Uncertainty- the basis of Quantum Physics

The year 1900, which marks the beginning of the 20th century, is also the date of the
emergence of quantum mechanics. It was then that Max Planck found the final solution
to the problem of thermal radiation from bodies posed by Gustav Kirchhoff four decades
earlier. Planck’s solution was based on the assumption that the energy of a physical
system is quantized. For example, if monochromatic light with a frequency is contained
in a mirror camera, then its energy will necessarily be a multiple of one quantum of
energy equal to hf , where h = 6.63 ∗ 10−34 J.s is called Planck constant. At first, this
hypothesis seemed relatively innocent. However, thirty years later, it turned out that
it challenges the deterministic understanding of physics.
The Uncertainty principle
In 1927, the German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) formulated the following
principle, called the uncertainty principle. Consider a particle of mass m, which moves
along the axis x with speed v. If we can measure its speed with accuracy ∆v, then the
position x it turns out to be impossible to determine with accuracy x higher. In other
words, m ∆v ∆x ≥ ~ where ~ is h/4π. The motion can be extended to the motion of
a particle moving in three-dimensional space. In this case, the ratio of uncertainties in
the projection on axis are written as below:

∆x ∆Px ≥ ~ (1)

Similarly, it is written for the other two components of the momentum vector and
coordinates. This inequality is amazing. Newton’s laws allow, based on the initial con-
ditions, to very accurately determine the position and speed of an object at any time.
In Newtonian physics, so-called classical mechanics, there is no room for uncertainty,
but this determinism inherent in the macroscopic world ceases to operate on an atomic
scale. Let’s explain why this happens. To begin with, we will give an illustration of
the uncertainty relations. Let us direct the flow of particles (for example, electrons or
neutrons) to the wall, in which there is a hole with a diameter ∆x(Figure 1).
Some of them will pass through the hole. At the moment of passing the hole, their po-
sition is determined in the plane walls with precision ∆x. In this case, the components
parallel to this plane their speeds can be known only with some uncertainty, inversely
proportional to ∆x. Even if the velocity of some particle during flight is strictly per-
pendicular to the wall, then after passing through the hole, the velocity of all passing

1
Figure 1: If a particle passes through a hole or slit of width ∆x, then its position in the
direction x known with precision ∆x, and its impulse in this direction can be known only
with some precision ∆Px . If particle is a beam with momentum ∆Pz along the axis z. Then
the passage of the beam through the slit causes it to diverge at an angle determined by
∆Px /∆Pz .

particles will be distributed inside some solid angle. So,here we are faced with the same
phenomenon of diffraction, as in the case of light rays passing through a narrow slit.

Figure 2: Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr discovered Quantum Indeterminism

Uncertainty and Measurement

According to Heisenberg’s interpretation, quantum indeterminism is the result of the
interaction of the observed particle with a measuring device. This is how he reasoned.
Suppose we want to analyze the motion of an electron. How to do it? The naked eye
obviously doesn’t have enough resolution, but what about a microscope? Microscope
resolution is determined by the wavelength range observed radiation. For light, they
are on the order of 100 nm (i.e. 100 billionths of a meter), smaller particles will not be
visible. Therefore, with the help of a microscope, it is impossible to see atoms, the size

2
of which is on the order of 0.1 nm, and even more so - to detect electrons. Imagine,
however, that we managed to make a microscope using electromagnetic radiation of a
shorter wavelength X-ray or even γ radiation of the wavelength which is less than 0.01
nm. Would such an invention be an ideal tool for accurately measuring the position
and speed of an electron? Before celebrating a victory, let’s take a closer look at our
imaginary experience. In order to obtain information about the position of an electron,
it is necessary to use at least one quantum of electromagnetic radiation. Energy E such
as a quantum is hc/λ where c is speed of light in vaccum.The shorter the wavelength, the
more energy the quantum carries. However, the momentum of a quantum is proportional
to this energy, and when it collides with an electron, the quantum inevitably transfers
part of its momentum to it. For this reason, any measurement of position, especially
for X-ray or γ radiation, introduces an uncertainty in the magnitude of the electron
momentum. An accurate analysis of the process shows that the product of uncertainties
in establishing the position of an electron and measuring its momentum cannot be less
than Planck’s constant. This brings us back to the Heisenberg principle.
It can be assumed that this reasoning applies only to a specific case, or that the mea-
surement method is incorrect. Nothing like this. The most prominent scientists (in
particular, as will be described below, Albert Einstein) tried to apply think of thought
experiments that could make it possible to determine the position and momentum of
the body with greater accuracy than prescribed by the uncertainty relations. None of
these attempts have been successful. The uncertainty principle is a law of nature, a
fundamental law. One should not think that this uncertainty is always associated with
measurement errors: numerous experimentally established facts show that it is of a
fundamental nature and that the uncertainty relation is observed even when using the
most accurate measuring devices.
Deterministic and Quantum Worlds
It seems that the principle of uncertainty contradicts what we know about the world
around us. To what extent do they refute our deterministic views? For an object of
mass m, the principle of Heisenberg looks like ∆x ∆vx ≥ ~/m. In the case of a ball
with a mass of 0.7 kg for playing petanque (Provencal national species sports, throwing
balls) product limit ∆x.∆v is slightly over 10−34 m2 /s ,which is close to zero. If the
position the ball is known with high accuracy, for example ∆x = 10−10 m (close to the
size of an atom!), then the minimum uncertainty vx for speed remains extremely low -
from 0.03 to a nanometer per hour. Therefore, the macroscopic world, according to our
ideas, despite the Heisenberg relation, remains practically deterministic.
And at what size do quantum effects become significant? Let’s go further in the direction
of the nanoworld and discuss the Brownian motion of the smallest particles in the
liquid. Consider a Brownian particle with a mass of about 10−13 kg and diameter about
1 micron. The uncertainty relation tells us that the product ∆x∆vx must exceed the
value ~/m in the case under consideration, the component is approximately 10−21 m2 /s.
If we want to know the position of the Brownian particle with accuracy up to 1 % of
its size, then the uncertainty in measuring its speed cannot exceed 10−13 m/s, which is

3
still very small. Indeed, the speed of motion of a Brownian particle is about 10−6 m/s,
which exceeds the found error vx more than a million times! This means that even
small particles Brownian motion is correctly described by classical mechanics. Thus,
the uncertainty relation becomes essential only for particles much smaller than the
Brownian one. So, it becomes extremely important for the electron. It is so important
that, as will be shown below, on its basis it turns out to be possible to estimate the size
of the atom.
From the uncertainty principle to the radius of the atom
Consider an atom of the simplest element, hydrogen, which consists of a proton and
an electron. The first essentially correct description of the hydrogen atom was given
by the British physicist Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937). He found out that an electron
with a negative charge, and a proton, which carries a charge of the same magnitude,
but opposite in sign, are held together by electrostatic interaction. In this case, the
electron revolves around the proton, just as the earth revolves around the sun. Note
that in this description, the spinning electron is a circular electric current. However,
any closed circuit through which current flows, like an antenna, emits electromagnetic
radiation. As a result, according to Rutherford’s description, the electron would have to
lose energy and ultimately fall on the proton (Figure 3)! But we know that it does not
fall - the hydrogen atom is stable. To explain this fact, it was necessary to introduce
a new physical principle that would go beyond the framework of Newtonian physics.
It was Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. In accordance with this principle, the poor

Figure 3: In classical physics, Rutherford’s atom would be unstable: the electron would
eventually fall onto the nucleus.

electron must rotate in a region of space of some size with ill-defined, but not equal
to zero speed. And from these vague considerations, we are going to estimate the size
of the atom! Let v and 2R are the speed of the electron and the diameter of the
sphere within which it moves. According to equation (1), 2mRv ≥ ~. Consequently, the
kinetic energy of electron, equal to mv 2 /2 cannot be less than ~/(8mR2 ). Adding the
electrostatic energy of its interaction with the proton, we find the inequality for the

4
total electron energy W :

−e2 ~2
W ≥ + (2)
4πε0 R 8mR2

where the elementary charge e equals 1.6 ∗ 10−19 C and ε0 is electric constant equal
to 8.85 ∗ 10−12 N m2 /C 2 . Energy W of atom cannot fall below the minimum of this
expression, which, as easy to understand, implemented when R = R0 ,where

4πε0 ~2
R0 = ≈ 0.0529nm (3)
me2
The equilibrium state of a mechanical system corresponds to the minimum of its poten-
tial energy. Atom radius R can not greatly exceed the value R0 , because the potential
energy of an electron at this would be too high, also it cannot be much less than R0 ,
because the kinetic energy would be too large, and the total energy must persist. That
is why the electron and does not fall on the core! Equation (3) gives us an idea of the
size of the hydrogen atom-that’s about 1 angstrom (tenth of a nanometer).
The emission spectrum of atoms - a key to atomic structure
Staying in ground state (minimum full energy), the atom cannot lose energy. However,
it can receive energy by going while in this or that excited condition. Moreover, it
does not remain excited for an infinitely long time - after a while, emitting light, the
atom returns to its ground state. This light corresponds to the emission of precisely
defined frequencies, i.e. the emission spectrum of an atom is ”linear”. The frequencies
of the spectral lines form a so-called discrete set, i.e. they can be numbered, for example,
depending on the intensity of each of them. To explain the origin of such a line spectrum,
it is reasonable to assume that the values that the energy of a given atom can take
also a discrete set. Since light can be emitted only in the form of photons, the law
conservation of energy requires that energy hf of each photon was equal to the difference
between two admissible values of atomic energy(Figure 4). Thus, the discrete form of
the radiation spectrum is explained at least qualitatively. It is necessary to find out why
the values of the energy of an atom constitute a discrete set. At the beginning of the
20th century, the question of the nature of the atom - the smallest particle of matter,
which is the carrier of its properties, was one of the central in physics. The proposed
models, being internally contradictory or inconsistent with the experiment, were refuted
one after another. And in 1913, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) proposed
a mathematically simple theory of the atom, explaining the existing experimental data,
but based on such unusual assumptions that he himself called them ’postulates.’
Atoms according to Niels Bohr
Niels Bohr, proposing his model of the atom, did not know anything about the uncer-
tainty principle, which was still 14 years before its discovery.
In Bohr’s model, as in Rutherford’s, the electron revolves around the nucleus, just like
the Earth revolves around the Sun, but the electron can only move in certain orbits.

5
Figure 4: Energy diagram of the hydrogen atom. An atom passes from the ground state to an
excited one by absorbing a photon, the energy of which corresponds to the difference between
the two energy levels of the atom.

For example, circular orbits are possible only if the momentum product mv electron
by the radius of its orbit R, this product is called angular momentum, is a multiple of
number of orbit and planck constant:

mvR = n~

However, the momentum of the electron and the radius of the orbit are also related
by the fact that the centripetal acceleration of the electron, equal to v 2 R, provides the
force of electrostatic attraction. For an atom hydrogen, the nucleus of which consists of
a proton, the latter is −e/(4πε0 R). From here you can already find the radii Rn−1 allo-
wed orbits for each value n. So, for n = 1 we find the already familiar value R0 , which
corresponds to the ground state. Let the reader himself derive a general formula appli-
cable to the excited states of the electron. . Bohr’s model, developed in 1913, described
rather well the spectra from radiation of atoms(Figure 5). However, its shortcomings

Figure 5: Bohr’s model makes it possible to explain the emission spectrum of the hydrogen
atom in the visible region. The lines located near the wavelengths of 410, 434, 486 and 656 nm
correspond to transitions to the level n = 2 of the excited states n = 6, 5, 4 and 3

soon became apparent. A decade later, Bohr’s theory was conceptually expanded by
the introduction of a probabilistic description of finding an electron. So, it turned out
that the value R0 (distance from an electron to a nucleus) in a hydrogen atom can to

6
be considered only a certain average value; the uncertainty principle does not allow one
to clearly determine the distance between a proton and an electron.
Probablity of finding
Assumed we suppose that at some point we were able to establish the position of the
electron. Is it possible to predict its position in a second? No, since knowledge of the
position of the electron would inevitably lead to a complete uncertainty of its speed.
No device, no theory could have predicted where the electron would go. So what do you
do?
Let’s change the strategy and mark the point in space where the electron is found, then
another point - the result of a similar measurement with another electron and repeat
this procedure many times. Although it is impossible to predict where the next mark
will appear, their distribution follows a certain rule. The density of the marks, which
varies depending on the point in space, indicates the probability of finding the electron
during the measurement. We were forced to abandon the description of the motion of
the electron, but we can now determine the probability of its finding at each point in
space. The behavior of an electron in the nanoworld is characterized by probability!
The reader not familiar with this concept cannot appreciate the role of chance in the
laws of nature. Nevertheless, as you will see, this probabilistic theory is supported by
strong experimental evidence. Thus, in the nanoworld, the presence of an electron is
determined by the laws of probability. The marks we have placed collectively resemble a
cloud, just as water droplets form clouds of varying density in the sky. Such an electron
cloud is a more accurate representation of the electron than a small planet orbiting a
nucleus, as Rutherford portrayed it.
De Brogile Waves and the Schrödinger equation
What determines the structure of electron clouds? Is there an equation that describes
quantum mechanics in the same way that Newton’s laws describe classical mechanics?
Yes, there is such an equation. It was proposed in 1925 by the Austrian physicist Erwin
Schrödinger (1887-1961) and is the basis of atomic physics and theoretical chemistry.
Schrödinger’s theory generalized the revolutionary idea proposed a year earlier by the
Frenchman Louis de Broglie (1892-1987), which was that with any particle with mo-
mentum p, you can connect a wave with a length λ = h/p. So Thus, any particle can
exhibit both corpuscular behavior and wave behavior, as light does. Similar to the one
proposed by James Maxwell (1831– 1879) wave theory of light where the electric field
E(x, y, z, t) is a function of time and three spatial coordinates, the Schrödinger equation
describes the state of a particle using a “wave function” ψ(x, y, z, t), modulus square the
second determines the probability density of finding a particle at a given time t at the
point (x, y, z) . This approach was based on an analogy with optics, where the square
of the modulus of the electric field determines the probability of finding a photon in a
given point. The difference lies in the fact that the electric field is physically measurable,
for example, by its action on electrically charged objects, while the wave function intro-
duced by de Broglie had no clear physical meaning. Using the Schrödinger equation, it

7
turned out to be possible to find the spatial distribution of the electron probability den-
sity for its possible states in the hydrogen atom. By plotting these probability density
distributions on a plane in different colors, one gets an image of various atomic orbitals
(regions in which the probability of finding an electron is highest). Such images replace
the electron orbits of Bohr’s model of the atom and visualize the behavior of electrons
in an atom. Calculations based on the Schrödinger equation explain the existence of
discrete energy levels, which are the reason for the line spectra observed during the
emission and absorption of light. Similar, but more complex calculations allow us to
understand how chemical bonds are formed between atoms.
Note that the work of de Broglie and Schrödinger preceded Heisenberg’s discovery
of the uncertainty principle. The latter is simple, concise, elegant, but contains less
information than the Schrödinger equation.
The Davisson-Jermer experiment
Proposed De Broglie’s concept of the relationship between waves and particles, the
so-called wave-particle dualism, led to the idea of using optical research methods with
the replacement of light by particle fluxes. For example, in 1927, American physicists
Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer bombarded a nickel crystal with electrons. As a
result, they obtained diffractograms, similar to those arising when crystals are irradiated
with X-rays. To interpret the obtained diffraction patterns, the electrons had to be
assigned a certain wavelength, and it coincided with the value predicted by de Broglie.
Thus, the experiment brilliantly confirmed his hypothesis.
Examining solids with diffractometry
Electron diffraction is rarely used to study crystals because electrons are absorbed by
matter much more strongly than X-rays. Another elementary particle, the neutron, is
of much greater interest. When it comes to observing light atoms or studying atomic
magnetic properties, neutron diffraction is preferable to X-rays. The latter makes it
possible to draw up maps of electron density, while polarized neutrons make it possible
to investigate not all, but only electrons located on the outer shells of an atom, precisely
those that determine its chemical and magnetic properties. The disadvantage of this
method is that expensive and bulky nuclear reactors are required to produce neutrons,
while an Xray facility is easy to equip even a modest laboratory.
Zero vibration of atoms
The uncertainty principle provides interesting information about the motion of atoms
in solids. Here we will mean crystals by solids, since at low temperatures the crystal
structure is a stable form of existence of almost all pure substances. The atoms in a
crystal are not stationary: they vibrate around an equilibrium position. The amplitude
of these vibrations is very small: the distance between two neighboring atoms always
remains close to its average value, which is about a few tenths of a nanometer. As a
rule, these fluctuations are due to thermal motion: the higher the temperature, the
greater the amplitude of the fluctuations. What happens when the temperature drops
to absolute zero (0 K, i.e. 273.15 C)? It can be assumed that the vibrations stop and

8
the atoms freeze. However, in this case, their position would be exactly fixed, while the
speed would be equal to zero, i.e.∆x = ∆P = 0, which would violate the uncertainty
relation. It follows from this that the motion of atoms cannot stop even at absolute
zero temperatures: in this case, thermal vibrations are replaced by “zero vibrations”.
Let’s try to understand this in more detail using the example of a simple crystal
consisting of only one kind of atoms (for example, hydrogen, oxygen, iron). A simplified,
but qualitatively acceptable description of the motion of an atom in a crystal relative to
its neighbors can be obtained by assuming that when it deviates from the equilibrium
position, it is acted upon by a restoring force proportional to the distance, as if it
were held by a spring. In this case, the motion of the atom relative to the equilibrium
position is described by the formula x(t) = x0 cos(ωt−α) ,where x0 - maximum vibration
amplitude (for two other the formulas for their coordinates are similar). In this case,
the velocity of the atom is vx (t) = −ωx0 sin(ωt − α). The uncertainty relation requires
∆x∆v ≥ ~/m, and consequently, ωx20 was at least ~/m, where m is the mass of atom.
The frequency ω for most substances is range between 1013 and 1014 (this characteristic
frequency of vibrations of an atom in solids is called the debye frequency). Replacing
mass m on Amn , where A - mass number and mn - average √ nucleon mass, about 1.67 ∗
−27 −11
10 kg, we get that x0 in meters should be at least 10 / A. This condition sets the
top a low boundary for the amplitude of zeropoint vibrations of 1/100 nm, which, as a
rule, is small in comparison with the equilibrium distance between neighboring atoms.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that zero-point vibrations in solids destroy its
stability.
Doubts can only remain for the smallest values A, those for hydrogen (A = 1) and
helium (A = 4). It turns out that only helium is an exception to the rule: if the pressure
does not exceed 2.5 MPa, then zero-point vibrations really make its crystalline state
unstable at any temperatures. All other simple bodies, including hydrogen H2 , when
the temperature approaches absolute zero, sooner or later harden at any pressure.
Quantization of magnetic moment
We have already seen that, according to quantum mechanics, at no moment in time
it is impossible to establish the exact values of the position ~r and velocity ~v , electron
spinning around the core. The properties of its magnetic moment are even more unusual.
The magnetic moment is a vector quantity that characterizes the property of certain
objects to orient themselves in a magnetic field. For example, a compass needle is
positioned along the earth’s magnetic field, pointing to the north magnetic pole. Many
of the elementary particles and atomic-scale objects also have a magnetic moment: an
electron, a neutron, a proton, as well as most of the nuclei, atoms and ions.The spatial
components of the magnetic moment are denoted by µx , µy and µz .
When the compass needle is oriented in a certain direction, then all three components
of its magnetic moment are clearly defined. Unlike a compass, an electron or neutron
are objects belonging to the quantum world. For them, only one of the three compo-
nents of the magnetic moment can be measured, while it is capable of taking only two

9
opposite values:−µ or +µ. This seemingly paradoxical statement was confirmed expe-
rimentally. The first experimental data, speaking in favor of quantizing the magnetic
moment of representatives of the quantum world, back in 1922 were obtained by Otto
Stern and Walter Gerlach. In their experiments, they directed a beam of silver atoms,
which, thanks to the electrons of the outer shell, have a magnetic moment, through an
inhomogeneous magnetic field. As a result, it was found that this beam is split strictly
in half, which proves the quantization of the magnetic moment into only two discrete
values (Figure 5). Indeed, if a magnetic moment could take at least three values, then
the beam would split three, and if the magnetic moment of the silver atoms could change
continuously, then the beam would simply diverge into a cone. A few more words about

Figure 5: The principle of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Atowe of silver pass through a
vertically directed inhomogeneous magnetic field. According to classical physics, a beam of
particles with a continuous distribution of the magnetic moment must diverge in a cone.
Experience shows that it is divided into two components.

the beam of silver atoms. Let’s choose an axis x along the direction of the magnetic
field. Then there is such the state of the silver atom, in which µx = −µ and another in
which µx = +µ. A condition also exist in which µy = µ. What occurs if the particle is in
this state and the component is measured µx ? Measurement with equal probability will
give µx = −µ or µx = +µ. Thus, the average value of all measurements µx , which can
be produced in a state µy = µ is equal to zero. The same applies to average value of all
measurements µx in state µy = −µ .To take into account these properties, in quantum
mechanics it is believed that the state µy = µ is a “connection” of the states µx = −µ
and µx = +µ.
Schrödinger’s Cat
The concept of “state mixing” describes very well reality on the scale of the atomic
world. It is interesting to try to spread it action on the macroscopic world. One from
examples cited by Erwin Schrödinger. He noticed that, just as the magnetic moment
in the framework of quantum mechanics can take on two different values, the usual cat
with the expansion of the latter to the scale of a room can be in two states: be both
alive and dead at the same time (Figure 6). If we open the door to the room, we with

10
Figure 6: In a thought experiment, Schrödinger imagined a cat trapped in an airtight box.
The device, the principle of which is based on the random decay of a radioactive atom, can
break a cone of poison. After a specified time has elapsed, the probability of the decay of
an atom is 1/2 . Until the observer opens the box, quantum mechanics claims that the atom
simultaneously decayed and did not decay, therefore, the cat is theoretically both alive and
dead.

equal probability 1/2 can find both a dead and a living cat, but as long as the door is
closed, the cat is both alive and dead. In 2015, Schrödinger’s cat turned 80 years old!
However, as he grows old, he becomes more and more alive. Quite recently, thanks to
the efforts of scientists, it materialized from the field of abstract reasoning and became
reality. Of course, this is not a real cat, but a tiny object, which is only jokingly called
“Schrödinger’s cat”. This name today means any relatively macroscopic object, brought
into a state of quantum superposition. This kitten (which is just a few atoms) indirectly
became one of the 2012 Nobel Prize winners in physics awarded to Serge Arosh and
David Wineland.
“This is absurd! - the reader may decide. - In fact, the cat is either alive or dead and be-
fore the door is opened, it doesn’t matter if we know his condition. ”This understanding
of the situation under consideration is based on a different, once existing interpretation
of quantum mechanics, based on the concept of a hidden parameter. According to this
concept, the description of the world is deterministic, but some of the parameters neces-
sary for its implementation are inaccessible to us. Modern science refutes this concept.
The new determinism of quantum physics gives rise to paradoxes that are intuitively
difficult to accept. Let’s describe one of them.
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox
In 1935, Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen proposed a pa-
radox that subsequently became the theme for many scientific papers (some are still
published today). They considered a situation that today is called Quantum Entan-
glement. Here, not one object is involved, as in Schrödinger’s paradox, but two. For
example, take a cat and a dog, although the original formulation of the paradox did
not imply them. Suppose that one of the animals is dead (which is unknown), and the

11
other is alive. The state in which the cat is alive and the dog is dead, we denote |+−i
and the state, in where the cat is dead and the dog is alive, let’s write it down as |−+i.
In case these two states are mixed, they say that √they are confused. The entangled
state is represented by the notation |+−i + |−+i / 2. While the cat and the dog are
in two separate closed chambers (soundproof, etc.), it is unclear who is alive and who
is dead. But if we open the camera with the cat and find him dead, then we find out
that the dog is alive, and if we find a live cat, we will know that the dog is dead: both
observations correlate. Note that this correlation is preserved when animals are in two
chambers located at a distance of 1000 km from each friend. To find out whether a
dog located more than 1000 km away is still alive, just open the camera with the cat.
Thus, we receive information instantly, although no signal can travel faster than the
speed of light! One might even think that opening a camera with a cat, which we find
alive, would instantly cause the death of a dog from a distance, which until now was
only “half-dead”. Of course, it is impossible to predict the outcome of the opening of
the camera, because we will find a cat alive or dead with the same probability 1/2, as
well as a dog; however, we understand that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were puzzled.
At the end of the article, they expressed an opinion about the need to develop a new
quantum mechanics. It could be based on the assumption of the existence of hidden
parameters, i.e. parameters, inaccessible for experimental verification and not included
in the theories of Schrödinger and Heisenberg.
Bell’s inequalities and Aspe’s experiments
The EPR paradox was disputed by many researchers, including Bohr. Other eminent
scientists, including Louis de Broglie and David Bohm, like Einstein, would have prefe-
rred to restore determinism. The discussion lasted a long time and bore a philosophical
connotation. In 1964, John Bell was able to make it more concrete and showed that
deterministic physics, even with latent determinism, must include some measurable
inequalities that contradict the usual form of quantum mechanics. Bell’s inequalities
were tested by Alain Aspe and his collaborators in Paris in 1982. They reproduced a
situation similar to the one we described earlier. Obviously, the scientists did not use
a cat and a dog, since quantum mechanics is not applicable to macroscopic objects,
but photons, the polarization of which (i.e., the direction of oscillations of the electric
field) can have two mutually orthogonal directions, just as a cat and a dog can be in
two equiprobable states (dead and alive). The researchers set out to find a correlation
between the polarizations of the photons. And this is just one of the many difficulties
of the experiment. Another difficulty was associated with the fact that photons move
with great speed, and a lot should be done during their movement. Ultimately, Aspe’s
experiments led to the conclusion that Bell’s inequalities could not be validated. This
means that the quantum mechanics described in the textbooks is correct and cannot
be replaced or supplemented by the theory of hidden parameters. Aspe’s experience
turned the thought experiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen into a real experiment.
Translated from Kvant (2021-1) by Bikash Thapa Magar

12