- Email: [email protected]
Quantum physics? Illusion or reality?
Book Reviews
531
conventional lines of scientific thinking, so successful in the past. For those who are satisfied with an excellent presentation of the mathematical arguments but ignore the physical contradictions this volume can certainly be recommended.
Silverspring, Eagle Lane Watchfield Swindon Wiltshire SN6 8TF England
Quantum Physics? Hlusion or Reality?--by Alastair Rae,
be followed by many pages of mathematical analyses and applications. The physical contradictions persist in the minds of many readers. This short and very clearly written book by Alastair Rae takes a very different approach. Instead of describing interference effects and the consequent wave interpretation, he relies on the polarisation of such individual particles (photons) and the effect of polarisers to illustrate their quantisation behaviour. The mathematical formulation is abandoned in favour of more physical models and alternative theories are outlined in attempts to account for these physical observations. Nevertheless many of these answers remain quite difficult to accept as explanations in our physical world. One of the most widely accepted views by the Copenhagen school (closely associated with Bohr) is that matter only becomes real when it has been observed. Prior to that it is in a sense purely imaginary. Can I then claim that since I have never observed Bohr and never will, I can consider him as non-real and not having to meet conventional physical laws of existence. Will observation through another individual (observed or non-observed by me) do equally well in confirming his existence? Is this validity of indirect observation confined to humans or does it include animals who come in for their food, and if so how far down the scale? Was the unobserved creation of the Earth and of the Sun or Moon not real in the absence of external observer? Does the pattern of behaviour or interaction between objects only become real when photographs intended to illustrate them are examined perhaps months later, did this "reality" never exist or was it "repealed" if the photographs were wrongly developed much later? Another version outlined by the author is that Schrtdinger's equations, etc., can lead to a multitude Universes of which as observer I can only occupy one and remain unconscious of the immense array of other versions of me in different Universes whose main purpose is to satisfy these multiple solutions to the equations. This appears as an extremely expensive way of satisfying a desired mathematical relationship, especially if many of the scientific problems persist in these multiple Universes. A different approach outlined by Rae depends on the size of the system being studied; macroscopic or submicroscopic. Only systems with the latter dimensions can be quantised, but who fixes these quanta dimensions and why? Again it can be argued that the measuring equipment should also be considered as part of the overall quantised scheme of the Universe and therefore not always real, even when being used by the remainder. Rae then takes another and very different approach when he considers relegating the whole system into a state of consciousness or to our sense perceptions where they occur as some structure within the mind. With this model the apparent contradictions of wave and particle only exist in some sense in the mental structure, where they cannot be dismissed or contradicted by simple physical experiments. However this interpretation is only achieved at the expense of convening a major part of modern physics into a branch of human psychology. One then has to explain observed experimental results in terms of psychological disturbances. In that case can the wave-particle controversy be ascribed to some form of schizophrenia?
Cambridge University Press, 1986. Canto Edition 1994, £4.95. Many of us will remember our long-gone student days when we were introduced to quantum theory with its extremely effective mathematical formulations and also to the far less convincing attempts to reconcile two apparently contradictory physical models--a well-characterized subatomic particle such as an electron but one which at the same time possesses extensive wave properties extending over distances thousands of times greater than its atomic particle dimensions. It is then distributed in some mysterious way over these much greater distances but from which it can collapse to its true particle dimensions at greater than the speed of light. The particle model is most often used when a chemical, atomic or nuclear reaction of molecular, atomic or atomic dimensions is studied. The wave model is adopted when interference effects are involved as where these require some form of simultaneous interaction with an extensive and regular structural arrangement extending over thousands of atomic spacings. For this purpose the mathematics of a regular wave structure extending over these extensive distances appears essential. It was not always stressed that in interference at very low intensities each particle had to react equally with itself spread simultaneously over these numerous well-spaced sites. Interference is not a cooperative behaviour and, for example, in electron diffraction successive electrons might be meters apart to avoid specimen overheating! Each electron must react with itself however widely spread it is. Attempts to reconcile these two models occupied the attention of such leading physicists as Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr and Heisenberg for many years but without reaching any generally accepted agreement. Attempts to explain this fundamental divergence led to such extraordinary models as the Schr6dinger cat, neither alive nor dead until observed, and indeed to a universe not in real existence until someone had observed it. Who and where was he during this creation7 A more recent solution of this fundamental problem is simply to claim that this problem does not exist. Thus papers on this important but awkward subject may be rejected by a leading scientific journal without further adequate refereeing. Unfortunately this solution was not sent on to these most eminent scientists; if valid as claimed it would have saved them many years of unnecessary work and argument. Another model involved the probability concept, and this allowed a single particle such as an electron to be present in some form simultaneously at many remote sites and hence able to interact with itself at these very different locations. This appeared to introduce to many of us a highly misleading use of the probability concept to justify the successful mathematical analysis involved. Physically an elementary panicle cannot occupy many clearly separate and distant locations simultaneously without requiring a complete change in our physical concept of what is meant by an individual particle. Attempts to introduce a workable and acceptable physical model to explain interference by a single particle have continued in many recent books on modern physics. In most student textbooks the description of the physical model is usually limited to a very short and unconvincing section, to
A. Charlesby
532
Book Reviews
In the final chapter of this excellent "survey of the conceptual problems of quantum physics" the author refers to a disappointing lack of practicable experimental tests to confirm or disprove the ideas he discusses. In fact readers of Radiation Physics and Chemistry may disagree with this conclusion. A beam of high voltage electrons passing through a thin film may be used to determine its lattice structure, for which a wave interpretation appears necessary, with each single electron spread as a wave over many hundreds of spacings. However the same beam, passing through the same film may cause chemical changes, in which each electron reacts with a chemical bond in its immediate vicinity, i.e. behaving as a subatomic particle. One may therefore query our basic concept of space and time. This can lead to a direct relation between particle mass and frequency so that quantization of mass leads to quantization of time, or more generally of space--time. It is most surprising that this concept of a quantized space--time is not even mentioned as a possible approach although it has been discussed by several authors, Wouthuysen (Int. J. Theor. Phys., 1994), in terms of a space-time lattice and by Charlesby (Radiat. Phys. Chem., 1977-1985) as a unit of
space-time simply related to rest-mass (So = h/moc2). This approach also avoids the wave-particle duality controversy, and accounts for the distinction made by Rae between submicroscopic and macroscopic systems, ascribed to the vast difference in their mass and so units. Does the apparent objection to consider this form of quantization parallel that to particle mass a century ago? Much of the mathematics involved in present-day quantum theory appears as a means of retaining this continuous approach to the time and distance variables in areas where it is no longer appropriate. Similarly statistics for large populations cannot be extended down to fractions of a single individual, nor can differential equations be used for numbers of people to less than one unit. To do so would lead us into new Uncertainty Principles in biological and other fields.
Silverspring, Eagle Lane Watchfield Swindon Wiltshire SN6 8TF England
A. Charlesby
531
conventional lines of scientific thinking, so successful in the past. For those who are satisfied with an excellent presentation of the mathematical arguments but ignore the physical contradictions this volume can certainly be recommended.
Silverspring, Eagle Lane Watchfield Swindon Wiltshire SN6 8TF England
Quantum Physics? Hlusion or Reality?--by Alastair Rae,
be followed by many pages of mathematical analyses and applications. The physical contradictions persist in the minds of many readers. This short and very clearly written book by Alastair Rae takes a very different approach. Instead of describing interference effects and the consequent wave interpretation, he relies on the polarisation of such individual particles (photons) and the effect of polarisers to illustrate their quantisation behaviour. The mathematical formulation is abandoned in favour of more physical models and alternative theories are outlined in attempts to account for these physical observations. Nevertheless many of these answers remain quite difficult to accept as explanations in our physical world. One of the most widely accepted views by the Copenhagen school (closely associated with Bohr) is that matter only becomes real when it has been observed. Prior to that it is in a sense purely imaginary. Can I then claim that since I have never observed Bohr and never will, I can consider him as non-real and not having to meet conventional physical laws of existence. Will observation through another individual (observed or non-observed by me) do equally well in confirming his existence? Is this validity of indirect observation confined to humans or does it include animals who come in for their food, and if so how far down the scale? Was the unobserved creation of the Earth and of the Sun or Moon not real in the absence of external observer? Does the pattern of behaviour or interaction between objects only become real when photographs intended to illustrate them are examined perhaps months later, did this "reality" never exist or was it "repealed" if the photographs were wrongly developed much later? Another version outlined by the author is that Schrtdinger's equations, etc., can lead to a multitude Universes of which as observer I can only occupy one and remain unconscious of the immense array of other versions of me in different Universes whose main purpose is to satisfy these multiple solutions to the equations. This appears as an extremely expensive way of satisfying a desired mathematical relationship, especially if many of the scientific problems persist in these multiple Universes. A different approach outlined by Rae depends on the size of the system being studied; macroscopic or submicroscopic. Only systems with the latter dimensions can be quantised, but who fixes these quanta dimensions and why? Again it can be argued that the measuring equipment should also be considered as part of the overall quantised scheme of the Universe and therefore not always real, even when being used by the remainder. Rae then takes another and very different approach when he considers relegating the whole system into a state of consciousness or to our sense perceptions where they occur as some structure within the mind. With this model the apparent contradictions of wave and particle only exist in some sense in the mental structure, where they cannot be dismissed or contradicted by simple physical experiments. However this interpretation is only achieved at the expense of convening a major part of modern physics into a branch of human psychology. One then has to explain observed experimental results in terms of psychological disturbances. In that case can the wave-particle controversy be ascribed to some form of schizophrenia?
Cambridge University Press, 1986. Canto Edition 1994, £4.95. Many of us will remember our long-gone student days when we were introduced to quantum theory with its extremely effective mathematical formulations and also to the far less convincing attempts to reconcile two apparently contradictory physical models--a well-characterized subatomic particle such as an electron but one which at the same time possesses extensive wave properties extending over distances thousands of times greater than its atomic particle dimensions. It is then distributed in some mysterious way over these much greater distances but from which it can collapse to its true particle dimensions at greater than the speed of light. The particle model is most often used when a chemical, atomic or nuclear reaction of molecular, atomic or atomic dimensions is studied. The wave model is adopted when interference effects are involved as where these require some form of simultaneous interaction with an extensive and regular structural arrangement extending over thousands of atomic spacings. For this purpose the mathematics of a regular wave structure extending over these extensive distances appears essential. It was not always stressed that in interference at very low intensities each particle had to react equally with itself spread simultaneously over these numerous well-spaced sites. Interference is not a cooperative behaviour and, for example, in electron diffraction successive electrons might be meters apart to avoid specimen overheating! Each electron must react with itself however widely spread it is. Attempts to reconcile these two models occupied the attention of such leading physicists as Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr and Heisenberg for many years but without reaching any generally accepted agreement. Attempts to explain this fundamental divergence led to such extraordinary models as the Schr6dinger cat, neither alive nor dead until observed, and indeed to a universe not in real existence until someone had observed it. Who and where was he during this creation7 A more recent solution of this fundamental problem is simply to claim that this problem does not exist. Thus papers on this important but awkward subject may be rejected by a leading scientific journal without further adequate refereeing. Unfortunately this solution was not sent on to these most eminent scientists; if valid as claimed it would have saved them many years of unnecessary work and argument. Another model involved the probability concept, and this allowed a single particle such as an electron to be present in some form simultaneously at many remote sites and hence able to interact with itself at these very different locations. This appeared to introduce to many of us a highly misleading use of the probability concept to justify the successful mathematical analysis involved. Physically an elementary panicle cannot occupy many clearly separate and distant locations simultaneously without requiring a complete change in our physical concept of what is meant by an individual particle. Attempts to introduce a workable and acceptable physical model to explain interference by a single particle have continued in many recent books on modern physics. In most student textbooks the description of the physical model is usually limited to a very short and unconvincing section, to
A. Charlesby
532
Book Reviews
In the final chapter of this excellent "survey of the conceptual problems of quantum physics" the author refers to a disappointing lack of practicable experimental tests to confirm or disprove the ideas he discusses. In fact readers of Radiation Physics and Chemistry may disagree with this conclusion. A beam of high voltage electrons passing through a thin film may be used to determine its lattice structure, for which a wave interpretation appears necessary, with each single electron spread as a wave over many hundreds of spacings. However the same beam, passing through the same film may cause chemical changes, in which each electron reacts with a chemical bond in its immediate vicinity, i.e. behaving as a subatomic particle. One may therefore query our basic concept of space and time. This can lead to a direct relation between particle mass and frequency so that quantization of mass leads to quantization of time, or more generally of space--time. It is most surprising that this concept of a quantized space--time is not even mentioned as a possible approach although it has been discussed by several authors, Wouthuysen (Int. J. Theor. Phys., 1994), in terms of a space-time lattice and by Charlesby (Radiat. Phys. Chem., 1977-1985) as a unit of
space-time simply related to rest-mass (So = h/moc2). This approach also avoids the wave-particle duality controversy, and accounts for the distinction made by Rae between submicroscopic and macroscopic systems, ascribed to the vast difference in their mass and so units. Does the apparent objection to consider this form of quantization parallel that to particle mass a century ago? Much of the mathematics involved in present-day quantum theory appears as a means of retaining this continuous approach to the time and distance variables in areas where it is no longer appropriate. Similarly statistics for large populations cannot be extended down to fractions of a single individual, nor can differential equations be used for numbers of people to less than one unit. To do so would lead us into new Uncertainty Principles in biological and other fields.
Silverspring, Eagle Lane Watchfield Swindon Wiltshire SN6 8TF England
A. Charlesby