This is a cache of https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/04/28/1837255/how-einstein-lost-the-battle-to-explain-quantum-reality. It is a snapshot of the page at 2024-04-29T01:09:04.094+0000.
How Einstein Lost the Battle To Explain Quantum Reality - Slashdot

Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

How Einstein Lost the Battle To Explain Quantum Reality (nature.com) 13

Long-time Slashdot reader lee1 shares "an interesting essay on the history of orthodoxy in quantum mechanics," published this week in Nature.

Its title? "'Shut up and calculate': how Einstein lost the battle to explain quantum reality." [T]he views of Danish physicist Niels Bohr came to dominate. Albert Einstein famously disagreed with him and, in the 1920s and 1930s, the two locked horns in debate. A persistent myth was created that suggests Bohr won the argument by browbeating the stubborn and increasingly isolated Einstein into submission. Acting like some fanatical priesthood, physicists of Bohr's 'church' sought to shut down further debate. They established the 'Copenhagen interpretation', named after the location of Bohr's institute, as a dogmatic orthodoxy.

My latest book Quantum Drama, co-written with science historian John Heilbron, explores the origins of this myth and its role in motivating the singular personalities that would go on to challenge it. Their persistence in the face of widespread indifference paid off, because they helped to lay the foundations for a quantum-computing industry expected to be worth tens of billions by 2040...

The Einstein-Bohr dispute raised larger issues, according to the article. "What is the purpose of physics? Is its main goal to gain ever-more-detailed descriptions and control of phenomena, regardless of whether physicists can understand these descriptions? Or, rather, is it a continuing search for deeper and deeper insights into the nature of physical reality?

"Einstein preferred the second answer," the articcle notes — and concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete: Unlike Bohr, Einstein had established no school of his own. He had rather retreated into his own mind, in vain pursuit of a theory that would unify electromagnetism and gravity, and so eliminate the need for quantum mechanics altogether. He referred to himself as a "lone traveler". In 1948, U.S. theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer remarked to a reporter at Time magazine that the older Einstein had become "a landmark, but not a beacon".

Subsequent readings of this period in quantum history promoted a persistent and widespread suggestion that the Copenhagen interpretation had been established as the orthodox view... When learning quantum mechanics as a graduate student at Harvard University in the 1950s, US physicist N. David Mermin recalled vivid memories of the responses that his conceptual enquiries elicited from his professors, whom he viewed as 'agents of Copenhagen'. "You'll never get a PhD if you allow yourself to be distracted by such frivolities," they advised him, "so get back to serious business and produce some results. Shut up, in other words, and calculate."

The book argues that actually the physics world suffered from "a subtly different kind of orthodoxy" — an indifference to "foundational questions" outside the mainstream — but that the "myth" motivated projects and experiments.

"Although the wider physics community still considered testing quantum mechanics to be a fringe science and mostly a waste of time, exposing a hitherto unsuspected phenomenon — quantum entanglement and non-locality — was not..."

How Einstein Lost the Battle To Explain Quantum Reality

Comments Filter:
  • I can't wait to hear the expert comments for this story. *squee!*

  • by cirby ( 2599 ) on Sunday April 28, 2024 @06:07PM (#64431392)

    The scientific method is great, but too many scientists have stopped worrying about science so much, and more about getting published.

    There's nowhere near enough people out there who actually check the results from the work that's being done. You don't get a big grant from checking a major paper and confirming that they did the math and science right - or finding out that they fudged the results a bit.

    Peer review only works as long as the peers actually review.

    We need a lot of people who will go over research with the same intent and focus as auditors go over tax accounting ledgers.

    Retraction Watch is doing a lot of that, but they can only do so much.

    • Peer review also fails when everyone is relying on funding from agencies which seek, or even require, particular answers.

      • I did agency-funded physics for decades, with projects supported by DOE, NASA, the Navy, and other agencies, and not once did any agency or any grant officer even hint that they were looking for a particular answer. Grant renewals were depended on research progress, not on getting an expected result. But I hear this idea repeated often by those indulging a conspiratorial frame of mind about, usually, climate science.
      • Peer review also fails when everyone is relying on funding from agencies which seek, or even require, particular answers.

        Funding? When I did peer review in graduate school we were essentially unpaid interns salaried at 20 hours and expected to do 50. This also pertained to writing papers. Literally there was no time to do a thorough job, don’t perform and you’re let go. The running joke to get a raise was we should quit and flip burgers at McDonald’s because on an hourly basis they were paid more. We kept doubling and halving pay to coworkers depending on the quality of the job that was done because it

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday April 28, 2024 @06:11PM (#64431402)

    Only by clueless idiots. QC tech has massively overpromised and massively underdelivered for something like 40 years now and _still_ has no practical uses at all. There is absolutely no reason to expect this to change and no reason to expect this technology to ever amount to anything.

  • U.S. theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer remarked to a reporter at Time magazine that the older Einstein had become "a landmark, but not a beacon".

    Oppenheimer helped create beacons that destroy landmarks.

  • ChatGPT

    Herbert Marcuse, a critical theorist associated with the Frankfurt School, offered a critique of science within the context of his broader critique of modern industrial society. Marcuse argued that science, as practiced in contemporary society, often serves the interests of domination and control rather than liberation and human flourishing. He identified several key points of critique:

    Instrumental Rationality: Marcuse argued that science, especially in its technological and applied forms, tends to p

    • Now let's see your ChatGPT equally compelling Maxist and Feminist critiques of science.

      • How many bridges and aqueducts that have stood the test of time did the Romans build while thinking heavier things fell faster than lighter things?

        What if you can be very wrong and still build things like an atomic bomb?

  • You see this kind of dogma pushing in so many places where you'd expect scientific objectivity to rule the day.

    For example, we all know COVID is airborne. But the WHO put the word out [twitter.com] that it wasn't, made up a "droplets" narrative that conveniently avoided triggering workplace safety rules in most countries, and sent forth legions of credentialed people to beat back any uncomfortable questions.

    Now, years later, they've been embarrassed [nature.com] into addressing the misinformation they put out. But instead, they've ju

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...