From Wave Theory to Quantum Mechanics
Sven Gelbhaar
sven.gelbhaar@gmail.com
30.12.2007
So far in this series we’ve talked about how Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation isn’t the proof-positive of the Big Bang Theory that it was made out
to be, how both theories of Relativity didn’t add up with our observations, how
relativistic speeds might impact the thermodynamics of a physical system, and
we’ve introduced a couple tests for Einstein-ian Relativity. But physics didn’t
stop with Relativity. Since Einstein’s contributions there has been one major
falsifiable addition to our understanding of the world, viz. Quantum Mechanics.
To paraphrase wikipedia on this matter (from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History): The history of quantum
mechanics began with the discovery of cathode rays in 1838, but it didn’t really
take off until the introduction of the quantum hypothesis by Max Planck in 1900.
He postulated that the energy’s frequency and the number of discrete ‘energy
elements’ correlate. This eventually led Albert Einstein to discover the photon
in 1926.
So what experimental data is Quantum Mechanics based on? The infamous Double
Slit Experiment, and the assorted Bell’s Inequality Experiments.
The Double Slit Experiment consists of tracking where photons or electrons,
depending on the particular experiment, hits a canvas behind an intermediate
wall which has one or more slits, which is where the experiment gets its name as
one might imagine. As it turns out, when there are more than one slit in this
intermediary the photons and electrons act as though they interfere with one
another in ways that one doesn’t expect with classical physics even with
themselves. For a complete write-up on this topic, consult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_slit_experiment.
The Bell’s Inequality Experiments endeavor to prove that Quantum Entanglement,
one of the claims put forth by Quantum Field Theory, actually occurs in reality.
It does this by creating and observing a photon pair and counts the times that
they ‘coincide’ as predicted by QFT; namely that if one photon of the pair is
made to reflect one way, that the other without any other stimuli will go off in
the exact opposite direction. For more on this topic, please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments.
However both of these tests have their own set of problems. The Double Slit
Experiment can be reasoned away with the notion that instead of all the overhead
laden QM theory being the operational model of physics at work, it is likely
that the respective photons and electrons could be bouncing off the edges of the
slits and one another, thereby creating the patterns found on the backdrop
canvas. No wave theory needed.
But how do we account for what we consider to be the wave-function collapsing
when we observe the individual electrons? Why do they favor the one slit that we
observe when we look? This is most likely due to the way that we conduct our
observation. Electrons will take the path of least resistance. When we put an
electron-detector in the experiment, what we end up doing is creating a path of
lesser resistance toward their goal we create a circuit. Again, no wave or
Quantum Mechanics theory is needed to explain the results, only elementary
electric theory.
This leads us to the Bell’s Inequality Experiments. The reader will note from
the aforementioned sources that all Bell’s Inequality Experiments included at
least two polarizers. It is entirely likely that these polarizers themselves are
to blame for the coincidences in the photons’ trajectories. A proper test for
Quantum Entanglement would involve using only one polarizer, and then counting
the coincidences of the photon-pair’s trajectories. As this hasn’t been
conducted yet, we’re left with no proof of this occurring in reality. Both sets
of tests for Quantum Mechanics leave a lot to be desired, as their results can
be explained using classical physics, but at least the proponents of QM make an
effort to provide falsifiable empirical proof of their theory, unlike those of
the many String Theories which currently exist.
Another logical problem of QM is that in the macroscopic world of humans,
planets, and so on, we rely on locality and causality. QM, through its notion of
Entanglement, makes the claim that a cause acting on one of the photons in an
entangled pair can cause an effect in the other photon thousand of light years
away. This would look like complete chaos to the untrained observer, and we
probably wouldn’t have come to rely on locality and causality.
An example of what would take place is that the photons bouncing off the Earth’s
atmosphere (or land and sea masses) would cause their twin photons to appear to
be bouncing off a phantom twin Earth in the opposite direction of the original
photon’s trajectory, and we would see doubles/twins of all dark celestial
(non-star or light-source) bodies. This is obviously not the case. The ad-hoc
apologetic argument could be made that not all photons are entangled to at least
another one, but this would greatly reduce the scope and utility of the theory.