its not that Einstein didn t think quantum mechanics was correct. its correctness was beyond doubt. its that he didn t think the Born interpretation was a complete description of nature.Originally posted by chroot
Einstein simply meant that he didn't believe quantum mechanics (which deals with probabilities, rather than with certainties) was correct.
I think the problem he had with this experimental model is that he made the false assumption that the conditions will remain the same for all the photons you fire at the glass. In his argument he is saying yes, if the conditions are the same, QM is wrong.Originally posted by Chi Meson
A simple example of what Einstein did not like about quantum is...
If you were to set up a certain experiment (like firing photons at a piece of glass; two things could happen: the photons could either reflect or transmit through the glass) and you kept all initial conditions perfectly constant, then the same result (according to Einstein) should happen with each photon. That is, if the photon reflects off the glass the first time, then it should reflect each and every time because all conditions are the same.
Quantum stated that even if the conditions are identical, you can only predict the possibility of one or the other result. So, even if all conditions are perfectly set up and held constant, some photons will reflect and some will transmit according to quantum predicitons.
So God, as it were, could set up a certain situation, yet the outcome would still depend on chance, and there would be no absolute certainty about the result. Al didn't like that idea.
I am unclear about whether or not Einstein actually accepted quantum. I know he had to concede several arguments to Max Born, but did he actually admit to being wrong?
Are you saying there is observed violation of the Heisenberg U.P.? I could not find a reference in Nature about such using attosecond lasers; although I did see references to such lasers seeing exactly what was expected by Schroedinger equations.McQueen said:Einstein did not have anthing aganist the Heisenberg principle per se . What he did object to was the blanket implementation of the Heisenberg priciple over the whole of sub-atomic phyiscs and the implication that it was not in principle possible to learn anything definite about the sub-atomic world. His view is borne out by experiments with attosecond lasers that have recently been concluded (nature magazine ) which allow the tracing of the path of an electron in an atom.
I usually see the dichotomy as this:ideler said:What is preferable about the non-local probilistic theory/interpretation over the non-local hidden variable theory/interpretation? Is it just a matter of taste? Why throw out causality for taste?
Non-local hidden variable theories usually have a big problem with Lorentz invariance. Because they are non-local, the hidden variables cannot be Lorentz covariant and hence they pick out a preferred frame of reference. This goes against the spirit of relativity and we have no consistent way of deciding which frame should be the preferred one. This makes relativistic hidden variable theories, such as the Bohmian version of quantum field theory, look rather odd and unweildy compared to the usual formalism.What is preferable about the non-local probilistic theory/interpretation over the non-local hidden variable theory/interpretation? Is it just a matter of taste? Why throw out causality for taste?
roy5995 said:What did Einstein mean when he said, "God Does Not Play Dice"
I know that is has to do something with the uncertainty principle bit i don't understand what he meant....Maybe i just don't really understand the uncertainty principle. Can someone briefly go over it.
But alas now QM, via various EPR experiments, have even slain that concept of hidden variables. But no, Einstein did not disagree with QM on scientific grounds. His disagreement came from his philosophy, his inner view of the way the universe functioned. In the end, he did not try to adapt his view of the world to reconcile randomness with order.“Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.” – an option which is held and believed by many great scientist.