* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Document
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Quantum fiction wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
Wave function wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Quantum chromodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Hydrogen atom wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Matter wave wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Yang–Mills theory wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to gauge theory wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Utrecht University the Gerard ’t Hooft Tilburg, Keynote Address QM vs determinism: opposing religions? Newton’s laws: not fully deterministic The heuristic theory: local determinism, info-loss and quantization (discretization) Quantum statistics: QM as a tool. Quantum states; The deterministic Hamiltonian The significance of the info-loss assumption: equivalence classes Energy and Poincaré cycles Free Will, Bell’s inequalities; the observability of non-commuting operators Symmetries, local gauge-invariance Determinism Omar Khayyam (1048-1131) in his robā‘īyāt : “And the first Morning of creation wrote / What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.” Our present models of Naturepoints are quantum mechanical. Starting Does that prove that Nature itself is quantum mechanical? We assume a ToE that literally determines all events in the universe: “Theory of Everything” determinism Newton’s laws: not fully deterministic: prototype example of a ‘chaotic’ mapping: t=0: x = 1.23456789012345 t=1: x = 2.41638507294163 t=2: x = 4.62810325476981 How would a fully deterministic theory look? t=0: x = 1.23456789012345 t=1: x = 1.02345678901234 t=2: x = 1.00234567890123 There is information loss. Information loss can also explain Information is not conserved This is a necessary assumption Two (weakly) coupled degrees of freedom One might imagine that there are equations of Nature that can only be solved in a statistical sense. Quantum Mechanics appears to be a magnificent mathematical scheme to do such calculations. Example of such a system: the ISING MODEL L. Onsager, B. Kaufman 1949 In short: QM appears to be the solution of a mathematical problem. As if: We know the solution, but what EXACTLY was the problem ? The use of Hilbert Space Techniques as technical devices for the treatment of the statistics of chaos ... A “state” of the universe: TOP DOWN í x , ... , p, ..., i, ..., A simple model universe: , anything ... ý í 1ý í 2ý í 3ý í 1ý BOTTOM UP 1“Beable” 2 0 0 1 U 1 0 0 0 1 0 Diagonalize: 3; P1 , P2 , P3 1 U e 2i / 3 “Changeable” 2 2 iH e e 2i / 3 2 2 3 0 23 Quantum States d qi fi (q ) dt H ( p, q ) pi fi (q ) gi (q ) d qi i [ H ( p, q ), qi ] i[ p j , qi ] f j (q ) dt fi [q ] If there is info-loss, this formalism will not change much, provided that we introduce í 1ý,í 4ý í 2ý í 3ý Consider a periodic system: 3 ¹/₃T 2 ½T 1 T E=0 q(t T ) q(t ) e iHT q q E 2 n / T ―1 ―2 ―3 a harmonic oscillator !! For a system that is completely isolated from the rest of the universe, and which is in an energy eigenstate, is the T 2 / E periodicity of its Poincaré cycle ! The quantum phase appears to be the position of this state in its Poincaré cycle. The equivalence classes have to be very large these info - equivalence classes are very reminiscent of local gauge equivalence classes. It could be that that’s what gauge equivalence classes are H V/G Two states could be gauge-equivalent if the information distinguishing them gets lost. This might also be true for the coordinate transformations Emergent general relativity Other continuous Symmetries such as: rotation, translation, Lorentz, local gauge inv., coordinate reparametrization invariance, may emerge together with QM ... They may be exact locally, but not a property of the underlying ToE, and not be a property of the boundary conditions of the universe momentum space Rotation symmetry Renormalization Group: how does one derive large distance correlation features knowing the small distance behavior? K. Wilson momentum space Unsolved problems: Flatness problem, Hierarchy problem A simple model generating the following quantum theory for an N dimensional vector space of states: d iH ; dt H11 H H N 1 H1N H NN 2 (continuous) degrees of freedom, φ and ω : d (t ) (t ) , [0, 2 ) ; dt d (t ) f ( ) f '( ); f ( ) det( H ) dt d (t ) (t ) , [0, 2 ) ; dt d (t ) f ( ) f '( ); f ( ) det( H ) dt f '( ) ein( t ) n ( ) i t 1 e ( ), (1 ,..., N ) f ( ) d dt In this model, the energy ω is a beable. stable fixed points And what about the Bell inequalities John S. Bell electron vacuum Measuring device ? Quite generally, contradictions between QM and determinism arise when it is assumed that an observer may choose between non-commuting operators, to measure whatever (s)he wishes to measure, without affecting the wave functions, in particular their phases. But the wave functions are man-made utensils that are not ontological, just as probability distributions. A “classical” measuring device cannot be rotated without affecting the wave functions of the objects measured. The most questionable element in the usual discussions concerning Bell’s inequalities, is the assumption of Propose to replace it with Free Will : “Any observer can freely choose which feature of a system he/she wishes to measure or observe.” Is that so, in a deterministic theory ? In a deterministic theory, one cannot change the present without also changing the past. Changing the past might well affect the correlation functions of the physical degrees of freedom in the present – the phases of the wave functions, may well be modified by the observer’s “change of mind”. Do we have a FREE WILL , that does not even affect the phases? Using this concept, physicists “prove” that deterministic theories for QM are impossible. The existence of this “free will” seems to be indisputable. Citations: R. Tumulka: weKochen: have to abandon [Conway’s] four incompatible Conway, free will isone justofthat the experimenter can premises. It seems thatany anyone theory the freedom assumption freely choosetotome make of aviolating small number of invokes a conspiracy as unsatisfactory ... observations ...and thisshould failurebe [ofregarded QM] to predict is a merit rather than a defect, since these results involve free decisions that We should require ahas physical the universe not yettheory made.to be non-conspirational, which means here that it can cope with arbitrary choices of the experimenters, as if they had free will (no matter whether or not there exists ``genuine" free will). Bassi, Ghirardi: Needlessiftosomehow say, the the [theinitial free-will assumption] A theory seems unsatisfactory conditions of the mustare beso true, thus B that is free to measure along any in triple of universe contrived EPR pairs always know advance which directions. ... experimenters will choose. magnetic fields the 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 also 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 Holography: any isolated system, with fixed boundary, if left by itself for long enough time, will go into a limit cycle, with a very short period. Energy is defined to be the inverse of that period: E = hν In search for a Lock-in mechanism Lock-in mechanism The vacuum state must be a Chaotic solution Just as in Conway’s Game of Life ... stationary at large distance scales “Free will” is limited by laws of physics The ultimate religion: ( Moslem ?? ) “The will of God is absolute ... 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. This allows us to introduce quantum symmetries Example of a quantum symmetry: A 1+1 dimensional space-time lattice with only even sites: x + t = even. ↑ t x → x ,t 1, “Law of nature”: x 1,t 1 x ,t x 2,t x 1,t 1 ↑ t Classically, this has a symmetry: x → x x x ; x t t t t even But in quantum language, we have: x ,t , 3 x ,t x1,t 1x,t 1 1x1,t 1x1,t 1x,t 1 1 x 1,t 0 1 1 0 1 x t odd t 1 x,t x t 1 x,t 1 x 1,t 1 x 1 x 1,t 1 1 x,t 2 What about rotations and translations? One easy way to use quantum operators to enhance classical symmetries: The displacement operator: U { f x } { f x1} ; xU U ( x 1) Eigenstates: U p, r e i p p, r ; 0 p 2 Fractional displacement operator: U (a) e ia p This is an extension of translation symmetry Consider two non - interacting periodic systems: E2 E1 E2 E1 H 1 n1 2 n2 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 ) 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 -5 En (n 12 ) p11 p22 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 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.