Congratulations, you’ve come up with Einstein.
Discrepancies are not caused by technical problems, but are the exclusive introgen properties of any quantum.
In order to make it easier for everyone to understand, a historical story of physics begins.
The physics world has always been a less peaceful place, where there are often academic differences, big and small disputes.
But one of the biggest battles, more than a hundred years ago, was at the Solvi conference.
At the time, the world of physics was full of gods.
Many of the best scientists have been involved in this century’s struggle, and its effects continue to this day.
And many now call it the “war of gods” in physics.
So what is the debate?
They’re arguing — what should our world look like?
And it’s this debate that has officially made the idea of quantum physics increasingly acceptable to all scientists.
So how did quantum pie win this war?
The most confusing uncertainty in a quantum world.
The Solway Conference was created by a Belgian industrialist, Ernest Solvay.
The first Solvi Conference was held in Brussels in 1911.
This was later interrupted by the First World War.
However, it was revived in 1921 and held once in three years.
By 1927, the Solvi Conference had reached its fifth and most famous.
The event was held in the great constellation of stars, Einstein, Shertyon and others.
The most widely circulated photo of the All-Star Dream of Physics is a photo of the conference.
The great picture of the physical world of the battle of the gods.
In this picture, the stars of quantum mechanics.
Although they look young in the picture, most of them are still young and very young in comparison to their achievements.
Two years before this photo was taken, 1925.
Heisenberg has made a breakthrough in quantum theory, when he was only 24 years old.
Despite its great physical gift, Heisenberg is undoubtedly a child in another respect, but it is still a child of impurity.
He was very excited to travel with the Youth Corps.
During his stay in Copenhagen, he skied in Bavaria, where he fell on his knees and lay down for several weeks.
When he was swimming in the fields of the valley, he was so happy that he could not even say, “I don’t want a second of physics.”
Not only is it Heisenberg, but all the other shining characters are in the same situation.
In 1925, in the year of the breakthrough in quantum mechanics, other young Junjie was of the following age:
Polly 25, Dirac 23, Uren Baker 25, Guzmet 23, Yordun 23.
And compared to them, 38-year-old Sherdine, 40-year-old Paul and 43-year-old Bonn are all grandfathers.
However, the theoretical physics community has a tradition of youth from ancient heroes.
Einstein was only 26 years old when he introduced the photometric hypothesis in 1905;
Paul was 28 years old when he proposed his atom structure in 1913;
When the material wave theory was introduced in 1923, when it was 31 years old, it was older.
So quantum mechanics was called “boy physics” and the University of Bonn’s theoretical class in Gottingen was even called “Bonn Kindergarten”.
So it’s also, in a sense, an alumni photo of the Bonn kindergarten.
The theme of the conference was “electronics and photons”.
The agenda for the meeting was thus as follows:
First, Lawrence Bragg gave an experimental report on X-rays.
Then Compton, report the Compton experiment and its inconsistency with classic electromagnetic theory.
And next, Debreo wanted to give a speech on quantum new mechanics, mainly about particles.
The matrix theory of quantum mechanics was then introduced in Bonn and Heisenberg, while Scherdinger introduced volatility mechanics.
In the end, Boer built on Como’s speech.
Again with that report on the new theory of quantum publicity and atoms, the idea of complementarity is further summarized.
Puts the whole philosophy behind quantum theory.
This agenda itself is a micro-historic of quantum theory that can be clearly divided into three groups:
Experimental groups concerned only with the results: Prague and Compton;
Copenhagen: Bol, Bonn and Heisenberg;
There are also Copenhagen questioners and challengers: Debroité, Scherdingen, and Einstein, who is not happy at the table.
Why isn’t Einstein happy?
Because the founders of this quantum theory are destroying the beautiful world in his mind.
As we mentioned earlier, Einstein believes that the world should be defined and real.
It’s not like I’m in love with you.
Zone is the most unchallenged speed of light.
It’s really not about observations, it’s about Einstein’s belief in the world.
But Quantumists tend to challenge Einstein’s beliefs.
In particular, the Copenhagen schools, represented by Boer and Heisenberg, advocate a similar science fiction to explain quantum phenomena.
The most important of these are:
Microparticles can be described as wave functions, but they do not have any real existence other than abstract concepts;
Experiments can show the behaviour of particles or fluctuations of substances, but not both;
In quantum systems, the physical amount of a particle’s co-exist, such as position and momentum, or energy and time cannot be determined at the same time, and we cannot test both accurately.
These are serious challenges to Einstein’s theoretical beliefs.
Einstein refused to acknowledge that there was an unreal substance in the world, let alone that it did not have precise attributes unrelated to measurement.
Of course, there is also a lack of recognition of the two attributes that cannot be accurately measured at the same time.
Einstein was convinced that the world was real and certain, that everything had evolved in a regular manner and that “God would not roll the dice.”
The struggle for faith is, of course, irreconcilable, and the great gods have to fight.
The highest level of the physicist’s battle began with Einstein, a famous great battle called “The War of Gods” by physicists.
The way scientists talk about war is special.
Their tactics, mainly through the concept of ideological experiments, have created problems for each other’s theoretical systems.
It was a victory to defeat each other’s theories by perjury.
And Einstein is the top expert in the construction of ideas.
Einstein, after watching a bunch of quantum pies, finally decided to take the lead.
Einstein is going to build an incomprehensible intellectual experiment to prove that quantum theory is flawed.
He studied carefully the three most important core fort theory of the Copenhagen position:
Article 1 is clearly a mere statement, which is not easily refuted;
And the second one has been tested in countless experiments and is not easily overturned;
Then the only challenge is article 3 of the principle of impermissibility.
And what this third article is about is the “uncertainty” that we’re about to talk about, and it’s called the “uncertainty” principle.
It was mentioned in a paper by German physicist Heisenberg in 1926.
He thought that any measurement would interfere with the state of the quantum, so we could not accurately measure certain numerical properties of the quantum.
So it’s called Heisenberg’s Unvalidation, and it’s one of the most important basic laws of quantum physics.
So, what exactly is the meaning of uncertainty?
In fact, the uncertainty is not that we cannot determine a certain attribute of the particle, but that of the particle we cannot determine at the same time.
For example, we cannot determine the location and speed of particles at the same time.
Because speed and mass multipliers are kinetics, physicists usually replace speed with kinetics:
The particle cannot measure its position and momentum accurately at the same time.
If we measure one of the properties more accurately, then the other we can only get a rougher result.
And this pair of properties, in physics, we call them hard co-physical amounts.
What does that mean?
It’s like you saw a car moving.
If you know exactly where it is at some point, you certainly cannot know exactly how fast it is.
The more precise you are in position, the more blurry the speed.
Here, the “place of the car” and the “speed” are an inconvenient set of co-physical quantities.
Isn’t that familiar?
What the hell, the speed schedule in the car, the GPS?
Can’t you get a speed radar and a high-speed camera?
Is there any contradiction between measuring the exact location of an object and measuring its exact velocity at the same time?
It certainly doesn’t sound like it’s a matter of principle. It must be the wrong way, or not technology.
You see what Heisenberg said, it’s also because, during observation, it interferes with the state of particles, which sounds like just technical limitations.
And if we can find a technical means of not interfering with the particles of the object, is that a problem that does not exist?
In our minds, particles are small, but, in essence, like other objects, we can perceive their properties in many indirect ways.
Now there are many advanced technological means, and these methods, if they do not interfere with each other, must be able to measure its so-called contradictions at the same time, and the problem of uncertainty should be overcome by technical means.
Is that what you think?
If so, congratulations. You’ve come to Einstein.
That’s what Einstein thought back then, and he thought that there were problems with direct measurements.
But we can do anything to measure it. Can you keep me from thinking about it?
Einstein was full of confidence and felt that, with his wise brain, he would certainly find a shortcut to the weakest link in the enemy, and then completely lift the fort or even the entire position.
So, how do you plan on doing this?
How can the position and momentum of particles or time and energy be proven to be accurately measured at the same time?
Einstein thought hard, and finally conceived a light box experiment to launch the offensive.
The specific experimental design is as follows:
Imagine a box full of photons, with a small hole on one side of the box with a fast door, and a clock inside the box that opens the fast door in the small hole at a short time interval through the controller, then emits a photon and closes it.
And then measuring the quality of the boxes before and after launch, and then using their own magic mass equation E=mc^2 can tell how much energy is lost.
So, in theory, the exact energy of the box at the exact moment can be determined?
So if we don’t measure time and energy at the same time, the principle of uncertainty doesn’t work.
The Quantum is going to be big for Bol, so Bol is facing the threat of Einstein, a newly created lethal weapon.
The idea that the experiment had just been introduced was also a source of great confusion for Paul.
Boer was shaken by a strange Einstein design, and he didn’t see any cracks at all, and he was even a little speechless under stress.
He kept mumbling and explaining to the people around him that there must be a loophole in it and that quantum imperceptions have a mathematical basis.
If it’s true that if it’s overturned, then the whole quantum theory will collapse and even the whole universe will have problems.
But until the meeting was over, Paul had not come up with a counterattack, so he had to run behind Einstein’s grumpy, panicking.
Einstein, on the other hand, was filled with joy, with the joy of the world coming back to normal and walking home.
Unfortunately, Einstein’s happiness didn’t last long, and Pol didn’t realize it for a while.
When Paul came home, he thought about Einstein’s light-box experiment, and after all night, he finally found out where it was.
So, the next day, Boer, the winner, officially declared his rebuttal.
The blogger says:
Einstein’s experiment, in order to ensure that it works properly, must be used in some kind of spring, with boxes and internal clocks hanging up to detect changes in quality.
However, when the photons fly, they result in an uncertain change in the mass of the system as a whole and lead to a change in the gravity field, further leading to uncertainty in the measurement of the clock in the gravity field (the so-called red gravitational effect).
And then, based on the mass equations in Einstein’s own broad relativity, the red shift effect would have to come up with a time-energy uncertainty formula that fits the quantum theorem.
Einstein’s Light Box Thought Experiment.
Boer’s counter-attacking position is so good that Einstein’s own spear was used to crush his shield.
Einstein has nothing to say about this, not even to fight back.
Einstein’s heart has just collapsed again, and he’s so depressed that he doesn’t want to get involved in this experiment again.
So go back and grind one weapon.
Bol’s perfect response also laid down the authority of his Copenhagen school as the orthodox of quantum theory.
Since then, the Copenhagen school has become the most dominant of the middle and hard sciences in quantum physics.
And the theory of uncertainty created by God-given became one of the most fundamental core concepts in quantum theory.
At the same time, there is uncertainty that some degree of theory has become an important feature of our understanding of the microworld.
In fact, however, the perception of uncertainty has actually undergone some change.
It was Heisenberg’s story that was followed by my brothers.
The so-called non-prevalence was actually caused by a collision of photons or some other substance when we measured it.
Heisenberg has also designed an ideological experiment with a Heisenberg gamma-ray microscope to illustrate how the observation of light interferes with the quantum state of the object.
So, from Heisenberg’s understanding, it’s not that quantums don’t have accurate co-assembly, but we can’t get them with any effective observation.
So-called undesired, in Heisenberg, the nature of the problem is still technical.
However, it was later discovered that this statement was also inaccurate, and it is now believed that the uncertainty is not caused by technical problems, but by the intrinsic properties of any quantum.
That is to say, it is not in a position to be accurately measured at the same time in terms of two non-physical quantities, regardless of how you measure them.
Even if we can imagine an absolutely ideal measurement technique that doesn’t affect the target state, we can’t measure exactly the position and speed of a quantum at the same time.
So the test of quantum is not that we’re not technical enough, but the principle is not.
Just as God could not create the stones that it could not lift, that would logically not be possible.
How the hell does that make sense? Why does a quantum have such an incomprehensible attribute?
Let’s use our cognon thinking to understand.
In fact, when we only look at quantum particles as part of the virtual world, we show the code of light on the screen.
And you’ll see, running this code, it’s randomly distributed by a certain probability, and constantly shows a continuous flash of light on the screen.
The position and speed cannot be measured at the same time.
So if we expect to see where the light points are,
We have to run this code for a very short time.
That way it’s only a few spots, and we’ll keep records and statistics more accurate.
If we run too long,
So the light flashes more and more, and the trace of the light on the last screen becomes like a cloud.
And naturally, our understanding of its locational certainty is becoming less precise.
But if we run the code too short, it’s hard to judge the other speed properties of light points.
Because we know the speed of light points is actually judged by the length of time that the light points are drawn on the screen while they are moving.
The shorter the code runs, the less visible the remnant of the light.
And it’s too short a difference, and it’s a very big difference.
So the light we’re looking at, the speed we get, the less accurate.
Only by extending the running time of the code will we be able to learn more and more about its speed.
So finally, we find it impossible to increase the accuracy of observations of the location and speed of light points.
The more we observe one of them, the more uncertain the other.
It’s not our observational technology that can’t reach it, it’s the operational properties of the code itself.
We cannot allow it to operate in a way that simultaneously meets two conflicting observation requirements.
These two conflicting output requirements are called physical inconvenient.
– Isn’t it easy to co-consumer? In mathematics, it can be converted by Fourier.
Some of the readers of mathematics will find out if they look at it.
The so-called location speed cannot be accurately observed at the same time, i.e. when a wave function is more accurately distributed in time, the distribution in frequency ranges spreads.
And vice versa, that’s the mathematical properties of wave functions.
So that’s what we think is the introgen properties of the two sides of the particle.
The mathematical properties of quantum are birthright and have nothing to do with observation.
There are other similar co-singles, like energy and time.
For example, the energy value of a quantum is also distributed in a small range.
So when we measure the energy of the quantum, there’s a random distribution of the energy output.
If we want to get the energy value of the quantum program output, let the program run shorter.
While it is possible to be precise in time, statistics on the values of rising energy are not accurate.
If we do count long enough, we can really measure the average of quantum energy more accurately, but it’s certainly not accurate in time.
This is another contradiction of irreconcilable measurements, so that the energy and time of the quantum is also bound by the principle of impermissibility.
We look at a particle like we’re debugging a sealed code.
We can only judge the output characteristics of the program in different modes of operation, as we can observe a black box.
Inaccuracy is one of the most basic features we find in the Quantum Wave Function run mode.
What does that give us?
If the two-dimensional nature of the wave grains before the quantum show us that:
Quantums are like a part of the virtual world that generates props.
Then the uncertainty of the quantum tells some of the characteristics of the running and output of the quantum code.
First of all, the code does not output a very certain result, but it is still a probabilistic function.
Therefore, the results of the output are randomly distributed according to their probabilities.
Just like you can’t know exactly how many dice a dice would throw out, and you can’t know exactly which crack a photon would cross.
This is a true randomness and uncertainty, so this characteristic of quantum functions is in fact a direct rebuttal of the so-called decisive theory.
You see, at the bottom of the universe, the structure logic is uncertain. Where does that make sense? How can we predict an absolutely accurate future?
Secondly, we have to move away from the physical imagination of quantum code.
The output of the quantum code is entirely dependent on our operation (i.e. measuring behavior), so don’t imagine it as an entity that objectively exists at a given moment.
Only if we understand this code pattern in depth can we understand why there is no certainty.
It depends on measurements to understand the quantum as if the blind were touching.
This is also the greatest limitation of human observation of an objective world.
In essence, we measure to understand a quantum as if the blind were touching it, touching it too often, and touching it too long has changed.
We may never really know what an elephant is, even if it exists.
But we don’t need to know.
We understand that the quantum world requires such awareness and awareness in the world of fiction.
Resolutely abandoning traditional perceptions of the objectivity of any substance, it is customary to understand everything from the perspective of fiction.
It’s also a habit not to waste attention on things that can’t be seen.
When we understand the virtual nature of the quantum world, you will find that quantum phenomena are no longer as weird as they seemed.
Yeah, if the particles don’t really exist, what’s so strange that we can’t get what we want out of a code?
The attributes of these particles are just the unique output characteristics of quantum programs, and we may not need to think about their rationality with the thinking logic of real things.
Like when you play games, you never question why every weird fall is different. It’s set.
Well, that’s a little off the record, so let’s just sum up what we learned about uncertainty.
We understand that the meaning of uncertainty that we often refer to as quantum actually includes both dimensions.
One level is that its continuous measurement of one of its properties gives rise to uncertainty in probability distribution.
And one is that we can’t measure the two cosmogs at the same time.
The two dimensions are not really the same.
But we often mix them all into uncertainty.
This is confusing in many ways.
In fact, one should be called uncertainty, while the other should be called unproven.
So, is the uncertainty of quantum a distant scientific concept for our real world, or is it of great relevance?
The uncertainty of quantum can be said to be one of the micro-dimensions that have the most profound impact on our reality in the macro-world.
From the point of view of the evolution of the universe,
If there is no quantum uncertainty,
Not only can stars not glow, galaxies cannot form, not even the whole universe can be born!
The theory of the universe skyrocketing.
According to the latest theory of the cosmic boom,
The universe is the first to create space and time from a sudden surge in nothingness.
And the first source of energy for the universe to skyrocket is based on quantum uncertainty, resulting in a emptiness of energy rising in the air.
It was the rise and fall of these empty energy that led to the Big Bang of the universe.
That’s what’s real, what’s not.
And in the present universe, our sun is constantly stable in fusion, relying on the overlap of probability waves caused by quantum uncertainty.
This has allowed the highly demanding fusion reaction to remain stable at less high temperatures.
This has provided the entire solar system with a source of energy that has shaped the entire Earth environment and life.
If you step back to everyday reality,
Many aspects of modern frontier technologies are also closely linked to quantum uncertainty.
If we don’t understand the uncertainty of quantum, many modern electronic devices will not be born, many modern magic technologies and many new disciplines will not be created.
So the phenomena of deep awareness and uncertainty not only help us understand the essence of the microworld, but also help us understand the relevant advances in modern science as a whole.
So we’re going to have to continue to understand the uncertainty of quantum.
An in-depth understanding of uncertainty, the various interesting quantum phenomena that accompany it, and the linkages with the real world.
Likewise, we will interpret them from a virtual world perspective and help to further understand them.
So let’s move on, and we’ll see a very amazing quantum experiment at the next stop of the quantum column. Document number: YXA15Q39aBiYAX843pCNxNy
I don’t know.
Keep your eyes on the road.
