairs.

With entanglement, do multiple particles born of a singular event occupy different time layers? In this instance, if one particle outcome became defined then its 'time layer' would be defined, or taken. Then other particles born of the same event would be forced to only occupy the remaining time layers (or all the other possible outcomes).

Of course at a macro scale the many quantum events would be perceived quite differently. More like a cathode ray tube, where many tiny events build a picture which we then perceive as our reality - one in which time is more linear as an outcome of quantum events already taken place.

As I say, I am not well versed in matters of science but these thoughts have been lingering for me and it would be satisfying to know more - in simple speak please!

Thank you 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Stick72 said:

Could it be (or is it) argued that every outcome for an individual particle exists at the same time? So time can be considered layered at the quantum level. 

It is true that every potential outcome exists at the same time. In which case, you could consider each outcome to occur in different layers.

Is it enough to layer just time? Would you have to layer space and time to allow the different physical outcomes to co-exist? 

Anyway, it sounds like you have come up with something pretty close to the Many World's Interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation (Everett was a pretty smart guy, so well done for coming up with the same/similar idea!)

[I'm not sure how entanglement would fit, so I won't comment on that bit]

 

[Tub]

3 hours ago, Stick72 said:

 

As I say, I am not well versed in matters of science but these thoughts have been lingering for me and it would be satisfying to know more - in simple speak please!

Thank you 

Hello Stick72. Funnily enough, there was a programme on BBC tv last night ( The Secrets Of Quantum Physics ), which touched on your question : can Bohr and Einstein both be right ? One answer came from a late Irish scientist/philosopher, John Stewart Bell, who said:

" Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth and wrong. Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, wilfully obscure and right ".

I don't know enough to say if that's the end of the debate but it's certainly a definite answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell

 

 

[Stick72]

Thanks for your replies and for the extra reading! 

[Stick72]

I wanted to expand on the explanation of the idea above regarding entanglement, because 'Strange' was unsure how it would fit...

As I understand it entanglement means that particles behaviour is linked regardless of distance. They decohere when we interact with them. This seems to me to have many parallels with the many worlds concept for single particles, or as I described as multiple outcomes existing at the same time within notional layers of time?

If two or more particles were born of the same event could they not be considered to occupy the same group of 'many worlds' so defining their entangled state? 

If particles share the same group of multiple outcomes existing at the same time within notional layers of time, then when one outcome becomes defined through interaction the other possible outcomes are also defined at the same time. This means that, regardless of distance, the two or more particles born of the same event all become defined instantaneously regardless of distance. Also that they can never provide the same outcome.

Does this fit with the science?

Thanks

[Stick72]

Now I've been reading about entanglement swapping on wiki... Does this phenomenon require there to be some kind of common link between the entangled groups that 'swap'?

Is there a causal effect from the decoherence of one entanglement that effects a separate entanglement through a linked particle common to both?

Thanks

 

 

[studiot]

On ‎12‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:51 AM, Tub said:

Hello Stick72. Funnily enough, there was a programme on BBC tv last night ( The Secrets Of Quantum Physics ), which touched on your question : can Bohr and Einstein both be right ? One answer came from a late Irish scientist/philosopher, John Stewart Bell, who said:

" Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth and wrong. Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, wilfully obscure and right ".

I don't know enough to say if that's the end of the debate but it's certainly a definite answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell

 

 

I have to say that I am not a fan of \prof Al-Khalili's presentations.
I find them shallow and glossed over in the difficult bits.
Sometimes they are at best just misleading as with the TV 'science'' programme referred to above.

In particular the probability explanation provided for the slits just does not work mathematically, it is too much of a simplification that is IMHO misleading.

Probabilities are defined as positive real numbers. You have to work with complex numbers to achieve wave cancellation, despite the pretty diagram animation AK shows.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to introduce negative probabilities and work with them.

 

 

 

[Tub]

13 hours ago, studiot said:

I have to say that I am not a fan of \prof Al-Khalili's presentations.
I find them shallow and glossed over in the difficult bits.
Sometimes they are at best just misleading as with the TV 'science'' programme referred to above.

In particular the probability explanation provided for the slits just does not work mathematically, it is too much of a simplification that is IMHO misleading.

Probabilities are defined as positive real numbers. You have to work with complex numbers to achieve wave cancellation, despite the pretty diagram animation AK shows.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to introduce negative probabilities and work with them.

 

 

 

Unlike your good self, studiot, i'm not qualified enough to criticize the scientific content of that BBC programme ( The Secrets of Quantum Physics ), but i do agree about the overall presentation style - though perhaps that is more due to the  whims of the director and producer of the programme , rather than Prof.A-K's choice: i suppose they have to make the programme  as visually entertaining as possible in the time available. I'm sure he could make the  programme with much more depth but that might go over the heads of the largest target audience - interested amateurs like myself - and scientists wouldn't need to watch anyway. I did enjoy it - at my level - but if, as you say, the programme  contains somewhat inaccurate information, then that can't be overlooked. Whatever the case, i'll watch next week's episode a little more warily. Thanks.

 

On 12/9/2017 at 11:46 AM, Stick72 said:

Now I've been reading about entanglement swapping on wiki... Does this phenomenon require there to be some kind of common link between the entangled groups that 'swap'?

Is there a causal effect from the decoherence of one entanglement that effects a separate entanglement through a linked particle common to both?

Thanks

 

 

Here's another link you may find helpful: http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/02/quantum-entanglement-who-is-right.html

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Tub said:

Unlike your good self, studiot, i'm not qualified enough to criticize the scientific content of that BBC programme ( The Secrets of Quantum Physics ), but i do agree about the overall presentation style - though perhaps that is more due to the  whims of the director and producer of the programme , rather than Prof.A-K's choice: i suppose they have to make the programme  as visually entertaining as possible in the time available. I'm sure he could make the  programme with much more depth but that might go over the heads of the largest target audience - interested amateurs like myself - and scientists wouldn't need to watch anyway. I did enjoy it - at my level - but if, as you say, the programme  contains somewhat inaccurate information, then that can't be overlooked. Whatever the case, i'll watch next week's episode a little more warily. Thanks.

 

 

I'm not complaining about the BBC science programmes in general, some are absolutely brilliant and I have linked to them here myself.

The Earth Science ones are especially good as was the one on Electricity a couple of years back.

But my comments on the JAK style are twofold.

1) Asking questions the audience (or anyone else) can't answer and then handwaving when things get difficult.

2) Presenting explanations as though they were cut and dried Physics, not the subjects of considerable modern debate.

Here is an interesting two pages from a Roger Penrose book covering much of the same ground.
RP has the guts to admit when we just don't know and offers an evently balanced presentation of different speculations by world class scientists.

 

#The Large, the Small and the Human Mind

[Tub]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I'm not complaining about the BBC science programmes in general, some are absolutely brilliant and I have linked to them here myself.

The Earth Science ones are especially good as was the one on Electricity a couple of years back.

But my comments on the JAK style are twofold.

1) Asking questions the audience (or anyone else) can't answer and then handwaving when things get difficult.

2) Presenting explanations as though they were cut and dried Physics, not the subjects of considerable modern debate.

Here is an interesting two pages from a Roger Penrose book covering much of the same ground.
RP has the guts to admit when we just don't know and offers an evently balanced presentation of different speculations by world class scientists.

 

#The Large, the Small and the Human Mind

Thanks for the Penrose. That line "..certain quantum physicists hold different views at the same time. "  made me smile. I've ordered the book, along with another of his, ( Consciousness and the Universe: Quantum Physics, Evolution, Brain and Mind ) so he can thank you too for a few more royalties.

 

 

[tuco]

Let me just note that its kind of amusing that this subject is, correctly, labeled as philosophy. 

Quote

There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

 

1

 The Character of Physical Law - Richard Feynman

Edited December 11, 2017 by tuco

[studiot]

An alleged conversation at the Royal Astonomical Society conference November 6th 1919.

Silberstein "Professor Eddington, you must be one of the three persons in the world who understand General Relativity"

Whilst waiting for a reply as Eddington thinks,

Silberstein "Don't be modest, Eddington"

Finally

Eddington "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by studiot

[tuco]

To me it's fascinating that the nature of the universe does not correspond to what we know from our lives. Then again, standing on a coast, seeing ships coming in, recognizing the surface is not flat, is a similar feeling.