光是粒子还是波?
光是粒子还是波?
上帝不掷骰子
Naval: 有一个YouTube视频中,Deutsch解释了著名的量子双缝实验,这个实验是关于粒子-波二象性的。光是粒子还是波?你让它通过一个狭缝,根据是否有观察者和干涉,它最终会形成波模式或作为单个光子。
这是一个长期以来困扰人们并使他们修正世界观的著名实验。它导致爱因斯坦说:“上帝不掷骰子。”
Brett: 爱因斯坦是个现实主义者,当时量子理论的奠基者们正试图对量子理论中这些实验到底发生了什么给出一个很好的解释。爱因斯坦基于它们不现实而拒绝了所有这些解释,他这样做是对的,因为它们都没有任何意义。
直到今天,其他替代方案也都没有任何意义。
现在,爱因斯坦不知道多重宇宙。我们不得不等到1950年代的Hugh Everett能够设计出一种简单、现实的理解量子理论的方式。但如果我回到双缝实验这个想法,人们经常声称粒子具有二象性:有时它们是粒子,有时它们是波。
例如,电子在某些实验中会表现得像粒子。在其他实验中,它表现得像波。听到这一点的人会想:“好吧,这有点解释了正在发生的事情。”
在光电效应中,你向电子照射光,这字面意思是你向电子发射一个光子——光的粒子——你可以将电子从原子中敲出来。这被认为是确凿的证据,证明以光子形式存在的光和以电子形式存在的电都是粒子,因为它们相互反弹。
这就是粒子的行为;波不会这样做。观察海滩上的水波,你会看到它们相互穿过。它们不会相互反弹。波会从粒子反弹,但不会相互反弹。
在杨氏双缝实验之前,我们依赖牛顿关于光的想法。牛顿的想法是,正如他所说,光是微粒状的,这意味着由粒子组成。
然后杨氏出现了,让一条光线通过两个狭缝,切在一张纸上,当你将光线投射到另一张纸上时,你会发现不仅仅是两束光。你会发现所谓的干涉图案,其中光与自身发生了干涉。
这类似于波通过小孔或自然地质缝隙时的情况。波会相互干涉。它们在某些地方产生波峰,在其他地方产生波谷。它们可以相互抵消。这对一些早期物理学家来说被认为是证明光实际上是波的证据。
现在我们进入量子理论,发现我们认为肯定是粒子的东西——比如电子——当我们对它们做同样的实验时,它们会相互干涉。看起来好像我们有表现得像波的粒子和表现得像粒子的波。
解决这个问题不是承认胡说八道。在本科水平的量子理论讲座中经常解释的是,你必须接受像光子这样的东西作为粒子诞生,作为波存在,然后再次作为粒子死亡——这是胡说八道。
之所以是胡说八道,是因为光子不知道自己是活的还是死的。它不知道自己在参与什么实验。
Is Light a Particle or a Wave?
God does not play dice with the universe
Naval: There’s a YouTube video in which Deutsch explains the famous quantum double-slit experiment, which is about particle-wave duality. Is light a particle or a wave? You pass it through a slit and, depending on whether there’s an observer and interference or not, it ends up in a wave pattern or as individual photons.
This is a famous experiment that has baffled people for a long time and caused them to revise their world view. It led Einstein to say, “God does not play dice with the universe.”
Brett: Einstein was a realist at the time when the founders of quantum theory were trying to develop a good explanation of what precisely was going on with these experiments in quantum theory. Einstein rejected all of them on the basis that they weren’t realistic, and he was right to do so because none of them made any sense.
To this day, none of the other alternatives make any sense.
Now, Einstein didn’t know about the multiverse. We had to wait until Hugh Everett in the 1950s was able to devise a simple, realistic way of understanding quantum theory. But if I go back to this idea of the double-slit experiment, it is often claimed that particles have a duality to them: Sometimes they’re particles, and sometimes they’re waves.
For example, the electron, given certain experiments, will behave like a particle. And in other experiments, it behaves like a wave. People who hear this think, “Well, okay, that kind of explains what’s going on.”
In the photoelectric effect, you shine a light at electrons, which literally means you’re firing a photon—a particle of light—at an electron, and you can knock the electron out of the atom. This is supposed to be proof positive that light, in the form of photons, and electricity, in the form of electrons, are both particles, because they’re bouncing off one another.
That’s what particles do; waves don’t do that. Watch water waves at the beach, and you’ll see they pass through each other. They don’t bounce off one another. Waves will bounce off particles, but they won’t bounce off each other.
Prior to Young’s twin slit experiment, we relied on Newton’s ideas of light. Newton’s idea was that light was corpuscular, as he said, which means made of particles.
Then Young came along and shined a line through two slits, cut into a piece of paper, and what you find when you project that light onto another sheet of paper is not just two beams of light. You find what’s called an interference pattern, where the light has interfered with itself.
It’s similar to when waves pass through small apertures, or natural geological gaps. The waves will interfere with one other. They produce crests in some places and troughs in others. They can cancel each other out. This was supposed to be proof to some of the early physicists that light, in fact, was a wave.
Now we get to quantum theory and find that things we thought were certainly particles—like electrons—interfere with each other when we do the same experiment with them. It appears as though we’ve got particles acting like waves and waves acting like particles.
The resolution to this is not to admit nonsense. What often is explained in quantum theory lectures at the undergraduate level is that you have to accept that something like a photon is born as a particle, lives as a wave, and then dies again as a particle—which is nonsense.
The reason it’s nonsense is because the photon doesn’t know that it’s alive or dead. It doesn’t know what experiment it’s participating in.