The effect of the observer in quantum physics explanation. The myth of the special role of the observer consciousness in quantum mechanics

Light my mirror, tell me
Yes, all the truth reports:
Who looks through the eyelashes
Can frame particles?

Quantum version of the old fairy tale

My conscious decision on as I will observe an electron, to some extent determines the properties of this electron. If I ask him a corpuscle, he will give me a corpuscular answer. If I ask him a wave question, he will give a wave answer.

- Furoof Capra

This deep shift in the presentation of physicists about the essence of their classes and the meaning of the formula is not a simple fraud of scientists. It was their last hope. The very idea that for understanding atomic phenomena will have to abandon physical ontology and develop mathematical formulas, reflecting the knowledge of the observer rather than about the events of the outside world, at first glance, so absurd that no group of prominent and deserved scientists for nothing It would take it, except as the last extreme.

- Henry Stapp

Faced with experimental evidence that the observation process affects the object, scientists were forced to abandon the ideas that had four hundred years who had reigned in science, and to take over the elaboration of the revolutionary idea: we are directly involved in reality. Although nature and the degree of our ability to influence reality still remain the subject of hot disputes, you can agree with the formulation of Fur Capra: "The key idea of \u200b\u200bquantum theory - the observer is necessary not only in order to observe the properties of the atomic phenomenon, but also in order for these Properties at all occurred. "

The observer affects the observed

Before observation or measurement was performed, the object exists only as a "probability wave" (in the language of physicists - wave function). She has no definite position or speed. This wave function, or wave of probability, is just the likelihood that when observing or measuring, the object will be here or there. He has potential locations and potential speeds - but we cannot recognize their values \u200b\u200buntil they do observe.

"From this point of view, Brian Green writes in the book" Cosmos fabric ", - determining the position of the electron, we do not measure the objective, initially an existing feature of reality. Rather, the very fact of measurement, we directly participate in the formation of the studied reality. " And Frapheof Capra sums up: "Electron has no objective qualities independent of my consciousness."

All this gradually erases the once the reachable border between the "external world" and the subjective observer. They seem to merge, or, figuratively spending dance In a joint discovery process - or creation? - Mira

Problem Measurement

Today, this observation effect is more famous called "Measurement Problem". The earlier descriptions of this phenomenon included a conscious observer, however, scientists constantly tried to remove the problem of "consciousness" from their theory. For it immediately arises the question of what consciousness is: if the dog sees the results of an experiment with electrons, will it lead to the collapse of the wave function?

Excluding the theory consciousnessScientists have demonstrated an understanding of the previously mentioned fact: from the imagination that measurements can be carried out and not affect the measured object, it will have to abandon forever. The so-called "fly on the wall", which sits itself and does not affect the surrounding reality, simply cannot exist. (And we do not need to break your head over is this fly consciously!)

In order to align the observer, measurement, consciousness and collapse, for quite a long time a variety of theories was put forward. The first of these theories, which still remains the subject of discussion is the so-called "Copenhagen Interpretation".

It seems to me when people talk about the observer, they miss one major moment: who is this observer? Perhaps we are so accustomed to this word that we do not quite understand it. The observer is every person, regardless of gender, race, public situation and religion. This means that each person has the ability to observe and change the subatomic reality. Take any person from the street - be it manager, plumbing, prostitute, violinist, policeman, - and he can do it. Not only scientists in their sacred panels. This science belongs to everyone, since the science itself is a metaphor that allows man to explain. Explain us.

To fully understand the quantum mechanics to fully determine what she talks about reality .. We must close to the problem of quantum measurement.

- Brian Green, "Cosmos fabric".

The question is whether we are able to create a mathematical model of what does an observer do when he observes and changes reality? Until now, we did not succeed. Any of the mathematical models used by us, including observers, seems to imply mathematical breaks of continuity. The observer is excluded from physical equations for a simple reason: it is so easier.

- Fred Alan Wolf, Doctor of Philosophy

Copenhagen interpretation

The radical idea that the observer inevitably affects any observable physical process and we cannot remain neutral with objective witnesses of objects and phenomena, for the first time began to defend Nils Bohr and his colleague-countrycams from Copenhagen. That is why this theory is often called Copenhagen interpretation. Bor argued that the principle of uncertainty Geisenberg is worth not only the fact that we cannot at the same time determine how the particle quickly moves and where it is located. This is how the position of Bora Fred Alan Wolf "The point is not just that you can't measure it. Of this No, so far this is Does not observe. And Heisenberg believed that this is Nevertheless exists in itself. " Heisenberg could not accept the idea that of this No without an observer. Bor also believed that the particles themselves do not even acquire existence while we do not observe them, and the reality does not exist on the quantum level if no one leads to observe or measure

In fact, many scientists fiercely challenged this complex and ambiguous idea, coming against common sense and with our everyday experience. Einstein and Bor often argued to a deep night, and Einstein said that he "just can't accept it."

There is still a discussion - you can even say, a hot spore - about whether human Consciousness can be collapsed by wave functions and translate an object from a probability of point

Heisenberg believed that the key was the key factor here. It determined the measurement act itself as "the act of registration of the result in the mind of the observer. Discrete change in the probability function occurs at the time of registration precisely due to the discrete change in our knowledge At the time of registration, which manifests itself in a discrete change of the probability function. "

Or, as Lynn McTaggart says, avoiding scientific terms "The reality is similar to a non-frozen jelly, the outside world is a colossal indefinite jelly - the potential of our lives, and we make our interest, our attention, forcing this jelly to frost. Thus, we are an integral component of the reality process. Our attention and creates this reality. "

Basics of quantum mechanics

This area of \u200b\u200bthe study originated in the 1970s as an attempt to remove the "conscious" component from the theories of quantum mechanics. It was a more mechanistic view on the problem of measurement. The measuring device in physical research began to be considered as an active factor.

This is how Dr. Albert is described:

Among scientists there were constantly more and more confusing disputes on the topic "Can a cat cause the same effects with their consciousness? Or can the mouse cause these effects with your consciousness? " In the end, it became clear that the words used in such discussions were so inaccurate, so uncertain that they would not build a full scientific theory with their help, "and this idea had to refuse.

This work [Fundamentals of quantum mechanics] is an attempt to understand how to transform equations to explain the changes in the quantum state of elementary particles, or what physical factors need to be added to our picture of the world to show how these changes occur.

In short, the basics of quantum mechanics is an attempt to look at a quantum reality from a purely physical point of view - excluding problems related to the conscious observer

In Einstein Universe, all objects have those or other physical attributes with strictly defined values. And these attributes are not in a kind of ghostly state, waiting for the experimental measurement and thereby give them existence. Most physicists tend to believe that Einstein was wrong. From the point of view, this majority, corpuscular properties gain existence only under the influence of measurement ... When observation is not carried out, the corpuscular properties are ghostly and are vague and are characterized only by the probability that one or another potential possibility is implemented.

- Brian Green, "Cosmos fabric".

Theory of many worlds

Physicist Hugh Everett suggested that at the time of the quantum measurement, the quantum function is not collapsed in some result, but each possible result is implemented in the process of implementing these results, the universe is divided into so many versions as there are possible measurement results. Hence the idea (rather clumsy, but undoubtedly contributing to the expansion of consciousness) on the existence of a set of parallel universes, where all quantum potentials are implemented.

Think about a minute above this concept: whenever you make a choice, countless parallel features, or results, are implemented at the same time!

On the question of whether the position of the electron remains unchanged, we answer "no";

on the question of whether the position of the electron is changing over time, we answer "no";

on the question of whether the electron retains, we answer "no";

on the question of whether he is moving, we answer "no".

- J. Robert Oppenheimer, Creator of the American Atomic Bomb

Quantum logic

Mathematics John von Neuman created a solid mathematical basis for quantum theory. Considering the observer and the observation object, he broke the problem into three processes.

Process 1. - Solution of the observer as to which question he will ask the quantum world. The light of my mirror, tell me ... This choice already narrows the degree of freedom of the quantum system, limiting its reaction. (In fact, any question limits the answer: if you ask you, what fruits you will eat for lunch, "beef" will not be a relevant answer.)

Process 2. - Evolution of the state of the wave equation. The cloud of probability is evolving according to the scheme described by the Schredinger's wave equation.

Process 3. - quantum state, which is the answer to the question formulated during the implementation of the process 1, or particle collapse.

One of the most interesting moments in this formal procedure is a decision, what question to ask the quantum world. Any observation includes the choice of what we intend to observe. It turns out that such concepts as "choice" and "free will" become part of a quantum event. The question is whether the dog is a conscious observer, remains open; However, the answer to the question, whether the dog ever received a solution (process 1) to make a quantum measurement for the study of the electron's wave nature, it seems quite obvious.

This quantum logic theory does not determine what is included in the physical system of process 2. This means that the observer brain can be perceived as part of the evolving wave function along with the observed electrons. In this regard, there was a number of theories describing consciousness, mind and brain. See Henry Stac. Thoughtful universe. We will end in more detail on this in the chapter "Quantum Brain".

Quantum logic of John von Nymanan gave an important key to solving the measurement problem: the measurement becomes a measurement due to the solution of the observer. This solution limits the degree of freedom of physical system reactions (for example, an electron) and thereby affect the result (reality).

Neorealism

The founder of neorealism was Einstein, who refused to take any interpretation, according to which the usual reality does not exist in itself, regardless of observations and measurements. Neanalists believe that reality consists of objects whose behavior is consistent with the principles of classical physics, and the paradoxes of quantum mechanics indicate the incompleteness and flaws of theory. This approach is also known as the interpretation of the "hidden variable". It is understood that we should find hidden factors - and all paradoxes are allowed by themselves.

Consciousness creates reality

This interpretation brings to the extreme idea that the act of conscious observation itself is a key factor in creating reality. In this case, the act of observation receives a privileged role in the process of collapses of the likely to the real one. Most individuals of physical science perceive this interpretation as an "esoteric" fantasy, indicating that "esoterics" do not understand what, in fact, the problem of measurement is.

We assign the discussion of this issue to the whole chapter. In the meantime, we note that the disputes on this topic are made by millennia. The oldest spiritual and metaphysical traditions of the centuries argued that re-formulated the amit of Goswami: "Consciousness is the basis of all things." Photons and neutrons participate in these debates relatively recently. And their appearance on the bench witnesses was truly a remarkable event.

As far as I understand, the theory of neorealists is reading: "We know that the quantum theory is incorrect, since we do not understand her paradoxes, and we are right, as we think, guided by common sense. We have no doubt that sooner or later new knowledge will be gained (a hidden variable found), which will confirm our correctness.

It reminds the assertion: "We know that Elvis is alive; Just did not find it yet. "

When we comprehend the role of an observer, we can only be bowed to those who are superior to us, who lifting this energy in the forms of reality, which is still to dream of us in this life. While we feel it as chaos, but there are no doubt that there is order in it. He is above us. He is deeper.

- Ramoma

Integrity

Einstein's student David Bom argued: Quantum mechanics indicates that reality is an indivisible integer, where everything is interconnected on the deep level, outside of ordinary borders in time and space. He put forward the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of a certain "hidden order" (Implicate Order), from which a certain "explicit order" (hidden, unregistered physical universe) is born. It is the folding and unfolding of these orders that generate a variety of phenomena of the quantum world. From the Bomb vision of the nature of reality, the "holographic theory of the Universe" was born. This theory of Karl Pribram and other scientists were used to describe the brain and perception. In his recent conversation with Edgar Mitchell, Pribram expressed the opinion that Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect, and quantum holography is a much more accurate model of reality.

And I still have ...

Until now, we spoke mostly about the physical concept of the observer. But the word "observer" may also denote the most intimate feeling of each of us relative to its own "I". We have the feeling that somewhere inside the "observer" sits, incessantly looking at the world. Sometimes it is described as a "quiet inner voice": in many spiritual teachings and practices, the word "observer" means an inexpressible intimate "I", or internal nature that affects the external ego.

Dzhen practice (constantly attending at the current moment and not allow themselves to be distracted by external activity) can also be described as a state of the observer.

It is not surprising that the desire to associate this subjective observer with a scientific term "observer" turns out to be so strong - especially when the impression arises that scientists say about it. The subject and object are closely interrelated. But if our inner observer is felt like something passive, scientists argue that observation is actively. Observation involves certain physical effects.

And regardless of whether the consciousness is the only active factor, in itself the fact that any measurement changes the physical system - revelation. It turns out that we cannot extract any information From the system without changing the physical properties of this system.

How much does the observer affect the object of observation?

Good question! This is what Fred Alan Wolf says:

You do not change the external reality. You do not change chairs, trucks, bulldozers and rockets from the cosmodrome, - you do not change them! Not! But you change your own perception of things or, perhaps your own thoughts about things, your own feeling of things, your own feeling of peace.

But why do we do not change trucks, and bulldozers, and environmental position? As Dr. Joe Dispens says: "Because we have lost the power of observation." He believes that the idea of \u200b\u200bquantum physics is very simple: observation has a direct impact on the observed world. This may encourage people to try to become more good observers. Next, Joe says:

The subatomic world reacts to observation from our side, but the average person keeps his attention on something not more than 6-10 seconds ... (What is this nonsense? - H.B.) How can a huge world be reacted to the efforts of one who is not able to even focus? Perhaps we are just bad observers. Perhaps we just did not master the art of observation, because most likely it is art...

We need to sit daily every day and just watch, think about new opportunities for yourself. If we do this as it should be observed properly, you will soon note that new opportunities are being implemented in our life.

We found that where science advanced farther, the mind will receive from nature what he invested in her. We found strange fingerprints on the shores of the unknown. We have developed a number of deep theories to explain their origin. Finally, we managed to reconstruct the creature that left them. And - it is necessary! These are our traces.

- Sir Arthur Eddington

It always seemed to me that I was rather cool. I seemed to fully control my emotions, reactions to people, places, things, time and events. Then, having listened to Freda Alan Wolf, John Chaghelina N of other interviewed, I realized that I was no more than a ball "bouncing from the walls of life. I'm just surprised that I still did not break my head! When I started watching more carefully what happens to me "inside", and use it to change your perception of "external" events, my life was filled with new features. I did and saw things that never hoped to see and do, the time flows for me much slower, and thanks to this, I have time to watch and choose - instead of reacting and regret.

- Betsy

Change your daily reality

And now we turn with the subatomine level to the level of human and ask: what is observation? For people, the door to observation is perception. Your perception. And you remember from the previous chapters, how much is the dubious process? ("The light of my mirror, tell me who ... in the light of all Mile?") Says Amit Goswami:

Any observation can be perceived as a quantum dimension, since, as as a result of a quantum measurement, we obtain information that is postponed in the brain in the form of memories. These memories in the brain are activated whenever we feel re-stimulus. Repeated incentive always causes not only the very first impression, but also the entire chain of secondary prints in memory.

We always perceive something only after it affects the memory mirror. It is this reflection in the memory mirror that gives us a feeling of one who and what "I" is a design of habits, from memories, from the past.

Is it wondering that such systems as "miracles" are emphasized forgiveness as an important factor that helps change the present? And remember the teachings of Christ: how much attention he paid for forgiveness. And how he said about perception: "And what do you look at the bitch in your brother, and you don't feel the logs in your eye?". And about the highest observation: "Love your neighbor, like yourself."

We are all interested in how you can change your daily reality. If reality is only a reaction to questions, i.e., the might of the mind, and each answer is at the end of the long chain of memories, sensations and observations, we are already interested in not so much a matter how to change reality, how much why We preserve this reality of the same. In response to this question - the key to change.

The measurement problem is a problem only because it emphasizes our idea of \u200b\u200bwhat we are outside the observed. But even the simplest measuring instrument interacts with the system measured and changes it. In the observed reality there is a fluidity, which seemed to contradict the world of guaranteed morning coffee and trouble-freely taking off rockets. And yet it is a fundamental trait of interaction aspects of reality.

The keyword here is "interaction." Or we could say - compound, or plexus, or presence in one wave equation. This idea about the initial indivisibility of all things that and the case is expressed by chambers of the quantum theory.

And who are we to argue with myriads of electrons?

"Who looks through the eyelashes here?" Noone what. Everything!

But still the question remains: it can only someone and something or also nobody and nothing - Mind, Spirit, consciousness? And if so, they are not as real as objects that are collapsed? In the world of illusions, the division into "something" and "nothing" can be exactly the tone of the illusion on which all the others hold.

"From the point of view of quantum mechanics, the universe is extremely interactive," writes a scientist Dan Winters in an article with a very provocative name "Is there an universe when we don't look at it?" In this article, he sets out the idea of \u200b\u200b"creation through observation", formulated by the physicist from Princeton University John Wheeler. Wheeler (Colleague Albert Einetina and Niels Bora, also the creator of the term "black hole") said: "We are not just the audience in front of the cosmic scene. We are creators and inhabitants of the interactive universe "

Think about it...

- Can you identify yourself as an observer if you are an observer?

- Who or what is "I"?

- Who or what is the observer?

- Will you be separated by the world?

- Can you observe something in addition to "I"?

- Food you can become an observer in relation to your "me", how will this change your perception of reality?

- If an observer is needed to create a reality, how much are you in a concentrated observer? What kind of reality do you create in your current observation state?

- How long are you able to keep any thought?

- Is there a reality when you do not observe it?

- If the observer is required for collapse of reality, what supports the integrity of our body while you sleep?

- Who or what is the observer then?

It was this postulate that was experimentally proven by physicists in many laboratories of the world, no matter how strange it sounds.Perhaps now it sounds unusual, but quantum physics began to prove the truth of gray antiquity: "Your life where your attention is." In particular, that a person affects his attention to the material world around him, predetermines the reality that perceives.

From his own origin, quantum physics began to radically change the idea of \u200b\u200bthe micrometer and about the person since the second half of the XIX century, from the approval of William Hamilton on the wave-like light nature, and continuing the advanced discoveries of modern scientists. Quantum physics already has many evidence that the microworld "lives" according to completely different laws of physics, that the properties of Nano particles differ from the usual person of the world that elementary particles interact in particular with it.
In the middle of the 20th century, Claus Jenson received an interesting result during the experiments: during physical experiments, subatomic particles and photons reacted accurately to the attention of a person, which led to a different end result. That is, Nano particles reacted to what researchers focused their attention at that moment. Every time this experiment, which has already managed to become classic, surprises scientists. He was repeated many times in many laboratories of the world, and each time the results of this experiment are identical, which confirms its scientific value and reliability.
So, for this experience prepare the source of light and the screen (impermeable for photons of the plate), which has two slots. The device, as the source of light, is the source of light, the single pulses "shoots" photons.

Photo 1.
Before a special photo paper placed a special screen with two slots. As expected, two vertical strips were manifested on the photo paper - traces of photons that littered the paper, passing through these slots. Naturally, surveillance was carried out behind the experiment.

Photo 2.
When the researcher turned on the device, and he himself left, returned to the laboratory, was extremely surprised: photons left a completely different image on the photographs - instead of two vertical strips - a lot.

Photo 3.
How could this happen? The traces left on paper were characterized by a wave, which passed through the gaps. In other words, an interference picture was observed.

Photo 4.
A simple experiment with photons showed that when observed (in the presence of an instrument-detector, or observer), the wave goes into a particle state and behaves like a particle, but, in the absence of an observer, behaves like a wave. It turned out that if you do not observe in this experiment, the photo paper shows traces of waves, that is, an interference picture is visible. Such a physical phenomenon began to call the "observer effect".

An experiment with particles, which is described above, also apply to the question "Is God?". Because, if at the dressed up of the observer, what has a wave nature can be in a state of matter, reacting and changing their properties, then who carefully watches the whole universe? Who keeps in a stable state all the matter with their attention? As soon as the personality in her perception there is an assumption that it can live in a qualitatively different world (for example, in the world of God), only then she is personality, and begins to change its vector development in This side, and chances to survive this experience increases many times. That is, it is enough to simply allow such reality for yourself. Consequently, as soon as a person takes the opportunity to acquire such experience, he really begins to acquire it. This is confirmation and in the book "Alto" Anastasia New:

"It all depends on the observer itself: if the person perceives itself with a part (the material object living according to the laws of the material world), it will see and perceive the world of matter; If the person perceives himself a wave (sensual experiences, an expanded state of consciousness), then she perceives the world of God and begins to understand it, live them. "
In the above-described experience, the observer inevitably affects the course and results of the experiment. That is, a very important principle is evaporated: it is impossible to observe the system, measure and analyze it without interacting with it. Where there is interaction, there is a change in properties.
The wise men say that God is everywhere. Do not confirm observations on Nano particles this statement? Do not these experiments are confirmed by the fact that the entire material universe also interacts with it, as, for example, the observer interacts with photons? Does this experience show that everything that the observer's attention is directed is permeated by himself? After all, from the point of view of quantum physics and the principle of "observer effect", it is inevitable, since during the interaction quantum system loses its original features, changing under the influence of a larger system. That is, both systems are mutually exchanged in the energy-information plan, modify each other.

If you develop this question further, then the observer is predetermined by the reality in which it lives. This is manifested as a consequence of its choice. In quantum physics, there is a concept of multiplicity of realities, when thousands of possible realities are located in front of the observer, while it does not make his final choice, thereby choosing only one of the reality. And when he chooses his own reality for himself, he focuses on her, and she manifests itself for him (or is it for her?).
And again, taking into account the fact that a person lives in the reality that he himself also supports his attention, then we come to the same question: if all the matter in the universe holds on attention, then who holds the universe itself with their attention? Does this postulate be proved by the existence of God, the one who can contemplate the whole painting whole?

Is this not suggesting that our mind is directly involved in the work of the material world? Wolfgan Pauli, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, somehow said: " The laws of physics and consciousness should be treated as complementary" You can say with confidence that Mr. Pauli was right. It is already very close to worldwide recognition: the material world is the essence of the illusory mapping of our mind, and what we see vision is in fact the reality is not. Then what is reality? Where is she, and how to find out it?
More and more scientists are inclined to believe that both human thinking in the same way obeys the processes of the notorious quantum effects. To live in the illusion drawn by the mind, or discover a reality for yourself - it chooses everyone for himself. We can recommend you to get acquainted with the book of the alto, which was quoted above. This book not only scientifically proves the existence of God, but also gives detailed explanations of all existing realities, measurements, and even reveals the structure of the human energy construction. You can download this book completely free from our site by clicking on the quote below, or by going to the appropriate section of the site.

According to the point of view of materialists, all the processes occurring in the world are connected by causal relations. Such a hypothesis is called "Determination" (total predetermination) and completely eliminates random phenomena. For example, when the pomegranate explodes, its fragments will randomly fly into different directions, but materialists claim that the fragments of fragments are not accidental, but is determined by internal microcracks in the metal, dislocations and other solvent factors. And if an infinitely powerful computer was created, he could calculate the movement of any elementary particle from the moment of the emergence of the universe before its current position, for example, in a molecule of some protein.

This hypothesis was seriously shaken in 1927, when the physicist Werner Geisenberg opened the principle of uncertainty. It turned out that there is a limit of accuracy with which it is possible to calculate all the parameters of microparticles. In particular, the more precisely the coordinates of the particles in space are determined, the more inaccurate its speed and direction of movement, and vice versa. Particle characteristics related to each other with the ratio of uncertainty are called "non-compliant" (that is, interdependent). At the same time, all particle characteristics are random values \u200b\u200band obey the mathematical principles of random distribution. For example, if you send a ray of light to a narrow slit, the light will differ, and the interference pattern will appear on the screen, but it is impossible to calculate where exactly the photons will fall. It reminds how if you wake up a bunch of sand through a few consecutive sieves: Gaussian distribution of sands always get on the day, but it is impossible to calculate where exactly what of these.

The latest scientific evidence suggests that all phenomena and processes are not only "micro", but also "Macro" -Mir have their own probability. Even a simple linear movement of the object with a velocity V from the point A to the point B, the distance between which is S, may not always be described by the formula S \u003d VT. Roughly speaking, the formula S \u003d VT describes the case when the probability of moving the object from A B B is equal to 100%, and does not take into account the accident factor. In what case, this probability may not be equal to 100%, and the object will not turn out to be time t at the point b? To understand this, it is necessary to formulate the concept of an observer and to realize which of the parameters describing the movement of the object from A B B is noncommuting.

In antiquity, the concept of an observer was paid much more attention than in modern science. The scientific treatises of the Indians have the following statement: "In order for any of the events to happen, five components are required: time, place, object, subject and the will of God". Antique scientists initially introduced the concept of an observer (subject) and even the concept of "the will of God" in all their scientific research. They were convinced that the subject observing the experiment is able to influence its result through an effect on probabilistic process parameters. Currently, such an impact was repeatedly scientifically confirmed. In one of the experiments, the group of people was planted before the generator of random numbers, issued a zero and units on the screen, and asked them to mentally force the generator to give out more zeros or units, and it turned out! In another experiment, the group of people asked to mentally influence how the picked playing cube will fall up up. If all the participants in the experiment mentally desired, so that the cube showed the number "6", the likelihood of this event increased from 17% (1: 6) to 25% (1: 4)! In the third experiment, the test suggested to force the anted coin to fall up the "eagle" or "wide", and they also had it.

Scientists have long been arguing about the "influence of the personality on the results of the experiment." This influence is all the more noticeable than the more probabilistic parameters has a studied process. If the observer consciousness has more than 30% influence on the course of the experiment, it will not be easy to repeat another group of researchers. And since the "repeatability" of the experimental results is one of the key conditions of the modern scientific approach, most theories based on similar experiments are still considered unrecognized or unproved.

One example of this is homeopathy. Supporters of homeopathy claim that water and natural crystals have the ability to memorize the properties of the substances with which they got in touch. If you dissolve any medicine in water, there will be information connections between water molecules in which information about this medicine will be encrypted. And even if you bring the concentration of medication in water to zero, water will continue to maintain therapeutic properties inherent in this medicine. In 1983, the French doctor Jacques Benvelist held a series of pharmacological experiments that confirmed the existence of "water memory". However, when his experiments were exactly repeated in one of the American research centers, the result was negative. Over the next 15 years, the experiments were repeatedly rechecked in various laboratories around the world; Sometimes the effect was clearly present, sometimes completely absent. The last point in disputes about the availability of the Water Memory was delivered in 2000 by the US Department of Defense, which published the following conclusion in its final report: "A positive effect is achieved only if at least one person participates in the experiment, who wants the effect to be present (for example, a man from the Laboratory of Bennisy). " So homeopathy has become the first of the areas of knowledge for which the impact on the result of the experiment was scientifically confirmed.

In 1997, the Japanese researcher Masar Emoto experimentally proved that water molecules really have the ability to unite into clusters. To find out whether these clusters are capable of keeping information, Masaru Emoto used a simple method: after transferring information to water, it frozen it in a cryogenic chamber, and then considered the resulting crystals under the microscope. According to the scientist, creative information generates symmetric snowflakes, and negative - chaotic and shapeless. As an option, Masaru Emoto "lost" the water of various musical works, and after freezing from the water, which "listened" to the classics or beautiful pop songs, grew beautiful and harmonious snowflakes, and from the water, which was raised rock or other negative music, were obtained Ugly snowflakes with ribbon edges. Masar Emoto experiences were repeatedly repeated by many researchers around the world, and again, some received positive results, and other results were zero. The use of the so-called "double-blind method" made it possible to establish that if even before frost observers know how precisely the water samples were given, the harmonious crystals grow from this sample after freezing, and vice versa. This again testifies to the impact of the personality on the result, as well as that the water has mechanisms to remember such an effect.

Currently, official science considers pseudo-native such directions such as acupuncture, the effect of stripe structures, a wave genetics, the theory of torsion fields and many others. The main reason for this is that the results obtained by the authors of these theories should necessarily and are naturally reproducible in any other scientific laboratories, which is not stably observed. But maybe this contains the main mistake of materialists? Maybe it is worth adopting as a fact that it is necessary to repeat the effect not only or other scientific equipment, but also the presence of an appropriate observer? We repeat once again the formula of the ancients: "In order for any of the events to happen, five components are required: time, place, object, subject and the will of God." Under the "will of God" you can understand the presence of probabilistic factors in the experiment, which the subject could pay in their favor. And the subject itself should be able to control these factors with his consciousness.

A.I. Lipkin

Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University), Moscow

"In fact, every philosopher has its homemade natural science, and every naturalist is your home philosophy. But these home sciences are in most cases somewhat outdated, backward" [E. Makh, Knowledge and delusion. M., 2003, p. 38]

The physical and philosophical foundations of the "problem" "reduction of the wave function" are considered. It is shown that the foundations of the problem are philosophical, and not physical, and the solution of this problem lies on the way to the correct formulation of the issue and accounting for theoretical and operational heterogeneity of the structure of physics, and not in the introduction of consciousness in the founding of quantum mechanics.

1. Introduction

The "theorphysical" wording created in 1925-1927 was given. Quantum mechanics, which contains a clear statement of the principles underlying it (postulates) contained in the works of Schrödinger, Born, Heisenberg and Bora (essentially as clear as in the theory of relativity). In the classification of K. Popper, she meets the "third" (after the "Copenhagen" (Bor, Born, Heisenberg, etc.) and "Antikopengagenskaya" (Einstein, de Brogle, Schrödinger, etc.) "Interpretations" (more precisely "paradigm") quantum Mechanics, the one who works in the quantum mechanics of physics are used. The main of these entry principles is the statement that 1) in quantum mechanics, the state of the physical system is determined not to the values, but the probability distributions of the values \u200b\u200bof the corresponding measurable values \u200b\u200b(this is a natural generalization of the concept of condition in physics) ; It follows from this that 2) one dimension says nothing about the state of the system, and to determine the probability distribution by measuring, a sufficiently long series of measurements is required, 3) and by calculating this can be done using the "probabilistic interpretation of the wave function" (usually named M. Born bind only the last, but it implies the first two, so I combine all three under the name "postulate M.Born"); This is a widespread present among physicists (in any case, I learned it, learning in the Moscow Physics and Technology), which, due to some historical tradition, falls out of the philosophical discussion of the problems of quantum mechanics. " Theorphysical"Interpretation" takes the provisions of "Copenhagen interpretation" about completeness quantum mechanics and probabilistic description typeapplied to individual quantum objects, but argues that the state of the quantum system exists regardless of whether it is measured or not . In this wording there are no "paradoxes" and no phenomenon "reduction (collapse) wave function".

However, there is a widespread (including among physicists) the tradition of philosophical discussion of the problems of quantum mechanics, where "paradoxes" ("Cat of Schredgere" and others) and the problem "reduction (collapse) of the wave function" are discussed "and seeking to solve them, They reach the approval on the inclusion of consciousness in the formalism of quantum mechanics. So the famous physicist V. Gaitler, following the provisions of the "Copenhagen" interpretation, it comes to the conclusion that "an observer appears as a necessary part of the entire structure, and the observer with all the fullness of its capabilities of the conscious being." He claims that due to the occurrence of quantum mechanics, "it is impossible to maintain the division of the world on the" objective reality outside us "and" us ", conscious of third-party observers. The subject and object becomes inseparable from each other." Popper believes that the Gaitler here gives "a clear wording of the doctrine of the inclusion of the subject into the physical object, the doctrine, which in one form or another at Geisenberg in the" physical principles of quantum theory "and in many others ..." [Cyt. 20, p. 74]. Therefore, it is worth considering the foundations of all these statements, which, moreover, are not physical, and philosophical (ideological).

2. The wording "Problems of reduction (collapse) wave function"

For the convenience of analysis, we break the wording formulation "reduction (collapse) of the wave function" for the following statements:

approval 1: Measurement is a phenomenon that must be described by a quantum theory;

approval 2: In the language of quantum theory, this phenomenon is described as an instantaneous change in the wave function of the system, from Y \u003d S k C k | b K\u003e (in general, in Dirac notation, where | b K\u003e - its own function for the operator of the measured value b.) K | b. 1 m with probability | C 1 | 2 (in accordance with the rules of Born); This jump is called " reduction (or collapse) wave function";

approval 3:such a transition is not described by the Schrödinger equation and therefore it turns out " illegal"From the point of view of the equations of standard quantum mechanics. Announced from the last approval (based on the first two) infertion of modern quantum mechanics and the need for additional development of its foundations and is the essence of the fact that from the time of the Nimanna, they mean by the" problem of reduction (collapse) wave functions. "

From an attempt to solve this problem, by expanding the "Copenhagen interpretation", a special direction in the philosophy of quantum mechanics (at the Kopenhagen's junction ("Borovskaya") and the "Interpretations" of quantum mechanics) and the "Interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics) are growing. Sharing the basic abstracts of the Copenhagentians about the probabilistic description and that the act of measurement generates the state, von Neumann shows that the last of them leads to a new problem, thereby adding another classic "paradox" into the piggy bank of the antiquopengagents, in support of their thesis on incompleteness ( Neocionce) modern quantum mechanics. To solve this problem in the 1930s. The background of Neumanan (in his classical book), an introduction to the wording of quantum mechanics of an observer is proposed, and in the second half of the XX century. - Consciousness and such exotic as a multi-volume interpretation of Everett - Willer - Devitta.

In the latter it is assumed that each component in the superposition | Y\u003e \u003d s Kck | BK\u003e "corresponds to a separate world. In each world there is its own quantum system and its own observer, and the state of the system and the state of the observer are corrected. The measurement process can be called ... the process" splitting "worlds. In each of the parallel worlds measurable b. It has a certain BI value, and it is precisely this meaning and sees an observer, "incentive in this world". According to M.B. Mensky in this interpretation it is believed that "various members of the superposition correspond to various classical realities, or classical worlds ... The observer consciousness is stratified, It is divided, in accordance with how the quantum world is resolve into many alternative classical worlds. " At the same time, "no reduction in the measurement occurs, and the various components of the superposition correspond to various classical worlds, equally real. Any observer also turns out to be in a state of superposition, i.e. His consciousness" splits "(" arises " quantum splitting"Observer"), in each of the worlds it turns out "Double", aware of what happens in this world "(" for clarity, it can be considered that each observer "splits" into many twin observers, one for each of the Eversetov worlds " ) (Such splitting of consciousness is very similar to the fact that in psychiatry is called schizophrenia(Greek. Schizo - Share)). To this M.B. Mensky adds an assertion "that the selection of an alternative should be carried out by consciousness." MB Mensky and others believe that the path through such interpretation and consciousness is the only alternative to the phenomenon of the "reduction of the wave function". But is it?

In the preface to the article M.B. Mensky "The concept of consciousness in the context of quantum mechanics" V.L. Ginzburg writes: "I do not understand why the so-called reduction of the wave function is somehow connected with the consciousness of the observer. For example, in the known diffraction experience, the electron passes through the slots and then" point "appears on the screen (photoplastic), i.e. it becomes known, Where the electron hit ... Of course, the observer will see the observer and the day after the experience of experience, and what's the special role of his consciousness, I do not understand. " This is a normal physical position coming from Galilee and Newton: the physicist is dealing with objects and operations (measurements of states, system preparations), which are torn off from a particular "observer" and its (or their) consciousness, i.e. Obstructed. These operations are clearly described and no matter who they will perform Petrov, Ivanov or Avtomat. If it is assumed that it is not so - this is no longer physics, but something else.

On what basis are some physicists try to introduce consciousness in the founding of physics? Such base is the parable that in quantum mechanics there is a measurement problem, leading to the paradoxes "reduction (collapse) of the wave function. At the same time, 1) is approved by the existence of this problem, 2) the need for it to solve the introduction of an observer or consciousness into quantum mechanics (which Such a consciousness - no one really knows, but that's why everything you can dump everything). The parable tells the prominent physics. However, the "argument from authority" already in the Middle Ages was considered weakest, and A. Einstein warned: "If you want to What to find out from physicists of theorists about the methods they use, I advise you to firmly adhere to one principle: do not listen to what they say, and better study their actions ... "(" On the method of theoretical physics "(1933)).

In this regard, we analyze this problem more thoroughly. To do this, continue the description of V.L.GINZBURG: "If you describe the state of the electron after its interaction with atoms in a photoflastic with a wave function, it says, - then this function will be obviously different from the initial and, say, is localized in the" point " On the screen. This is usually called the reduction of the wave function. "

In that " obvious"And the root is the root of the whole problem. It" obviously "lies at the basis of the initial formulation of the problems" reduction (collapse) of the wave function "and" quantum measurement "in. Therefore, we will discuss" obviously "and analyze what it is worth it. What" Obviously "? Obviously, measurement is interaction, this is a phenomenon that can be theoretically described, and everything without a residue. That is, it is obvious "Approval 1" (from the above three statements). But is it? "The" collapse of the wave function "occurred the" collapse of the wave function "occurred - not equivalent allegations. The first is an experimental fact, the second is only possible interpretation of this fact. Since the latter is largely not physical, but the philosophical (naturophilosophical) character, and concerns the foundations of physics, then these grounds should be analyzed. It seems to me that much will explain a small excursion in history.

3. Structure of the experiment and mechanical reduction

Modern physics was born in the 17th century, its origins are the theory of the Galilean body and the dynamics (mechanics) of Newton. The first was laid fundamental the difference of new physics from speculative natural philosophy. The essence of this difference was required materialization speculative constructions with cooking operations (<П|) физической системы (например, гладкой наклонной плоскости, шарика, его помещения на определенной высоте) и measurements (| And\u003e) corresponding values \u200b\u200b(time, distance, speed), which suggest standards and comparison operations With a standard. These operations were borrowed from technology. As a result, heterogeneous arises operational theoretical"The structure of a physical experiment (cited by Fock in the context of a dispute with boron) expressing the most important features of the" scientific revolution of the XVII century ":

<П| X(T) |И>. (1)

Here, the middle part meets the theoretical model of the phenomenon (object or process) or the very phenomenon, if there are no models, and there is a purely experimental study (which will not be interested in it). At the same time, two points are very important: 1) operational parts <П| и |И> distinguish physics from speculative natural philosophy; 2) these operations - a special material, this technical operations, not the phenomena of nature.

So in ancient Greece, natural philosophy corresponded to the science of nature (for example, atomism of democritus), building ontological models of "First Nature", and the physics of Aristotle defined by him as a science of the movement towards it. At the same time, philosophy, natural philosophy and physics of Aristotle did not have anything in common with the technique (mechanics of cars), with which the master managed to overheate nature. Technique is the "second nature", involving the existence of "first nature"which is the subject of natural philosophy. Since the time of ancient Greece before the new time, the ideas were dominated that "the region of mechanics - the area technical activity, those processes that do not proceed in nature as such without participation and human intervention. The subject of mechanics - the phenomena that occur "contrary to nature", i.e. Contrary to the flow of physical processes, on the basis of "art" (Tecnh) or "Truscy" (Mhcanh) ... "Mechanical" problems ... represent an independent area, namely - the region operations with tools and machines, the area of \u200b\u200b"art" ... under the mechanics means some "art", the art of doing tools and devices to help overcome nature ... ". In the XVII century The two lines under consideration moved separately. Mathematized natural philosophy (characterized by a metaphor "of the book of nature written in the language of mathematics") was looking for the laws of natural movement - "laws of nature", human activity. Not by chance the famous Newton's work is called "mathematical starts of natural philosophy", and not "mechanics", as this section of physicists began to call later. The cars were created by the art of mechanical engineers (sometimes using physics mechanics, as was the Guiggens when calculating the clock mechanism), the essence of the car was determined by people and was reduced to certain functions. Actions of people were opposed to natural phenomena, These were two different areas - the "second" and "first" nature.

At Galilee, these two lines intersect and generate physical experiment and new natural science - physicswhich is represented in the "mathematical principle of Natural Philosophy" Newton. This new physics uses preparation and measurement operations related to the "second" nature. Those. In structure (1), the average member is a phenomenon belonging to the "first" nature that makes up the subject of the study with the help of physical (naturally scientific) concepts, and the extreme members - the technical means owned by the "second" nature. The most important moment of structure (1), forming a new whole, is that these extreme members are not phenomena, but operations, human actions, with any person or even a machine gun. So Structure (1) includes other than the empirical phenomenon and its theory of preparation (<П|) и измерения (|И>), which are borrowed from the technology and have another ("second") nature.

However, at the beginning of the XIX century. P. Laplas breeds non-philosophy of a new typeIn which it seems to be, the concepts of Newton's mechanics, but without extreme operational parts. As a result, according to an external impression, they arise from physics, and in fact - typical purely speculative natural philosophical concepts. This natural philosophy began to be called mechanism. This mechanismit has several aspects. Firstly, this is universal determinism that deny free will: "Any scene is related to the preceding ... We must consider this state of the universe as a consequence of its preceding state and as the reason for the subsequent". "The Will, the most free, cannot generate these actions without a prompting cause" (in fact, everything alive comes down to a complex machine, which is supplied as a source of activity, no external force). Secondly, - the denial of chance - the randomness is "only the manifestation of ignorance, the true cause of which - we ourselves."

But the home for us the feature of mechanism - reductionism, Introduction to the mechanics (in the XIX century - classical). The essence of this reductionism, and at the same time the attitude towards this physicists very brightly expressed a prominent physicist and the philosopher of the end of the XIX century. E.Mima: "As if an inspired toast dedicated to the scientific work of the XVIII century, he says - often the quoted words of the Great Laplace sounds:" Intellect, which would be given for a moment all the forces of nature and the mutual position of all the masses and which would be enough Silen in order to expose this data to the analysis could be in one formula to present the movements of the greatest masses and the smallest atoms; There would be nothing unknown for him, his eyes would be open and past and future. "Laplace intended at the same time as it can be proved, and brain atoms... In general, the ideal of Laplace is hardly alien to the huge majority of modern natural scientists ... ". This Laplasian reductionist logic based on the thesis - everything consists of atoms, atoms obey physical laws, therefore, everything should be subject to physical laws. (For Laplace - the laws of dynamics and Newton's spending), in the twentieth century. Based on the laws of quantum mechanics, almost the word is reproduced by E.Shredinger and many other prominent physics: "If a quantum theory is able to give a full description of everything that can happen in the universe, it should be able to describe it also process of observation through wave functions of measuring equipment and the system under study. In addition, in principle, the quantum theory must also be the most researcher, observing the phenomenon with the help of the appropriate equipment and the results of the experiment ... through the wave functions of various atoms that make up this researcher"The same logic is also applicable to preparation operations: all devices, tools and starting materials, as well as manipulating people, consist of atoms that interact with each other (everything is connected with everything), therefore there are no closed systems and have no closer states of individual microparticles described by wave functions.

So, in the "second" mechanism, nature dissolves in the "first" and forgotten the principal difference between technical operations related to human activity and natural phenomena of nature. Laplasa Naturofilosophy, which, in fact, turned the measurement (and preparation) into a phenomenon, destroying the experimental structure (1), did not have serious consequences for the physics of the time where the structure (1) was still reigning, and no one had seriously considered the issue of Description With the help of the Newton equations, the operation measurement of the length of the rod.

The situation appeared in the XX century quantum mechanics. Here I. Schrödinger (in the "Schrödinger cat") and many other physicists, repeating the reasoning of Laplace (with an accuracy of the replacement of Newton's mechanics on the quantum mechanics), gave rise to "measurement problem in quantum mechanics" and the associated problem "reduction (collapse) wave Functions. "

4. Criticism of problem formulations as a key to solving it

All problems and paradoxes of quantum mechanics, including the "reduction of the wave function", are based on this mechanical natural philosophy. Therefore, if it is removed, the paradoxes are scattered, and the problem of "reduction of the wave function" turns into an arbitrary assertion. Indeed, the physical essence of the "theory of quantum measurements" I. von Nimanan is the theoretical consideration of the composite systems obtained by consistent "chopping" from the instrument of parts, and the inclusion of them in the system under study, i.e. In the central part (CX. 1), which leads to the complication of the theoretical part by incorporating the elements of the measuring part. But this procedure does not lead to fundamental difficulties and is described by conventional quantum mechanics. "The reduction of the wave function" is attributed by hand as AD HOC hypothesis at the end, on the basis of only mechanical natural philosophy. If the last argument is unforgettable, then the border between the "first" nature - phenomenon, and the "second" nature - is immediately becoming visible. operations Comparisons with a benchmark.

Comparison with the standard is an operation, act of activity of people, and not a natural natural phenomenon (in the V. Ginzburg discussed, the interaction of a quantum particle with a photoflastic atom can be included in the system, but the position of this atom of the photoflastic is made by some kind of micrometer type, and this Fixation is an operation that cannot be considered as natural phenomenon). Preparation procedures have similar quality. This property of extreme "operational" elements in the structural formula (1) can be called "nonetoreticality" (but not in the positive sense of pure "empirical fact", but in the sense of belonging to technical operations). That is, in physics the border passes between theoretical description and operations, not between "observed" and "unobservable" (electron - wept, but "prepare", its parameters of unobservable, but measurable), and not between the microworome and the "classic language" (Bor). This principle border is recorded and von Neuman. But he fixes it as the border between the "observed" and "observer", interpreting them in the spirit of the positivism of E. Maha: "The experience can only lead to statements of this type - the observer experienced a certain (subjective) perception, but never to statements such as : some physical value has a certain meaning. "I approve the opposite: the measurable" physical value "has an objective" definite meaning ", and the" observer "can be replaced by a machine. So, the measurement (as well as preparation) is technical operation, not a phenomenonFrom where does the absence of "phenomenon" "reduction of the wave function", i.e. Taken by many physicists as an obvious "approve 1", which is not only not obvious, but also false. In quantum mechanics, as in other sections of physics, measurements exhibit, and do not change states.

As for the introduced I. von Neumanan and P.Dirak, the projection operator acting on the wave functions, then its place can be illustrated by the example "screen with a slit". According to the structure (1), the screen with a slit can perform various functions, depending on its position in this structure. In the cooking area, it will perform the role of a filter that prepares the initial state. It can also be an element of the measuring device. But in both of these cases, it is included in the technical operations and is out of the scope of the language of wave functions, which is applicable only to the description of the phenomena in the central part (1) and is intended only for the description of the "first" nature. Only being inside the system under study, as part of its description, the screen with a slit will be (in a quasiclassical approximation) to be described by the projection operator.

Invalid and "Approval 2". As the main argument in his favor, a background of Neumyan Thesis is given that if the system is subject to two measurements directly following each other ("non-destructive", "1st genus" on Pauli), the result of the second dimension coincides with the result of the first . He referred to the experience of Compton Simons on the collision of photons and electrons. Since then, it has been considered as a well-known experimental fact confirming "Approval 2". But is such an interpretation of this experience correct? The correct statement of the task of re-interaction As part of standard quantum mechanics based on the Schrödinger equation, L. Schiff is considered as a task of calculating the distribution of probabilities of excitation of two atoms in the Wilson chamber by flying fast quantum particle (electron). In other words, experimental results, usually referred to in confirmation of the thesis von Neumanan and "Approval 2"is correctly described within standard quantum mechanics as the task of changing the state of the particle during the two re-interactions. therefore "Approval 2" and found on it "Approval 3" are also unreasonable.

Thus, experimental results usually referred to as confirmation of the Nimanan von statement can be described within the framework of standard quantum mechanics without this approval. "To date, according to D.N. Klyshko, - apparently, all known experiments are quantitatively described by standard algorithms of quantum theory and the postulate of Born. Again, only adequacy of quantum formalism is confirmed again (with the right choice of model) and the Borne postulate. It is noteworthy that the projection postulate von Neumanan-Dirak (unlike the Burner postulate), apparently, is never used with a quantitative description of real experiments. It, as well as the concept of partial reduction, appears only in the general quality naturophilosophical arguments. At least Today, authors are unknown experimental results, which would be impossible to theoretically describe in a similar way ... Thus, we come to the conclusion that the "problem of the reduction of the wave function" is only some hypothesis (or postulate) proposed by Dirac and Nimanan (1932) And it is a typical example of a "vicious circle": first it is taken on faith that the wave fun The Kling for an unknown reason is destroyed outside the registration area (to measure the type of particle position determination), and then this is taken for the law of nature, according to the known English-speaking expression - "adopted by repetition". Often reduction represent as a "real" event. In a number of textbooks and monographs, the reduction is announced by one of the main postulates of quantum mechanics, as is done, for example, in (but at the same time on page 294, the following significant note is made: "... when conducting a thorough difference between the procedure for preparation and procedure for measuring the projective postulate not needed"). However, the projection postulate von Neumanan-Dirac is actually not needed and never used For a quantitative description of actually observed effects. Therefore, it is not surprising that in a number of works, the concept of reduction, its necessity is questioned (see). For example, according to, "... The projection rule von Neumanana should be considered as a purely mathematical and he should not give any physical meaning."

So, the postulates of Bourne in the "theorphysical" formalism (see the beginning of this article) give everything to compare the theory and experiment. These are the main postulates of quantum mechanics, consistent with all the well-known experiments. The concept of "reduction of the wave function" at the time of measurement looks unnecessary. Moreover, a description of the quantum correlation effects in terms of reduction and the associated terminology (nonlocality, teleportation (for discussion, see B)) leads to pseudoparadsami type of superlumonic telegraph. The main logical error leading to the "problem of the reduction of the wave function" (and the "Paradox" Cat of the Schronddentger "etc.) is ignoring the heterogeneity of the physics structure (1), from which it follows that it follows measure (and cooking) is not the phenomenon of nature, but an operation related to human equipment that can not be. And it takes place in physics, starting with the theory of body fall at Galilee, and not only in quantum mechanics.

Completeness of quantum mechanics consists not in the theoretical quantum mechanical description of all operations of measurement (and preparation), but, as well as in other sections of physics, in the formulation of consistent bases of quantum mechanics, including measurement operations (and preparation). In this sense, the "new" quantum mechanics, created in 1925-1927, is full (this demonstrates the "theorphysical" formulation of bases). That is why after 1925-1927. Quantum mechanics successfully develops as a normal science based on the "theorphysical" wording of quantum mechanics, and most of the physicists are little concerned about the problem of "reduction of the wave function", often even knowing about it at all.

Literature

1. Barwinsky A.O., Mason A.Yu., Ponomarev V.N. Fundamental problems of interpretation of quantum mechanics. Modern approach. M.: MHP, 1988.

2. Bom D. Quantum theory. M.: Science, 1965.

3. Bor N. Selected scientific works. M.: Science, T.1, 1970. -582 s.; T.2, 1971.

4. Heisenberg V. Physics and philosophy. Part and whole. (M.: Science, 1989)

5. Grigorean A.T., Zubov V.P. Essays for the development of the basic concepts of mechanics. M.: Science, 1962.

6. Klyushko D.N., Lipkin A.I. "On the" collapse of the wave function "," quantum theory of measurements "and" misunderstanding "quantum mechanics". Electronic magazine "Studied in Russia", 53, pp 736-785, 2000

7. Landau LD, Lifshits E.M. Theoretical physics at 10 t. M.: Science, 1965-1987.

8. Laplace, P. S. Experience of philosophy of probability theory: Popp. Include. The foundations of probability theory and her arrival. M.: Typio-lit. Kouchner, 1908.

9. Lipkin A.I. The foundations of modern natural science. Model view of physics, synergies, chemistry. M.: "University Book", 2001.

10. Lipkin A.I. Is there a phenomenon "reduction of the wave function" when measuring in quantum mechanics? // Successes of physical sciences, t.171, N4, 2001, p. 437-444.

11. Lipkin A.I. Quantum mechanics as a section of theoretical physics. The wording of the system of source concepts and postulates // Actual issues of modern natural science. 2005, vol. 3, p. 31-43.

12. Lipkin A.I. Object theoretical and operational model of scientific knowledge structure // Science philosophy (ed. A.I. Lipkin). M.: Eksmo, 2007.

13. Lipkin A.I.Philosophical problems of quantum mechanics // Philosophy of science (ed. A.I. Lipkin). M.: Eksmo, 2007.

14. Mach E .. Popular scientific essays. SPB.: Education, 1909.

15. Mensky M.B. Quantum mechanics: new experiments, new applications and new wording of old questions // Successes of physical sciences, 2000, vol.170, 6, p. 631-648.

16. Mensky M.B.Quantum mechanics, consciousness and bridge between two cultures // Questions of philosophy, 2004, No. 6, 64-74.

17. Mensky M.B. The concept of consciousness in the context of quantum mechanics // Successes of physical sciences. 2005. T. 175. No. 4. P. 413-435.

18. Neuman von I.. Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. M.: Science, 1964.

19. Penrose R. Shadows of mind in search of science of consciousness. Moscow; Izhevsk: In-t Computer. Research, 2005.

20. Popper K. Quantum theory and split in physics. From the "Postscriptum" to the "logic of scientific discovery" (per. From English, Comm., And aftergot. A.A. Pechenkina) M.: Logos, 1998.

21. Sudbury A. Quantum mechanics and physics of elementary particles(M.: Mir, 1989).

22. FOK VA Criticism of Bor's views on quantum mechanics // Successes of physical sciences, 1951, XLV. 1, p. 3-14.

23. Schuff L. . Quantum mechanics (M.: Il, 1959).

24. Einstein A. Meeting of scientific papers. TT. 1-4. M., Science, 1965-1967.

25. Ballentine L E Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27 , 211 (1988)

26. Braginsky V B, Khalili F y Quantum Measurement(Cambridge Univ.press, 1992)

27. COMPTON A. H., Simon A.W. Directed Quanta of Scattered X-Rays // Phys.Rev., 1925, v. 26, p. 289-299.

28. Home d, Whitaker M A B Interpretations of Quantum Measurement without The Collapse Postulate // Phys. Lett. 1988, v. A 128, p. 1-3.

29. Margenau H. Measurement in Quantum Mechanics // Annals of Physics (N.Y.), 1963, V. 23, p. 469-485.

30. Namiki M, Pascazio S, In Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory// Phys. Rev. 1993, v. A 44, p. 39-48.

31. Quantum Mechanics Without Reduction(EDS. M SINI, J LEVY-LEBLOND) (Bristol: Hilger, 1990).

32. Quantum Theory and Measurement (EDS Jawheeler, W H Zurek) (PrinceTon: Princeton University Press, 1983) p. 168.

33. Wigner E.P. The Problem of Measurement // Amer. J. Of Physics, 1963, V. 31, p. 6-15.

This formulation is based on a more general "object theoretical and operational" view of physics, which is the result of the analysis of two fundamental scientific revolutions - the XVII century. and the boundaries of the XIX-XX centuries. (On the segment from the creation of Maxwell Electrodynamics to the formulation of the "new" quantum mechanics). During the last physics, the physics is divided into separate sections, each of which has clear grounds (in the form of a system of administrative principles), which includes the definition of the main (" primary") ideal objects (Pio) This section of physics (such as a mechanical particle in classical mechanics and an electromagnetic field in electrodynamics), from which "secondary" ideal objects (VIO) are built - models of different phenomena (just as various figures are built in geometry from points and direct). At the same time, the formation of the PIO and the foundations of the physics section goes not through an empirical-realistic FR scheme. Backone (from empirical facts to empirical generalizations (laws), and then to general theoretical laws), which was criticized in the XVIII century. D. Im and I.Kanta, and in the XX century. - K. Popper (with which A. Einstein was solidarized), and according to the rationalist-constructivist scheme Galilee: from the theoretical definition of the concept to its materialization through the preparation and measurements discussed below (Vacuum at Galilee is where the body falls Uniformly asked, the inertial reference system in Newton is where Newton's laws are performed, etc. and then the way they are implemented in empirical material). That is, Pio is prim than, and their empirical materialization is approximation. For VO - on the contrary: they serve as an approximate model for the natural phenomenon described by them. In the center of this, formed by the beginning of the XX century. Forms of the presentation of the physical knowledge contained in the courses of theoretical physics (etc.), it turns out the physical object (system) and its state, and not laws that act as one of the parties of the object (PIO).

The values \u200b\u200bof these values \u200b\u200bin a separate measurement act compared with the state of the system can not before nor after this act of measurement (if it is not cooked in a special "own" state).

It is represented in the world today such prominent scientists as E. Wigner and R. Penrose, and in our country M.B. Mensky and others.

This work continues to critical analysis of such statements started in.

I did one dimension and got into one "projection", did another to another. And how to be if I don't do it alone on Earth? The answer to this question looks like this: "In any everstov world, all observers see the same thing, their observations are agreed upon with each other." That is, it turns out that consciousness one at all (Bishop Berkeley introduced God as a universal observer in a similar place), although it was previously said that " individual consciousness subjectively Performs a choice (selection). On what basis is such a strong statement? Based on the fact that otherwise everything falls out (there will be no "linearity of quantum evolution") and the author does not see another path, as calling the Almighty Consciousness. Those. one From the central to the "multi-family interpretation" question (his Achilles Fifth) - overcoming "schizometry" in the presence of many observers - is not solved.

What is more pleasant to live: with a simple consciousness of the probabilistic behavior of quantum objects and the operational nature of measurement (as described below) or with the "schizometry" consciousness of infinitely splitting existences for the "explanation" of this probabilistic behavior of quantum objects, probably - a matter of taste, but no logical Sleepiness of the latter does not add anything, which confirms its presentation in, having numerous "there is reason to think", "if we take this hypothesis", "fairly plausible is presented", "if identifying", etc., which hide many arbitrary AD HOC hypotheses. Principled unverimability ( "Multi-volume interpretation cannot be verified experimentally" ) This design indicates its purely naturalophilosophical character. There is no connection between multi-family interpretation with "quantum cryptography" and "quantum computer" that use properties (ideas) are not a multi-family interpretation, but "confused" states introduced in the famous mental experiment Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, who within the "theorphysical" approach Was discussed in.

It reminds the stage reception of the "God from the car" in the plays of the XVII-XVIII centuries. (In order to get a safe end in the play, at the end of the action, an ancient God descends on the stage car and puts everything into the right places).

Such membership can also be found in Heyzenberg, as well as in Margenau, but there it is interpreted differently.

Along with such a "quantum measurement theory," there is a measurement theory, which, as in classical physics, is engaged in issues of the differences in the ideal measurement that appears in the physical theory (and scheme (1)) from the real, performed in this material implementation on the basis of available materials. and appliances.

It should be added that the so-called "problem of quantum measurements" is often considered as a mixture of two phenomena: 1) the interaction of the quantum particle (system) with a quasiclassical system or with a quantum statistical system, which is described by the density matrix, not a wave function, and 2) Actually "reduction of the wave function." But the first does not represent any fundamental problems.

It is this generally necessary status that the border is hidden for the approval of the boron that "the experimental installation and observation results should be described in a unique way in the language of classical physics," "must be carried out in the usual language, augmented terminology of classical physics." But the Borov form of their detection is inadequate. His substantiation of the need for "classical" devices relies on the statement that otherwise it would not be "to tell what we did and what we learned in the end". " But what is "ordinary language" and "Classical Physics"? And language and physics are developing. New concepts arise along with new sections of physics. So at the end of the XIX century. The "non-classical" and incomprehensible concept was an electromagnetic field. Language allows you to formulate new "non-classical" concepts.

"However, in any case, however, we would continue to calculate - to the mercury vessel of the thermometer, before its scale, to the retina or to the brain cells, at some point we will have to say: it is perceived by the observer. This means that it means that we must always divide the world into two parts - the observed system and observer. In the first of them we can, at least, in principle, how many physical processes in detail in detail; In the latter it is meaningless. Position borders between them to high degree arbitrarily… but This circumstance does not change anything in every way descriptions This boundary must be somewhereunless everything passes is invested, i.e. if the comparison with experience should be possible "(italics mine. - A.L.) .

Therefore, there is no in the quantum mechanics of "strange dualism", consisting in the "assumption of the presence of two types of changes in the status vector", which Wigner spoke.

The result gives a noticeable probability only if the direction of movement of the particle is almost parallel to both the line connecting the atoms and the direction of the final pulse of the diffused particle. Those. The interaction of a moving high-energy particle with a different particle (which can be used as a "trial body" in an indirect measurement) in the case of low energy transmission weakly changes the condition of this particle. The natural development of a consistent measurement pair is considered in "continuous measurements" of the type of track in the Wilson chamber.

Including modern real experimental realization of the Einstein's mental experiment, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) and "teleportation" of photon states (see).

The same can be said about the application in the "quantum theory of measurements" concept decoration, the actual area of \u200b\u200bapplication of which is to interact on the interaction of a quantum system with thermostat and systems consisting of a large number of atoms (mesosystems).

In classical physics built on Newtonian principles and applicable to objects of our usual world, we used to ignore the fact that the measurement tool, entering into interaction with the measurement object, affects it and changes its properties, including, actually measured by the value. Including light in the room to find a book, you do not even think that under the influence of the pressure of light rays (this is not a fantasy) the book can move from your place, and you will learn it distorted under the influence of the spatial coordinates enabled. Intuition tells us (and, in this case, absolutely correct) that the measurement act affects the measured properties of negligible. And now we think about the processes occurring at the subatomic level.

Suppose we need to find out the spatial location of the elementary particle, for example, an electron. We still need a measuring tool that will enter into interaction with the electron and will return to my detectors a signal with information about its location. And immediately arises difficulty: other interaction tools with an electron to determine its position in space, except for other elementary particles, we do not have. And, if the assumption that the light, entering into cooperation with the book, does not affect its spatial coordinates, relative to the interaction of the measured electron with another electron or photons cannot be said to say.

In the early 1920s, when a rapid surge of creative thought occurred, which led to the creation of quantum mechanics, this problem was the first to be aware of the young German physicist Werner Gazenberg. For which we are very grateful. As for the concept of "uncertainty" introduced by him, mathematically expressed in inequality, in the right part of which the measurement error of the coordinate is multiplied by the error in measuring the speed, and in the left part - the constant associated with the mass of the particle. Now I will explain why this is important.

The term "uncertainty of the spatial coordinate" just means that we do not know the exact location of the particle. For example, if you use the GLOB GLOB System to determine the location of this book, the system will calculate them up to 2-3 meters. However, from the point of view of measurement conducted by the GPS instrument, the book can be somewhere anywhere in the limits of the specified system of several square meters. In this case, we are talking about the uncertainty of the spatial coordinates of the object (in this example, books). The situation can be improved if you take roulette instead of GPS - in this case, we can argue that the book is located, for example, in 4 m 11 cm from one wall and 1m 44 cm from another. But here we are limited in accuracy of measurement with minimal division of the roulette scale (let it even be a millimeter) and measurement errors and the device itself. The more accurate device we use, the more precisely the results we received, the lower the measurement error and the less uncertainty will be. In principle, in our ordinary world to reduce uncertainty to zero and determine the exact coordinates of the book.

And here we come to the most fundamental difference between the microworld from our everyday physical world. In the usual world, measuring the position and velocity of the body in space, we practically do not affect it. Thus, ideally, we can simultaneously measure the speed, and the object coordinates are absolutely accurate (in other words, with zero uncertainty).

In the world of quantum phenomena, however, any measurement affects the system. The very fact of the measurement by us, for example, the location of the particle leads to a change in its speed, and unpredictable (and vice versa). The less uncertainty about one variable (particle coordinate), the more uncertain becomes another variable (speed measurement error) Since the product of two errors in the left side of the relation could not be less constant in its right part. In fact, if we succeed with zero The error (absolutely accurate) to determine one of the measured values, the uncertainty of another value will be infinity, and we will not know anything about it at all. In other words, if we managed to absolutely establish the coordinates of the quantum particle, we would not have the slightest idea of \u200b\u200bits speed; If we were able to accurately fix the particle speed, we would have no idea where it was. In practice, of course, experimenter physicists always have to look for a compromise between these two extremes and select measurement methods that allow you to judge the speed with a reasonable error about the speed and the spatial position of the particles.

In fact, the principle of uncertainty associates not only spatial coordinates and speed - on this example, he simply manifests itself clearly; Equally, the uncertainty also binds other pairs of mutually linked characteristics of microparticles. By similar reasoning, we come to the conclusion about the impossibility of unmistakably measure the energy of the quantum system and determine the time in the time in which it has this energy. That is, while we measure the state of the quantum system for determining its energy, the energy of the system itself changes randomly - its fluctuation occurs, - and we cannot reveal it. It would be appropriate to tell about the Schrödinger Cote, but it will not be at all humane.

Okay. I hope this is because you love physics, not quotes.

Forward, McDuf, and be cursed by the one who is crying: "Enough, stand!"

As Heisenberg explained to us, due to the principle of uncertainty, the description of the objects of the quantum microman is different, rather than the usual description of the objects of the Newtonian macromir. Instead of spatial coordinates and velocities that we used to describe a mechanical movement, such as a ball on the pool table, in quantum mechanics, objects are described by the so-called wave function. The crest "Waves" corresponds to the maximum probability of finding a particle in space at the time of measurement. The movement of such a wave is described by the Schrödinger equation, which also tells us how the state of the quantum system changes over time. If the details are not interesting, I recommend to skip the next two paragraphs.

About the wave function. Here it is necessary to make an explanation. In our everyday world, energy is transferred in two ways: matter when moving from place to place (for example, by riding locomotive or wind) - particles participate in such energy transmission; Or waves (for example, radio waves, which are transmitted by powerful transmitters and are caught by the antennas of our TVs). That is, in the macromir, where we live with you, all energy carriers are strictly divided into two types - corpuscular (consisting of material particles) or wave. In this case, any wave is described by a special type of equations - wave equations. Everything without exception, the waves of the ocean, seismic waves of rocks, radio waves from distant galaxies are described by the same type of wave equations. This explanation is needed in order to understand that if we want to present the phenomena of the subatomic world in terms of the probability distribution waves. It applied to the concept of probability waves a classical differential equation of the wave function and received the famous equation. Just as the conventional equation of the wave function describes the propagation, for example, rowani over the surface of the water, the Schrödinger equation describes the propagation of the wave of the probability of finding a particle at a specified point of space. The peaks of this wave (point of maximum probability) are shown in which space is most likely a particle will be.

The picture of the quantum events, which the Schrödinger equation gives us is that electrons and other elementary particles behave like waves on the surface of the ocean. Over time, the wave peak (corresponding to the place in which the electron will most likely be) is shifted in space in accordance with the equation describing this wave. That is, what we have traditionally considered a particle, in the quantum world behaves in many ways like a wave.

Now about the cat. Everyone knows that cats love to hide in boxes (). Erwin Schrödinger was also aware too. Moreover, with purely nordicra, he used this feature in the famous mental experiment. Its essence was that in the box with a hellish car locked the cat. The machine through the relay is connected to the quantum system, for example, a radioactively disintegrating substance. The probability of decay is known and is 50%. The hellish car is triggered when the quantum state of the system changes (the decay) and the cat dies completely. If you provide the "cat-box-hellish quanta cat" for one hour and remember that the state of the quantum system is described in terms of the probability, it becomes clear that the cat is alive or not, at this point in time, it will not happen, it will not happen, Just as it does not come out to accurately predict the fall of the coin of the eagle or a solution in advance. The paradox is very simple: a wave function describing the quantum system, mixes two cats in itself - it is alive and dead at the same time, as well as a linked electron with equal probability may be in any place of space equidistant from the atomic nucleus. If we do not open the box, we do not know exactly how the cat is there. With no observation (read measurements) above the atomic core, we can describe its condition only by superposition (mix) of two states: unpaved and unprecedented kernel. A cat in nuclear dependence is alive and dead at the same time. The question is: when the system ceases to exist as a mixture of two states and chooses one particular one?

Copenhagen interpretation of the experiment tells us that the system ceases to be mixed states and chooses one of them at the moment when observation is observed, it is the same measurement (the box opens). That is, the measurement itself changes the physical reality, leading to the collapse of the wave function (the cat either becomes dead, or remains alive, but ceases to be mixed and the other)! Think, the experiment and measurement, the associated, change the reality around us. Personally, this fact will make my brain much stronger than alcohol. Non-religious Steve Hawking is also hard to experience this paradox, repeating that when he hears about Schrödinger's cat, his hand stretches to Browning. The acuity of the reaction of the outstanding physicist-theority is associated with the fact that, in his opinion, the role of an observer in the collapse of the wave function (the liquefaction to one of the two probabilistic) states are greatly exaggerated.

Of course, when Professor Erwin, in the distant 1935, wondered his catoching it was a witty way to show the imperfection of quantum mechanics. In fact, the cat cannot be alive and dead at the same time. As a result, one of the interpretations of the experiment was the evidence of the contradiction of the laws of the macro-world (for example, the second law of thermodynamics - the cat is either alive or dead) and the micro-world (the cat is alive and dead at the same time).

The above is applied in practice: in quantum calculations and in quantum cryptography. By fiber optic cable, a light signal is sent in the superposition of two states. If the attackers are connected to the cable somewhere in the middle and will make a removal of the signal to overheard the transmitted information, then it turns the wave function (from the point of view of the Copenhagen interpretation will be observed) and the light will turn into one of the states. After conducting statistical samples of light at the receiving end of the cable, it will be possible to detect whether the light in the superposition of states is being monitored or monitored and transferred to another item. This makes it possible to create a communication tool that exclude the invisible interception of the signal and eavesdropping.

Reply

2 more comments

Quantum communication states that actually scientists have learned to "peel" the condition of the first particle, and due to this accurately determine the spin of the second, associated, particles if to derive the first particle from the state of quantum intricate time at this point. That is, between the particles there is some connection, over which time and distance is not subject to. In fact, Russian literature (which I found on the Internet))) In fact, it does not reach this moment. Do not tell me that you can read clear about all this? Thank you!

Reply

Comment