9789180578202 by Smakprov Media AB

Thesituation today

All theseﬁftyyears of consciousbroodinghavebrought me no nearer to theanswertothe question,'What arelight quanta?' Nowadaysevery Tom, Dick andHarry thinks he knowsit, butheis mistaken.(AlbertEinstein)1

Istill do notbelieve that thestatistical method of theQuantum Theoryisthe last word,but for thetimebeingI am aloneinmyopinion.(Einstein)2

Quantumtheoryiscertainly imposing.But an innervoicetells me that it is notyet therealthing Quantumtheorysaysa lot, butdoesnot really bringusany closer to thesecretofthe OldOne.I,at anyrate, am convincedthatHe(God) does notthrow dice.(Einstein)3

It is wrongtothink that thetaskofphysics is to find outhow Nature is.Physics concerns what we sayabout Nature./…/Thosewho arenot shockedwhentheyfirst come across quantumphysics cannotpossiblyhaveunderstood it 4

Quantumstatesare thekey mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is thereforesurprising that physicists have been unable to agreeonwhata quantum statetruly represents.One possibility is that apurequantum statecorresponds directly to reality. However, thereisa long historyof suggestionsthata quantumstate (evena purestate)representsonlyknowledgeorinformation aboutsomeaspectofreality.Hereweshowthatany model in whicha quantum staterepresents mere information aboutanunderlyingphysicalstate of thesystem, andinwhich systemsthatare prepared independently have independentphysicalstates, must make predictionswhich contradict thoseofquantum theory.5

Iamconvinced that quantum mechanicsisnot afinal theory.I believethisbecause Ihave neverencountered an interpretation of thepresent formulation of quantum mechanicsthat makessense to me.I have studied most of them in depthand thoughthardabout them,and in theend Istill can'tmakerealsense of quantum theory as it stands.(LeeSmolin)6

In spiteofmuchprogressclarifyingfoundational issues in quantum mechanics, thereremainspersistentevidencethatquantum mechanicsisanapproximation to adeepertheory. (Lee Smolin).7

Noteven Einstein knew what lightquantawas Despitethe fact that every Tom, Dick andHarry thinks he knew it.And despitethe fact that a theory of quantumought to be absolutely essentialand crucialtohow ourworld actually works.

If youdearreaderstill thinkheknewit, (after all, he waswinnerofthe NobelPrize in physicsin1921ina relatedsubject,you mightsay), you have thereforewrong.Noother physicists also knew or know. But today thereare so many newdiscoveriesand factsthatanyonecan understandand find theanswertothisEinstein'squestion.

Albert Einstein,ina lettertohis oldfriendMichael Besso,1955.

1 Albert Einstein, On Quantum Theory,1936. 2 Albert Einstein, On Quantum Physics,LettertoMax Born,December 12, 1926. 3 NielsBohr, On Quantum Physics

4 Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph. On thereality of thequantum state. lan 5l.arXiv.org> quant-ph> arXiv:1111.3328

(Submittedon14Nov 2011 (v1),lastrevised 18 Nov2012(this version,v3))

From Wikipedia 6

From Wikipedia 7

This fact also explains whyBohrwritesthatiftheywho “are not shocked” of thequantum mechanics, have notunderstood it.I myself am most shockedbythe physicists didnot listenmoretowhatEinsteinhad to say. Though Bohr hada completely Institute behind ...But maybetoday,you say. Nowinthe 2000s?

It is possible nowtoday that someonehas definedand described what light quanta andall otherelectromagnetic quanta are. It is possible. Anditwould be really sadifnoone hasyet done it,let me know in that case. Ihavefolloweddevelopmentsinthe fields for many decades, buthavenot seen anyofthis. (Quotations from Smolin gives theevidenceofthis.)

Nevertheless, aclear theory aboutlight quanta is fundamentalfor the wholeofmodernphysics,which is called quantum physics and quantum mechanics. Howisthatpossible?Iwill return to theissue only mention that onereasonwhy notthe good Einstein couldexplain what light quanta are, is that all thefacts of thematterwerenot availableatthis time.Itwas missing importantpieces. Buttoday,lacking nothing.

As we see from thequotesthe oldmasterEinsteinwereinmanyways critical of thenew physicstheory, as in theearly 1900s became known quantummechanicsormoregenerally mentionedquantumphysics. Even to us more contemporary physicistsLee Smolin,Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph… NordoesSmolinthought quantummechanicswas thelastword; it wasnot therealthing,there was something deeper …

In the1920s it became scientificestablishmentwithMax Planck, Albert Einstein,Niels Bohr,WernerHeisenbergand others faced with therequirement to solvethe mysteryoflight peculiarnature..For in thelate1800s hadaccurate measurements demonstrated that the speed of light(c) wasconstant, andin1900 couldMax Planck show that it wassomehow quantised when light energy wasproportionalto hisconstant(h).

Albert Einstein than used Planck's relationship in 1905 to explain theresultsofthe photoelectriceffectwhich showed that theenergyE of ejected electronswas dependentuponthe frequencyƒ of incident light as described in theequationE=hƒ. It is ironic that in 1921 Albert Einstein wasawarded theNobel Prizefor this discovery,and then for more than thirty yearslater,frustratedask hisold friend what light quanta are, as we see from thequote.

Thelong-acceptedviewofthe lighttothe undulating,sooncameto naught when itssectionalsidewas discovered throughexperiments Wave–particle dualityisthe conceptthateveryelementaryparticleor quanticentityexhibitsthe properties of notonlyparticles,but also waves. It addresses theinability of theclassicalconcepts"particle"or "wave" to fully describethe behaviourofquantum-scale objects. As Ein-

steinwrote:"It seemsasthough we must usesometimes theone theory andsometimesthe other, whileattimes we mayuse either.Weare faced with anew kind ofdifficulty. We have twocontradictory pictures of reality;separately neitherofthemfully explains thephenomena of light,but together they do”.(Wikipedia)

In 1954hewrote:

In theyearnineteen hundred, in thecourse of purely theoretical(mathematical)investigation, MaxPlanckmadea very remarkable discovery: thelaw of radiationofbodiesasa function of temperaturecould not be derived solelyfromthe Laws of Maxwellianelectrodynamics.

To arrive at resultsconsistentwiththe relevant experiments, radiation of agiven frequencyf hadtobetreated as though it consistedofenergy atoms(photons) of theindividualenergyhf, whereh is Planck's universalconstant.

This discoverybecamethe basisofall twentieth-century researchin physicsand hasalmostentirelyconditioned itsdevelopment ever since. Withoutthisdiscovery it wouldnot have been possible to establisha workable theory of moleculesand atomsand theenergyprocesses that govern theirtransformations.Moreover,ithas shatteredthe wholeframework of classicalmechanics andelectrodynamics andset sciencea fresh task:that of findinga newconceptualbasis forall physics. Despiteremarkablepartial gains, theproblem is still farfroma satisfactory solution.8

Andagain in theend of hislifeweread: theproblem is stillfar from a satisfactory solution. Well, what's up today? Is thereany possibilityafter so many yearsofresearchtoget asense of these problems.Can we get amorelogical andclearer picturehow this light andmatterasboth waves andparticles actually works?

Letmestart with alongerquote from afairlyrecentarticle in the BBC's magazineFUTURE. This is to show some of theproblemsthat 9 quantumtheorydrawn with over theyearsand whichincreasinglycome to crystallise. Thetitle is: Will we ever…understand quantumtheory? Quantummechanicsmustbeone of themostsuccessful theories in science. Developed at thestart of thetwentieth century, it hasbeen used to calculate with incredible precisionhow lightand matterbehave— how electricalcurrentspassthrough silicon transistorsincomputercircuits, say,orthe shapes of moleculesand howtheyabsorblight.Muchoftoday’sinformationtechnologyreliesonquantum theory, as do some aspects of chemical processing, molecularbiology, thediscoveryofnew materials, andmuchmore.

Yetthe weirdthing is that no oneactually understandsquantum theory.The quotepopularly attributed to physicistRichard Feynmanis probably apocryphal,but still true:ifyou thinkyou understand quantummechanics, then youdon’t.Thatpoint wasprovedby apollamong 33 leadingthinkersat aconferenceinAustria in 2011.Thisgroup of 10

Albert Einstein,1954 8 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130124-will-we-ever-get-quantum-theory 9 arXiv.org> quant-ph >arXiv:1301.1069

physicists,mathematiciansand philosopherswas given 16 multiplechoice questions aboutthe meaningofthe theory, andtheir answers displayedlittleconsensus.

Actually ascandal,the base of ourtechnologyissomething that no oneunderstands!Least of alldothe cultural elite, Isuppose.And how aboutthe politicianswho hascontrol over themoney to CERN and otherresearch institutes?

Is that whywestill arestuck with oil, coal,gas andnuclear power plants that threaten to poison anddestroy ourenvironment andthe earth?Mustwewaituntil sealevel risessomuchthatmillions andbillions of people forced to flee to safer places?And howshould we handle allthese hundreds of nuclearpower plants that arebeing overflow like FukushimainJapan?Almostall areplaced near an ocean. Howshould we handle afailedfinancial global system?The articleinthe BBC's magazine FUTURE continues:

That’s becausequantum theory posesall sortsofstrange questions that stretchthe limits of ourimagination —forcing us,for example, to conceive of objectslikeelectrons that can,indifferent circumstances, be eitherwaves or particles.

Please see page 45 apicture of an electronwhich is neithera wave or aparticle!The article in theBBC’s magazine continues:

Oneofthe most controversial issues concerns theroleofmeasurements. We’reusedtothinkingthatthe worldexistsina definite state, andthatwecan discoverwhatthatstate is by making measurements andobservations. Butquantum theory (“quantummechanics”isoften regarded as asynonym,althoughstrictlythatreferstothe mathematical methodsdevelopedtostudy quantumobjects)suggests that,atleast for tiny objects such as atomsand electrons,there maybenouniquestate before an observation is made:the object exists simultaneously in several states,calleda superposition.Beforemeasurement,all we cansay is that thereisa certainprobabilitythatthe object is in stateA,orB,or so on.Onlyduringthe measurementisa “choice” made aboutwhich of these possiblestatesthe object will possess: in quantum-speak, thesuperpositionis“collapsed by measurement”.It’snot that,beforemeasuring, we don’tknowwhich of theseoptions is true —the fact is that the choice hasnot yetbeenmade.

This is probably themostunsettlingofall theconundrumsposed by quantumtheory. It disturbedAlbertEinsteinsomuchthatherefused to acceptitall hislife. Einstein wasone of thefirst scientiststoembrace thequantum world: in 1905heproposedthatlight is not acontinuous wave butcomes in“packets”,orquanta, of energy, calledphotons, whichare in effect “particles of light”. Yetashis contemporaries, such as Niels Bohr,WernerHeisenberg andErwin Schrödinger, deviseda mathematical description of thequantum worldinwhich certainties were replacedbyprobabilities,Einsteinprotested that theworld could notreallybesofuzzy.Ashefamouslyput it,“Goddoesnot play

dice.” (Bohr’sresponseislessfamous, butdeserves to be betterknown: “Einstein, stop tellingGod what to do.”)

AndmorefromBBC’smagazine: Wonderful, wonderfulCopenhagen

Schrödingerfigured outanequationthat, he said,expressed allwecan know abouta quantumsystem. This knowledgeisencapsulated in asocalledwavefunction, amathematicalexpression from whichwecan deduce,for example, thechances of aquantum particle beinghereor there, or beinginthisorthatstate.Measurement “collapses” thewave function so as to give adefiniteresult.But Heisenberg showed that we can’t answer everyquestionabout aquantum system exactly. This is Heisenberg’suncertainty principle: themorepreciselyyou determine an electron’smomentum(as measured by mass multipliedbyvelocity),the lessyou canknowabout itspositioninspace, andviceversa. In other words, thereare some pairsofpropertiesfor whichanincreasinglyaccuratemeasurement of one of them rendersthe otherever fuzzier. What’s more,noone really knowswhata wave function is.Itwas long consideredtobejusta mathematical convenience, butnow some researchers believeitisa real,physicalthing.Somethink that collapse 11 of thewavefunctionduringmeasurement is also arealprocess, like the bursting of abubble; others seeitasjusta mathematical device putinto thetheory“by hand”– akindoftrick.The Austrianpollshowedthat these questions aboutwhether or not theact of measurementintroducessomefundamental change to aquantum system still causedeep divisions amongquantum thinkers,withopinionssplit quiteevenly in severalways.

Bohr,Heisenberg andtheir collaborators puttogether an interpretation of quantummechanics in the1920sthatisnow namedafter their workplace: the Copenhagen interpretation.Thisarguedthatall we can know aboutquantum systemsiswhatwecan measure, andthisisall thetheoryprescribes –thatitismeaningless to look forany “deeper” levelofreality. Einstein rejected that,but nearly two-thirdsofthose polledinAustria were prepared to saythatEinsteinwas definitely wrong. However,only21% felt that Bohr wasright,with30% saying we’llhavetowaitand see.

Nonetheless, their responsesrevealed theCopenhageninterpretation as stillthe favourite(42%).But thereare othercontenders, oneofthe strongest beingthe Many Worlds interpretation formulated by Hugh Everett in the1950s. This proposes that everypossibilityexpressed in a quantumwavefunctioncorresponds to aphysicalreality: aparticular universe. So with everyquantum event— two particlesinteracting,say —the universesplitsintoalternative realities, in each of whicha differentpossibleoutcome is observed.That’scertainly oneway to interpret themaths,althoughitstrikes some researchers as obscenelyprofligate. Oneimportant pointtonoteisthatthese debatesoverthe meaningof quantumtheoryaren’tquite thesameaspopular ideasabout whyitis weird. Many outsiders figure that they don’tunderstandquantumtheo-

ry becausetheycan’t see how an object canbeintwo places at once,or howa particle can also be awave. Butthese things arehardlydisputed amongquantum theorists. It’s been rightlysaidthat, as aphysicist, you don’tever come to understand them in anyintuitive sense; youjustget used to acceptingthem. Afterall,there’s no reason at alltoexpectthe quantumworld to obey oureveryday expectations.Onceyou accept this allegedweirdness, quantumtheorybecomes afantastically useful tool, andmanyscientists just useitassuch, likea computer whoseinner workings we take forgranted.That’swhy most scientists whouse quantumtheorynever fret aboutits meaning— in thewords of physicist David Mermin,they“shut up andcalculate”, whichiswhathefeltthe Copenhagen interpretation wasrecommending. So will we ever gettothe bottomofthese questions?Someresearchers feel that at leastsomeofthemare notreally scientific questions that can be decidedbyexperiment, butphilosophical ones that maycomedownto personal preference. Oneofthe most tellingquestions in theAustrianpoll waswhether therewill still be conferences aboutthe meaningofquantum theory in 50 yearstime. Forty-eightpercentsaid“probably yes”,only15% said “probablyno”.Twelvepercent said “I’llorganiseone no matterwhat”, butthat’sacademics foryou.

More from from BBC’smagazine:

In theoreticalphysics, quantumfield theory (QFT) is atheoretical framework forconstructingquantum mechanical models of subatomicparticles in particle physicsand quasiparticles in condensed matterphysics.A QFT treats particlesasexcited states of an underlying physical field, so these arecalledfield quanta

Forexample,quantum electrodynamics (QED) hasone electronfield and onephotonfield;quantum chromodynamics (QCD) hasone fieldfor each type of quark; and, in condensed matter, thereisanatomicdisplacement fieldthatgives rise to phonon particles. Edward WittendescribesQFT as "byfar"the most difficulttheoryinmodernphysics. *

Anothertypeofcriticism delivered thefamousphysicist andphilosopher Karl Popper.(Seefootnote 10).Hehas writtenand analysed much how andwhy modern physicswhich,withits Copenhageninterpretation, came in asevere crisis in the1920s.Hewrites: Today, thephysics of acrisis. /... /But thereisalsoanotheraspectof this crisis: it is also acrisis of understanding. This crisis of ourunder-

standing is aboutasold as theCopenhageninterpretationofquantum mechanics 12

ThecrisisPoppersaw in thenew physicswas,inhis opinionessentially on twothings: a) interference andintrusion of subjectivism in physics; andb)thatthe idea prevailedthatsaysthatquantum theory hasreached afulland finaltruth.Thisisoften thecontentsofany criticismofthe Copenhageninterpretation, anditwas Einstein.

Fact is,asweperhaps now understand,thateven todayafter more than ahundred years, no physicist knowswhata lightquantum is Leastofwhata quantumjumpis. This is stillthe situation in modern physicstoday in theyearofgrace 2015.Anyonewho thinks otherwise arewrong,asEinsteinsaid. His frustratingissueinthe lettertohis old friend just before he died in 1955 is still unanswered,which mayseem strange,but is afact. ForinstanceLee Smolin wrotejusta fewyears agoaswehaveseenabove:

In spiteofmuchprogressclarifyingfoundationalissues in quantummechanics, thereremains persistent evidencethatquantum mechanicsis an approximation to adeeper theory.

Theseinphysics learnedmen consider thereforethatquantum theory is notcomplete, thereissomething missingand it is notenoughdepth. Even if Tom, Dick andHarry thinktheyknowit, it is notthe last word Here comesa valuationofthisphysics:"by far" themostdifficult theory in modern physics!

Thereare physicists whohavegoneone step furtherthanEdward Witteninthe quoteabove,who findselementsofquantum physics "difficult"tounderstand. They arguethatitisnot only difficulttounderstand;theydonot understand it at all.

Onemay askwhy this is so.One answer is that quantumphysics is averysuperficial history. "Shutupand calculate",I thinkquite accurately captures what it's about, namely that quantummechanicsis merely aset of mathematical formulas withoutdeeper thoughtbehind.

In thecaseofa science, it is aquestionofhow nature is built and works. This meansthateverylittlephotonoflight,everyatomicparticleisinand forthatreasonreflectsa broadercontext.A contextthat includes differentlevels,fromthe smallest unit to thelargest.Each smallparticle, each photon,neutrino, electron,atom, etc. thereforere-

Popper, Karl QuantumTheoryand theSchisminPhysics.(1982) London:Hutchinson. 12

ISBN 0-8476-7019-8.

Wikipedia: SirKarlRaimund Popper CH FBAFRS[4](28 July 1902 –17September 1994) was an Austrian-Britishphilosopher andprofessor. He is generally regarded as oneofthe greatest philosophersofscience of the20thcentury. Popperisknown forhis rejectionofthe classicalinductivist viewsonthe scientific method,in favour of empirical falsification: Atheoryinthe empiricalsciences cannever be proven,but it canbefalsified,meaning that it canand should be scrutinised by decisive experiments.Ifthe outcomeofanexperimentcontradicts thetheory, oneshouldrefrain from ad hocmanoeuvres that evade thecontradictionmerely by making it less falsifiable. Popper is also knownfor his opposition to theclassicaljustificationistaccount of knowledgewhich he replaced with critical rationalism, "the firstnon-justificationalphilosophyofcriticism in thehistory of philosophy."

flectsone wayoranother thegreatest.Conversely, in thevaststructure we must be able to recognisethe structureand function of the smallest.Who hasnot thoughtofand compared to an atom with a planetarysystem? Or maybea biological cellwhere thenucleus corresponds to abiologicalcellnucleus?How cana proton have similarities to acellnucleus?Orour galaxy mightreflect howour universe is structured andfunctions?Has theappearance of ourgalaxysomethingtodowiththe emergenceofthe universe itself. Yes, whyisa photon of light physically seen so much likeanelectronand what is thedifference? Whyhas onemassand notthe other; whyhaveone electricchargeand notthe other? Whyisnatureatomised, composed of quanta?Inwhatway is ouruniverse andthe wholeworld it?

That thoughtiscontrarytothe quantumfield theory,which says that foreveryparticlethere is aspecial field. Fora photon of light aspecial field, theneutrinoanother,for theelectrona third, etc. Whilenoone really knowswhatsucha fieldis, really.Nowonderthatthe theory is considered themostdifficult of alltheories.

Ithink thenaturelurking on abig secret we have notyet discovered. At leastnot thekindofquantum physicswecurrently have.Two questions, therefore, involvingeachother:

What is aquantum jump andwhat arelight quanta?

Thefirst questionis, therefore, thegeneral formulationofEinstein'sspecificquestionabout quantumleapand light.Issuethatnot only he,but virtually allphysicistshavewonderedabout sometime.Ofcourse. Andwhatisthe answer?

Theshort andsimpleansweris: aquantum jump is ajumpora leap between twofundamental states —the mechanical andthe electromagnetic. Butwhatdoesthismean? Mechanical andelectromagnetic states?One answer is that this wasNewton'sand Maxwell'sdiscoveries, andtheyalsoformulatedlawsthrough theirmathematicalformulas. Anotheris: they discovered nature's twoopposing sides!

Nowthe questionis: What is thedeeper andrealmeaning of thesetwo states? Themechanical andelectromagnetic states.And howdothey differ andhow they sticktogether? Thesituationistoday:Nobody knows. Or?Let's go deeper ...let’s go to thephilosophy, somethingthat almost is bannedinphysicstoday.The penaltyfor this is that much of ourunderstanding of naturalprocesses hasbeen lost.AsI seeit. And as Ihopetoshow andprove.

Anew quantumtheory is presentedhere,against the shortcomings of the old, in afew pages. Actually, it is strange that no onehas done thisbefore,think the author. Everyoneknows thatnew facts aboutour world, both in macro and micro cosmos, has rained on us the lastfew decades.

This answertoEinstein's question aboutphotonquanta is absolutely necessary to understand howthe fusion processes on the sun work and howtheyshould andcan be appliedhere on Earth, technically speaking.The usual theory is completely wrong,asprovenbyall the failedconstructions andattempts over more than many, many years. For example.

9789180578202

WHAT ARE LIGHT QUANTA?

Essays ÅkeHedberg

Thesituation today