DOCSLIB.ORG

EPR Paradox and Bell Inequality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EPR Paradox and Bell Inequality EPR paradox and Bell inequality Anton´ın Cernochˇ RCPTM, Joint Laboratory of Optics of Palacky´ University and Physical Institute of Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 1 / 12 Quantum physics Milestones Planc - black-body radiation Einstein - photoelectric effect Heisenberg - uncertainty principle Compton, Raman, Zeeman, Millikan, Bohr, Moseley, Debye, Sommerfeld, de Broglie, Schrodinger,¨ Born, von Neumann, Dirac, Fermi, Pauli, von Laue, Dyson, Hilbert, Wien, Bose, Sommerfeld, ::: Two main principles randomness superposition principle A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 2 / 12 Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg Wavefunction physical systems have not definite properties before they are measured quantum mechanics only predict the probabilities of measurements outputs wavefunction is non-local measurement changes the system collapse of wavefunction ! Other theories many-worlds interpretation the De Broglie-Bohm (pilot-wave) interpretation quantum decoherence theorie A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 3 / 12 EPR paradox Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935) wave function does not provide a complete description of physical reality ”element of reality” determines the measurement results these hidden variables are local ”God does not play dice with the universe” A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 4 / 12 Bell inequality John Stewart Bell ”On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox”. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964) local realism cannot reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanical theory If EPR are right different measurements (a, b, c) on two distant particles (A and B) measurement results on A is not affected by setting of measurement on B and vice versa measurement result 1 ± statistics over many realizations correlation C ! then C(a; c) C(b; a) C(b; c) 1 − − ≤ A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 5 / 12 CHSH inequality John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony and Richard A. Holt ”Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–4 (1969) generalization of Bell inequality – works also for not-perfectly correlated (anti-correlated) pair 2 C(a; b) C(a; b0) + C(a0; b) + C(a0; b0) 2 a; b − ≤ − ≤ 8 N++ N+− N−+ + N−− C = − − N++ + N+− + N−+ + N−− 1 1 2 − +1 +1 1. photon 2. photon 1 PBS PBS − A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 6 / 12 Proof four random independent variables a; a0; b; b0 with possible values 1 ± B = ab + ab0 + a0b a0b0 − a +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 a0 +1 +1 +1 +1 −1 −1 −1 −1 +1 +1 +1 +1 −1 −1 −1 −1 b +1 +1 −1 −1 +1 +1 −1 −1 +1 +1 −1 −1 +1 +1 −1 −1 b0 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1 +1 −1 B +2 +2 −2 −2 +2 −2 +2 −2 −2 +2 −2 +2 −2 −2 +2 +2 B = 2 ± statistical outcomes ) 2 B +2 − ≤ h i ≤ A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 7 / 12 Previous measurements quantum limit 2p2 2:8284271 ≈ Poh et al., Singapore 2:82759 0:00051 ± my yesterdays value 2:599 0:015 ± A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 8 / 12 Standard deviation σ longer accumulation of data higher precision (µ/σ) ! A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 9 / 12 Bell states Maximally entangled states 1 Φ+ = p1 ( HH + VV ) Ψ+ = ( HV + VH ) j i 2 j i j i j i p2 j i j i 1 Φ− = p1 ( HH VV ) Ψ− = ( HV VH ) j i 2 j i − j i j i p2 j i − j i Angles which maximize Bell inequality violation Bmax ! C(0◦; 22:5◦) + C(0◦; 67:5◦) + C(45◦; 22:5◦) + C(45◦; 67:5◦) − 4 coincidence measurement for each correlation 16 measurements ) if you change measurement basis by HWP – rotate it by half angle! A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 10 / 12 Table of HWP settings C(0◦; 22:5◦) C(0◦; 67:5◦) #1 #2 #1 #2 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N++ 0 11:25 N++ 0 33:75 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N+− 0 56:25 N+− 0 78:75 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N−+ 45 11:25 N−+ 45 33:75 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N−− 45 56:25 N−− 45 78:75 C(45◦; 22:5◦) C(45◦; 67:5◦) #1 #2 #1 #2 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N++ 22:5 11:25 N++ 22:5 33:75 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N+− 22:5 56:25 N+− 22:5 78:75 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N−+ 67:5 11:25 N−+ 67:5 33:75 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ N−− 67:5 56:25 N−− 67:5 78:75 A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 11 / 12 Bell factor calculation Bmax σ(Bmax ) 2 2 X 2 Nu = N++ N+− N−+ + N−− σ (N ) = σ (N ) = σ (N ) − − u l ±± Nl = N++ + N+− + N−+ + N−− N C = u N 1 l σ2( ) = ( 2 + 2) σ2( ) C 4 Nu Nl Nu Nl Bmax = C + C + C + C − 1 2 3 4 4 2 X 2 σ (Bmax ) = σ (Cn) n=1 A. Cernochˇ (RCPTM/JLO) EPR & Bell inequality 31.8.2016 12 / 12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Study of Quantum Spin Correlations of Relativistic Electron Pairs
    Study of quantum spin correlations of relativistic electron pairs Project status Nov. 2015 Jacek Ciborowski Marta Włodarczyk, Michał Drągowski, Artem Poliszczuk (UW) Joachim Enders, Yuliya Fritsche (TU Darmstadt) Warszawa 20.XI.2015 Quantum spin correlations In this exp: e1,e2 – electrons under study a, b - directions of spin projections (+- ½) 4 combinations for e1 and e2: ++, --, +-, -+ Probabilities: P++ , P+- , P-+ , P- - (ΣP=1) Correlation function : C = P++ + P-- - P-+ - P-+ Historical perspective • Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox (1935): QM is not a complete local realistic theory • Bohm & Aharonov formulation involving spin correlations (1957) • Bell inequalities (1964) a local realistic theory must obey a class of inequalities • practical approach to Bell’s inequalities: counting aacoincidences to measure correlations The EPR paradox Boris Podolsky Nathan Rosen Albert Einstein (1896-1966) (1909-1995) (1979-1955) A. Afriat and F. Selleri, The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen Paradox (Plenum Press, New York and London, 1999) Bohm’s version with the spin Two spin-1/2 fermions in a singlet state: E.g. if spin projection of 1 on Z axis is measured 1/2 spin projection of 2 must be -1/2 All projections should be elements of reality (QM predicts that only S2 and David Bohm (1917-1992) Sz can be determined) Hidden variables? ”Quantum Theory” (1951) Phys. Rev. 85(1952)166,180 The Bell inequalities J.S.Bell: Impossible to reconcile the concept of hidden variables with statistical predictions of QM If local realism quantum correlations
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Eraser
    Quantum Eraser March 18, 2015 It was in 1935 that Albert Einstein, with his collaborators Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, exploiting the bizarre property of quantum entanglement (not yet known under that name which was coined in Schrödinger (1935)), noted that QM demands that systems maintain a variety of ‘correlational properties’ amongst their parts no matter how far the parts might be sepa- rated from each other (see 1935, the source of what has become known as the EPR paradox). In itself there appears to be nothing strange in this; such cor- relational properties are common in classical physics no less than in ordinary experience. Consider two qualitatively identical billiard balls approaching each other with equal but opposite velocities. The total momentum is zero. After they collide and rebound, measurement of the velocity of one ball will naturally reveal the velocity of the other. But the EPR argument coupled this observation with the orthodox Copen- hagen interpretation of QM, which states that until a measurement of a par- ticular property is made on a system, that system cannot, in general, be said to possess any definite value of that property. It is easy to see that if dis- tant correlations are preserved through measurement processes that ‘bring into being’ the measured values there is a prima facie conflict between the Copenhagen interpretation and the relativistic stricture that no information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Suppose, for example, we have a system with some property which is anti-correlated (in real cases, this property could be spin).
    [Show full text]
  • Required Readings
    HPS/PHIL 93872 Spring 2006 Historical Foundations of the Quantum Theory Don Howard, Instructor Required Readings: Topic: Readings: Planck and black-body radiation. Martin Klein. “Planck, Entropy, and Quanta, 19011906.” The Natural Philosopher 1 (1963), 83-108. Martin Klein. “Einstein’s First Paper on Quanta.” The Natural Einstein and the photo-electric effect. Philosopher 2 (1963), 59-86. Max Jammer. “Regularities in Line Spectra”; “Bohr’s Theory The Bohr model of the atom and spectral of the Hydrogen Atom.” In The Conceptual Development of series. Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 62- 88. The Bohr-Sommerfeld “old” quantum Max Jammer. “The Older Quantum Theory.” In The Conceptual theory; Einstein on transition Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, probabilities. 1966, pp. 89-156. The Bohr-Kramers-Slater theory. Max Jammer. “The Transition to Quantum Mechanics.” In The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 157-195. Bose-Einstein statistics. Don Howard. “‘Nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf,’ or the Prehistory of EPR, 1909-1935: Einstein’s Early Worries about the Quantum Mechanics of Composite Systems.” In Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical, and Physical Inquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Arthur Miller, ed. New York: Plenum, 1990, pp. 61-111. Max Jammer. “The Formation of Quantum Mechanics.” In The Schrödinger and wave mechanics; Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Heisenberg and matrix mechanics. McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 196-280. James T. Cushing. “Early Attempts at Causal Theories: A De Broglie and the origins of pilot-wave Stillborn Program.” In Quantum Mechanics: Historical theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Bachelorarbeit
    Bachelorarbeit The EPR-Paradox, Nonlocality and the Question of Causality Ilvy Schultschik angestrebter akademischer Grad Bachelor of Science (BSc) Wien, 2014 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: 033 676 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Physik Betreuer: Univ. Prof. Dr. Reinhold A. Bertlmann Contents 1 Motivation and Mathematical framework 2 1.1 Entanglement - Separability . .2 1.2 Schmidt Decomposition . .3 2 The EPR-paradox 5 2.1 Introduction . .5 2.2 Preface . .5 2.3 EPR reasoning . .8 2.4 Bohr's reply . 11 3 Hidden Variables and no-go theorems 12 4 Nonlocality 14 4.1 Nonlocality and Quantum non-separability . 15 4.2 Teleportation . 17 5 The Bell theorem 19 5.1 Bell's Inequality . 19 5.2 Derivation . 19 5.3 Violation by quantum mechanics . 21 5.4 CHSH inequality . 22 5.5 Bell's theorem and further discussion . 24 5.6 Different assumptions . 26 6 Experimental realizations and loopholes 26 7 Causality 29 7.1 Causality in Special Relativity . 30 7.2 Causality and Quantum Mechanics . 33 7.3 Remarks and prospects . 34 8 Acknowledgment 35 1 1 Motivation and Mathematical framework In recent years, many physicists have taken the incompatibility between cer- tain notions of causality, reality, locality and the empirical data less and less as a philosophical discussion about interpretational ambiguities. Instead sci- entists started to regard this tension as a productive resource for new ideas about quantum entanglement, quantum computation, quantum cryptogra- phy and quantum information. This becomes especially apparent looking at the number of citations of the original EPR paper, which has risen enormously over recent years, and be- coming the starting point for many groundbreaking ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Many Worlds Model Resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox Via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition That Preserves Einstein Locality
    Many Worlds Model resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition that preserves Einstein Locality Sascha Vongehr †,†† †Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University †† National Laboratory of Solid-State Microstructures, Thin-film and Nano-metals Laboratory, Nanjing University Hankou Lu 22, Nanjing 210093, P. R. China The violation of Bell inequalities by quantum physical experiments disproves all relativistic micro causal, classically real models, short Local Realistic Models (LRM). Non-locality, the infamous “spooky interaction at a distance” (A. Einstein), is already sufficiently ‘unreal’ to motivate modifying the “realistic” in “local realistic”. This has led to many worlds and finally many minds interpretations. We introduce a simple many world model that resolves the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. The model starts out as a classical LRM, thus clarifying that the many worlds concept alone does not imply quantum physics. Some of the desired ‘non-locality’, e.g. anti-correlation at equal measurement angles, is already present, but Bell’s inequality can of course not be violated. A single and natural step turns this LRM into a quantum model predicting the correct probabilities. Intriguingly, the crucial step does obviously not modify locality but instead reality: What before could have still been a direct realism turns into modal realism. This supports the trend away from the focus on non-locality in quantum mechanics towards a mature structural realism that preserves micro causality. Keywords: Many Worlds Interpretation; Many Minds Interpretation; Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox; Everett Relativity; Modal Realism; Non-Locality PACS: 03.65. Ud 1 1 Introduction: Quantum Physics and Different Realisms ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell
    Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell N. David Mermin What follows is the text of my article that appeared in Reviews of Modern Physics 65, 803-815 (1993). I’ve corrected the three small errors posted over the years at the Revs. Mod. Phys. website. I’ve removed two decorative figures and changed the other two figures into (unnumbered) displayed equations. I’ve made a small number of minor editorial improvements. I’ve added citations to some recent critical articles by Jeffrey Bub and Dennis Dieks. And I’ve added a few footnotes of commentary.∗ I’m posting my old paper at arXiv for several reasons. First, because it’s still timely and I’d like to make it available to a wider audience in its 25th anniversary year. Second, because, rereading it, I was struck that Section VII raises some questions that, as far as I know, have yet to be adequately answered. And third, because it has recently been criticized by Bub and Dieks as part of their broader criticism of John Bell’s and Grete Hermann’s reading of John von Neumann.∗∗ arXiv:1802.10119v1 [quant-ph] 27 Feb 2018 ∗ The added footnotes are denoted by single or double asterisks. The footnotes from the original article have the same numbering as in that article. ∗∗ R¨udiger Schack and I will soon post a paper in which we give our own view of von Neumann’s four assumptions about quantum mechanics, how he uses them to prove his famous no-hidden-variable theorem, and how he fails to point out that one of his assump- tions can be violated by a hidden-variables theory without necessarily doing violence to the whole structure of quantum mechanics.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons of Bell's Theorem
    Lessons of Bell's Theorem: Nonlocality, yes; Action at a distance, not necessarily. Wayne C. Myrvold Department of Philosophy The University of Western Ontario Forthcoming in Shan Gao and Mary Bell, eds., Quantum Nonlocality and Reality { 50 Years of Bell's Theorem (Cambridge University Press) Contents 1 Introduction page 1 2 Does relativity preclude action at a distance? 2 3 Locally explicable correlations 5 4 Correlations that are not locally explicable 8 5 Bell and Local Causality 11 6 Quantum state evolution 13 7 Local beables for relativistic collapse theories 17 8 A comment on Everettian theories 19 9 Conclusion 20 10 Acknowledgments 20 11 Appendix 20 References 25 1 Introduction 1 1 Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some con- troversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: there is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativis- tic causal structure.
    [Show full text]
  • A WORLD WITHOUT CAUSE and EFFECT Logic-Defying Experiments Into Quantum Causality Scramble the Notion of Time Itself
    A WORLD WITHOUT CAUSE AND EFFECT Logic-defying experiments into quantum causality scramble the notion of time itself. BY PHILIP BALL lbert Einstein is heading out for his This finding1 in 2015 made the quantum the constraints of a predefined causal structure daily stroll and has to pass through world seem even stranger than scientists had might solve some problems faster than con- Atwo doorways. First he walks through thought. Walther’s experiments mash up cau- ventional quantum computers,” says quantum the green door, and then through the red one. sality: the idea that one thing leads to another. theorist Giulio Chiribella of the University of Or wait — did he go through the red first and It is as if the physicists have scrambled the con- Hong Kong. then the green? It must have been one or the cept of time itself, so that it seems to run in two What’s more, thinking about the ‘causal struc- other. The events had have to happened in a directions at once. ture’ of quantum mechanics — which events EDGAR BĄK BY ILLUSTRATION sequence, right? In everyday language, that sounds nonsen- precede or succeed others — might prove to be Not if Einstein were riding on one of the sical. But within the mathematical formalism more productive, and ultimately more intuitive, photons ricocheting through Philip Walther’s of quantum theory, ambiguity about causation than couching it in the typical mind-bending lab at the University of Vienna. Walther’s group emerges in a perfectly logical and consistent language that describes photons as being both has shown that it is impossible to say in which way.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered
    Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered incomplete? Gilles Brassard Andr´eAllan M´ethot D´epartement d’informatique et de recherche op´erationnelle Universit´ede Montr´eal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville Montr´eal (QC), H3C 3J7 Canada {brassard, methotan}@iro.umontreal.ca 13 June 2005 Abstract In loving memory of Asher Peres, we discuss a most important and influential paper written in 1935 by his thesis supervisor and men- tor Nathan Rosen, together with Albert Einstein and Boris Podolsky. In that paper, the trio known as EPR questioned the completeness of quantum mechanics. The authors argued that the then-new theory should not be considered final because they believed it incapable of describing physical reality. The epic battle between Einstein and Bohr arXiv:quant-ph/0701001v1 30 Dec 2006 intensified following the latter’s response later the same year. Three decades elapsed before John S. Bell gave a devastating proof that the EPR argument was fatally flawed. The modest purpose of our paper is to give a critical analysis of the original EPR paper and point out its logical shortcomings in a way that could have been done 70 years ago, with no need to wait for Bell’s theorem. We also present an overview of Bohr’s response in the interest of showing how it failed to address the gist of the EPR argument. Dedicated to the memory of Asher Peres 1 Introduction In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published a paper that sent shock waves in the physics community [5], especially in Copenhagen.
    [Show full text]
  • PROPOSED EXPERIMENT to TEST LOCAL HIDDEN-VARIABLE THEORIES* John F
    VOLUME 23, NUMBER 15 PHYSI CA I. REVIEW I.ETTERS 13 OcToBER 1969 sible without the devoted effort of the personnel ~K. P. Beuermann, C. J. Rice, K. C. Stone, and R. K. of the Orbiting Geophysical Observatory office Vogt, Phys. Rev. Letters 22, 412 (1969). at the Goddard Space Flight Center and at TR%. 2J. L'Heureux and P. Meyer, Can. J. Phys. 46, S892 (1968). 3J. Rockstroh and W. R. Webber, University of Min- nesota Publication No. CR-126, 1969. ~Research supported in part under National Aeronau- 46. M. Simnett and F. B. McDonald, Goddard Space tics and Space Administration Contract No. NAS 5-9096 Plight Center Report No. X-611-68-450, 1968 (to be and Grant No. NGR 14-001-005. published) . )Present address: Department of Physics, The Uni- 5W. R. Webber, J. Geophys. Res. 73, 4905 (1968). versity of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. GP. B. Abraham, K. A. Brunstein, and T. L. Cline, (Also Department of Physics. Phys. Rev. 150, 1088 (1966). PROPOSED EXPERIMENT TO TEST LOCAL HIDDEN-VARIABLE THEORIES* John F. Clauserf Department of Physics, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027 Michael A. Horne Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 and Abner Shimony Departments of Philosophy and Physics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 and Richard A. Holt Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (Received 4 August 1969) A theorem of Bell, proving that certain predictions of quantum mechanics are incon- sistent with the entire family of local hidden-variable theories, is generalized so as to apply to realizable experiments. A proposed extension of the experiment of Kocher and Commins, on the polarization correlation of a pair of optical photons, will provide a de- cisive test betw'een quantum mechanics and local hidden-variable theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Emerging Science Answering Philosopher: Greatest Questions?
    free inquiry SPRING 2001 • VOL. 21 No. Is Emerging Science Answering Philosopher: Greatest Questions? ALSO: Paul Kurtz Peter Christina Hoff Sommers Tibor Machan Joan Kennedy Taylor Christopher Hitchens `Secular Humanism THE AFFIRMATIONS OF HUMANISM: LI I A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES free inquiry We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities. We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state. We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual under- standing. We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance. We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves. We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual ori- entation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity. We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suf- fering on other species. We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
    [Show full text]
  • Required Readings
    HPS/PHIL 687 Fall 2003 Historical Foundations of the Quantum Theory Required Readings: Topic: Readings: Planck and black-body radiation. Martin Klein. “Planck, Entropy, and Quanta, 1901- 1906.” The Natural Philosopher 1 (1963), 83-108. Einstein and the photo-electric effect. Martin Klein. “Einstein’s First Paper on Quanta.” The Natural Philosopher 2 (1963), 59-86. The Bohr model of the atom and spectral series. Max Jammer. “Regularities in Line Spectra”; “Bohr’s Theory of the Hydrogen Atom.” In The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 62-88. The Bohr-Sommerfeld “old” quantum theory; Max Jammer. “The Older Quantum Theory.” In Einstein on transition probabilities. The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 89-156. The Bohr-Kramers-Slater theory. Max Jammer. “The Transition to Quantum Mechanics.” In The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 157-195. Bose-Einstein statistics. Don Howard. “‘Nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf,’ or the Prehistory of EPR, 1909-1935: Einstein’s Early Worries about the Quantum Mechanics of Composite Systems.” In Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical, and Physical Inquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Arthur Miller, ed. New York: Plenum, 1990, pp. 61-111. Schrödinger and wave mechanics; Heisenberg and Max Jammer. “The Formation of Quantum matrix mechanics. Mechanics.” In The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966, pp. 196-280. De Broglie and the origins of pilot-wave theory. James T. Cushing. “Early Attempts at Causal Theories: A Stillborn Program.” In Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony.
    [Show full text]