A skeptic of quantum theory explains his misgivings.
In a nutshell, what's wrong with quantum mechanics?
Some physicists, among them myself, cannot believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of physical reality in space and time; or that we must accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance.
Why were you so upset about quantum theory when much of it was based on your own work?
Yes, I may have started it but I always regarded these ideas as temporary. I never thought that others would take them so much more seriously than I did.
Do you believe the world is totally deterministic, so each effect follows from its causes with complete predictability?
From the point of view of immediate experience there is no such thing as exact determinism.... The question is whether or not the theoretical description of nature must be deterministic. Beyond that, the question is whether or not there exists generally a conceptual image of reality (for the isolated case), an image which is in principle completely exempt from statistics.
Quantum mechanics has been extremely successful. How can you oppose a theory that always gets the right answers?
I consider the methods of quantum mechanics fundamentally unsatisfactory. I want to say straight away, however, that I will not deny that this theory represents an important, in a certain sense even final, advance in physical knowledge.... Probably never before has a theory been evolved which has given a key to the interpretation and calculation of such a heterogeneous group of phenomena of experience.... In spite of this, however, I believe that the theory is apt to beguile us into error in our search for a uniform basis for physics, because, in my belief, it is an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics). The incompleteness of the representation leads necessarily to the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws.
So then are you saying that a statistical interpretation is necessary for observable "material points"?
Experiments lead to the conclusion that energy values lying between the quantum values do not exist.... It seems to be clear, therefore, that Born's statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible one.
David Bohm proposed a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1952--what about that?
That way seems too cheap to me.
You say that quantum statistics apply only to ensembles of systems rather than individual particles. Is it possible that nature allows no deeper Insight into single systems than quantum mechanics provides?
To believe this is logically possible without contradiction; but, it is so very contrary to my scientific instinct that I cannot forgo the search for a more complete conception.
So do you believe quantum mechanics is not the final word as a basis for physical theory?
There is no doubt that quantum mechanics has seized hold of a good deal of truth, and that it will be a touchstone for any future theoretical basis.... If one wants to consider the quantum theory as final (in principle), then one must believe that a more complete description would be useless because there would be no laws for it. If that were so then physics could only claim the interest of shopkeepers and engineers; the whole thing would be a wretched bungle
For sources of Einstein's comments, visit www.sciencenews.org/einstein
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||COMMENT: Albert Einstein|
|Date:||Nov 20, 2010|
|Previous Article:||The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family.|
|Next Article:||Climate change is clear, the best response is not.|