ਹਿਡਨ ਵੇਰੀਏਬਲ ਥਿਊਰੀ

ਇਤਿਹਾਸਿਕ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ, ਭੌਤਿਕ ਵਿਗਿਆਨ ਅੰਦਰ, ਛੁਪੇ ਅਸਥਿਰਾਂਕ ਥਿਊਰੀਆ ਦਾ ਸਮਰਥਨ ਕੁੱਝ ਭੌਤਿਕ ਵਿਗਿਆਨੀਆਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ। ਜਿਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਤਰਕ ਸੀ। ਕਿ ਕਿਸੇ ਭੌਤਿਕੀ ਸਿਸਟਮ ਦੀ ਅਵਸਥਾ, ਜਿਵੇਂ ਕੁਆਂਟਮ ਮਕੈਨਿਕਸ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਫਾਰਮੂਲਾ ਵਿਓਂਤਬੱਧ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ, ਸਿਸਟਮ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਸੰਪੂਰਣ ਵੇਰਵਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੰਦੀ; ਯਾਨਿ ਕਿ, ਕੁਆਂਟਮ ਮਕੈਨਿਕਸ ਅੰਤਿਮ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਅਧੂਰਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਸੰਪੂਰਣ ਥਿਊਰੀ ਹੀ, ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਗੈਰ-ਨਿਰਧਾਰਤਮਿਕਤਾ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਸਾਰੇ ਨਿਰੀਖਣਯੋਗ ਵਰਤਾਓ ਨੂੰ ਗਿਣਨ ਲਈ ਵਿਵ੍ਰਿਤ ਸ਼੍ਰੇਣੀਆਂ ਮੁਹੱਈਆ ਕਰਵਾ ਸਕੇਗੀ। ਕੁੱਝ ਨਾਪਾਂ ਲਈ ਗੈਰ-ਨਿਰਧਾਤਮਿਕਤਾ ਦੀ ਮੌਜੂਦਗੀ ਕੁਆਂਟਮ ਮਕੈਨਿਕਸ ਦੀਆਂ ਪੂਰਵ-ਸਬੰਧਤ ਵਿਆਖਿਆਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਲੱਛਣ ਹੈ; ਹੋਰ ਤਾਂ ਹੋਰ, ਗੈਰ-ਨਿਰਧਾਤਮਿਕਤਾ ਲਈ ਸ਼ਰਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਹੇਜ਼ਨਬਰਗ ਅਨਸਰਟਨਟੀ ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸੀਪਲ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਇੱਕ ਮਾਤ੍ਰਾਤਮਿਕ ਕਿਸਮ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਅਲਬ੍ਰਟ ਆਈਨਸਟਾਈਨ, ਜੋ ਛੁਪੇ ਅਸਥਿਰਾਂਕਾਂ ਦਾ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਜਿਆਦਾ ਮਸ਼ਹੂਰ ਸਮਰਥਕ ਹੈ, ਨੇ, ਕੁਆਂਟਮ ਮਕੈਨਿਕਸ ਦੀ ਬੁਨਿਆਦੀ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਖੋਜਾਤਮਿਕ ਫਿਤਰਤ ਪ੍ਰਤਿ ਇਤਰਾਜ਼ ਜਤਾਇਆ,^[1] ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਿੱਧ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਐਲਾਮ ਕੀਤਾ;

ਮੇਰਾ ਮੰਨਣਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਰੱਬ ਪਾਸੇ ਨਹੀੰ ਖੇਡਦਾ।^[2]

ਆਈਨਸਟਾਈਨ, ਪੋਡੋਲਸਕੀ, ਅਤੇ ਰੋਜ਼ਨ ਨੇ ਤਰਕ ਕੀਤਾ ਕਿ "ਵਾਸਤਵਿਕਤਾ ਦੇ ਤੱਤ" (ਛੁਪੇ ਅਸਥਿਰਾਂਕ) ਜਰੂਰ ਹੀ ਦੂਰੀ ਉੱਤੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਕਾਰਜ ਬਗੈਰ ਇੰਟੈਂਗਲਮੈਂਟ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਝਾਉਣ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਕੁਆਂਟਮ ਮਕੈਨਿਕਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਜੋੜੇ ਜਾਣੇ ਚਾਹੀਦੇ ਹਨ।^[3]^[4] ਬਾਸ ਵਿੱਚ, ਬੈੱਲ ਦੀ ਥਿਊਰਮ ਨੇ ਸੁਝਾਇਆ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਕਿ ਕੁੱਝ ਕਿਸਮਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਥਾਨਿਕ ਛੁਪੇ ਅਸਥਿਰਾਂਕ ਅਸਭੰਵ ਹਨ, ਜਾਂ ਉਹ ਗੈਰ-ਸਥਾਨਿਕ ਤੌਰ ਤੇ ਉਤਪੰਨ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇੱਕ ਮਸ਼ਹੂਰ ਗੈਰ-ਸਥਾਨਿਕ ਥਿਊਰੀ ਡੀ-ਬ੍ਰੋਗਲਾਇ-ਬੋਹਮ ਥਿਊਰੀ ਹੈ।

ਪ੍ਰੇਰਣਾ

ਰੱਬ ਪਾਸੇ ਨਹੀੰ ਖੇਡਦਾ

ਵੁਪੇ ਅਸਥਿਰਾਂਕ ਥਿਊਰੀਆਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਸ਼ੁਰੂਆਤੀ ਯਤਨ

ਕੁਆਂਟਮ ਮਕੈਨਿਕਸ ਦੀ ਸੰਪੂਰਣਤਾ ਦਾ ਐਲਾਨ

ਬੋਹਰ-ਆਈਨਸਟਾਈਨ ਮੁਕਾਬਲੇ

E P R ਪੈਰਾਡੌਕਸ

ਬੈੱਲ ਦੀ ਥਿਊਰਮ

ਬੋਹਮ ਦੀ ਹਿਡਨ ਵੇਰੀਏਬਲ ਥਿਊਰੀ

ਤਾਜ਼ਾ ਵਿਕਾਸ

ਇਹ ਵੀ ਦੇਖੋ

ਹਵਾਲੇ

↑ The Born-Einstein letters: correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916–1955, with commentaries by Max Born. Macmillan. 1971. p. 158., (Private letter from Einstein to Max Born, 3 March 1947: "I admit, of course, that there is a considerable amount of validity in the statistical approach which you were the first to recognize clearly as necessary given the framework of the existing formalism. I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.... I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently".)
↑ private letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926, Albert Einstein Archives Archived 2013-12-13 at the Wayback Machine. reel 8, item 180
↑ Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.
↑ "The debate whether Quantum Mechanics is a complete theory and probabilities have a non-epistemic character (i.e. nature is intrinsically probabilistic) or whether it is a statistical approximation of a deterministic theory and probabilities are due to our ignorance of some parameters (i.e. they are epistemic) dates to the beginning of the theory itself". See: arXiv:quant-ph/0701071v1 12 Jan 2007

ਗੰਥ ਸੂਚੀ

Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Physical Review 47, 777–780 (1935).
John Stewart Bell, "On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox", Physics 1, (1964) 195–200. Reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe, Routledge, 1993
Wolfgang Pauli, letter to M. Fierz dated 10 August 1954, reprinted and translated in K. V. Laurikainen, Beyond the Atom: The Philosophical Thought of Wolfgang Pauli, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988, p. 226.
Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations, translated by A. J. Pomerans, Harper & Row, New York, 1971, pp. 63–64.
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu and Franck Laloë, Mecanique quantique (see also Quantum Mechanics translated from the French by Susan Hemley, Nicole Ostrowsky, and Dan Ostrowsky; John Wiley & Sons 1982) Hermann, Paris, France. 1977.
P. S. Hanle, Indeterminacy before Heisenberg: The Case of Franz Exner and Erwin Schrödinger, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 10, 225 (1979).
Asher Peres and Wojciech Zurek, "Is quantum theory universally valid?" American Journal of Physics 50, 807 (1982).
Wojciech Zurek Physical Review D 26 1862. 1982.ਫਰਮਾ:Title missing
Max Jammer, "The EPR Problem in Its Historical Development", in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics: 50 years of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Gedankenexperiment, edited by P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985), pp. 129–149.
Arthur Fine, The Shaky Game: Einstein Realism and the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1986.
Thomas Kuhn. Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912 Chicago University Press. 1987.
Asher Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.
Carlton M. Caves and Christopher A. Fuchs, "Quantum Information: How Much Information in a State Vector?", in The Dilemma of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen – 60 Years Later, edited by A. Mann and M. Revzen, Ann. Israel Physical Society 12, 226–257 (1996).
Carlo Rovelli. "Relational quantum mechanics" International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35 1637–1678. 1996.
Roland Omnès, Understanding Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, 1999.
Roman Jackiw and Daniel Kleppner, "One Hundred Years of Quantum Physics", Science, Vol. 289 Issue 5481, p. 893, August 2000.
Orly Alter and Yoshihisa Yamamoto (2001). Quantum Measurement of a Single System (PDF). Wiley-Interscience. 136 pp. doi:10.1002/9783527617128. ISBN 9780471283089. Slides. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-02-03. Retrieved 2016-07-08. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help) Archived 2014-02-03 at the Wayback Machine.
Erich Joos, et al., Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, 2nd ed., Berlin, Springer, 2003.
Wojciech Zurek (2003). "Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical — Revisited", arXiv:quant-ph/0306072/{{{2}}} (An updated version of Physics Today, 44:36–44 (1991) article)
Wojciech Zurek, "Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical" in Reviews of Modern Physics, vol.75, (715).
Asher Peres and Daniel Terno, "Quantum Information and Relativity Theory", Reviews of Modern Physics 76 (2004) 93.
Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Alfred Knopf 2004.
Maximilian Schlosshauer, "Decoherence, the Measurement Problem, and Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics", in Reviews of Modern Physics, vol.76, pages 1267–1305, 2005.
Federico Laudisa and Carlo Rovelli. "Relational Quantum Mechanics" The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition).
Marco Genovese, "Research on hidden variable theories: a review of recent progresses", in Physics Reports, vol.413, 2005.

ਬਾਹਰੀ ਲਿੰਕ

The David Bohm Society Archived 2019-10-20 at the Wayback Machine.

[1] The Born-Einstein letters: correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916–1955, with commentaries by Max Born. Macmillan. 1971. p. 158., (Private letter from Einstein to Max Born, 3 March 1947: "I admit, of course, that there is a considerable amount of validity in the statistical approach which you were the first to recognize clearly as necessary given the framework of the existing formalism. I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.... I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently".)

[2] rivate letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926, Albert Einstein Archives Archived 2013-12-13 at the Wayback Machine. reel 8, item 180

[EPR-3] Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. (1935). "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?". Physical Review. 47 (10): 777–780. Bibcode:1935PhRv...47..777E. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.

[4] "The debate whether Quantum Mechanics is a complete theory and probabilities have a non-epistemic character (i.e. nature is intrinsically probabilistic) or whether it is a statistical approximation of a deterministic theory and probabilities are due to our ignorance of some parameters (i.e. they are epistemic) dates to the beginning of the theory itself". See: arXiv:quant-ph/0701071v1 12 Jan 2007

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]