Bohr-Einstein Debate and the Copenhagen Interpretation

Рет қаралды 20,898

Жыл бұрын

The Bohr-Einstein debate was a scientific debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein in the 1920s about the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics. Einstein believed that quantum mechanics was incomplete, and that there must be some hidden variables that governed the behavior of particles. Bohr, on the other hand, believed that quantum mechanics was a complete theory that accurately described the behavior of particles. The debate centered around the concept of "entanglement," which describes how particles can become linked in such a way that the state of one particle can instantaneously affect the state of another particle, regardless of the distance between them. Einstein argued that this violated the principle of locality, which states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Bohr, however, argued that the principle of locality was not violated because the state of the second particle was not determined until it was measured, at which point the information about the first particle was transmitted at the speed of light or slower.
The Bohr-Einstein debate was never fully resolved and continues to be a topic of discussion among physicists today. However, most physicists now accept Bohr's view that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, and that entanglement is a real and fundamental phenomenon.
My socials:
Twitter blogs:
Physics History: @PhysInHistory
Personal: @thePiggsBoson
Facebook: thePiggsBoson
Page: @sunnylabh
Instagram: @sunnylabh
Medium: / piggsboson
Thank you for watching.
Keep Learning and Keep Supporting!!!

Пікірлер: 37

@aliasghar4409 7 ай бұрын

You didn't mention Schrödinger in the photo

@markarmage3776 6 ай бұрын

You missed out on Schrodinger, Planck, Pauli, Fermi.

@D800Lover Ай бұрын

He didn't even get Niels Bohr right, see 0:23 - Niels Bohr is sitting underneath.

@sciencefordreamers2115 5 ай бұрын

Very accurate description!

@galaxybidhan1034 Жыл бұрын

Brother I have a query about the polarisation of light ?

@schmetterling4477 9 ай бұрын

Look, Ma! The troll just ran away. ;-)

@michaelbenedict320 Жыл бұрын

can u suggest a good book for general theory of relativity ??

@swastikayogi9932 Жыл бұрын

Depends on your level of mathematics, btw. General relativity by Robert Wald is good to go if you have been through mathematical physics covering basics as such point set topology.

@michaelbenedict320 Жыл бұрын

@@swastikayogi9932 i was thinking of starting with "General relativity - The theoretical minimum" by Leonard susskind and Andre

@ronen6283 6 ай бұрын

Deez humongosss nutos by Inya Jawh

@ozymandiasultor9480 Жыл бұрын

I thought that all science is "approximation", and that the theory of reality must be such. That is how it was explained by my professor of methodology at the university.

@schmetterling4477 9 ай бұрын

That is correct, but that is not what is at the core of this question. Einstein simply made a fundamental mistake in his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect and he was never willing to change his mind about it. That doesn't mean that Bohr was "right", by the way. As usual there is a better way of thinking about nature than either man was suggesting at the time.

@schmetterling4477 9 ай бұрын

He identified quanta of light (which are small amounts of energy) with Newtonian corpuscles (aka "particles"). There are no particles. Nobody has ever seen one and they are, for sure, not showing up in an experiment that required macroscopic amounts of electromagnetic energy to produce macroscopic amounts of photocurrent in Einstein's time. Modern photomultiplier tubes with single photon resolution were only invented 30 years later (Zworykin 1934, published 1936). Nobody who has to deal with these devices professionally is under the delusion that they are measuring "particles". They are amplifying small amounts of electromagnetic field energy, which is exactly what quantum theory says, if you are willing to look at the details of its mathematical structure (Care to guess what units a Hamiltonian has?) rather than the religious mythologies that are surrounding it on the internet.

@ozymandiasultor9480 9 ай бұрын

@@schmetterling4477 Small amounts of electromagnetic field energy is a corpuscle, a particle, like it or not. And you will teach me what Hamiltonian is? Well, I hate pompous people who think intellectual hubris is in order just because they know what is Hamiltonian. With this, our conversation is over. Bye forever.

@schmetterling4477 9 ай бұрын

@@ozymandiasultor9480 No, Dude, it's not. Energy can only be used once, while a Newtonian body stays around indefinitely after you measure its position, energy or momentum. A quantum of energy in quantum mechanics does not stay around. It dissipates into the measurement device. That is one of the key differences between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. We are dealing exclusively with non-trivial energy transfer processes here that are irreversible, while in classical mechanics the measurement process is assumed to be lossless (or at least reversible). If you don't know what a Hamiltonian is and why it has the units of energy, then you have no idea about quantum mechanics, so, no, I can not teach you that. That's something you have to learn on your own, preferably in a good undergrad physics class. And why are you snapped in anyway, kid? Did somebody rain on your "I am a physics pro" parade? :-)

@humzakhan9967 Жыл бұрын

Watch History documentary on Einstein

@thestragequack3598 Жыл бұрын

🙇

@williamwalker39 6 ай бұрын

Einstein was both right and wrong. He was right in that Quantum Mechanics has a much simpler deterministic interpretation known as the Pilot Wave theory. But Einstein was against it because it violated Relativity because quantum entanglement would require instantaneous communication between entangled particles. Bells Inequality and the experiments that proved it just won the Nobel for proving Einstein wrong and showed that entangled particles do communicate instantaneously across space, which is completely incompatible with Relativity. Relativity theory predicts that moving inertial observers will observe each others space contract and time dilate, which is completely contradictory, and shows that its effects on time space can not be real, and must just be describing an optical illusion. This will be true for any theory that depends on it like General Relativity. Measurement of the propagation delay between to dipole antennas as the antennas are moved from the nearfield to farfield show that radio waves (light) propagates instantaneously near the source and reduces to the speed of light in the farfield after about 1 wavelength. This corresponds to both the phase and group speed, and the also the information speed. This result is completely incompatible with Relativity. It can be shown that instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean transformations. So time and space for moving inertial bodies can appear to change, but using instantaneous nearfield light will show time and space have not changed, whereas using nearfield light will show time and space have not changed. So the effects of Relativity including General Relativity are an optical illusion. Galilean Realtiviry is the true theory of Relativity where time and space are absolute. General Relativity is known to reduce to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak gravitational fields, which is all that we observe, so Gravitoelectromagnetism should replace General Relativity. Particularly important is that Gravitoelectromagnetism is a field theory and can be quantized (graviton) enabling the unification of gravity and Quantum Mechanics. Currently the Copenhagen interpretation is the most accepted interpretation, which assumes particles are not real until observed. Where as the Pilot Wave interpretation assumes particles are always real and are guided by a real pilot wave that acts instantaneously across space with other particle. It is not compatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity, making it now the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics given the results presented in this post. For more information see the following paper and the short KZfaq presentation based on it. William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qcuAl61o27m1poU.html

@MrMasterKaio 4 ай бұрын

"instantaneous communication between entangled particles" this doesn't exist

@williamwalker39 4 ай бұрын

@@MrMasterKaio the Nobel Prize was just awarded in 2017 to the 3 experimental groups that proved Einstein's EPR paper wrong, showing that quantum mechanics is non-local, which means that the interactions are much faster than light, especially in entangled particles.

@MrMasterKaio 4 ай бұрын

@@williamwalker39 no it isn't

@williamwalker39 4 ай бұрын

@@MrMasterKaio care to elaborate what you disagree with?

@MrMasterKaio 4 ай бұрын

@@williamwalker39 the interactions aren't faster than light. the information about two entangled particles are already set and it doesn't matter how far apart they are put after that point.