The Hidden- Variables Controversy in Quantum Physics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Phys Educ Vol 14, 1979 Prlnted in Great Brltaln CONTROVERSIESIN PHYSICS aggressiveness which resembles more the defence of orthodoxy of one ideology than a spirit of scientific objectivity’ (Jauch 1973, introduction). The hidden- ‘The entirely reasonable question, Are there hidden- variable theories consistent with quantum theory and variables if so whatare their characteristics?,has been unfortunately clouded by emotionalism’ (Ballentine controversy in 1970, p374). Perhaps some of the acrimonv which has surrounded this debate can be seen in the following quantum physics comment on the workof hidden-variable theorists made by Leon Rosenfeld, an eminent physicist and TREVOR J PINCH defender of the orthodoxview of quantum theory: Science Studies Centre, Universityof Bath ‘That suchirrational dogmatists shouldhurl the very accusation of irrationality and dogmatism at the defenders of the common-sense, uncommitted attitude of other scientists is the crowning paradox which gives Recent studies of controversies in science have shown a touch of comedy to a controversy so distressingly that they are not always settled by appeals to Nature pointless and untimely’ (Rosenfeld 1958, p658). alone. Social and political factors as well as scientific These are hardly the sorts of comments we would factors often combine to produce the outcome(see for expect to follow from unproblematicreadings of example Forman 1971, Collins 1975, Frankel 1976 Nature’s secrets. So what was at stake in this dispute? and Wynne 1976). The ‘truth’, it seems, emerges from To answer this question we need to go back to the whatcan be asurprisingly volatile struggle, very revolution in physics brought about by the develop- unlike the rarified atmosphere of noblesse within ment of quantum theoryin the 1920s. which suchdebates are generally thoughtto take place. Traditionally, scientific knowledge is portrayed as Statistical natureof quantum theory stemming from relatively unproblematic ‘readings’ of Thequantum theory is fundamentallya statistical Nature-essentially science is seen as a process in theoryreplacing the causal description given by which humans play a passive role.. This view has been classicalmechanics. The statistical nature of the challenged by those who wish to argue that science is, theory is manifest in manyfundamental processes, first and foremost, a product of human activity-that such as radioactivity.Although it is known thatat is, that scientific knowledge results from the creative some point a radioactive atom will decay, the exact activity of scientists (Kuhn 1970). Scientific moment cannot be specified according to the quantum knowledge is a social product constructed, and indeed theory. Radioactive decay, like all quantum processes, fought for, by scientists in particular social and is essentially statistical, and all that can be given is a historical settings. In this view it is at times of probability that the atom will decay in a certain time scientific controversy, when all orpart of such interval. No such hiatus existed in classical physics. knowledge comesunder challenge, thatthe social The lawsdescribing physical systems were fully causal dimensions of science become clearest. Just as natural and their behaviour could, in principle, be determined scientistsoften learn most aboutthe systemunder throughout space andtime. study when it is experiencing its greatest perturbation When it became apparent that the quantum theory or stress, so toocan the studentof the scientific was astatistical theory,the question arose in the enterprise find the stress produced by a scientific con- minds of the early quantum physicists as to whether troversy most rewarding for revealing the social there wassome causal substratum underlying the processes of science. world of statistical effects. Perhaps Nature did obey The hidden-variables controversy, which raged so deterministiclaws but we did not yethave a good vociferously in the 1950s and early 1960s following enoughtheory toproduce sucha description. The the challenge posed by hidden-variables theories to the phenomenon of Brownian motion was called upon as orthodox version of quantumtheory, is gooda an analogy. The seemingly random ‘joggling’ motion example of a controversy which was obviously of smokea particle suspended in a gascan be permeated by social influences. Take, for instance, the explained in terms of themany collisions ofgas following statements by physicists concerned with the molecules with thesmoke particle.These gas controversy: molecules moveaccording tothe laws of classical ‘. the discussions which surround the quest for mechanics and it is only their aggregateproperties hidden variables in quantum mechanics have, on both which appear to be random. The purpose of hidden- sides of the camp, often been conducted in a spirit of variablestheorists in quantum mechanicswas to 0031-9120/79/010048+05501 00 0 1979Thelnst~iuteofPhysics postulate a substratum ofsuch ‘hidden’ variables physicist came to talk to him about the theory. This analogous to the gas molecules in classical statistical physicist was David Bohm and it is he who has been mechanics.These new variables would allow the atthe centre of the hidden-variablescontroversy. statistical theoryto be embedded in a morefunda- Bohm was teaching at Princeton having first obtained mentaldeterministic theory. The problemwas the his PhD at the University of California, Berkeley. He reverse of that encountered in statisticalmechanics had become interested in the foundationsof the theory where the behaviour of ensembles of systems has tobe when attending J Robert Oppenheimer’slectures on generalised from the behaviour of individual systems. quantum mechanics at Berkeley. Bohm wasnot In quantum physics the aim of hidden-variables altogether satisfied with the theory, so he thought that theoristswas to provide an explanationfor the the best way to get to understand it was to write a behaviour of individual systems based on the statistics book about it. Hisbook, entitled Quantum Theory, of their ensembles. was published in 1951 (Bohm 1960)and, was Hidden-variables approaches thus do not attempta favourably reviewed by several eminent quantum radical break from conventional quantum mechanics. physicists (it has since become one of the standard Quantum mechanics is much too successful a theory texts). Einstein in particular liked thebook and to be completely incorrect. Rather a hidden-variables thought it was the best presentation of the theory that theory will supplement or refine theconventional could be had,and he invited Bohm tocome and viewpoint and will account for most if not all of the discuss it. Having written the book and come down in data explained by the usual theory. The hope was that favour of the orthodox version of the theory, Bohm the level at which the hidden variables operated would still found quantum mechanics hardto understand. eventually become accessible to experiment and then a Stimulated by Einstein’s criticisms and by the crucial test for the viability of such theories could be criticisms made by the Soviet physicists Blokhintsev made. and Terletzkii, Bohm proceeded attemptto to The early debate over hidden variables in quantum construct a hidden-variables version. He found that he theory was settled by the work of the German math- could produce such a theory and, furthermore, that it ematician, John von Neumann. In the sametreatise in was logically consistent and accounted for all the data which he outlined the quantum theory as an operator which the normal version explained. Bohm sent out a calculus in a Hilbert space he showed by his famous preprint of the paper to several quantum physicists. ‘impossibility proofthat no hidden-variablesinter- Thepaper was eventually published in Physical pretationcould be consistent with theestablished Review (Bohm 1952). theory (von Neumann 1955). von Neumann’sproof Meanwhile Bohm found himself a victim of senator was based on four axioms which he used to deduce the McCarthy’s Committee on unAmerican Activities and normal statistical predictions of quantum theory. He as a result he lost his post at Princeton and took up a showed thatthe type of ensembles implied by the new post at the University of Sao Pauloin Brazil. As if existence of hiddenvariables could not be derived Bohm did not havetroubles enough, he found that from these axioms. The proof consisted of a highly physicists were rejecting his hidden-variables version esoteric, mathematicalargument but the conclusion of the theory. In particular both Pauli and de Broglie was plain enough: referred him back to de Broglie’s attempts to construct ‘It is thereforenot, as often assumed, a question of a a similar theory (the ‘double solution’ theory) in 1927. reinterpretation of quantum mechanics: the present Even Einstein regarded Bohm’s theoryas unsatis- systemof quantum mechanics would have to be factory. Bohm had been unaware of the earlier theory objectively false, in order that another description of of de Broglie which had had to be abandoned because theelementary processes than the statistical one be of technical objections. When Bohm looked up these possible’ (von Neumann 1955, p325). objections he found he couldovercome them by Most quantum physicists accepted this and felt that extending his theory to account for the measurement it put an end to the matter. However, there were some process. Bohm’s hidden-variable account of measure- dissenters who hoped that a more satisfactory version ment was published in Physical