Why are quantum mechanics always confused?

Read the following articles carefully, and think about the questions raised at the end of the article, and strictly follow the interaction: leave a message in the comment area in the comment area, you will have the opportunity to get a set of high -quality popular science books provided by the People's Post and Telecommunications Publishing House "Scientific Books for Juveniles". Essence

We think that quantum particles are strange to treat quantum particles as classic particles, but their behavior is very unsuspecting. (Or, the problem is to treat quantum particles as "objects", which is first raised by Michael Brooks.) Many "weird" examples brought by many quantum sexuality originated from this fact -at least it is at least it is A variety of different interpretations of quantum mechanics brings these weirdness. However, no matter what quantum physics is dealt with, objects that require quantum physics described are not the same as classic objects, or even things like or similar to dust, sand or glass.

Quantum particles are much smaller than the classic particles we usually see, which is incredible. Because of this, almost (in the words of Philip Ball) "everything is different in quantum scale" (that is, not just strange). This means that the words in classic physical contexts such as "objects" and "particles" are problematic. Even the word "wave" in quantum mechanics often misleads people. This is mainly because the quantum wave function is only a mathematical object represented by the equation -strictly speaking, they do not completely correspond to the description of reality.

More specifically, if the particles are waves, the waves of waves are not so strange, and the stack of waves is not so strange. (In other words, treating the X of quantum as a wave is also a problem -as just mentioned.)

Technically, quantum X (that is, what has not been named, because there is no suitable vocabulary, for the time being expressed in letters) and quantum Y interference -just like waves on the ocean. Therefore, when quantum X and quantum Y interfere, they are superimposed together. Of course, classic objects cannot interfere with another classic object -at least cannot interfere in the same way as quantum objects. Classic X and classic Y cannot be in a stacked state.

However, we are not talking about classic objects here, or even classic particles!

Therefore, why is the behavior of quantum x like classic objects or even classic particles? Conversely, if a classic object is manifested like a quantum X, it will also look strange. But this did not happen. Many people think that quantum phenomenon is strange because they treat them as classic phenomena, but their behavior is very atypical. In fact, we only have a quantum phenomenon that is manifested in quantum -just as the classic phenomenon is manifested in a classic way.

When Michael Brooks used the word "single positive nuclear charge, or proton", he showed us the problem of the word "particle" again. Here we can definitely get a definition, that is,:

Proton = (single) positive nuclear charge

Therefore, in this case, the particles are just a positive charge. At present, it is difficult to charged positive (or negative) charges -at least when it is isolated, it is like this, because they always show the characteristics of waves. Even if one proton (or another particle) contains other characteristics other than charge (such as spin, quality, size, etc.), the word "particle" still does not seem to be appropriate ... but it is also useful!

If we return to the description of the quantum object, a method that shows this description (in many methods) is to clarify the derturota molecule (composed of 60 carbon atoms) Essence Fullene is a huge quantum "object". The size is about < g data-mml-node = "math"> meters, or one -trillion -dollar meter! What does this have to do with the waves in the ocean or any other type of classic (or macro) waves?

The following discussions are as close to the classic particles in quantum mechanics as possible.

When the wave becomes a particle

As mentioned, when two quantum waves meet, they will superimposed. This superposition is the addition of two waves of waves of any given position. In addition, this "Jiahe" can be more like a particle when the two waves are separated. (This is roughly consistent with Max Boan's position in the 1920s of the 1920s -see the "Boan Law" for details). This kind of particle -like thing is the result of two or more quantum wave superimposed. In other words, if you put one palion with another (or put one peak with another peak), then you will get things similar to particles or entities. In other words, when the wave is squeezed, fused or mixed together, it becomes more like a hard entity ... Of course, all these words and descriptions are essentially similar!

In other words, we still use "waves" and "particles" (and "wave valley" and "wave peaks" here, let alone the words "squeeze", "fusion" and "mixed"). This is mainly because I have no choice, so I can only do so.

In fact, all these words belong to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. This means that when explaining quantum mechanics, simply using monotonous variable X and Y is not much help. Of course, this is not helpful for any interested layman.

Smoke Dragon's body

Although the beginning of the article quoted a paragraph of Michael Brooks, he also wrote in other parts of the same book:

Bohr believes that the ultimate entity behind Xue Dingzhang's fluctuation equation is neither wave nor particles, so it cannot be described in any terms we can handle.

Of course, Brooks' remarks only quoted Niels Bohr's remarks did not mean that he agreed with Bohr's point of view. Nevertheless, Bohr did propose a problem that needs to be solved -even if people do not need to accept his overall position or explanation. (Many people do disagree with Bohr's point of view -especially physicists such as Albert Einstein and later David Blum.)

John Archibald Wheeler, 1911-2008)

American theoretical physicist John Achibold Waller also studied these issues, or at least similar issues. He expressed his views with the image of "smoke dragon". He pointed out that between experimental input and experimental output (or observation), "we have no right to talk about what exists." Therefore, words like "particles" and "waves" will naturally be suspected -at least when these two words are used in the experiment (that is, the "authenticity" of the body of the dragon's body) is like this.

Therefore, before the output (that is, the existence and occurrence and occurrence before the actual experiment or observation) describes the quantum x as "particles" or "wave", and the existence of quantum x after experiment or observation output describes the existence between quantum X in this way the difference. However, even if the experiment (or observation) has been performed, that is, when the quantum wave function has "collapsed", the use of these classic vocabulary may still have problems.

Quote Bohr's words again. According to Brooks, Bohr believes

Once the measurement is performed, the type of measurement will determine what we can see.

more importantly,

For example, if you use a instrument to detect the location of an object in the space, you will see an object that has a clear position in the space -that is, the entity we call a particle.

The focus here is that the use of the word "particle" to refer to the things on the body of the dragon, and the things that refer to the "space of the instrument detected the space of the object" are suspicious. So this (ontology?) X is not only a measurement or observation of the previous particles, nor the particles after the measurement (or observation).

All in all: the word classic "particle" is problematic under all quantum conditions.

Note:

If you think of quantum particles as particles (or objects), there is a problem, then it is also a problem to treat atoms as particles.

Maybe an atom cannot be regarded as a "object" at all. After all, if the atomic nucleus of the 的 atom is considered as lemon, the diameter of the edge of the atom (defined by its electrons) will be 2.5 miles. Therefore, in proportion, the nucleus is extremely incomparable to the entire atom. Each electron in the atom is incredible than its atoms. (It is equivalent to a circle with a diameter of 2.5 miles. It is even smaller! There is no accurate statement about the size of the electron.)

Of course, most or even all (classic) entities are composed of element atoms, so there is no problem in itself.

Author: Paul Austin Murphy

Translation: Nothing

Graduate: Tibetan idiot

Original link: quantum particles are neither classical partics nor weird objects

FU

blessing

li

profit

shi

Time

jian

between

Today we will send "Science Books for Teenagers" provided by Renmin Post and Telecommunications Publishing House.

This series of books is a well -known scientific and cultural brand fruit shell for adolescent science science books. It is selected and interesting and unique scientific topics. It aims to expand the knowledge of young people through the form of popular science reading. Chemistry, biological, geographical 5 scholars.

The physical section introduces force, sound, light, energy and high -energy particles. The chemical album introduces the basic methods of chemistry experiments, food industry, solvents and solunts, metals and their compounds, molecules and atoms. Mathematical division introduces rational, real numbers, equations, universal formulas, functions, parallel lines, triangles, polygons, circles, coordinates, statistics and probability, etc. The biological biological classification introduces the relationship between biological and environment, cell biology, ecosystems, bi evolution, growth and development and other content. The geographical section introduces the earth, continents and countries, and magnificent mountains and rivers we live. In the form of reading notes in the book, a precise annotation of professional nouns was made, and a knowledge point was summarized, which was associated with the knowledge points of the curriculum standard. This book is not only the explanation of the knowledge of physics, but also focuses on the actual use of physical knowledge points in production and life, which is very suitable for young readers to read.

Interactive question: Can you think of mathematics or physical concepts misunderstood by many people?

Please leave a message in the comment area to participate in the interaction in strict accordance with the interaction: those who do not meet the requirements of the format.

As of 12:00 noon on Thursday, friends who participated in the interactive message ranked second, third, and sixth, will get a book we sent (the same comments with the same number of likes are tied, the next order Add one, such as the reader after the second place as the third place, and so on).

In order to ensure that more friends can participate in the award, friends who have won the award in the past four periods cannot receive prizes, and the ranking will be postponed in order

*This event is limited to the WeChat platform

Translation content only represents the author's point of view

Does not represent the position of the Institute of Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

Edit: Tibetan idiot

- END -