Niels Bohr |
Quantum Mechanics took
shape about ninety years ago. During the twenties, Niels Bohr and Werner
Heisenberg formulated the Copenhagen interpretation, which added to the
mathematical formulation some additional considerations such as the following:
- Physical
systems with properties that can take concrete and opposing values (such
as direction of polarization or spin) in certain
circumstances can be in a state where those properties do not take a
defined value, but keep all the possibilities simultaneously open. For
example, the direction of polarization of a photon can be simultaneously north-south
and east-west. The spin of a particle can be both up
and down.
- The act
of measuring one of these properties causes the collapse
of the wave function, which means that the result of the
measurement can only be one of the possible values. The wave function
gives us the probability of obtaining each value.
- It is
possible to build a physical system formed by two or more interlaced
particles
with respect to some property, which means that if one of the
particles collapses with a certain value, the other particle has no choice
but to collapse with the other.
During the 1930s,
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen formulated the EPR paradox, a mental experiment
that indicated that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies
that causality may not be local. In simpler words: there could be causes that
would cause instantaneous effects at a great distance. Let’s look at a
simplified version of the experiment:
According
to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, you can build a physical
system made up by two photons, one with north-south polarization and the other
east-west. One of these photons stays in our lab, while the other is sent a light-year
away. Then we measure the polarization of the first photon and find that it is
north-south. We will automatically know that the other has collapsed with the
east-west polarization, at the very moment when we measured the first. For that
to happen, an instantaneous effect would have to take place at a distance of
one light-year. Thus causality would not be local.
John Stewart Bell |
For thirty years, the
EPR experiment remained mental. But in 1964 John Stewart Bell formulated a
mathematical expression (Bell’s inequality) whose result would be different
starting from Einstein’s local causality, or from the Copenhagen interpretation.
This made it possible to perform experiments that measure the value of that
expression, thus automatically transforming the EPR mental experiment into a
physical experiment.
Bell’s inequality has
been measured in numerous experiments carried out from 1972 to the present. In
all cases the prediction of the Copenhagen interpretation has been confirmed,
as against Einstein’s.
Let’s look at some typical
errors regarding Bell's inequality:
- Bell’s inequality shows that there are causeless effects. This is false. What it proves
is a successful
prediction of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Consequently, if this interpretation
is true, instantaneous effects may occur at a distance (that is, causality would not
be local).
In these experiments there is always a cause: the measurement of the
property in question.
- Bell’s inequality shows that the Copenhagen interpretation is true. This is also false. It proves
that this
interpretation has made a correct prediction, therefore throws down an
attempt to prove it false. But, like any physical theory, it could be
overthrown by another experiment.
What would happen if
the Copenhagen interpretation turned out to be wrong? In fact, other
interpretations have been formulated, although at the moment they are followed
by a minority. In such a case, Bell’s inequality would have to be reinterpreted, and the conclusion may
not follow that causality may not be local.
That is, there are
many questions to be solved, as usually happens in science. What can be said is
that the conclusions some attempt to draw from this inequality to favor their
materialist ideology have no basis.
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment