| 查看: 4048 | 回复: 40 | |||||
yalefield金虫 (文坛精英)
老汉一枚
|
[交流]
波函数----并非统计工具而是物理真实 【转】 已有14人参与
|
||||
|
http://www.edu.cn/ren_yu_zi_ran_ ... 111220_721232.shtml 在《Nature》杂志公布2011年最受欢迎的十大新闻中，排名第6的是： 波函数并非统计工具而是物理真实 据《自然》杂志网站2011年11月17日报道，波函数是量子力学中一个重要且令人费解的核心概念，物理学家用它来确定量子粒子具备某种特性的概率，而英国科学家2011年11月14日发表在arXiv。org网站的一篇论文则提出了一个新观点： 波函数并非统计工具而是物理真实 由英国帝国理工学院的马修·皮由兹领导的三人科学小组在最新发表的论文中指出，如果波函数纯粹只是统计工具的话，那么，时间和空间中互不连贯的量子状态都将可以相互“交流”，这听起来有点不可思议，很难成立，因此波函数必定是物理真实。 研究人员之一、美国南加州克莱姆森大学的理论物理学家安东尼·瓦伦提尼表示：“我们的这篇论文可能具有颠覆效应，在量子力学中，它可能是继贝尔定理之后最重要的结论。” 英国牛津大学的物理学家戴维·华莱士表示，这个理论是他15年的职业生涯内看到的量子力学基础领域最重要的结论。他说：“这一理论表明，人们不能将量子状态解释为一种概率。” 自上世纪20年代开始，科学界在如何理解波函数方面就存在很大争议。丹麦最著名的科学家、哥本哈根大学的尼尔斯·玻尔开创的“哥本哈根解释”认为，波函数是一个计算工具：当被用来计算粒子拥有不同特性的可能性时，它能给出正确的结论。 |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 淘淘 | 热门前沿研究 |
» 猜你喜欢
323求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
一志愿华中农业071010，总分320求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
317求调剂
已经有16人回复
-
287求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
308求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
08工科 320总分 求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
环境学硕288求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
293求调剂
已经有17人回复
-
生物学071000 329分求调剂
已经有5人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 自旋电子学
已经有19人回复
- 有关矢量场的推导计算过程，求高手提点！
已经有4人回复
- 《量子力学》波函数动量和矢量的傅里叶变换
已经有3人回复
- 波函数相位的重要性
已经有10人回复
- VASP计算：如何处理波函数占用空间太大的问题
已经有5人回复
- 【原创】并行自洽计算后得到和节点数一样多的波函数文件wfc
已经有4人回复
- 【求助成功】supercell中DOS计算如何得到合理的电荷密度和波函数？
已经有3人回复
- 【求助】有关波函数复数表达式的物理意义？
已经有15人回复
- 【分享】gaussian中得到波函数文件的方法在AIM进行下一步的计算
已经有4人回复
uuv2010
荣誉版主 (职业作家)
- 1ST强帖: 6
- 应助: 160 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 3.14
- 金币: 3681.7
- 散金: 5802
- 红花: 79
- 沙发: 35
- 帖子: 4560
- 在线: 916小时
- 虫号: 966216
- 注册: 2010-03-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
- 管辖: 第一性原理
★ ★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
fzx2008: 金币+2, 鼓励交流 2012-04-02 10:28:18
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
fzx2008: 金币+2, 鼓励交流 2012-04-02 10:28:18
|
量子力学的确存在很多缺陷，比如各种徉缪，但是迄今为止的看是不可思议但是从量子力学推论出来的东东，都证明了量子力学的正确，比如纠缠态，无论多么不可思议，但是按照量子力学的推论它是成立的，这种技术并且到了实用化的阶段。而违反量子力学结论的东东至今还是没有出现。其实很多人都想推翻量子力学，比如爱因斯坦就不喜欢量子力学，但是他的所有质疑都是推动了量子力学才的发展。 个人认为，科学争论是要以现有、已经掌握的实验现象、实验数据为基础进行争论，纯粹的思辨的、空想的、不以实验数据为基础的讨论是无意义的。比如‘量子力学是否是终极理论’之类的讨论是无意义的。 |
9楼2012-04-02 10:27:01
13楼2012-04-02 10:45:01
yalefield
金虫 (文坛精英)
老汉一枚
- 应助: 129 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 0.17
- 金币: 21238.9
- 散金: 3440
- 红花: 66
- 帖子: 12101
- 在线: 759.1小时
- 虫号: 96063
- 注册: 2005-10-07
- 专业: 高等教育学
- 管辖: 计算模拟
★ ★
franch: 金币+2, 鼓励交流。。。。。呵呵 2012-04-02 09:58:16
franch: 金币+2, 鼓励交流。。。。。呵呵 2012-04-02 09:58:16
|
附件是那篇论文。 Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, Terry Rudolph The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically arXiv:1111.3328v1 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1111.3328 |
» 本帖附件资源列表
-
欢迎监督和反馈：小木虫仅提供交流平台，不对该内容负责。
本内容由用户自主发布，如果其内容涉及到知识产权问题，其责任在于用户本人，如对版权有异议，请联系邮箱：xiaomuchong@tal.com - 附件 1 : 1111.3328v1.pdf
2012-04-02 02:10:55, 538.06 K
3楼2012-04-02 02:12:13
zhangguangping
木虫 (著名写手)
- 1ST强帖: 23
- 应助: 71 (初中生)
- 贵宾: 0.031
- 金币: 1973.1
- 散金: 9059
- 红花: 79
- 帖子: 2681
- 在线: 2128.8小时
- 虫号: 529624
- 注册: 2008-03-20
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 原子和分子物理
15楼2012-04-02 10:50:56
uuv2010
荣誉版主 (职业作家)
- 1ST强帖: 6
- 应助: 160 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 3.14
- 金币: 3681.7
- 散金: 5802
- 红花: 79
- 沙发: 35
- 帖子: 4560
- 在线: 916小时
- 虫号: 966216
- 注册: 2010-03-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
- 管辖: 第一性原理
22楼2012-04-02 11:19:18
uuv2010
荣誉版主 (职业作家)
- 1ST强帖: 6
- 应助: 160 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 3.14
- 金币: 3681.7
- 散金: 5802
- 红花: 79
- 沙发: 35
- 帖子: 4560
- 在线: 916小时
- 虫号: 966216
- 注册: 2010-03-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
- 管辖: 第一性原理
24楼2012-04-02 12:03:44
yalefield
金虫 (文坛精英)
老汉一枚
- 应助: 129 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 0.17
- 金币: 21238.9
- 散金: 3440
- 红花: 66
- 帖子: 12101
- 在线: 759.1小时
- 虫号: 96063
- 注册: 2005-10-07
- 专业: 高等教育学
- 管辖: 计算模拟
|
Nature网站的报导： Quantum theorem shakes foundations http://www.nature.com/news/quant ... -foundations-1.9392 Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2011.9392 The wavefunction is a real physical object after all, say researchers. Eugenie Samuel Reich 17 November 2011 Mathematical device or physical fact? The elusive nature of the quantum wavefunction may be pinned down at last. At the heart of the weirdness for which the field of quantum mechanics is famous is the wavefunction, a powerful but mysterious entity that is used to determine the probabilities that quantum particles will have certain properties. Now, a preprint posted online on 14 November1 reopens the question of what the wavefunction represents — with an answer that could rock quantum theory to its core. Whereas many physicists have generally interpreted the wavefunction as a statistical tool that reflects our ignorance of the particles being measured, the authors of the latest paper argue that, instead, it is physically real. “I don't like to sound hyperbolic, but I think the word 'seismic' is likely to apply to this paper,” says Antony Valentini, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum foundations at Clemson University in South Carolina. Valentini believes that this result may be the most important general theorem relating to the foundations of quantum mechanics since Bell’s theorem, the 1964 result in which Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell proved that if quantum mechanics describes real entities, it has to include mysterious “action at a distance”. Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all. David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says. The debate over how to understand the wavefunction goes back to the 1920s. In the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ pioneered by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, the wavefunction was considered a computational tool: it gave correct results when used to calculate the probability of particles having various properties, but physicists were encouraged not to look for a deeper explanation of what the wavefunction is. Albert Einstein also favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction, although he thought that there had to be some other as-yet-unknown underlying reality. But others, such as Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, considered the wavefunction, at least initially, to be a real physical object. The Copenhagen interpretation later fell out of popularity, but the idea that the wavefunction reflects what we can know about the world, rather than physical reality, has come back into vogue in the past 15 years with the rise of quantum information theory, Valentini says. Rudolph and his colleagues may put a stop to that trend. Their theorem effectively says that individual quantum systems must “know” exactly what state they have been prepared in, or the results of measurements on them would lead to results at odds with quantum mechanics. They declined to comment while their preprint is undergoing the journal-submission process, but say in their paper that their finding is similar to the notion that an individual coin being flipped in a biased way — for example, so that it comes up 'heads' six out of ten times — has the intrinsic, physical property of being biased, in contrast to the idea that the bias is simply a statistical property of many coin-flip outcomes. Quantum information Robert Spekkens, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, who has favoured a statistical interpretation of the wavefunction, says that Pusey's theorem is correct and a “fantastic” result, but that he disagrees about what conclusion should be drawn from it. He favours an interpretation in which all quantum states, including non-entangled ones, are related after all. Spekkens adds that he does expect the theorem to have broader consequences for physics, as have Bell’s and other fundamental theorems. No one foresaw in 1964 that Bell’s theorem would sow the seeds for quantum information theory and quantum cryptography — both of which rely on phenomena that aren’t possible in classical physics. Spekkens thinks this theorem may ultimately have a similar impact. “It’s very important and beautiful in its simplicity,” he says. [ Last edited by yalefield on 2012-4-2 at 02:13 ] |
2楼2012-04-02 02:08:52
 |
4楼2012-04-02 09:13:38
5楼2012-04-02 09:34:48
zhangguangping
木虫 (著名写手)
- 1ST强帖: 23
- 应助: 71 (初中生)
- 贵宾: 0.031
- 金币: 1973.1
- 散金: 9059
- 红花: 79
- 帖子: 2681
- 在线: 2128.8小时
- 虫号: 529624
- 注册: 2008-03-20
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 原子和分子物理
★ ★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
franch: 金币+2, 安慰一下。。呵呵 2012-04-02 09:58:49
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
franch: 金币+2, 安慰一下。。呵呵 2012-04-02 09:58:49
|
终于找到支持了。我在uuv的帖子里面提到波函数是一个真实量的时候，还遭到了批评呢。呵呵呵。 尤其是我说到“以后说不定可以定时定点的拦截电子”的时候，遭到了不确定性原理坚信者的批评。 我觉得现在量子力学的东西，很多都是假设，之所以假设，是因为没有证据，而在这个假设的基础上，得到的很多结论都能解释现有结果，并且做出了一些正确的预测。所以从这个角度讲，量子力学的创建人们很伟大，能够猜出一些东西来。但是随着技术的发展，认识的加深，说不定哪天会把一些问题的真面目搞明白。就像牛顿时代认为牛顿第二定律是主宰物质运动的规律一样，小道小车，大到天体。那个时代不曾想到会有原子的结构，会有电子的存在，在那个世界里面，牛顿第二定律描述他们的运动显得“苍白无力”(不过说不定，电子的运动也是遵守牛顿第二定律的，只不过，那个时间尺度可能需要阿秒来衡量，毕竟电子也是一种物质)。等到量子力学的诞生，才解释了一些牛顿定律没法解决的问题. 问题是：量子力学是物质运动描述的终点吗？现在的量子力学观点是完全对的吗？ 答案肯定是否定的。 |
6楼2012-04-02 09:54:27
fzx2008
荣誉版主 (著名写手)
- 1ST强帖: 9
- 应助: 272 (大学生)
- 贵宾: 1.045
- 金币: 21814.1
- 散金: 710
- 红花: 33
- 沙发: 1
- 帖子: 1808
- 在线: 1601小时
- 虫号: 621341
- 注册: 2008-10-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
- 管辖: 第一性原理
7楼2012-04-02 10:13:04
8楼2012-04-02 10:23:11
uuv2010
荣誉版主 (职业作家)
- 1ST强帖: 6
- 应助: 160 (高中生)
- 贵宾: 3.14
- 金币: 3681.7
- 散金: 5802
- 红花: 79
- 沙发: 35
- 帖子: 4560
- 在线: 916小时
- 虫号: 966216
- 注册: 2010-03-09
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
- 管辖: 第一性原理
10楼2012-04-02 10:35:21
10