Тёмный

Edward Teller - Interference Phenomenon (29/147) 

Web of Stories - Life Stories of Remarkable People
Подписаться 57 тыс.
Просмотров 14 тыс.
50% 1

To listen to more of Edward Teller’s stories, go to the playlist: • Edward Teller (Scientist)
Hungarian-American physicist, Edward Teller (1908-2003), helped to develop the atomic bomb and provided the theoretical framework for the hydrogen bomb. He remained a staunch advocate of nuclear power, calling for the development of advanced thermonuclear weapons. [Listener: John H. Nuckolls]
TRANSCRIPT: The essential part, the real novelty in quantum mechanics, I describe by talking to you about a phenomenon called Interference. Assume you have an original state and a final state, and you can get from the original state to the final state in two different ways. For instance, the original state is a particle - an electron - here, the final state is an electron there. In between, I have a screen which stops the particle except that it has two holes in it and the particle can go from the original state to the final state through one of the holes or through the other of the holes. In the interaction of the particle with the screen, allows the particle to move not quite on a straight line. Now, the very peculiar thing in quantum mechanics, the phenomenon called interference, is this: that there are situations where the fact that an electron can go that way or that way will lead to a high probability of the electron arriving. Or, under other conditions, it can lead to the more peculiar result that the fact that it can go this way or the fact that it can go that way, will make it certain that it never arrives here. That the possibilities how the thing can move can cancel each other. That is called interference. And the part of the quantum mechanics which explains the connection between wave descrip- description and particle description is precisely this study of Interference Phenomenon. Now, if I do anything, let an alpha particle be emitted or not be emitted, and I do anything with it I like, I can calculate the consequences. With one special remark; if you make a measurement which defines the position precisely, this measurement does not require an observer. Indeed, it is entirely independent. Something might happen a billion years ago and I can find in the geological remains that this or that has happened, no observer. What happens in a measurement is what is called - excuse me for introducing a new concept, which I will explain - something must happen which is called an Irreversible Process. And I will show you an irreversible process right here. Here is this hopefully empty cup and I drop it. Now, what happens in physics forward can also happen backward. The equations are so constructed that everything that happens one way can happen also the opposite way. So therefore, having stopped this- dropped this cup, I stand here with my hand open and wait for the cup to rise again, not as I do it, lifting it, but of its own accord, redoing the whole thing and landing in my hand. You all know that if that can happen at all you have to have a lot of patience, a patience greatly exceeding the age of the universe which is about as good as saying it never can happen. And the interference phenomenon, a peculiar thing in quantum mechanics, will show up its consequences in whatever else I do with this object. Because from the end state, I can reconstruct the initial state, except if there is an irreversible process. A measurement is not defined by Eugene Wigner knowing about it, or anybody else, it is defined by an irreversible process which does not allow the original state to be reconstructed from the final state. It is in this sense that Heisenberg should be understood. And he's talking of it- about an observer. It's simply justified as a didactic device, as a device to explain things, so people understand more easily what an observer is than to say what an irreversible process is.

Наука

Опубликовано:

 

26 сен 2017

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 26   
@rudilapa6569
@rudilapa6569 4 года назад
I've learned an enjoyable amount of modern physics from listening to these Web of Stories [Teller, Wheeler, Dyson, Gell-Mann, Bethe]. More than I had expected.
@_LinusVanPelt
@_LinusVanPelt 7 месяцев назад
very relaxing thank you 😊
@linhsam3276
@linhsam3276 Месяц назад
Many thank to scientist edward tells and developer of bomb hydrogen
@KeithJones-yq6of
@KeithJones-yq6of Год назад
One of the greats
@MariusRiley
@MariusRiley Месяц назад
: Proper legend.
@LuigiSimoncini
@LuigiSimoncini 3 года назад
So Schrödinger's observer was a didactic device? It caused so much confusion it must be labeled the worst ever invented didactic device. Kudos to Teller for having the courage to introduce a serious and clear definition of "measurement"
@Sanchuniathon384
@Sanchuniathon384 Год назад
Correct, part of the reason why this was a problem as a didactic device was precisely because these guys were at such a high level of discourse already, so people in the inner circle understood that wave-like structures were the default. A lot of intro to QM tends to interpret this phenomenon in classical terms, which is why it leads to so much confusion. The real lesson should be that we drop the classical revisioning, and do our best to understand that QM starts with wave-like phenomenon and we should begin interpreting the physical meaning from that starting point.
@snowpants2212
@snowpants2212 11 месяцев назад
What makes a process irreversible? Teller says: That the initial state can't be reconstructed from the end-state. Reconstructed by what means? Presumably, by means of quantum mechanics. Now, why can't we reconstruct the initial state of the cat (how it was before I looked) from the end-state in which I've looked into the box and seen the cat dead? Presumably we can arrange things so that the cat's deadness implies that the relevant particle was emitted (to trigger the cyanide).
@urisimchoni3936
@urisimchoni3936 5 лет назад
So if I understand correctly, the setup of Schroedinger's cat is such that there's a detector that causes the poison to be released, and the detection is an irreversible process (in the Thermodynamic sense I guess - highly improbable to be reversed), and that constitutes the measurement. So if it "clicks", an irreversible process occurs, and the wave function of the atom collapses. Well, what if it doesn't "click"? On one hand that should be counted as a measurement too for the cat to be in a definite state. On the other hand, if it doesn't click, nothing happened, so no irreversible process occurred.... Back to confusion for me.
@andreasha007
@andreasha007 3 года назад
Hi there, Don’t let the click confuse you: if you want, in the half a second that the detector is working, you could configure the detector to click once if it detects the particle and click twice if it does not detect anything in this period. In this way, you have your irreversible process: you know for sure from the number of clicks whether the cat is dead or alive. So no more superposition of states. I hope this makes sense.
@jaddaj5881
@jaddaj5881 11 месяцев назад
3:00 “ I can find in the geological remains that this or that has happened - no observer” Actually there is an observer there: see key words “i can find.” This demonstrates that even brilliant physicists working in the field of quantum mechanics didn’t understand it. The effectively irreversible process he is describing is a unitary process that decoheres the wave function. However, we know this process turns the wave function into a mixed state (similar to a classical random variable). You still need an observer to know which state of the possibilities it is in. Observing is the only truly non-unitary irreversible process we know of, and observations are necessary to make sense of probabilities in Quantum Mechanics. This doesn’t diminish Teller’s laudable contributions to the field but does show how much the originators struggled with the new conception of reality that quantum mechanics puts forth just as much as most people new to the field still do today.
@matter__matters
@matter__matters 11 месяцев назад
But is there really a difference between your explanation and his? Teller calls it irreversible process you call it non unitary process. Your explanation might be more suffisticated in a mathematical sense, but are there any noticable differences, any way to mark Teller's understanding (or rather explanation) as a misconception?
@jaddaj5881
@jaddaj5881 11 месяцев назад
Apologies, I made a mistake in my comment. I meant to say that observing is the only ‘non-linear’ process, and my point was an observer is necessary for a measurement to occur. He even says ‘l’ in the rock example placing himself as the requisite observer in that situation. My issue isn’t with his choice of words irreversible /non-unitary. It’s with his claim that observers aren’t necessary in QM. Irreversible processes lead to classical probabilities, but the observer is needed to ‘know’ which of the outcomes occurs.
@matter__matters
@matter__matters 11 месяцев назад
@@jaddaj5881 But in the rock example, it is not really the person who finds the rock who is the observer, right? If, say, a particle decay leaves a trace in nature (the rock) and we can find this trace some million years later, digging the rock out of the ground does not change anything, does it? The situation has been decided in the moment where some effect occured.
@jaddaj5881
@jaddaj5881 11 месяцев назад
Actually, it only becomes known when the person finds it. In the words of Wheeler “no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” See for example the delayed choice experiments. The new paradigm of QM is that the fundamental workings of reality are probabilistic in nature and that is why observers are required. Observers are the only ones who can determine which of the possibilities has occurred. The effect in the rock you are speaking of, doesn’t have a deterministic trace at the moment the particle interacts with the rock. The trace that is found is one of many possibilities and the actual one isn’t known until the person observes it. When we look at the stars we are in fact resolving what occurred at the very beginning of time.
@matter__matters
@matter__matters 11 месяцев назад
@@jaddaj5881 Thank you for hinting at the delayed-choice experiments, that's very interesting. I still have some trouble with the interpretation of this, but that is probably in the nature of the subject. Going back to the rock example, I would think that in this case it's different, because any interaction between the rock and some quantum system millions of years ago would be subject do decoherence. So concerning Weeler's thought experiment where photons are sent out from some far away galaxy and reaching earth either on a direct path or bent my the gravitaion of some other galaxy in between: It seems to me like we would be able to extract both outcomes via performing different measurements, but if we are not present and the photons hit the earth, the effect must be according to one or the other possibility. From our perspective ( if we haven't measured), the effect might also be in a state of superposition, but something must have happened in reality (I know this again comes down to Schrödinger's cat).
@Smhallways
@Smhallways 6 лет назад
"A measurement is defined by an irreversible process which does not allow an original state to be reconstructed from the final state". Thank you for this upload, when one wants to know what is meant by an observer or measurement it is impossible to hear a clear explanation anywhere. Everybody just skips this hot potato and avoids being clear as much as possible. However, if anybody can answer some additional questions it would be very nice. Hasn't every particle in existence at one time or another been "measured" in such a sense. When electron's position is measured in its travel from the initial state to its final state, can it ever reverse to be "unmeasured", and if yes under what conditions. To be more to the point, if one measures the position of an electron in the atom at one time, and then walk outs of the room, then another person comes in and revisits the same atom. Has the electron's wave function forever been "collapsed" and it no longer exists as a probability cloud in that atom from now on, from when person no. 1 measured it - so that to person no. 2 electron is no longer a probability cloud, a wave function but something else then, a real god-given particle? If to a person no. 2 that electron is still simply a probability cloud, at what point did the electron become "unmeasured"? Thanks, whoever, whenever.
@dougr.2398
@dougr.2398 5 лет назад
Krešimir Vurnek how do you propose to measure the position of an electron in an atom?
@samvenker3137
@samvenker3137 4 года назад
When you perform your irreversible process ie measurement the wave function collapses and your detector registers the position. However you could perform the exact same experiment again and get another measurement entirely. This is the divergence from classical physics with its deterministic attributes to the probabilistic formalism of quantum mechanics.
@missbond7345
@missbond7345 2 года назад
My attempt at your answer; the question again goes back to measurement & observation. Suppose you measure and walk away and someone else comes to measure the same thing, unless you both communicate how do you know whether it was the same or different? If you communicate,, you both get entangled to an already collapsed quantum system & hence the measurement is no longer probabilistic. If you don’t communicate , you have no idea now if that person measured same or different , in other words it could have collapsed differently for him. We will never know the absolute truth & once you observe or interact , it’s forever your version with the entanglement. Atleast that’s what me a novice in this area learning from all these brilliant minds has walked away with. I am totally in awe of these folks who could event theorize these concepts & thanks to technology for making it available for us to watch & learn
@jpq6257
@jpq6257 10 месяцев назад
Isn't the cat the observer ?
@morpher44
@morpher44 11 месяцев назад
however, a reversible observer might explain shadow people
@coolcat23
@coolcat23 Год назад
Sadly, quantum mechanics is often explained in an unnecessarily complex way, either because the speaker does not know any better or finds joy (or some other reward) in making it more mystical than it is. The "observer"-phenomenon and the "quantum eraser" all have perfectly fine explanations but sadly the simple explanations are far and few between the many complexity-adding ones. I'm convinced Teller is right and anyone invoking "consciousness" is a pseudo-scientist.
@Oldman808
@Oldman808 11 месяцев назад
Dr. Strangelove was based on him.
Далее
ТРОЛЛИНГ СКАМЕРА СТАНДОФФ 2
00:59
Roger Penrose - Why Did Our Universe Begin?
17:10
Просмотров 2 млн
Day at Night: Edward Teller, nuclear physicist
28:39
Просмотров 98 тыс.
An Evening with Freeman Dyson
1:18:59
Просмотров 29 тыс.
John von Neumann and the art of being there
15:20
Просмотров 34 тыс.
Копия iPhone с WildBerries
1:00
Просмотров 7 млн
#engineering #diy #amazing #electronic #fyp
0:59
Просмотров 2,3 млн