Advertisement

Einstein and the Macroscopic Limit of Quantum Mechanics

Abstract

In a letter to David Bohm which was written on 24th November 1954 and has been quoted by Jammer,1 Einstein wrote: ‘I do not believe in micro and macro laws, but only in (structural) laws of general validity.’ This remark reflects one of the central tenets of his belief, and Einstein used it to substantiate his arguments which attempted to demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. Einstein put forward various versions of these arguments, but there were two main themes. The first, which has certainly received the most attention in books and articles, concerns the question of hidden variables, entanglement and so on. We have discussed it in the previous two chapters, and, of course, this theme led to the work of John Bell, which is discussed in Chapter 9, and much that is in later chapters of this book.

Keywords

Quantum Mechanic Wave Packet Macroscopic Quantum Quantum Superposition Gaussian Wave Packet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jammer M. (1974). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. New York: John Wiley, p. 219.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Einstein A. (1949). Remarks to the essays appearing in this collective volume, In: Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. (Schilpp P.A., ed.) Evanston: Library of the Living Philosophers, pp. 665–88.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Einstein, A. in Ref. [2], p. 671.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Einstein A. (1971). In: The Born-Einstein Letters. (Born M., ed.) London: Macmillan, pp. 187–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Born, M. in Ref. [4], p. 189.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pauli, W. in Ref. [4], pp. 217-9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leggett A.J. (1980). Macroscopic quantum systems and the quantum theory of measurement, Progress of Theoretical Physics. (Supplement) 69, 80–100.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leggett A.J. and Garg A. (1985). Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism-is the flux there when nobody looks? Physical Review Letters 54, 857–60.CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van der Wal C.H., ter Haar A.C.J., Wilhelm F.K., Schouten R.N., Harmans C.J.P.M., Orlando T.P., Lloyd S., and Mooji J.E. (2000). Quantum superposition of macroscopic persistent-current states, Science, 290, 773–7.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman J.R., Patel V., Chen W., Tolpygo S.K., and Lukens J.E. (2000). Quantum superposition of distinct macroscopic states, Nature, 406, 43–6.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vion D., Aassime A., Cottet A., Joyez P., Pothier H., Urbina C, Esteve D., and Devoret M.H. (2002). Manipulating the quantum state of an electrical circuit, Science, 296, 886–9.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu Y, Han S., Chu X., Chu S., and Wang Z. (2002). Coherent temporal oscillation of macroscopic quantum states in a Josephson junction, Science, 296, 889–92.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leggett A.J. (2002). Testing the limits of quantum mechanics: Motivation, state of play, prospects, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14, R415–51.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leggett A.J. (2002). Probing quantum mechanics towards the everyday world: Where do we stand? In: Proceedings of the Nobel Symposium 2001, Physica Scripta T102, 69–73.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leggett A.J. (2002). Physics-Superconducting qubits-a major roadblock dissolved? Science, 296, 861–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Einstein A. (1953). Elementaire Überlegungen zur Interpretation der Grundlagen der Quanten-Mechanik [Elementary considerations on the interpretation of the fundamentals of quantum mechanics], In: Scientific Papers Presented to Max Born. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holland P. (1993). The Quantum Theory of Motion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 245.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robinett R.W. (2000). Visualizing the collapse and revival of wave packets in the infinite square well using expectation values, American Journal of Physics 68, 410–20.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Einstein, A. in Ref. [4], p. 199.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holland, P. in The Quantum Theory of Motion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 240-2.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Born, W. in Ref. [4], pp. 221-5.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Born M. (1955). Continuity, determinism and reality, Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Matematisk-fysikie Meddelelser 2, 1–26.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holland, P. in The Quantum Theory of Motion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 222.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Einstein, A. in Ref. [4], pp. 208-9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arndt M., Nairz O., Vos-Andreae J., Keller C, van der Zouw G. and Zeilinger A. (1999). Wave-particle duality of C60 molecules, Nature 401, 680–2.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Einstein, A. in Ref. [4], p. 212.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pauli, W. in Ref. [4], pp. 221–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Born, M. in Ref. [4], p. 227.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Personalised recommendations