A group of experimenters led by the famous physicist Robert Boyd (who, in particular, was the first to carry out "slowing down of light" at room temperature), came up with and implemented a scheme that demonstrates the contribution of the so-called "non-classical" trajectories to the picture obtained by the interference of photons on three crevices.

Two-slit interference is a classic experiment that demonstrates the wave properties of light. It was first carried out in early XIX century by Thomas Young, and became one of the main reasons for the rejection of the then dominant corpuscular theory of light.

At the beginning of the 20th century, however, it was found that light still consists of particles called photons, but these particles mysteriously also have wave properties. The concept of wave-particle duality arose, which was also extended to particles of matter. In particular, the presence of wave properties was found in electrons, and later in atoms and molecules.

In the new branch of physics that emerged as a result - quantum mechanics - the emergence of an interferometric pattern in a double-slit experiment plays one of the central roles. Thus, Richard Feynman, in his Feynman Lectures on Physics, writes that this is a phenomenon “which is impossible, absolutely, absolutely impossible to explain in a classical way. This phenomenon is the very essence of quantum mechanics.

The double slit experiment demonstrates one of the central concepts of quantum physics, quantum superposition. The principle of quantum superposition states that if a certain quantum object (for example, a photon or an electron) can be in a certain state 1 and in a certain state 2, then it can also be in a state that is in some sense partially both state 1 and state 2 , this state is called the superposition of states 1 and 2. In the case of slits, the particle can pass through one slit, or maybe through the other, but if both slits are open, then the particle passes through both and finds itself in the superposition state of “a particle that passed through slit 1 ” and “particle passing through slot 2”.

In addition, taking into account non-classical trajectories is important for another direction in modern fundamental physics. One of the main unsolved problems facing scientists is the unification of quantum theory with the theory of gravity. There are fundamental difficulties along the way, which, as many believe, can only be overcome by modifying either one of these theories, or both at once. Therefore, now there are searches for possible discrepancies between reality and the predictions of these theories. One of the directions is the search for deviations from the principle of quantum superposition. So, for example, in 2010 a study was published in which they tried to find such deviations in a three-slit experiment. No discrepancies were found, but this article provoked the 2012 paper mentioned above. One of her conclusions was precisely that the 2010 experiment used a misunderstanding of the principle of quantum superposition, and this introduced its share of unaccounted for error in the measurements. And although the magnitude of this error is small, the effect that scientists are looking for can also be small, so in such searches the contribution of non-classical trajectories should still be taken into account.

The article was written for the project

print

In a study of the behavior of quantum particles, scientists from the Australian national university confirmed that quantum particles can behave so strangely that it seems as if they violate the principle of causality.

This principle is one of the fundamental laws that few people dispute. Although many physical quantities and phenomena do not change if we reverse time (are T-even), there is a fundamental empirically established principle: event A can affect event B only if event B occurred later. From the point of view of classical physics - just later, from the point of view of SRT - later in any frame of reference, i.e., is in the light cone with a vertex at A.

So far, only science fiction writers are fighting the “paradox of the murdered grandfather” (I recall a story in which it turned out that grandfather had nothing to do with it at all, but grandmother had to deal with it). In physics, traveling to the past is usually associated with traveling faster than the speed of light, and so far everything has been calm with this.

Except for one moment - quantum physics. There's a lot of weird stuff in there. Here, for example, is the classic experiment with two slits. If we place an obstacle with a gap in the path of a particle source (for example, photons), and put a screen behind it, then we will see a strip on the screen. Logically. But if we make two slots in the obstacle, then on the screen we will see not two stripes, but an interference pattern. Particles passing through the slits begin to behave like waves and interfere with each other.

To eliminate the possibility that the particles collide with each other on the fly and therefore do not draw two distinct stripes on our screen, we can release them one by one. And still, after some time, an interference pattern will be drawn on the screen. Particles magically interfere with themselves! This is much less logical. It turns out that the particle passes through two slits at once - otherwise, how can it interfere?

And then - even more interesting. If we try to understand what kind of slit a particle passes through, then when we try to establish this fact, the particles instantly begin to behave like particles and stop interfering with themselves. That is, the particles practically “feel” the presence of a detector near the slits. Moreover, interference is obtained not only with photons or electrons, but even with rather large particles by quantum standards. To rule out the possibility that the detector somehow “spoils” the incoming particles, quite complex experiments were performed.

For example, in 2004 an experiment was conducted with a beam of fullerenes (C 70 molecules containing 70 carbon atoms). The beam was scattered on a diffraction grating consisting of a large number of narrow slits. At the same time, the experimenters could controllably heat the molecules flying in the beam using a laser beam, which made it possible to change their internal temperature (the average energy of vibrations of carbon atoms inside these molecules).

Any heated body emits thermal photons, the spectrum of which reflects the average energy of transitions between possible states of the system. Based on several such photons, it is possible, in principle, to determine the trajectory of the molecule that emitted them, with an accuracy up to the wavelength of the emitted quantum. The higher the temperature and, accordingly, the shorter the wavelength of the quantum, the more accurately we could determine the position of the molecule in space, and at a certain critical temperature, the accuracy will be sufficient to determine which specific slit the scattering occurred.

Accordingly, if someone surrounded the installation with perfect photon detectors, then, in principle, he could establish on which of the slits of the diffraction grating the fullerene was scattered. In other words, the emission of light quanta by a molecule would give the experimenter the information for separating the superposition components that the transit detector gave us. However, there were no detectors around the installation.

In the experiment, it was found that in the absence of laser heating, an interference pattern is observed that is completely analogous to the pattern from two slits in the experiment with electrons. The inclusion of laser heating leads first to a weakening of the interference contrast, and then, as the heating power increases, to the complete disappearance of interference effects. It was found that at temperatures T< 1000K молекулы ведут себя как квантовые частицы, а при T >3000K, when the trajectories of fullerenes are "fixed" by the environment with the required accuracy - like classical bodies.

Thus, the environment turned out to be able to play the role of a detector capable of isolating superposition components. In it, when interacting with thermal photons in one form or another, information about the trajectory and state of the fullerene molecule was recorded. And it doesn’t matter at all through what information is exchanged: through a specially installed detector, environment or a person.

For the destruction of the coherence of states and the disappearance of the interference pattern, only the fundamental presence of information matters, through which of the slits the particle passed - and who will receive it, and whether it will receive it, is no longer important. It is only important that such information is fundamentally possible to obtain.

Do you think this is the strangest manifestation of quantum mechanics? No matter how. Physicist John Wheeler proposed a thought experiment in the late 1970s that he called the "delayed choice experiment." His reasoning was simple and logical.

Well, let's say that the photon somehow knows that it will or will not be tried to be detected before approaching the slits. After all, he needs to somehow decide - to behave like a wave and pass through both slits at once (in order to further fit into the interference pattern on the screen), or pretend to be a particle and go through only one of the two slits. But he needs to do it before he goes through the cracks, right? After that, it's too late - either fly there like a small ball, or interfere in full.

So let's, Wheeler suggested, move the screen away from the cracks. And behind the screen we will also put two telescopes, each of which will be focused on one of the slits, and will respond only to the passage of a photon through one of them. And we will arbitrarily remove the screen after the photon passes through the slits, no matter how it decides to pass through them.

If we do not remove the screen, then, in theory, there should always be an interference pattern on it. And if we remove it, then either the photon will enter one of the telescopes as a particle (it passed through one slit), or both telescopes will see a weaker glow (it passed through both slits, and each of them saw its own part of the interference pattern) .

In 2006, advances in physics allowed scientists to actually perform such an experiment with a photon. It turned out that if the screen is not removed, the interference pattern is always visible on it, and if it is removed, then it is always possible to track through which slit the photon passed. Arguing from the point of view of logic familiar to us, we come to a disappointing conclusion. Our action to decide whether or not we remove the screen affected the photon's behavior, despite the fact that the action is in the future with respect to the photon's "decision" about how to pass through the slits. That is, either the future affects the past, or there is something fundamentally wrong in the interpretation of what is happening in the experiment with slits.

Australian scientists repeated this experiment, only instead of a photon they used a helium atom. An important difference of this experiment is the fact that an atom, unlike a photon, has a rest mass, as well as different internal degrees of freedom. Only instead of an obstacle with slots and a screen, they used grids created using laser beams. This gave them the ability to immediately obtain information about the behavior of the particle.

As expected (although quantum physics hardly anything to expect), the atom behaved in exactly the same way as a photon. The decision about whether or not there will be a "screen" on the path of the atom was made on the basis of the operation of a quantum random number generator. The generator was separated by relativistic standards from the atom, that is, there could be no interaction between them.

It turns out that individual atoms, having mass and charge, behave in exactly the same way as individual photons. And although this is not the most breakthrough experience in the quantum field, it confirms the fact that the quantum world is not at all the way we can imagine it.

The interference or double-slit experiment, according to Feynman, "contains the heart of quantum mechanics" and is the quintessence of the principle of quantum superposition. The principle of interference, as the basic principle of linear wave optics, was first clearly formulated by Thomas Young in 1801. He was the first to introduce the term "interference" in 1803. The scientist clearly explains the principle he discovered (the experiment, known in our time under the name "Jung's double-slit experiment", http://elkin52.narod.ru/biograf/jng6.htm): "To obtain the effects of superposition of two portions of light, it is necessary that they came from the same source and came to the same point along different paths, but in directions close to each other.Diffraction, reflection, refraction, or a combination of these effects can be used to deflect one or both parts of the beam, but the easiest way is if the beam homogeneous light [from the first slit] (one color or wavelength) falls on a screen in which two very small holes or slits are made, which can be considered as centers of divergence, from which light is scattered in all directions by diffraction. A modern experimental setup consists of a photon source, a diaphragm with two slits, and a screen on which the interference pattern is observed.

To study such an interference phenomenon as in the figure, it is natural to use the experimental setup shown next to it. In the study of phenomena, for the description of which it is necessary to know the detailed balance of the momentum, it is obviously necessary to assume that some parts of the entire device can move freely (independently of each other). Drawing from the book: Niels Bohr, "Selected Scientific Works and Articles", 1925 - 1961b p.415.

After passing the slits on the screen behind the barrier, an interference pattern arises from alternating bright and dark stripes:

Fig.1 Interference fringes

Photons hit the screen at separate points, but the presence of interference fringes on the screen shows that there are points where photons do not hit. Let p be one of these points. Nevertheless, a photon can enter p if one of the slits is closed. Such destructive interference, in which alternative possibilities can sometimes cancel out, is one of the most mysterious properties of quantum mechanics. An interesting property of the double-slit experiment is that the interference pattern can be "assembled" by one particle - that is, by setting the source intensity so low that each particle will be "in flight" in the setup alone and can only interfere with itself. In this case, we are tempted to ask ourselves which of the two slits the particle "really" passes through. Note that two different particles do not create an interference pattern. What is the mystery, inconsistency, absurdity of explaining the phenomenon of interference? They are strikingly different from the paradox of many other theories and phenomena, such as special relativity, quantum teleportation, the paradox of entangled quantum particles, and others. At first glance, the explanations of interference are simple and obvious. Let us consider these explanations, which can be divided into two classes: explanations from the wave point of view and explanation from the corpuscular (quantum) point of view. Before we begin the analysis, we note that by the paradoxicality, inconsistency, and absurdity of the phenomenon of interference, we mean the incompatibility of the description of this quantum mechanical phenomenon with formal logic and common sense. The meaning of these concepts, in which we apply them here, is set out in this article.

Interference from a wave point of view

The most common and impeccable is the explanation of the results of the double-slit experiment from the wave point of view:
"If the difference between the distances traveled by the waves is half odd number wavelengths, then the oscillations caused by one wave will reach the crest at the moment when the oscillations of the other wave reach the trough, and, consequently, one wave will reduce the perturbation created by the other, and even can completely extinguish it. This is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows a diagram of a two-slit experiment, in which waves from source A can only reach the line BC on the screen by passing through one of the two slits H1 or H2 in the obstacle located between the source and the screen. At point X on line BC, the difference in path lengths is AH1X - AH2X; if it is equal to an integer number of wavelengths, the perturbation at point X will be large; if it is equal to half of an odd number of wavelengths, the perturbation at point X will be small. The figure shows the dependence of the wave intensity on the position of a point on the BC line, which is related to the oscillation amplitudes at these points.

Fig.2. Interference pattern from the wave point of view

It would seem that the description of the phenomenon of interference from the wave point of view in no way contradicts either logic or common sense. However, the photon is actually considered to be a quantum particle . If it exhibits wave properties, then, nevertheless, it must remain itself - a photon. Otherwise, with just one wave consideration of the phenomenon, we actually destroy the photon as an element of physical reality. With this consideration, it turns out that the photon as such ... does not exist! A photon does not just exhibit wave properties - here it is a wave in which there is nothing from a particle. Otherwise, at the moment of wave splitting, we must admit that half a particle passes through each of the slits - a photon, half a photon. But then experiments capable of "catching" these half-photons should be possible. However, no one has ever managed to register these same half-photons. So, the wave interpretation of the phenomenon of interference excludes the very idea that a photon is a particle. Therefore, to consider in this case a photon as a particle is absurd, illogical, incompatible with common sense. Logically, we should assume that a photon flies out of point A as a particle. On approaching an obstacle, he suddenly is turning into the wave! Passes through the cracks like a wave, splitting into two streams. Otherwise, we need to believe that one whole the particle passes through two slits at the same time, since assuming separation we do not have the right to divide it into two particles (half). Then two half-waves again connect into a whole particle. Wherein does not exist no way to suppress one of the half-waves. It seems to be two half-waves, but no one managed to destroy one of them. Each time each of these half-waves during registration turns out to be whole photon. A part is always, without exception, the whole. That is, the idea of ​​a photon as a wave should allow for the possibility of "catching" each of the half-waves exactly as a half of a photon. But that doesn't happen. Half of the photon passes through each of the slits, but only the whole photon is registered. Is a half equal to a whole? The interpretation of the simultaneous presence of a photon-particle in two places at once looks not much more logical and sensible. Recall that the mathematical description of the wave process fully corresponds to the results of all experiments on interference on two slits without exception.

Interference from a corpuscular point of view

From the corpuscular point of view, it is convenient to explain the motion of the "halves" of a photon using complex functions. These functions stem from the basic concept of quantum mechanics - the state vector of a quantum particle (here - a photon), its wave function, which have another name - the probability amplitude. The probability that a photon will hit a certain point on the screen (photographic plate) in the case of a two-slit experiment is equal to the square of the total wave function for two possible photon trajectories that form a superposition of states. "When we square the modulus of the sum w + z of two complex numbers w and z, we usually do not get only the sum of the squares of the moduli of these numbers; there is an additional "correction term": |w + z| 2 = |w| 2 + |z |2 + 2|w||z|cos θ, where θ is the angle formed by the directions to the points z and w from the origin on the Argand plane... It is the correction term 2|w||z|cos θ that describes the quantum interference between quantum mechanical alternatives". Mathematically, everything is logical and clear: according to the rules for calculating complex expressions, we get just such a wavy interference curve. No interpretations, explanations are required here - only routine mathematical calculations. But if you try to imagine what way, what trajectories did the photon (or electron) move before meeting the screen, the above description does not allow you to see: "Therefore, the statement that electrons pass either through slot 1 or through slot 2 is incorrect. They pass through both slits at the same time. And a very simple mathematical apparatus describing such a process gives absolutely exact agreement with the experiment ". Indeed, mathematical expressions with complex functions simple and visual. However, they describe only the external manifestation of the process, only its result, without saying anything about what happens in the physical sense. It is impossible to imagine from the standpoint of common sense as one particle, even if it does not have really point sizes, but, nevertheless, is still limited by one inseparable volume, it is impossible to simultaneously pass through two unrelated holes. For example, Sudbury, analyzing the phenomenon, writes: “The interference pattern itself also indirectly indicates the corpuscular behavior of the particles under study, since in fact it is not continuous, but is composed like an image on a TV screen from many points created by flashes from individual electrons. But explaining this interference pattern on the basis of the assumption that each of the electrons passed through either one or the other slit is completely impossible "He comes to the same conclusion about the impossibility of passing one particle simultaneously through two slits: "a particle must pass either through one or through another slit", marking its apparent corpuscular structure. A particle cannot pass through two slits at the same time, but it cannot pass through either one or the other. Undoubtedly, the electron is a particle, as evidenced by the points from the flashes on the screen. And this particle, of course, could not pass only through one of the slots. In this case, the electron, of course, was not divided into two parts, into two halves, each of which in this case should have had half the mass of the electron and half the charge. No one has ever observed such half-electrons. This means that the electron could not, having divided into two parts, bifurcated, simultaneously cross both slots. He, as we are explained, remaining whole, simultaneously passes through two different slits. It does not divide into two parts, but simultaneously passes through two slits. This is the absurdity of the quantum-mechanical (corpuscular) description of the physical process of interference on two slits. Recall that mathematically this process is described flawlessly. But the physical process is completely illogical, contrary to common sense. And, as usual, common sense is to blame, which cannot understand how it is: it was not divided into two, but it got into two places. On the other hand, it is also impossible to assume the opposite: that a photon (or electron), in some unknown way, still passes through one of the two slits. Why then does the particle hit certain points and avoid others? Like she knows about the restricted areas. This is especially evident when the particle interferes with itself at low flow rates. In this case, it is still necessary to consider the simultaneity of the passage of the particle through both slits. Otherwise, one would have to consider the particle almost as a rational being with the gift of foresight. Experiments with transit or exclusion detectors (the fact that a particle is not fixed near one slit means that it has passed through another) do not clarify the picture. There are no reasonable explanations for how and why one integral particle reacts to the presence of a second slit through which it did not pass. If the particle is not registered near one of the slots, then it has passed through the other. But in this case, it may well get to the "forbidden" point of the screen, that is, to the point where it would never hit if the second slot were open. Although, it would seem, nothing should prevent these undelayed particles from creating a "half" interference pattern. However, this does not happen: if one of the slots is closed, the particles seem to get a "pass" to enter the "forbidden" areas of the screen. If both slits are open, then the particle that allegedly passed through one slit is unable to get into these "forbidden" regions. She seems to feel how the second gap "looks" at her and prohibits movement in certain directions. It is recognized that interference occurs only in experiments with a wave or particles that manifest in this experiment only wave properties. In some magical way, the particle exposes its wave or corpuscular sides to the experimenter, actually changing them on the go, in flight. If the absorber is placed immediately after one of the slots, then the particle as a wave passes through both slots up to the absorber, then continuing its flight as a particle. In this case, the absorber, as it turns out, does not take away even a small part of its energy from the particle. Although it is obvious that at least part of the particle still had to pass through the blocked gap. As you can see, none of the considered explanations of the physical process can withstand criticism from a logical point of view and from the standpoint of common sense. The currently dominant corpuscular-wave dualism does not even partially allow one to contain interference. A photon does not simply exhibit either corpuscular or wave properties. He shows them simultaneously, and these manifestations are mutually exclude each other. The "quenching" of one of the half-waves immediately turns the photon into a particle that "does not know how" to create an interference pattern. On the contrary, two open slits turn a photon into two half-waves, which then, when combined, turn into a whole photon, demonstrating once again the mysterious procedure for the materialization of a wave.

Experiments similar to the double slit experiment

In the experiment with two slits, it is somewhat difficult to experimentally control the trajectories of the "halves" of particles, since the slits are relatively close to each other. At the same time, there is a similar but more illustrative experiment that allows one to "separate" a photon along two clearly distinguishable trajectories. In this case, the absurdity of the idea that a photon simultaneously passes through two channels becomes even clearer, between which there can be a distance of meters or more. Such an experiment can be carried out using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The effects observed in this case are similar to those observed in the double-slit experiment. Here is how Belinsky describes them: "Let's consider an experiment with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer (Fig. 3). We apply a single-photon state to it and first remove the second beam splitter located in front of the photodetectors. The detectors will register single photocounts either in one or the other channel, and never both at the same time, since there is only one photon at the input.

Fig.3. Scheme of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer.

Let's get the beam splitter back. The probability of photocounts on the detectors is described by the function 1 + cos(Ф1 - Ф2), where Ф1 and Ф2 are the phase delays in the arms of the interferometer. The sign depends on which detector is recording. This harmonic function cannot be represented as the sum of two probabilities Р(Ф1) + Р(Ф2). Consequently, after the first beam splitter, the photon is present, as it were, in both arms of the interferometer simultaneously, although in the first act of the experiment it was only in one arm. This unusual behavior in space is called quantum nonlocality. It cannot be explained from the standpoint of the usual spatial intuitions of common sense, which are usually present in the macrocosm". If both paths are free for a photon at the input, then at the output the photon behaves as in a double-slit experiment: it can pass the second mirror only along one path - interfering with some of its own "copy", which came along a different path. If the second path is closed, then the photon comes alone and passes the second mirror in any direction. A similar version of the similarity of the two-slit experiment is described by Penrose (the description is very eloquent, so we will give it almost in full): "Slits are not necessarily must be located close to each other so that the photon can pass through them simultaneously. To understand how a quantum particle can be "in two places at once" no matter how far apart the places are, consider an experimental setup slightly different from the double slit experiment. As before, we have a lamp emitting monochromatic light, one photon at a time; but instead of passing the light through two slits, let us reflect it from a half-silvered mirror inclined to the beam at an angle of 45 degrees.

Fig.4. The two peaks of the wave function cannot be considered simply as probability weights for the localization of a photon in one place or another. The two paths taken by a photon can be made to interfere with each other.

After meeting the mirror, the photon's wave function is divided into two parts, one of which is reflected to the side, and the second continues to propagate in the same direction in which the photon originally moved. As in the case of a photon emerging from two slits, the wave function has two peaks, but now these peaks are separated by a greater distance - one peak describes the reflected photon, the other describes the photon that has passed through the mirror. In addition, over time, the distance between the peaks becomes larger and larger, increasing indefinitely. Imagine that these two parts of the wave function go into space, and that we are waiting for whole year. Then the two peaks of the photon wave function will be at a distance light year from each other. Somehow, the photon ends up in two places at once, separated by a distance of one light year! Is there any reason to take such a picture seriously? Can't we just think of a photon as something that has a 50% chance of being in one place and a 50% chance of being somewhere else! No, It is Immpossible! No matter how long the photon has been in motion, there is always the possibility that two parts of the photon beam can be reflected in reverse direction and meet, resulting in interference effects that could not arise from the probability weights of the two alternatives. Suppose that each part of the photon beam encounters a fully silvered mirror in its path, tilted at such an angle as to bring both parts together, and that another half-silvered mirror is placed at the meeting point of the two parts, tilted at the same angle as the first mirror. Let two photocells be located on the straight lines along which parts of the photon beam propagate (Fig. 4). What will we discover? If it were true that a photon follows one route with a 50% probability and another with a 50% probability, then we would find that both detectors would each detect a photon with a probability of 50%. However, something else is actually happening. If two alternative routes are exactly equal in length, then with a probability of 100% the photon will hit detector A, located on the straight line along which the photon originally moved, and with a probability of 0 - into any other detector B. In other words, the photon will reliably hit the detector BUT! Of course, such an experiment has never been carried out for distances of the order of a light year, but the above result is not in serious doubt (for physicists who adhere to traditional quantum mechanics!) Experiments of this type have actually been performed for distances of the order of many meters or so, and the results turned out to be in full agreement with quantum mechanical predictions. What can now be said about the reality of the existence of a photon between the first and last meeting with a semi-reflecting mirror? The inevitable conclusion suggests itself, according to which the photon must, in some sense, actually go through both routes at once! For if an absorbing screen were placed on the path of any of the two routes, then the probabilities of a photon hitting detector A or B would be the same! But if both routes are open (both of the same length), then the photon can only reach A. Blocking one of the routes allows the photon to reach detector B! If both routes are open, then the photon somehow "knows" that it is not allowed to hit detector B, and therefore it is forced to follow two routes at once. Note also that the statement "located in two specific places at once" does not fully characterize the state of the photon: we need to distinguish the state ψ t + ψ b, for example, from the state ψ t - ψ b (or, for example, from the state ψ t + iψ b , where ψ t and ψ b now refer to the positions of the photon on each of the two routes (respectively "transmitted" and "reflected"! ). It is this kind of difference that determines whether the photon will reliably reach detector A, passing to the second half-silvered mirror, or whether it will reliably reach detector B (or whether it will hit detectors A and B with some intermediate probability). This puzzling feature of quantum reality, that we have to take seriously that a particle can "be in two places at once" in various ways, comes from the fact that we have to sum quantum states using complex-valued weights to get other quantum states. ". And again, as we see, mathematical formalism should convince us, as it were, that a particle is in two places at once. It is a particle, not a wave. There can certainly be no complaints about the mathematical equations that describe this phenomenon. However, the interpretation them from the standpoint of common sense causes serious difficulties and requires the use of the concepts of "magic", "miracle".

Causes of violation of interference - knowledge about the path of the particle

One of the main questions when considering the phenomenon of interference of a quantum particle is the question of the cause of interference violation. How and when an interference pattern appears, in general, is understandable. But under these known conditions, however, sometimes the interference pattern does not appear. Something is preventing it from happening. Zarechny formulates this question in this way: "what is necessary to observe a superposition of states, an interference pattern? The answer to this question is quite clear: to observe a superposition, we do not have to fix the state of an object. When we look at an electron, we find that it passes either through one hole ", or through another. There is no superposition of these two states! And when we are not looking at it, it simultaneously passes through two slits, and their distribution on the screen is not at all the same as when we look at them!". That is, the violation of interference occurs due to the presence of knowledge about the trajectory of the particle. If we know the trajectory of the particle, then the interference pattern does not arise. Bacciagaluppi draws a similar conclusion: there are situations in which the interference term is not observed, i.e. in which the classical formula for calculating probabilities operates. This happens when we do slit detection, regardless of our belief that the measurement is due to a "true" collapse of the wave function (i.e. that only one of the component is measured and leaves a trace on the screen). Moreover, not only the acquired knowledge about the state of the system violates the interference, but even potential the ability to gain this knowledge is an overwhelming cause for interference. Not knowledge itself, but fundamental possibility find out in the future state of the particle destroy the interference. This is very clearly demonstrated by the experiment of Tsypenyuk: "A beam of rubidium atoms is captured in a magneto-optical trap, it is laser cooled, and then the atomic cloud is released and falls under the action of gravitational field. As the atoms fall, they pass successively through two standing light waves, which form a periodic potential on which the particles scatter. In fact, the diffraction of atoms on a sinusoidal grating, similar to how light is diffracted by an ultrasonic wave in a liquid. The incident beam A (its velocity in the interaction region is only 2 m/s) is first split into two beams B and C, then it enters the second light grating, after which two pairs of beams (D, E) and (F, G) are formed. These two pairs of overlapping beams in the far zone form a standard interference pattern corresponding to the diffraction of atoms by two slits located at a distance d equal to the transverse divergence of the beams after the first grating. which trajectory they moved before the formation of the interference pattern: "As a result of secondary interaction with the microwave field after the light grating, this phase shift is converted into a different population in beams B and C by an atom with an electronic state |2> and |3>: in beam B, there are mainly atoms in the state |2>, in beam C - atoms in the state |3>. In such a rather sophisticated way, atomic beams turned out to be labeled, which then undergo interference. You can find out about the trajectory along which the atom moved later by determining its electronic state. It should be emphasized once again that practically no change in the momentum of the atom occurs during such a labeling procedure. When microwave radiation, which marks atoms in interfering beams, is turned on, the interference pattern disappears completely. It should be emphasized that the information was not read, the internal electronic state was not determined. Information about the trajectory of atoms was only recorded, the atoms remembered which way they moved ". Thus, we see that even the creation of the potential possibility for determining the trajectory of interfering particles destroys the interference pattern. A particle not only cannot simultaneously exhibit wave and corpuscular properties, but these properties are not even partially compatible: either the particle behaves completely like a wave, or completely like a localized particle.If we "tune" the particle as a corpuscle, setting it to some state characteristic of the corpuscle, then when conducting an experiment to reveal its wave properties, all our settings Note that this amazing feature of interference does not contradict either logic or common sense.

Quantocentric physics and Wheeler

At the center of the quantum-mechanical system of modernity, there is a quantum, and around it, as in the geocentric system of Ptolemy, quantum stars and the quantum Sun rotate. The description of the most, perhaps, the simplest quantum-mechanical experiment shows that the mathematics of quantum theory is flawless, although the description of the actual physics of the process is completely absent in it. Main character theory - a quantum only on paper, in formulas it has the properties of a quantum, a particle. In experiments, however, it does not behave at all like a particle. He demonstrates the ability to divide into two parts. He is constantly endowed with various mystical properties and even compared with fairy tale characters: "During this time the photon is "a great smoky dragon" which is only sharp at its tail (at the beam splitter 1) and at its mount where it bites the detector" (Wheeler). These parts, the halves of Wheeler's "big fire-breathing dragon" have never been discovered by anyone, and the properties that these halves of quantums should have, contradict the very theory of quantums. On the other hand, quanta do not behave quite like waves. Yes, they seem to "know how to fall apart" into parts. But always, at any attempt to register them, they instantly merge into one wave, which suddenly turns out to be a particle that has collapsed into a point. Moreover, attempts to force a particle to exhibit only wave or only corpuscular properties fail. An interesting variant of the puzzling interference experiments are Wheeler's delayed choice experiments:

Fig.5. Basic Delayed Choice

1. A photon (or any other quantum particle) is sent towards two slits. 2. A photon passes through the slits without being observed (detected), through one slit, or the other slit, or through both slits (logically, these are all possible alternatives). To get interference, we assume that "something" must pass through both slits; To get the distribution of particles, we assume that the photon must pass through either one slit or the other. Whatever choice the photon makes, it "should" make it the moment it passes through the slits. 3. After passing through the slits, the photon moves towards the back wall. We have two different ways of detecting a photon at the "back wall". 4. First, we have a screen (or any other detection system that is able to distinguish the horizontal coordinate of the incident photon, but is not able to determine where the photon came from). The shield can be removed as shown by the dashed arrow. It can be removed quickly, very quickly, after that as the photon has passed two slits, but before the photon reaches the plane of the screen. In other words, the screen can be removed during the time interval when the photon moves into area 3. Or we can leave the screen in place. This is the choice of the experimenter, who postponed until the moment when the photon passed through the slit (2), no matter how it did it. 5. If the screen is removed, we find two telescopes. Telescopes are very well focused on observing only narrow regions of space around only one slit each. The left telescope observes the left slit; the right telescope observes the right slit. (The telescope mechanism/metaphor ensures that if we look through a telescope, we will only see a flash of light if the photon has necessarily passed - completely or at least partially - through the slit on which the telescope is focused; otherwise, we So when we observe a photon with a telescope, we get "which way" information about the incoming photon.) Now imagine that the photon is on its way to region 3. The photon has already passed through the slits. We still have the option to choose, for example, to leave the screen in place; in this case, we do not know through which slit the photon passed. Or we can decide to remove the screen. If we remove the screen, we expect to see a flash in one telescope or the other (or both, although this never happens) for every photon sent. Why? Because the photon must pass either through one, or through the other, or through both slits. This exhausts all possibilities. When observing telescopes, we should see one of the following: a flash at the left telescope and no flash at the right one, indicating that the photon passed through the left slit; or a flash at the right telescope and no flash at the left telescope, indicating that the photon passed through the right slit; or faint flashes of half intensity from both telescopes, indicating that the photon passed through both slits. These are all possibilities. Quantum mechanics tells us what we'll get on the screen: a 4r curve, which is exactly like the interference of two symmetrical waves coming from our slits. Quantum mechanics also says that when we observe photons with telescopes, we get: a 5r curve, which exactly corresponds to point particles that have passed through one or another slit and hit the corresponding telescope. Let us pay attention to the difference in the configurations of our experimental setup, determined by our choice. If we choose to leave the screen in place, we get a particle distribution corresponding to the interference of two hypothetical slit waves. We could say (albeit with great reluctance) that the photon traveled from its source to the screen through both slits. On the other hand, if we choose to remove the screen, we obtain a distribution of particles consistent with the two maxima that we obtain if we observe the movement of a point particle from the source through one of the slits to the corresponding telescope. The particle "appears" (we see the flash) at one telescope or the other, but not at any other point in between along the direction of the screen. Summing up, we make a choice - whether to find out which slit the particle passed through - by choosing or not choosing to use telescopes for detection. We postpone this choice until the moment of time after that how the particle "passed through one of the slits, or both slits," so to speak. It seems paradoxical that our late choice of whether or not to receive such information is in fact determines, so to speak, whether the particle passed through one slit or through both. If you prefer to think that way (and I don't recommend it), the particle exhibits wave behavior after the fact if you choose to use a screen; also the particle exhibits after the fact behavior as a point object if you choose to use telescopes. Thus, our delayed choice of how to register a particle would seem to determine how the particle actually behaved before registration.
(Ross Rhodes, Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment, translated by P. V. Kurakin,
http://quantum3000.narod.ru/translations/dc_wheeler.htm). The inconsistency of the quantum model requires asking the question "Maybe it is still spinning?" Does the model of corpuscular-wave dualism correspond to reality? It seems that the quantum is neither a particle nor a wave.

Why is the ball bouncing?

But why should we consider the riddle of interference as the main riddle of physics? There are many mysteries in physics, in other sciences and in life. What is so special about interference? In the world around us, there are many phenomena that only at first glance seem understandable, explained. But it is worth going step by step through these explanations, as everything gets confused, a dead end arises. Why are they worse than interference, less mysterious? Consider, for example, such a familiar phenomenon that everyone has encountered in life: the bouncing of a rubber ball thrown on the asphalt. Why does he bounce when he hits the asphalt? Obviously, when hitting the asphalt, the ball is deformed and compressed. At the same time, the pressure of the gas in it increases. In an effort to straighten out, restore its shape, the ball presses on the asphalt and repels from it. That, it would seem, is all, the reason for the jump has been clarified. However, let's take a closer look. For simplicity, we leave out the processes of gas compression and restoration of the shape of the ball. Let's go straight to the consideration of the process at the point of contact between the ball and the asphalt. The ball bounces off the asphalt, because two points (on the asphalt and on the ball) interact: each of them presses on the other, repels from it. It seems that everything is simple here. But let us ask ourselves: what is this pressure? How does it "look"? Let's delve into molecular structure substances. The rubber molecule of which the ball is made and the stone molecule in the asphalt press against each other, that is, they tend to push each other away. And again everything seems to be simple, but it appears new question: what is the cause, the source of the "force" phenomenon, which forces each of the molecules to move away, to experience compulsion to move from the "rival"? Apparently, the atoms of the rubber molecules are repelled by the atoms that make up the stone. If even shorter, more simplified, then one atom is repelled from another. And again: why? Let's move on to the atomic structure of matter. Atoms are made up of nuclei and electron shells. Let's simplify the problem again and assume (reasonably enough) that atoms are repelled either by their shells or by their nuclei, in response to a new question: how exactly does this repulsion occur? For example, electron shells can repel due to their identical electric charges, since like charges repel. And again: why? How does this happen? What causes two electrons, for example, to repel each other? We need to go further and further into the depths of the structure of matter. But already here it is quite noticeable that any of our inventions, any new explanation physical the mechanism of repulsion will slip away farther and farther, like a horizon, although the formal, mathematical description will always be accurate and clear. And yet we will always see that the absence physical description of the repulsion mechanism does not make this mechanism, its intermediate model, absurd, illogical, contrary to common sense. They are somewhat simplified, incomplete, but logical, reasonable, meaningful. This is the difference between the explanation of interference and the explanations of many other phenomena: the description of interference in its very essence is illogical, unnatural, and contrary to common sense.

Quantum entanglement, nonlocality, Einstein's local realism

Consider another phenomenon that is considered contrary to common sense. This is one of the most amazing mysteries of nature - quantum entanglement (entanglement effect, entangled, non-separability, non-locality). The essence of the phenomenon is that two quantum particles after interaction and subsequent separation (separating them into different regions of space) retain some kind of information connection with each other. The best-known example of this is the so-called EPR paradox. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen expressed the idea that, for example, two bound photons in the process of separation (expansion) retain such a semblance of information connection. In this case, the quantum state of one photon, for example, polarization or spin, can be instantly transferred to another photon, which in this case becomes an analogue of the first one and vice versa. Making a measurement on one particle, we instantly determine the state of another particle, no matter how far these particles are from each other. Thus, the connection between particles is fundamentally non-local. The essence of the nonlocality of quantum mechanics Russian physicist Doronin formulates as follows: “As for what is meant by nonlocality in QM, in the scientific community, I believe, there is some agreed opinion on this matter. Usually, the nonlocality of QM is understood as the fact that QM contradicts the principle of local realism (it is still often called Einstein's principle of locality.) The principle of local realism states that if two systems A and B are spatially separated, then when full description physical reality, actions performed on system A should not change the properties of system B. Note that the main position of local realism in the above interpretation is the denial of the mutual influence of spatially separated systems on each other. The main provision of Einsteinian local realism is the impossibility of the influence of two spatially separated systems on each other. In the described EPR paradox, Einstein assumed an indirect dependence of the state of particles. This dependence is formed at the moment of entanglement of particles and persists until the end of the experiment. That is, random states of particles arise at the moment of their separation. In the future, they retain the states obtained during entanglement , and these states are "stored" in some elements of physical reality, described by "additional parameters", since measurements over spaced systems cannot influence each other: "But one assumption seems to me indisputable. The real state of things (state) of the system S 2 does not depend on what is done with the system S 1 "spatially separated from it." operations on the first system, no real changes can be obtained in the second system. "However, in reality, measurements in systems remote from each other somehow influence each other. Alain Aspect described this influence as follows:" i. The photon ν 1 , which did not have a clearly defined polarization before its measurement, acquires a polarization associated with the result obtained during its measurement: this is not surprising. ii. When a measurement on ν 1 is made, a photon ν 2 that had no definite polarization before this measurement is projected into a polarization state parallel to the result of the measurement on ν 1 . This is very surprising because this change in the description of ν 2 is instantaneous, regardless of the distance between ν 1 and ν 2 at the time of the first measurement. This picture is in conflict with relativity. According to Einstein, an event in a given region of spacetime cannot be influenced by an event in a spacetime that is separated by a spacelike interval. It is unwise to try to find more acceptable pictures in order to "understand" the EPR correlations. This is the picture we are considering now." This picture is called "nonlocality". measurements on each other extends from superluminal speed, but at the same time, as such, there is no transfer of information between particles. It turns out that there is an influence of measurements on each other, but there is no transfer of this influence. Based on this, it is concluded that nonlocality does not, in essence, contradict the special theory of relativity. The transmitted (conditional) information between EPR particles is sometimes called "quantum information". So, nonlocality is a phenomenon opposed to Einstein's local realism (localism). At the same time, for local realism, only one thing is taken for granted: the absence of traditional (relativistic) information transmitted from one particle to another. Otherwise, one should speak of "phantom action at a distance," as Einstein called it. Let's take a closer look at this "long-range action" to what extent it contradicts the special theory of relativity and local realism itself. Firstly, "phantom long-range action" is no worse than quantum-mechanical "non-locality". Indeed, there is no transfer of relativistic (sub-light-speed) information as such, either there or there. Therefore, "long-range action" does not contradict the special theory of relativity just as does "non-locality". Secondly, the ghostliness of "long-range action" is no more ghostly than quantum "nonlocality". Indeed, what is the essence of nonlocality? In "exit" to another level of reality? But this does not say anything, but only allows for various mystical and divine extended interpretations. No reasonable and detailed physical description (and even more so, explanation) nonlocality has no. There is only a simple statement of fact: two dimensions correlated. And what can be said about Einstein's "phantom action at a distance"? Yes, exactly the same thing: there is no any reasonable and detailed physical description, the same simple statement of fact: two dimensions connected together. The question actually comes down to terminology: non-locality or ghostly action at a distance. And the recognition that neither one nor the other formally contradicts the special theory of relativity. But this means nothing more than the consistency of local realism (localism) itself. His main statement, formulated by Einstein, certainly remains valid: in the relativistic sense, there is no interaction between the systems S 2 and S 1, the hypothesis of "phantom long-range action" does not introduce the slightest contradiction into Einstein's local realism. Finally, the very attempt to reject "phantom action at a distance" in local realism logically requires the same attitude towards its quantum mechanical counterpart - nonlocality. Otherwise, it becomes a double standard, an unsubstantiated double approach to two theories ("What is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to the bull"). It is unlikely that such an approach deserves serious consideration. Thus, the hypothesis of Einstein's local realism (localism) should be formulated in a more complete form: "The real state of the system S 2 in a relativistic sense does not depend on what is done with the system S 1 " spatially separated from it. Given this small but important correction, all references to violations of "Bell's inequalities" (see ), as arguments refuting Einstein's local realism, which violates them with the same success as quantum mechanics... As we see, in quantum mechanics the essence of the phenomenon of nonlocality is described outward signs, but its internal mechanism is not explained, which served as the basis for Einstein's statement about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. At the same time, the phenomenon of entanglement can have a quite simple explanation that does not contradict either logic or common sense. Since two quantum particles behave as if they "know" about each other's state, transmit some elusive information to one another, it is possible to hypothesize that the transfer is carried out by some "purely material" carrier (not material). This question has a deep philosophical background, relating to the foundations of reality, that is, the primary substance from which our entire world is created. Actually, this substance should be called matter, endowing it with properties that exclude its direct observation. Whole the world is woven from matter, and we can observe it only by interacting with this fabric, a derivative of matter: matter, fields. Without going into the details of this hypothesis, we only emphasize that the author identifies matter and ether, considering them two names for the same substance. It is impossible to explain the structure of the world, refusing the fundamental principle - matter, since the discreteness of matter in itself contradicts both logic and common sense. There is no reasonable and logical answer to the question: what is between the discretes of matter, if matter is the fundamental principle of all that exists. Therefore, the assumption that matter has a property, emerging as an instantaneous interaction of distant material objects, is quite logical and consistent. Two quantum particles interact with each other at a deeper level - the material one, passing each other more subtle, elusive information at the material level, which is not associated with a material, field, wave or any other carrier, and registration of which is directly fundamentally impossible. The phenomenon of non-locality (non-separability), although it does not have an explicit and clear physical description (explanation) in quantum physics, nevertheless, is accessible to understanding and explanation as a real process. Thus, the interaction of entangled particles, in general, does not contradict either logic or common sense and allows, albeit a fantastic, but rather harmonious explanation.

quantum teleportation

Another interesting and paradoxical manifestation of the quantum nature of matter is quantum teleportation. The term "teleportation", taken from science fiction, is now widely used in scientific literature and at first glance gives the impression of something unreal. Quantum teleportation means the instantaneous transfer of a quantum state from one particle to another far away. However, the teleportation of the particle itself, the transfer of mass does not occur in this case. The question of quantum teleportation was first raised in 1993 by the Bennett group, which, using the EPR paradox, showed that, in principle, entangled (entangled) particles can serve as a kind of information "transport". By attaching a third - "information" - particle to one of the coupled particles, it is possible to transfer its properties to another, and even without measuring these properties. The implementation of the EPR channel was carried out experimentally, and the feasibility of the EPR principles in practice was proved for the transmission of polarization states between two photons through optical fibers by means of a third at distances up to 10 kilometers. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, a photon does not have an exact polarization value until it is measured by a detector. Thus, the measurement transforms the set of all possible polarizations of a photon into a random but very specific value. Measuring the polarization of one photon of an entangled pair leads to the fact that the second photon, no matter how far away it is, instantly appears the corresponding - perpendicular to it - polarization. If one of the two initial photons is "mixed" with an extraneous photon, a new pair is formed, a new bound quantum system. Having measured its parameters, it is possible to instantly transmit as far as you like - to teleport - the direction of polarization is no longer the original, but an extraneous photon. In principle, almost everything that happens to one photon of a pair should instantly affect the other, changing its properties in a very definite way. As a result of the measurement, the second photon of the original bound pair also acquired some fixed polarization: a copy of the initial state of the "messenger photon" was transmitted to the remote photon. The hardest part was proving that the quantum state was indeed teleported: to do so, one had to know exactly how the detectors were set up when measuring the overall polarization, and it was necessary to carefully synchronize them. Simplified scheme of quantum teleportation can be imagined as follows. Alice and Bob (conditional characters) are sent one photon from a pair of entangled photons. Alice has a particle (photon) in an (unknown to her) state A; a photon from a pair and Alice's photon interact ("entangled"), Alice makes a measurement and determines the state of the system of two photons that she has. Naturally, the initial state A of Alice's photon is destroyed in this case. However, a photon from a pair of entangled photons that ends up with Bob goes into state A. In principle, Bob does not even know that a teleportation event has taken place, so it is necessary that Alice send him information about this in the usual way. Mathematically, in the language of quantum mechanics, this phenomenon can be described as follows. The scheme of the device for teleportation is shown in the figure:

Fig.6. Scheme of installation for implementation of quantum teleportation of the state of a photon

"The initial state is determined by the expression:

Here it is assumed that the first two (from left to right) qubits belong to Alice, and the third qubit belongs to Bob. Next, Alice passes her two qubits through CNOT-gate. In this case, the state |Ψ 1 > is obtained:

Alice then passes the first qubit through the Hadamard gate. As a result, the state of the considered qubits |Ψ 2 > will look like:

Regrouping the terms in (10.4), observing the chosen sequence of belonging of qubits to Alice and Bob, we get:

This shows that if, for example, Alice performs measurements of the states of her pair of qubits and gets 00 (that is, M 1 = 0, M 2 = 0), then Bob's qubit will be in the state |Ψ>, that is, in that state that Alice wanted to give to Bob. In the general case, depending on the result of Alice's measurement, the state of Bob's qubit after the measurement process will be determined by one of four possible states:

However, in order to know which of the four states his qubit is in, Bob must obtain classical information about the result of Alice's measurement. As soon as Bob knows the result of Alice's measurement, he can obtain the state of Alice's original qubit |Ψ> by performing quantum operations corresponding to scheme (10.6). So if Alice told him that the result of her measurement is 00, then Bob does not need to do anything with his qubit - it is in the state |Ψ>, that is, the transmission result has already been achieved. If Alice's measurement gives a result of 01, then Bob must act on his qubit with a gate X. If Alice's measurement gives 10, then Bob must apply a gate Z. Finally, if the result was 11, then Bob must act on the gates X*Z to get the transmitted state |Ψ>. The total quantum circuit describing the phenomenon of teleportation is shown in the figure. There are a number of circumstances for the phenomenon of teleportation, which must be explained taking into account general physical principles. For example, one might get the impression that teleportation allows the transfer of a quantum state instantly and, therefore, faster than the speed of light. This statement is in direct contradiction with the theory of relativity. However, in the phenomenon of teleportation there is no contradiction with the theory of relativity, because in order to carry out teleportation, Alice must transmit the result of her measurement through the classical communication channel, and teleportation does not transmit any information ". The phenomenon of teleportation clearly and logically follows from the formalism of quantum mechanics. It is obvious that the basis of this phenomenon, its "core" is entanglement.Therefore, teleportation is logical, like entanglement, it is easily and simply described mathematically, without giving rise to any contradictions with either logic or common sense.

Bell's inequalities

there have been ill-founded references to violations of "Bell's inequalities" as arguments against Einstein's local realism, which violates them just as well as quantum mechanics. DS Bell's article on the EPR paradox was a convincing mathematical refutation of Einstein's arguments about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and the provisions of the so-called "local realism" formulated by him. From the day the paper was published in 1964 to the present day, Bell's arguments, better known in the form of "Bell's inequalities", have been the most common and main argument in the dispute between the notions of the nonlocality of quantum mechanics and a whole class of theories based on "hidden variables" or "additional parameters". At the same time, Bell's objections should be considered a compromise between the special theory of relativity and the experimentally observed phenomenon of entanglement, which has all the visible signs of an instantaneous dependence of two systems separated from each other. This compromise is known today as non-locality or non-separability. Nonlocality actually denies the provisions of the traditional probability theory on dependent and independent events and substantiates new provisions - quantum probability, quantum rules for calculating the probability of events (addition of probability amplitudes), quantum logic. Such a compromise serves as the basis for the emergence of mystical views of nature. Consider Bell's highly interesting conclusion from an analysis of the EPR paradox: "In a quantum theory with additional parameters, in order to determine the results of individual measurements without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can affect the reading of another distant instrument In addition, the involved signal must propagate instantaneously, such that such a theory cannot be Lorentz invariant." Both Einstein and Bell exclude superluminal interaction between particles. However, Einstein's arguments about "additional parameters" were convincingly refuted by Bell, albeit at the price of admitting some kind of superluminal "tuning mechanism". To preserve the Lorentz invariance of the theory, there are two ways: to recognize the mysticism of nonlocality, or ... the existence of an immaterial substance that binds particles. The assumption of instantaneous transfer of "quantum information" that is still elusive, not experimentally registered "quantum information" makes it possible to abandon mysticism in favor of logic and common sense and the validity of the special theory of relativity. Although the explanation as a whole looks fantastic.

The contradiction between quantum mechanics and SRT

It was said above about the formal recognition of the absence of a contradiction between quantum mechanics - the phenomenon of nonlocality, entanglement and the special theory of relativity. However, the phenomenon of entanglement nevertheless makes it possible in principle to organize an experiment that can explicitly show that clocks moving relative to each other are synchronous. This means that the SRT statement that the moving clock is behind is wrong. There are good reasons to believe that there is an irreducible contradiction between quantum theory and special relativity regarding the rate of transmission of interaction and quantum nonlocality. The position of the quantum theory about the instantaneity of the collapse of the state vector contradicts the SRT postulate about the limited rate of transmission of interaction, since there is a way to use the collapse to generate a synchronization signal, which is actually an information signal that instantly propagates in space. This implies the conclusion that one of the theories is quantum or special relativity, or both theories require revision in the question of the rate of transmission of interaction. For quantum theory, this is a rejection of the quantum correlation of entangled particles (nonlocality) with the instantaneous collapse of the wave function at any distance; for SRT, this is the limit of the interaction transfer rate. The essence of quantum synchronization is as follows. Two entangled particles (photons) instantly acquire their own states when the common wave function collapses - this is the position of quantum mechanics. Since there is at least one IFR in which each of the photons receives its state within the measuring device, there are no reasonable grounds to assert that there are other IFRs in which the photons have received these states. outside measuring devices. Hence the inevitable conclusion that the operation of two meters occurs simultaneously from point of view any ISO, because for any ISO both meters worked simultaneously due to the collapse of the wave function. In particular, this means that the own meter motionless ISO worked absolutely simultaneously with the meter in moving ISO, since quantum entangled particles (photons) at the moment of collapse were within the measuring devices, and the collapse occurs instantly. The use of signatures (sequences of meter signals) allows you to later show the synchronism of the clock. As we can see, even such a clearly observed contradiction between the two leading physical theories admits a completely logical resolution (including experimental verification), which in no way contradicts common sense. However, it should be noted that the very phenomenon of quantum synchronization turned out to be beyond the understanding of all the opponents with whom it was discussed.

Mysteries of the Egyptian pyramids

From school years, we were taught that the famous Pyramids of Egypt were built by the hands of the Egyptians of the dynasties known to us. However, scientific expeditions organized in our days by A.Yu. Sklyarov have highlighted many inconsistencies and contradictions in such views on the origin of the pyramids. Moreover, contradictions were found in the interpretations of the appearance of such structures in other parts of the world. Sklyarov's expeditions set themselves quite fantastic tasks: "the main thing is to find what we were looking for - signs and traces of a highly developed civilization, radically different in capabilities and technologies mastered by it from what all Mesoamerican peoples known to historians were." By criticizing the prevailing explanations of the official historical science of the emergence of amazing ancient structures, he comes to a convincing conclusion about their completely different origin: “Everyone has read and “knows” about the famous Egyptian obelisks. But do they know what? from which they are made, a description of their majesty, a statement of the version of manufacture, delivery and installation in place.You can even find options for translating the inscriptions on them.But it is unlikely that anywhere you will find a mention that narrow decorative cuts can often be found on these same obelisks (with a depth of the order of a centimeter and a width at the entrance of only a couple of millimeters and practically equal to zero in depth), which no super-perfect instrument is able to repeat now. And this is in our time of high technology!" All this was filmed, shown in close-up, any doubts about the authenticity of the shown are excluded. The shots are amazing! And the conclusions drawn on the basis of the analysis of the elements of structures are, of course, unambiguous and indisputable: “From here it inevitably and automatically follows that only those who had the appropriate tool could make it. This is two. The one who had a production base for creating such a tool. This is three. The one who had the appropriate energy supply both for the operation of this tool and for the operation of the entire base that produces the tool. This is four. who had the appropriate knowledge. That's five. And so on and so forth. As a result, we get a civilization that surpasses our modern one both in knowledge and in technology. Fantasy? .. But the slot is real !!!" You have to be a pathological Thomas the Unbeliever to deny the presence of traces of high technology, and to be an incredible dreamer to attribute all these works to the ancient Egyptians (and other peoples in whose territory structures were discovered). Despite the fantastic nature of ancient structures in Egypt, Mexico and other regions, their occurrence can be explained without any contradictions with logic and common sense. These explanations contradict the generally accepted interpretation of the origin of the pyramids, but they are real in principle. Even the assumption that aliens visited the Earth and built pyramids by them does not contradict common sense: for all the fantasticness of this idea, it could well have taken place. Moreover, this explanation is much more logical and sensible than attributing construction to ancient, poorly developed civilizations.

What if it's unbelievable?

So, as shown, a lot of even the most amazing natural phenomena can be quite explained from the point of view of logic and common sense. Apparently, you can find many more such mysteries and phenomena, which, nevertheless, allow us to give at least some logical or consistent explanation. But this does not apply to interference, which in the course of explanation encounters insurmountable contradictions with logic and common sense. Let's try to formulate at least some explanation, even if it is fantastic, insane, but based on logic and common sense. Let's assume that a photon is a wave and nothing else, that there is no generally recognized wave-particle duality. However, a photon is not a wave in its traditional form: it is not just electromagnetic wave or a De Broglie wave, but something more abstract, abstract - wave. Then what we call a particle and, it seems, even manifests itself as a particle - in fact, in a sense, the collapse, collapse, "death" of the wave, the procedure for the absorption of a photon-wave, the process of the disappearance of a photon-wave. Now let's try to explain some phenomena from this unscientific, even absurd point of view. Experiment on the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. At the entrance to the interferometer, the photon - "neither wave nor particle" is split into two parts. In the truest sense of the word. Half a photon moves along one shoulder, and half a photon moves along the other. At the output of the interferometer, the photon is again assembled into a single whole. So far, this is only a sketch of the process. Now suppose that one of the photon paths is blocked. Upon contact with an obstacle, a semi-photon "condenses" into a whole photon. This happens at one of two points in space: either at the point of contact with the obstacle, or at a remote point where its other half was at that moment. But where exactly? It is clear that, due to quantum probability, it is impossible to determine the exact place: either there or here. In this case, the system of two semi-photons is destroyed and "merges" into the original photon. It is only known for sure that the merging occurs at the location of one of the half-photons and that the half-photons merge together at superluminal (instantaneous) speed - just like entangled photons take on correlated states. The effect described by Penrose, with interference at the output of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The photon and half-photons are also waves, so all wave effects are explained from this point of view simply: "if both routes are open (both of the same length), then the photon can only reach A" due to the interference of half-photon waves. "Blocking one of the routes allows the photon to reach detector B" in exactly the same way as when a photon-wave passes through a splitter (beam splitter) into an interferometer - that is, with splitting it into two half-photons and subsequently condensing on one of the detectors - A or B. At the same time, on average, every second photon arrives at the output divider in the "assembled form", since the overlap of one of the paths causes the photon to "assemble" either in the second channel or on an obstacle. On the contrary, “if both routes are open, then the photon somehow “knows” that hitting detector B is not allowed, and therefore it is forced to follow two routes at once,” as a result of which two half-photons arrive at the output splitter, which and interfere on the divider, hitting either detector A or detector B. Experiment on two slits. Getting to the slots, the photon - "neither a wave, nor a particle", as above, is divided into two parts, into two half-photons. Passing through the slits, semi-photons interfere traditionally like waves, giving the corresponding bands on the screen. When one of the slits is closed (at the exit), then half-photons also "condense" on one of them according to the laws of quantum probability. That is, a photon can "assemble" into a whole both on the stub - on the first half-photon, and at the location of the second half-photon at the moment when the first one touches this stub. In this case, the "condensed" photon continues its further movement in the traditional way for a quantum wave-photon. delayed choice phenomenon. As in the previous example, half-photons pass through the slits. Interference works the same way. If, after the semi-photons have passed through the slits, the recorder (screen or eyepieces) is replaced, nothing special will happen for the semi-photons. If they meet a screen on their way, they interfere, "gather" into one at the corresponding point in space (screen). If an eyepiece is encountered, then, according to the laws of quantum probability, half-photons will "collect" into a whole photon on one of them. Quantum probability does not care on which of the semi-photons to "condense" the photon into a whole. In the eyepiece, we will indeed see exactly that the photon has passed through a certain slit. Entanglement. Quantum particles - waves at the moment of interaction and subsequent separation, for example, retain their "pairness". In other words, each of the particles "scatters" simultaneously in two directions in the form of semi-particles. That is, two half-particles - half of the first particle and half of the second particle - are removed in one direction, and the other two halves - in the other. At the moment of the collapse of the state vector, each of the semiparticles "collapses", each on its "own" side, instantly, regardless of the distance between the particles. According to the rules of quantum computing, in the case of photons it is possible to rotate the polarization of one of the particles without the collapse of the state vector. In this case, the rotation of the mutual polarization directions of entangled photons should take place: during the collapse, the angle between their polarizations will no longer be a multiple of the direct one. But this can also be explained, for example, by the inequality of the “halves”. Fantastic? Crazy? Unscientific? Apparently so. Moreover, these explanations clearly contradict those experiments in which quantum particles manifest themselves precisely as quanta, for example, elastic collisions. But such is the price of striving to adhere to logic and common sense. As you can see, interference does not lend itself to this, it contradicts both logic and common sense to a disproportionately greater extent than all the phenomena considered here. "The heart of quantum mechanics", the quintessence of the principle of quantum superposition is an unsolvable riddle. And given that interference is actually a basic principle, to one degree or another contained in many quantum mechanical calculations, it is an absurdity, unsolved The main mystery of quantum physics .

APPS

Since when analyzing the mysteries of science we will use such basic concepts as logic, paradox, contradiction, absurdity, common sense, we should determine how we will interpret these concepts.

formal logic

We choose the apparatus of formal logic as the main tool of analysis, which is the basis of all other classes of logics, just as binary calculus is the basis of all calculi (with other bases). This is the logic of the lowest level, simpler than which it is impossible to conceive anything more. All reasoning and logical constructions, ultimately, are based on this basic, basic logic, are reduced to it. Hence the inevitable conclusion that any reasoning (construction) in its basis should not contradict formal logic. The logic is:

1. The science of the general laws of development of the objective world and knowledge.
2. Reasonableness, correctness of conclusions.
3. Internal regularity. ( Dictionary Russian language Ushakov, http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/ushakov/article/ushakov/12/us208212.htm) Logic is "a normative science about the forms and methods of intellectual cognitive activity carried out with the help of language. Specificity logical laws lies in the fact that they are statements that are true solely by virtue of their logical form. In other words, the logical form of such statements determines their truth, regardless of the specification of the contents of their non-logical terms. htm) Among logical theories we will be especially interested non-classical logic - quantum logic that implies a violation of the laws of classical logic in the microcosm. To a certain extent, we will rely on dialectical logic, the logic of "contradictions": "Dialectical logic is philosophy, theory of truth(truth-process, according to Hegel), while other "logics" are a special tool for fixing and embodying the results of cognition. The tool is very necessary (for example, not a single computer program will work without relying on the mathematical and logical rules for calculating propositions), but still it is special. ... Such logic studies the laws of emergence and development from a single source of various, sometimes devoid of not only external similarities, but also contradictory phenomena. Moreover, for dialectical logic contradiction inherent in the very source of the origin of phenomena. In contrast to formal logic, which imposes a ban on similar things in the form of the "law of the excluded middle" (either A or not-A - tertium non datur: There is no third). But what can you do if the light is already at its base - light as "truth" - is both a wave and a particle (corpuscle), into which it is impossible to "divide" it even under the conditions of the most sophisticated laboratory experiment? (Kudryavtsev V., What is dialectical logic? http://www.tovievich.ru/book/8/340/1.htm)

Common sense

In the Aristotelian sense of the word, the ability to comprehend the properties of an object through the use of other senses. Beliefs, opinions, practical understanding of things, characteristic of the "average person". Colloquial: good, reasoned judgment. An approximate synonym for logical thinking. Common sense was originally viewed as component a mental faculty that functions in a purely rational manner. (Oxford Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology / Edited by A. Reber, 2002,
http://vocabulary.ru/dictionary/487/word/%C7%C4%D0%C0%C2%DB%C9+%D1%CC%DB%D1%CB) Here we consider common sense solely as the correspondence of phenomena to formal logic . Only the contradiction of logic in the constructions can serve as a basis for recognizing the fallacy, incompleteness of the conclusions or their absurdity. As Yu. Sklyarov said, the explanation real facts one must search with the help of logic and common sense, no matter how strange, unusual and "unscientific" these explanations may seem at first glance. When analyzing, we rely on the scientific method, which we consider the method of trial and error. (Serebryany A.I., Scientific Method and Mistakes, Nature, N3, 1997, http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/PAPERS/NATURE/VV_SC2_W.HTM) At the same time, we are aware that science itself is itself based on faith: "in essence, all knowledge is based on belief in initial assumptions (which are taken a priori, through intuition and which cannot be rationally directly and rigorously proved), - in particular, in the following:

(i) our minds can comprehend reality,
(ii) our feelings reflect reality,
(iii) the laws of logic." (V.S. Olkhovsky V.S., How do the postulates of the faith of evolutionism and creationism relate to each other with modern scientific data, http://www.scienceandapologetics.org/text/91.htm) "That that science is based on faith, which is not qualitatively different from religious faith, is recognized by the scientists themselves. "(Modern Science and Faith, http://www.vyasa.ru/philosophy/vedicculture/?id=82) definition of common sense: "Common sense is a set of prejudices that we acquire upon reaching the age of eighteen." may refuse you.

Contradiction

"In formal logic, a pair of judgments that contradict each other, that is, judgments, each of which is a negation of the other. A contradiction is also the very fact of the appearance of such a pair of judgments in the course of any reasoning or within the framework of any scientific theory." (Large soviet encyclopedia, Rubricon, http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00063/38600.htm) "A thought or position that is incompatible with another, refuting another, inconsistency in thoughts, statements and actions, violation of logic or truth" . (Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language Ushakov, http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/ushakov/article/ushakov/16-4/us3102504.htm) "the logical situation of the simultaneous truth of two mutually exclusive definitions or statements (judgments) about one and the same In formal logic, contradiction is considered inadmissible according to the law of contradiction. (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy)

Paradox

"1) opinion, judgment, conclusion, sharply at odds with the generally accepted, contrary to "common sense" (sometimes only at first glance); 2) an unexpected phenomenon, an event that does not correspond to the usual ideas; 3) in logic - a contradiction that arises with any deviation from the truth. A contradiction is synonymous with the term "antinomy" - a contradiction in the law - this is the name of any reasoning that proves both the truth of the thesis and the truth of its negation. Often a paradox arises when two mutually exclusive (contradictory) judgments turn out to be equally provable. " (http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/psychlex2/article/PS2/ps2-0279.htm) Since it is customary to consider a phenomenon that contradicts generally accepted views as a paradox, in this sense a paradox and a contradiction are similar. However, we will consider them separately. Although a paradox is a contradiction, it can be explained logically, it is accessible to common sense. We will consider the contradiction as an insoluble, impossible, absurd logical construction, inexplicable from the standpoint of common sense. The article searches for such contradictions that are not just difficult to resolve, but reach the level of absurdity. Not only is it difficult to explain them, but even the formulation of the problem, the description of the essence of the contradiction, encounters difficulties. How do you explain something that you can't even formulate? In our opinion, Young's double-slit experiment is such an absurdity. It has been found that it is extremely difficult to explain the behavior of a quantum particle when it interferes with two slits.

Absurd

Something illogical, absurd, contrary to common sense. - An expression is considered absurd if it is not outwardly contradictory, but from which a contradiction can nevertheless be derived. - An absurd statement is meaningful and, due to its inconsistency, is false. The logical law of contradiction speaks of the inadmissibility of both affirmation and negation. - An absurd statement is a direct violation of this law. In logic, proofs are considered by reductio ad absurdum (“reduction to absurdity”): if a contradiction is derived from a certain position, then this provision is false. (Wikipedia, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurd) For the Greeks, the concept of absurdity meant a logical dead end, that is, a place where reasoning leads the reasoner to an obvious contradiction or, moreover, to obvious nonsense and, therefore, requires a different thought path. Thus, absurdity was understood as the denial of the central component of rationality - logic. (http://www.ec-dejavu.net/a/absurd.html)

Literature

1. Aspect A. "Bell's theorem: the naive view of an experimentalist", 2001,
   (http://quantum3000.narod.ru/papers/edu/aspect_bell.zip)
2. Aspect: Alain Aspect, Bell's Theorem: naive view experimenter, (Translated from English by Putenikhina P.V.), Quantum Magic, 2007.
3. Bacciagaluppi G., The role of decoherence in quantum theory: Translated by M.H. Shulman. - Institute of History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (Paris) -
   http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/
4. Belinsky A.V., Quantum nonlocality and the absence of a priori values ​​of measured quantities in experiments with photons, - UFN, v.173, ?8, August 2003.
5. Boumeister D., Eckert A., Zeilinger A., ​​Physics of Quantum Information. -
   http://quantmagic.narod.ru/Books/Zeilinger/g1.djvu
6. Wave processes in inhomogeneous and nonlinear media. Seminar 10. Quantum teleportation, Voronezh State University, REC-010 Research and Education Center,
   http://www.rec.vsu.ru/rus/ecourse/quantcomp/sem10.pdf
7. Doronin S.I., "Non-locality of quantum mechanics", Physics of Magic Forum, Physics of Magic website, Physics, http://physmag.h1.ru/forum/topic.php?forum=1&topic=29
8. Doronin S.I., Site "Physics of Magic", http://physmag.h1.ru/
9. Zarechny M.I., Quantum and mystical pictures of the world, 2004, http://www.simoron.dax.ru/
10. Quantum teleportation (Gordon broadcast May 21, 2002, 00:30),
    http://www.mi.ras.ru/~volovich/lib/vol-acc.htm
11. Mensky MB, Quantum mechanics: new experiments, new applications and new formulations of old questions. - UFN, Volume 170, N 6, 2000
12. Roger Penrose, The King's New Mind: On Computers, Thinking, and the Laws of Physics: Per. from English. / Common ed. V.O. Malyshenko. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2003. - 384 p. Translation of the book:
    Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind. Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, 1989.
13. Putenikhin P.V., Quantum mechanics versus SRT. - Samizdat, 2008,
    http://zhurnal.lib.ru/editors/p/putenihin_p_w/kmvsto.shtml
14. P. V. Putenikhin, When Bell's inequalities are not violated. Samizdat, 2008
15. Putenikhin P.V., Comments on Bell's conclusions in the article "The Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox". Samizdat, 2008
16. Sklyarov A., Ancient Mexico without crooked mirrors, http://lah.ru/text/sklyarov/mexico-web.rar
17. Hawking S. Short story time from big bang to black holes. - St. Petersburg, 2001
18. Hawking S., Penrose R., The nature of space and time. - Izhevsk: Research Center "Regular and Chaotic Dynamics", 2000, 160 pages.
19. Tsypenyuk Yu.M., Uncertainty relation or complementarity principle? - M.: Priroda, No. 5, 1999, p.90
20. Einstein A. Collection scientific papers in four volumes. Volume 4. Articles, reviews, letters. The evolution of physics. M.: Nauka, 1967,
    http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru/ru/library/books/Einstein_t4_1967ru.djvu
21. Einstein A., Podolsky B., Rosen N. Can the quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? / Einstein A. Sobr. scientific papers, vol. 3. M., Nauka, 1966, p. 604-611〉
    http://eqworld.ipmnet.ru/ru/library/books/Einstein_t3_1966ru.djvu

Interference of light in Young's experiment

Art by Timm Weitkamp (CC BY)

A team of physicists at the Australian National University implemented Wheeler's delayed choice thought experiment by replacing photons with supercold, metastable helium atoms. The new work confirmed the classical propositions of Niels Bohr's complementarity principle. published in nature physics.

In 1978, John Archibald Wheeler proposed a more sophisticated version of Jung's classic double-slit experiment, which proved the wave nature of light. According to Jung, a beam of light is directed to a partition with two narrow slits. The size of each slot approximately corresponds to the wavelength of the emitted light. Passing through the gaps, the light hits the projection screen behind. If the photons exhibited exclusively corpuscular properties, then the screen would have two brightly lit areas behind the slits and a dark area between them. At the same time, if photons exhibit wave properties, then each slot becomes a secondary source of waves. These waves interfere, and instead of two illuminated bands, there are many light and dark zones on the projection screen. Moreover, one of the local illumination maxima is located where there should be a dark place (if the photon was only a particle).

It would seem that the wave nature of light has been experimentally proven, however, mathematically, this meant that the photon simultaneously passes through both slits. Then physicists tried, by means of measurement, to determine through which slit a single photon actually flies. It turned out that in the case of observation, the photon again began to act as a particle, as if it "knew" that it was being observed. The fact of observation seems to destroy wave function. Conversely, as soon as there is no observation, the photon again begins to interfere with itself, acting like a wave.

Stating the experimentally observed wave-particle duality, Niels Bohr postulated the principle of complementarity. It states that if an observer measures the properties of a quantum object as a particle, then it behaves like a particle. If its wave properties are measured, then for the observer it behaves like a wave. Therefore, for a complete description of quantum mechanical phenomena, it is necessary to apply two seemingly contradictory ideas, which, as a result, turn out to be mutually complementary, which is reflected in the name of the principle.

To overcome this contradiction and test the observer effect, Wheeler proposed the use of a Mach–Zehnder interferometer. It consists of four mirrors. The first splits the stream of light into two beams, which are then reflected from two opaque mirrors and brought together again in the fourth mirror. There are detectors on both sides of it. Photons must be released one at a time.

A single photon, as it were, splits into two in the first mirror, or, in other words, exhibits wave properties. Then it bounces off two ideal mirrors, interferes with itself again in the fourth semitransparent mirror, and finally hits one of the detectors. For each specific photon, only one of the detectors fires, but if you repeat the experiment many times, you will get some non-trivial ratio of the readings of the two detectors. This relation shows that the particle, having reached the fourth mirror, behaves like a wave. If the fourth mirror is removed, then the ratio between the responses will be 50:50. It looks as if, at the moment of the first splitting, the particle has already "decided" which path it will take.

Wheeler's idea was that the appearance of the fourth mirror in the scheme was decided by a random number generator after the photon entered the interferometer, but before it was absorbed by one of the detectors - the so-called delayed choice. Thus, experimenters would deprive the photon of the opportunity to "know" whether an observation is being made or not, and thereby determine its "behavior" - to appear as a particle or a wave. For the first time, this hypothetical scheme was realized only in 2007.

Scheme of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer

Image: Wikimedia Commons

On the left is the classic scheme of Wheeler's experiment. On the right is his new implementation on atoms and using laser pulses.

Image: Manning A.G. et als.

In a new study, Australian physicists used more massive particles - atoms, thereby testing Wheeler's experimental scheme in completely new conditions.

Scientists used supercold helium atoms by releasing them one by one from an optical dipole trap. Under the influence of gravity, the atoms began to fall into a special detector in the form of a microchannel plate. A millisecond after the start of the fall, the laser beam "hit" the atom, causing it to take up a superposition of two dipole moments directed in different directions. It was an analogue of Wheeler's "first splitting mirror".

Then the scientists decided whether to use a second laser pulse to recombine these two states. In total, there could be two variants of such a mixed state: the first in the form of a sum of two waves and the second in the form of a difference. Which of them will arise was determined by a quantum random number generator. After the application of the second laser pulse, it was no longer possible to definitely say which of the two states the atom was in. In total, more than a thousand such experimental samples were made.

It turned out that if the second laser pulse was not applied, then the probability of detecting each of the dipole moments was 0.5. At the same time, after exposure to the second laser pulse, a clear interference pattern was observed, expressed as a sinusoid, just as in Young's experiment.

Thus, Niels Bohr's suggestion was confirmed that it makes no sense to attribute this or that behavior to particles - as waves or as particles themselves - before the measurement has been made. However, there is another unlikely explanation that the particles somehow receive information from the future. It assumes that information can be transmitted faster than light, which is impossible from the point of view of the theory of relativity.

• a quantum object (like an electron) can be in more than one place at one time. It can be measured as a wave spread out in space and can be located at several different points throughout the wave. This is called the wave property.
• the quantum object ceases to exist here and spontaneously arises there without moving in space. This is known as a quantum transition. Basically it's a teleporter.
• the manifestation of one quantum object, caused by our observations, spontaneously affects its associated twin object, no matter how far away it is. Knock an electron and a proton out of an atom. Whatever happens to the electron will also happen to the proton. This is called "quantum action at a distance".
• a quantum object cannot manifest itself in ordinary space-time until we observe it as a particle. Consciousness destroys the wave function of the particle.

The last point is interesting because without a conscious observer who causes the wave to collapse, it will remain without physical manifestation. Observation not only disturbs the measured object, it produces an effect. This was verified by the so-called double-slit experiment, when the presence of a conscious observer changes the behavior of an electron, turning it from a wave into a particle. The so-called observer effect completely shakes up what we know about the real world. By the way, here is a cartoon in which everything is clearly shown.

As scientist Dean Radin noted, “We force an electron to take a certain position. We produce the measurement results ourselves.” Now they believe that "it is not we who measure the electron, but the machine that is behind the observation." But the machine simply complements our consciousness. It's like saying "it's not me looking at the one who swims across the lake, it's binoculars." The machine itself sees no more than a computer, which can "listen" to songs by interpreting the audio signal.

Some scientists speculate that without consciousness, the universe would exist indefinitely, like a sea of ​​quantum potential. In other words, physical reality cannot exist without subjectivity. Without consciousness there is no physical matter. This notion is known as "" and was first introduced by physicist John Wheeler. In fact, any possible universe that we can imagine without a conscious observer will already be with him. Consciousness is the basis of being in this case and existed, perhaps, before the emergence of the physical universe. Consciousness literally creates physical world.

These findings warrant enormous implications for how we understand our relationship with outside world, and what kind of relationship we might have with the universe. As living beings, we have direct access to everything that exists and the foundation of everything that exists physically. This allows us to consciousness. “We create reality” means in this context that our thoughts create a perspective of what we are in our world, but if we look at it, it is important for us to accurately understand this process. We generate the physical universe with our subjectivity. The fabric of the universe is consciousness, and we are just ripples in the sea of ​​the universe. It turns out that we are lucky to experience the miracle of such a life, and the Universe continues to infuse a part of its self-consciousness into us.

“I consider consciousness fundamental. I consider matter to be derived from consciousness. We cannot remain unconscious. Everything we talk about, everything we see as existing, postulates consciousness.” - Max Planck, Nobel laureate and pioneer of quantum theory.