* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Segun Ogungbemi
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Wave function wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Geiger–Marsden experiment wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Electron scattering wikipedia , lookup
Matter wave wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Identical particles wikipedia , lookup
DIALOGUE AND UNIVERSALISM No. 11–12/2008 Andrzej Łukasik ATOMISM TODAY CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM CONCEPTS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES Increasing knowledge has in some ways made us not certain but less certain of the nature of matter. Whereas Dalton and his school had a clear picture of the existence of atomic particles as real and indestructible solid particles, modern wave mechanics implies very clearly that, in fact, they are not identifiable individuals at all. Erwin Schrödinger1 ABSTRACT Atomism is the programme explaining all changes in terms of invariant units. The development of physics during the 20th century may be treated as a spectacular triumph of atomism. However, paradoxically, changes and conceptual difficulties brought about by quantum mechanics lead to the conclusion that the ontological model provided by classical atomism has become inadequate. Atoms (and elementary particles) are not atomos—indivisible, perfectly solid, unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible (eternal), and the void is not simply an empty space. According to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, there is no unchanging substance at all. If we want to understand contemporary notions of matter and develop an ontological model of the world, consistent with contemporary natural sciences, we should probably go beyond the conceptual framework of atomic philosophy. Key words: atomism; atoms; void; elementary particles; quantum mechanics. 1 E. Schrödinger, “What is an Elementary Particle?”, in: E. Castellani (ed.), Interpreting Bodies. Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey 1998, p. 197. 2 Andrzej Łukasik INTRODUCTION Atomism is the programme which explains all changes in terms of invariant units. If we want to explain variety, the multiplicity of things, “we must explain it in terms of non-variety, of unity. We explain the many in terms of the one, the unit. Similarly, change must be explained in terms of the unchanging, the invariant”.2 According to atomism, there are some invariant units hidden behind the world of change. In ancient natural philosophy atomism was one of a number of attempts to respond to the challenge offered by Parmenides. Parmenides had argued that change was illusion because it was impossible that something could come from nothing. Leucippus and Democritus supposed that there were infinite unchanging material principles which persist and move in empty space. The atomists held that there were only atoms (άτομος – indivisible) and the void (κενόν). They claimed that atoms had several properties, particularly size, shape, and weight (Epicurus and Lucretius); all other properties that we attribute to matter, such as taste and colour, are the result of complex interactions between the atoms in our bodies. The real properties of atoms determine the perceived properties of matter. “By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour: but in reality atoms and void.”3 Macroscopic objects in the world change and are not indestructible and eternal but they are only clusters of atoms. Atoms are indivisible particles, perfectly solid, unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible (eternal). All changes in the world are reduced to motion of atoms in empty space: by coming together they produce coming-into-existence, by separating they produce passing–away. The durability of last particles within all bodies has been stressed by all of the atomists, both philosophers and scientists. For example, Newton claimed: “The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility and inertia of the whole, results from the extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility and inertia of the parts; and hence we conclude that last particles of all bodies to be also all extended and hard and impenetrable and movable and endowed with their proper inertia. And this is the foundation of all philosophy.” 4 Dalton wrote: “Chemical analysis and synthesis go no farther than to the separation of particles one from another and to their reunion. No new creation or destruction of matter is within the reach of chemical agency. We might as well attempt to introduce a new planet into the solar system, or to annihilate one already in existence, as to cre2 H. Post, “The Problem of Atomism”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26 (1975), p. 19. 3 Democritus, in: H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin 1903, 125 B. 4 I. Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, transl. by A. Motte, in: R. M. Hutchins (ed.), Great Books of The Western World, Vol. 34, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Optics, by sir Isaac Newton, Treatise on Light, by Christian Huygens, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago – London – Toronto 1952, p. 270. Atomism Today 3 ate or destroy a particle of hydrogen. All the changes we can produce consist in separating particles that are in a state of cohesion or combination and joining those that were previously at a distance.”5 Atomism, which began as speculative metaphysics, has become a securely established part of experimental science. Atomic theory of matter is commonly accepted today. Of course, we know that chemical atoms are not last particles of all bodies. Each atom consists of a nucleus and electrons, a nucleus consists of nucleons (protons and neutrons) and a nucleon consists of quarks. According to contemporary knowledge, the last particles of all bodies are not atoms of the chemists but elementary particles—leptons and quarks. The development of physics during the 20th century may be treated as the spectacular triumph of atomism. However, paradoxically, changes and conceptual difficulties brought about by quantum mechanics lead to the conclusion that the ontological model provided by classical atomism has become inadequate. Atoms (and elementary particles) are not atomos—indivisible, perfectly solid, unchangeable, ungenerated and indestructible (eternal) and the void is not simply an empty space. QUANTUM PARTICLES ARE NOT ETERNAL According to contemporary knowledge, about 13,7 x 109 years ago the universe began in a gigantic explosion–the Big Bang. In the earliest moment of time in the history of the universe, called the Planck era (from zero to approximately 10-43 seconds), in which quantum effects of gravity were significant, neither atoms nor elementary particles could exist. Therefore elementary particles are not eternal. QUANTUM PARTICLES ARE NOT DURABLE Among hundreds of elementary particles only protons, electrons, photons and neutrinos are durable. Most elementary particles decay into other elementary particles. For example in β− decay, the weak interaction converts a neutron (n0) into a proton (p+) while emitting an electron (e−) and an antineutrino (νe): n0 → p+ + e– +νe. Elementary particles are transmuted into other elementary particles; they are not absolutely durable entities. For example, a proton “[…] could be obtained from a neutron and a pion, from a Λ hyperon and a kaon or from two nucleons and one antinucleon and so on. […] there is no difference in principle between elementary particles and compound systems.”6 5 J. Dalton, A New System of Chemical Philosophy, [excerpts], (Manchester, 1808) [from facsimile edition (London: Dawson)], Cap. III. On Chemical Synthesis, in: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/dalton.html 4 Andrzej Łukasik QUANTUM PARTICLES ARE NOT INDESTRUCTIBLE According to elementary particle theory, to every kind of particle there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and opposite charge. For example, the antiparticle of the electron (e–) is the positively charged positron (e+) produced in certain types of radioactive decay. Particle and antiparticle occurring in one pair annihilate each other producing other particles. For example, an electron–positron pair annihilate producing photons: e+ + e– → 2γ. In the quantum field theory the reverse process is allowed (virtual pair production): γ → e+ + e–. Therefore even elementary particles, which do not spontaneously decay into other particles, may come into being and disappear; they are not indestructible. “Electrons can be created and annihilated; their number is not constant; they are not «elementary» in the original meaning of the world.”7 QUANTUM PARTICLES ARE NOT WELL LOCALISED IN SPACE-TIME According to Heisenberg8 uncertainty principle, locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain: ∆ x ⋅ ∆ px ≥ , 2 where Δx is the uncertainty of position, Δpx is the uncertainty of momentum, = h/2π is Planck constant (h–bar). In quantum mechanics, the momentum and position of particles have not precise values, but have only a probability distribution. Uncertainty relations have nothing to do with our incomplete knowledge. There are no states in which a particle has both a definite position and a definite momentum. The narrower the probability distribution is in momentum, the wider it is in position. According to Born’s interpretation (1926) the expression Ψ(x, y, z, t)2 dxdydz can be used to predict the probability of where the particle would be found. However, finding the particle at point P does not imply that it bas been there before. Before the measurement particle does not have a value of velocity (or a mo6 W. Heisenberg, “The Nature of Elementary Particle”, in: E. Castellani (ed.), Interpreting Bodies. Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey 1998, pp. 212–213. 7 W. Heisenberg, “The Nature…”, p. 212. 8 W. Heisenberg, “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik”, Zeitschrift für Physik 43 (1927), pp. 172–198. Atomism Today 5 mentum). In opposition to classical particles, quantum particles do not posses exact space-time trajectories. QUANTUM PARTICLES ARE NOT INDIVIDUALS In our everyday experience things are individuated by their quantitative properties, by their space-time trajectories and by their relationships to other things. Properties of macroscopic objects such as weight, electric charge or temperature can take any values. On the contrary, elementary particles can have only well determined values of charge, spin, mass and magnetic moment. They are nomological objects. Properties of the nomological objects are fixed by laws. “Nomological objects of a given kind (say, electron) are, by definition, all exactly equal to the other.”9 For example every electron in the universe has the same rest mass, electric charge, and spin. Physicists use the expression “identical particles”. According to quantum mechanics, the particles do not possess definite positions during the periods between measurements, thus we cannot track the trajectory of each particle. Consequently, identical particles cannot be distinguished even in principle. Theory of indistinguishable particles in quantum mechanics led to effects that have no classical analogy. In classical Maxwel–Boltzmann statistics particles are distinguishable: thus a two–particle system can be in any of these joint states: (1) (2) (3) (4) a(1) b(1) a(1) a( 2 ) a( 2 ) b( 2 ) b( 2 ) b(1) (both particles are in the state a ) (both particles are in the state b ) (particle 1 is in the state a and particle 2 is in the state b ) (particle 1 is in the state b and particle 2 is in the state a ) Arrangements (3) and (4) are different physical situations, and we can distinguish them at least in principle. In quantum mechanics to get the Bose–Einstein statistics arrangements (3) and (4) must be counted as one state, because nonsymetric states (3) or (4) never occur. For bosons (particles with integer spin, such as photons) only three states are available: a(1) a( 2 ) b(1) b( 2 ) 1 2 ( a (1) b( 2 ) + a( 2) b(1) ) . For fermions (particles with half-integer spin, such as electrons, protons, and quarks, which obey Pauli’s Exclusion Principle) only one antisymmetric state is available: 9 G. T. di Francia: “A World of Individual Objects?” in: E. Castellani (ed.), Interpreting Bodies…, , p. 27. 6 Andrzej Łukasik 1 2 ( a (1) b( 2 ) − a (2) b(1) ) . If we say that nonsymmetric states have a physical interpretation, i.e. states in which a first particle is in state a and a second particle is in state b it is a distinct state from the one in which a first particle is in state b and a second particle is in state a, quantum mechanics do not explain why such states never occur. If we say that nonsymmetric states (3) and (4) bear no physical interpretation, we may conclude that quantum particles are not individuals. “This requires rejecting primitive thisness for particles.”10 For example, if we have two electrons in the first “orbit” in a helium atom, one with z-spin up and one with z-spin down, there is no experimental method to tell which electron has spin up and which electron has spin down.11 QUANTUM PARTICLES AND NONSEPARABILITY Einstein was critical of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics given by Bohr and Heisenberg. In 1935 Einstein, together with Podolsky and Rosen, formulated his famous Gedankenexperiment called EPR. According to authors a “sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system”.12 In quantum mechanics, in the case of two physical quantities described by noncommuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other. But two particles, having interacted in the past, share a common state vector. Consequently, a measurement made on one of them entails predicting a possible result of a measurement made on the other. Einstein concluded, “the description of reality as given by a wave function is not complete”. 13 He maintained that the theory should be supplemented by additional variables. These hidden variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. A fundamental theorem given by Bell (1964)14 and real experiments set up by Aspect (1982)15 and others entails that no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Two particles having interacted in the past turn out to be nonseparable into individual 10 P. Teller, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, Newt Jersey 1995, p. 25. 11 M. Redhead, P. Teller, “Particles. Particle Labels, and Quanta: The Toll of Unacknowledged Metaphysics” Foundation of Physics 21 (1991), p. 204. 12 A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality by Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47 (1935), p. 777. 13 Ibid. 14 J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox”, Physics 1 (1964), p. 195. 15 A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, G. Roger, “Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time Varying Analysers, Physical Review Letters 49 (1982), pp. 1804–1807. Atomism Today 7 and independent objects.16 Nonseparability (wholeness) is another important philosophical conclusion against atomic philosophy. The micro-world cannot be seen “just a set of separately existing, localised objects, externally related only by space and time”.17 Quantum vacuum is not empty space In the macroscopic world, energy is always conserved but in the quantum world energy can appear and disappear according to the energy-time uncertainty principle: ∆ E⋅∆ t ≥ , 2 where ΔE is the uncertainty of energy, Δt is the uncertainty of time. The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time and disappear again. These particles are called virtual particles because they do not have a permanent existence. But they are not mathematical fiction. Even though we cannot observe them, they leave detectable traces of their activities (for example tiny but calculable shift of the energy levels of atoms). According to classical atomism, elements are atoms and empty space. According to quantum mechanics there is no such thing as empty space. In the quantum vacuum pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. Moreover in the quantum field theory, each particle is surrounded by virtual particles. In some sense each elementary particle, such as an electron, with probability about 1 is made up of an electron without structure; with probability (1/137)2 is made up of an electron and a photon and with probability (1/137)4 is made up of an electron, a photon and an electron–positon pair etc. It seems to be a very unintuitive answer to the question “what is an elementary particle?” CONCLUSION Modern physicists still believe that matter is atomic but they do not believe in empty space. Furthermore atoms and elementary particles are not atomos – eternal, perfect solid, unchanging, and indestructible entities. According to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, there is no unchanging substance at all. If we want to understand contemporary notions of matter and develop an ontological model of the world, consistent with contemporary natural sciences, 16 G. T. di Francia, “A World…”, p. 28. T. Maudlin, “Part and Whole in Quantum mechanics”, in: E. Castellani (ed.), Interpreting Bodies…, p. 60. 17 8 Andrzej Łukasik we should probably go beyond the conceptual framework of atomic philosophy.18 Classical and quantum concepts of “physical entity” turn out to be incommensurable—it is not possible to understand the quantum paradigm within the conceptual framework and terminology of classical atomism. ABOUT THE AUTHOR — associate professor, Faculty of Philosophy and Sociology of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (UMCS), Lublin. 18 A. Łukasik, Philosophy of Atomism: the atomistic model of the world in the philosophy of nature, classical and modern physics, and the problem of elementarity (in Polish), UMCS, Lublin 2006, p. 366 (Filozofia atomizmu. Atomistyczny model świata w filozofii przyrody, fizyce klasycznej i współczesnej a problem elementarności).