Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- 1 The nature of things
- 2 Matter and motion in space and time
- 3 Reality large and small
- 4 The language of Nature
- 5 More is different
- 6 The machinery of particle discovery
- 7 The Standard Model
- 8 The proliferation of matter
- Epilogue: Beneath reality
- Appendix How quantum mechanics is used
- References
- Index
Epilogue: Beneath reality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- 1 The nature of things
- 2 Matter and motion in space and time
- 3 Reality large and small
- 4 The language of Nature
- 5 More is different
- 6 The machinery of particle discovery
- 7 The Standard Model
- 8 The proliferation of matter
- Epilogue: Beneath reality
- Appendix How quantum mechanics is used
- References
- Index
Summary
The odd concepts of quantum physics are nearly a century old. They may seem difficult and forbidding at first sight, but the barrier to understanding is not their difficulty but their differentness. Unlike classical models, quantum theory does not attempt to simulate Nature. It gives us information about observations of Nature. But it does contain a “theoretical entity” that claims to contain all information, observation notwithstanding, namely the quantum state vector in Hilbert space. Scientists routinely use the language of Hilbert space, and nonscientists do not use it at all, which is understandable but unfortunate. A sort of baby-talk has become the lingua franca for much of the popular journalism of quantum physics, an awkward patois that combines some of the early groping language of Bohr, de Broglie, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg with more modern words about symmetries and states. Earnest amateurs still ask me about the mystery of Bohr orbits. There is no mystery because there are no orbits, except as historical curiosities. Same for “wave–particle duality.” Same for “quantum jumps.” A friend once asked me to address a philosophy seminar about the “paradoxes of quantum mechanics.” He said he had approached C. N. Yang first, who replied “What paradoxes?” There are some mathematical and logical rough spots in our current best theory of matter, and perhaps some of them can be framed as paradoxes. But the theory is actually rather straightforward, and it has a perfectly clear interpretation linked to experiments that, in their simplest form, anyone can perform (and students do routinely in college laboratories). No empirical observations are known that are inconsistent with the quantum framework.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Constructing RealityQuantum Theory and Particle Physics, pp. 262 - 265Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011