* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 6 September
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Wave function wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Tight binding wikipedia , lookup
Matter wave wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Perturbation theory wikipedia , lookup
Dirac bracket wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Perturbation theory (quantum mechanics) wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
AdS/CFT correspondence wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to gauge theory wikipedia , lookup
Molecular Hamiltonian wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Yang–Mills theory wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantum gravity wikipedia , lookup
Utrecht University Gerard ’t Hooft, quant-ph/0604008 Erice, September 6, 2006 1 A few of my slides shown at the beginning of the lecture were accidentally erased. Here is a summary: Motivations for believing in a deterministic theory: 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. Religion “Quantum cosmology” Locality in General Relativity and String Theory Evidence from the Standard Model (admittedly weak). It can be done. “Collapse of wave function” makes no sense QM for a closed, finite space-time makes no sense String theory only obeys locality principles in perturbation expansion. But only on-shell wave functions can be defined. In the S.M., local gauge invariance may point towards the existence of equivalence classes (see later in lecture) The math of QM appears to allow for a deterministic interpretation, if only some “small, technical” problems could be overcome. 2 3 1. Any live cell with fewer than two neighbours dies, as if by loneliness. 2. Any live cell with more than three neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding. 3. Any live cell with two or three neighbours lives, unchanged, to the next generation. 4. Any dead cell with exactly three neighbours comes to life. 4 The use of Hilbert Space Techniques as technical devices for the treatment of the statistics of chaos ... A “state” of the universe: í x , ... , p, ..., i, ..., A simple model universe: 0 0 1 U 1 0 0 0 1 0 , anything ... ý í 1ý í 2ý í 3ý í 1ý 1 2 3 ; P1 , P2 , P3 2 1 Diagonalize: U e 2i / 3 2 2 2 3 iH 0 e e 2i / 3 23 5 Emergent quantum mechanics in a deterministic system d x (t ) f (x ) dt ˆ p i x Hˆ pˆ f ( x ) g ( x ) d x (t ) i x (t ) , Hˆ f (x ) dt Hˆ Hˆ † i f 2 Im(g ) 0 The but Hˆ 0 ?? POSITIVITY Problem 5a In any periodic system, the Hamiltonian can be written as H p ; e iHT 2 T 2 n 1 H n ; T 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 n 0, 1, 2, ... This is the spectrum of a harmonic oscillator !! 6 In search for a Lock-in mechanism 7 Lock-in mechanism 8 A key ingredient for an ontological theory: Information loss Introduce equivalence classes {1},{4} {2} {3} 9 With (virtual) black holes, information loss will be very large! → Large equivalence classes ! 10 Consider a periodic variable: kets Beable d ; dt [ 0, 2 ] H p i Lz m , m 0, 1, 2, 3 2 1 0 ̶1 ̶2 ̶3 The quantum harmonic oscillator has only: Changeable H n , m 0, 1, 2, bras 1 1 This and the nect 2 slides were not shown during the lecture but may be instructive: Interactions can take place in two ways. Consider two (or more) periodic variables. 1: dqi i qi fi (q ); dt H int fi pi Do perturbation theory in the usual way by computing n H int m . 1 2 q2 0 1 2: Write x for the 1 0 hopping operator. q1 q1 (0) 1t q1 a H 1 p1 2 p2 A ( x 1) (q1 a) (q2 ) Use x 1; to derive H int e 12 i i ; t2 e 1 i x 2 i x ; e 1 i ( 1) x 2 x exp i H dt exp(i A (q2 )( x 1) 1 ) x t1 A 12 1 if (q2 ) 1 1 1 3 However, in both cases, nH int m will take values over the entire range of values for n and m . Positive and negative values for n and m are mixed ! → negative energy states cannot be projected out ! But it can “nearly” be done! suppose we take many slits, and average: (q ) f (q ) 2 2 Then we can choose to have the desired Fourier coefficients for n H int m But this leads to decoherence ! 1 4 Consider two non - interacting systems: E2 E1 E2 E1 H 1 n1 2 n2 1 5 The allowed states have “kets ” with H E1 E2 1 (n1 12 ) 2 (n 2 12 ) , n1,2 0 and “bras ” with H E1 E2 1 (n1 12 ) 2 (n 2 12 ) , E1 E2 0 Now, | E1 E2 | | E1 E2 | E t 12 E1 t1 E2 t2 n1,2 1 1 2 and (E1 E2 )(t1 t2 ) (E1 E2 )(t1 t2 ) So we also have: (t1 t2 ) (t1 t2 ) 1 6 The combined system is expected again to behave as a periodic unit, so, its energy spectrum must be some combination of series of integers: E1 E2 5 4 3 2 1 For every p1 , p2 that are odd and relative primes, we have a series: 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 En (n 12 ) p11 p22 -5 1 7 En (n 12 ) p11 p22 2 2 2 T2 The case p1 5, p2 3 2 This is the periodicity of the equivalence class: x2 p1 x1 p2 x2 Cnst (Mod 2 ) x1 2 T12 p11 p22 2 1 T1 1 8 A key ingredient for an ontological theory: Information loss Introduce equivalence classes í 1ý,í 4ý í 2ý í 3ý 1 9 With (virtual) black holes, information loss will be very large! → Large equivalence classes ! 2 0 This is one equivalence class 2 p1 and p2 are beables (ontological quantities), to be determined by interactions with other variables. x2 Note that x1 is now equivalent with x1 2 (k / p1 ) (Mod 2 ) x1 with y1 x1 / p 1 and 1 Therefore, we should work y2 x 2 / p 2 instead of x1 and x 2 In terms of these new variables, we have p1 p 2 1 2 1 Some important conclusions: An isolated system will have equivalence classes that show periodic motion; the period ω will be a “beable”. The Hamiltonian will be H = (n +½) ω , where n is a changeable: it generates the evolution. However, in combination with other systems, n plays the role of identifying how many of the states are catapulted into one equivalence class: x1 x1 2 /(2n 1) If all states are assumed to be non-equivalent, then n = 0 . The Hamiltonian for the combined system 1 and 2 is then H 12 (n12 1 2 ) ( 1 2 ) The ω are all beables, so there is no problem keeping them all positive. The only changeable in the Hamiltonian is the number n for the entire universe, which may be positive (kets) or negative (bras) This is how the Hamiltonian “locks in” with a beable ! Positivity problem solved. 2 2 1. In the energy eigenstates, the equivalence classes coincide with the points of constant phase of the wave function. Limit cycles If T 2 /( p1 1 p 2 2 ) is indeed the period of the equivalence class, then this must also be the period of the limit cycle of the system ! We now turn this around. Assume that our deterministic system will eventually end in a limit cycle with period T . Then 2 /T is the energy (already long before the limit cycle was reached). The phase of the wave function tells us where in the limit cycle we will be. 2 3 Gravity H ( n 1 2 ) i Since only the overall n variable is a changeable, whereas the rest of the Hamiltonian, i , are beables, our theory will allow to couple the Hamiltonian to gravity such that the gravitational field is a beable. (Note, however, that momentum is still a changeable, and it couples to gravity at higher orders in 1/c ) Gauge theories The equivalence classes have so much in common with the gauge orbits in a local gauge theory, that one might suspect these actually to be the same, in many cases ( → Future speculation) 2 4 General conclusions At the Planck scale, Quantum Mechanics is not wrong, but its interpretation may have to be revised, not only for philosophical reasons, but to enable us to construct more concise theories, recovering e.g. locality (which appears to have been lost in string theory). The “random numbers”, inherent in the usual statistical interpretation of the wave functions, may well find their origins at the Planck scale, so that, there, we have an ontological (deterministic) mechanics For this to work, this deterministic system must feature information loss at a vast scale. We still have a problem: how to realize the information loss process before the interactions are switched on ! 2 5 This and the next slide were not shown during lecture Claim: Quantum mechanics is exact, yet the Classical World exists !! The equations of motion of the (classical and [sub-]atomic) world are deterministic, but involve Planck-scale variables. The conventional classical e.o.m. are (of course) inaccurate. Quantum mechanics as we know it, only refers to the lowenergy domain, where the fast-oscillating Planckian variables have been averaged over. Atoms and electrons are not “real” 26 At the Planck scale, we presume that all laws of physics, describing the evolution. refer to beables only. Going from the Planck scale to the atomic scale, we mix the bables with changeables; beables and changeables become indistinguisable !! MACROSCOPIC variables, such as the positions of planets, are probably again beables. They are ontological ! Atomic observables are not, in general, beables. 2 7 G. ’t Hooft A mathematical theory for deterministic quantum mechanics The End 2 8