Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Scientific American (What Is Real) - August 2013

    Uploaded by

    Arturo Escobedo
    15 views8 pages
    ¿Qué es real? ¿Qué es lo que existe a nivel fundamental? ¿Objetos? ¿Campos? En este artículo se discuten las problemáticas de lo que existe de cara a la física moderna.

    Original Title

    Scientific American (What is Real) - August 2013

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    ¿Qué es real? ¿Qué es lo que existe a nivel fundamental? ¿Objetos? ¿Campos? En este artículo se discuten las problemáticas de lo que existe de cara a la física moderna.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views8 pages

    Scientific American (What Is Real) - August 2013

    Uploaded by

    Arturo Escobedo
    ¿Qué es real? ¿Qué es lo que existe a nivel fundamental? ¿Objetos? ¿Campos? En este artículo se discuten las problemáticas de lo que existe de cara a la física moderna.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    Physicists speak of the world as being made of particles and force fields, but it is not at all clear what particles and force fields actually are in the quantum realm. The world may instead consist of bundles of properties, such as color and shape By Meinard Kuhlmann ® 2018 Scientific American Physicists being ely describe the universe as tiny subatomic particles that pull on one another by means of force fields, They call their subject “particle physics” and their instruments “particle accel- crators” They hew to a Lego-like model of the world, But this view sweeps a little-known fact under the rug: the particle interpretation of quantum physics, as well as the field inter- pretation, stretches our conventional notions of “particle” and “field” to such an extent that ever more people think the world might be made of something else entirely. ‘The problem is not that physiists lack a valid theory of the subatomic realm. They do have one: itis called quantum field the- ‘ory. Theorists developed it between the ate 1920s ané eariy 1950s Dy merging the earlier theory of quantum mechanies with Ein steln's special theory of relativity. Quantum field theory provides the conceptual underpinnings ofthe Standard Model of particle physics, which describes the fundamental building blacks of mat- ler and their interactions in one common framework. In terms of ‘empirical precision itis the mast successful theory inthe history ‘of science, Physicists use it every day to calculate the aftermath of particle collisions, the synthesis of matter in the big bang, the ex- ‘treme conditions inside atomic nuclei, and much besides So it may come asa surprise that physicists are not even sure ‘what the theory says—what its “ontology” or basie physical pic- ture, is. This confusion is separate from the much discussed mys- teries of quantum mechanies, such as whether a cat in a sealed ‘box can be both alive and dead at the same time, The unsettled interpretation of quantum feld theory is hobbling progress to- ‘ward probing whatever physics ies beyond the Standard Model, such as string theory: Its perilous to formulate @ new theory ‘when we do not understand the theory we already have. ‘AL fist glance, the content of the Standard Model appears obvious. It consists, first, of groups of elementary particles, such as quarks and electrons, and, second, of four types of foree fields, Which mediate the interactions among those particles, ‘This picture appears on classroom walls and in Seientifc Amer Menard Kuhlmann, isp oes lle = Usivestyin Gerard dees inpyscs ane inghbsopy ands waka the urvsstis of Oxo Gieago ard Pasburh Asasuder hod iste repuatin,“Twoullask abt questions ist rina ease thy poducdaneratarirgemtson hess, {can articles, However compelling it might appeat, itis not at all satisfactory. For starters, the two categories blur together. Quantum field ‘theory assigns a field to each type of elementary particle, so there is an electron field as surely as there isan electron. At the same time, the force fields are quantized rather than continu ous, which gives rise to particles such as the photon, So the dis- LUnetion between particles and fields appears to be artical, and physicists often speak as if one or the other is more fundamen- tal, Debate has swirled over this point—over whether quantum ‘eld theory is ultimately about particles or about elds. It sta ed as a battle of titans, with eminent physicists and philoso- phets on both sides, Even today both concepts are still in use for ‘Mustrative purposes, although most physicists would admit that the classical conceptions do not match what the theory says. Ifthe mental images conjured up by the words “particle” and “field” do not match what the theory says, physicists and philosophers must figure out what to put in their place, ‘With the two standard, ciassical options gridlocked, some phi- losophers of physics have been formulating more radical alterna tives. They suggest thatthe most basic constituents of the materi- al world are intangible entities such as relations or properties (One particularly radical idea i that everything ean be reduced to intangibles lone, without any reference to individual things. Ibis a counterintuitive and revolutionary idea, but some argue that physis ie foreing it onus. ‘THE TROUBLE WITH PARTICLES ‘wien wost rzoeLe, including experts, think of subatomic reality, they imagine particles that behave like litle billiard balls re- Dounding off one another, But this notion of particles is a hold- ‘over ofa worldview that dates to the ancient Greek atomiets and reached its pinnacle in the theories of Isaac Newton, Several over- Tapping lines of thought make it clear that the core units of quan- tum field theory do not behave like billiard balls at al. First, the classical concept of a particle implies something, that existe in a certain location, But the “particles” of quantum field theory do not have welldefined locations: a particle inside Iestands wo reason tht paride pss is abou ar ticles, and mest peopl have a mena age of kle bird balls aroing aod space Ye concept of parte" par on clserispetn, Fels to, ae paradoxical, ‘42 Sclentite American, August 2019 Many physicists thik that pares ae ot tings allbuterctatonsina quanti el. he mde sc- ‘esc ofchscalels suchas the magni BA ner patel nor eld ae fundamental hen who Some researches thnk ht the wor, a Foot, des nat coi of material things bu of ‘ions or of ropes, suchas mas charged sin Particles Are Localized By denon, apart ssome- thing with aspect postion, ‘which hargesin time ast moves Burquantum tery. asus undetstoad does at alow 2 thingtohave sich tjecoy Although istruners such babble chambers real racks it isblloustoinrobjeas it rmovethrough space bal. The ‘ras aejusta series fees An the Absence of Particles, Nothing. Can Happen prides makeup mat then acuun a tat zr partes, ‘houldshow nscviy i uum theory pres tht £Goige contr rsa instrument ple somewhere inthe vacuum stil esters the presence of mate Therefor, rater canoe cont of tinge ‘ypc evoked by ter parle” A Particle Exists, or It Doesn't To determin hth someting isl pists ea simpletest llobervers shuld be ableto agree ents exten Te" pares hat Physi detcin naturel this tet anebeever ares acld ‘acum anacceleating aberver Ses awarm gsof particles, su esting thatthe parties are some ind of iage Parties are supped to have tneray.momentin, ad soon Buc quantum ysis allows obs tobocome entangled operating asauntdespte no obvious ate Finks among tenn tht casa the putative particles no lenger have eft properties eal the sytem asawhole does Produce ait cenangle partes Awe rely seis Particles ae fying trough a suesion of bubles— thechomberandeaiag tacks ‘amie lnk then togber ‘Amensurerent rbesuch as Geiger counter wl detec rshing Geiger ou wil dk Another observe will ‘an acelering obser aos cold vaca seesawarm gas of pares fachpartice Ont the system a, as ace sin whale a cette sin August 2015, SeentiteAmericancom 438 ® 2018 Seientfie American your body isnot strictly inside your bods: An observer attempt- {ng to measure its position has small but nonzero probability of detecting it in the most remote places of the universe. This eon- ‘tradietion was evident in the earliest formulations of quantum ‘mechanics but became worse when theorists merged quantum. mechanies with relativity theory. Relativistic quantum particles are extremely slippery; they do not reside in any specific region ofthe universe at al, Second, let us suppose you had a particle localized in your kitchen. Your friend, looking at your house from a passing car, might see the particle spread out over the entire universe. What is localized for you is delocalized for your friend. Not only does ‘the location of the particle depend on your point of view; s0 does ‘the fact that the particle has a location, In this case, it does not make sense to assume localized particles a the basic entities. “Third, even ifyou give up trying to pinpoint particles and sins- ply count them, you are in trouble. Suppose you want to know the number of particles in your house. You go around the house and find three particles inthe dining room, five under the bee, ‘ight ina kitchen cabinet, and go on, Now add them up. To your dismay, the sum will not be the tolal number of particles. That ‘number in quantum field theory isa property of the house as a ‘whole; to determine it, you would have to do the impossible and measure the whole house in one go, rather than room by room. [An extreme case of particles’ being unpinpointable i the vac- ‘uum, which has paradoxical properties in quantum fleld theory. You can have an overall vacuum—by definition, a zero-particle -state—while atthe same time you observe something very differ- ent from a vacuum in any finite region. Ip other words, your ‘house can be totally empty’ even though you find particles allover ‘the place. Ifthe fire department asks you whether anyone is stil inside a burning house and you say no, the firefighters will ques ion your sanity when they discover people huddled in every room, Another striking feature ofthe vacuum in quantum field theo- ryis known as the Unruh effect. An astronaut at rest may think he fo she isin a vacuum, whereas an astronaut in an accelerating spaceship will fel immersed in @ thermal bath of innumerable particles. This discrepancy between viewpoints also oceurs atthe perimeter of black holes and leads to paradoxical conclusions about the fate of infalling mater [see "Black Holes and the Infor mation Paradox” by Leonard Susskind; Scusmnvie Asmnicay, April 1997]. Ifa vacuum filled with particles sounds absurd, that is because the classic notion ofa particle is misleading us; what ‘the theory is describing must be something else. Ifthe number of particles is observersdependent, then it seems incoherent to as- sume that particles are basic. We ean accept many features to be ‘observer

    You might also like