The structure of quantum theory. Quantum physics for dummies: the essence in simple words. Even a child will understand. More precisely, especially a child! a) Prerequisites of quantum theory

Chapter from Igor Garin’s book “Quantum Physics and Quantum Consciousness.” Notes and citations are given in the text of the book.

Anyone who was not shocked by quantum theory did not understand it.
Niels Bohr

The very attempt to imagine a picture of elementary particles and to think about them visually means to have a completely wrong idea about them.
Werner Heisenberg

Quantum mechanics is sometimes spoken of as the most mysterious science created by man. This is not just the truth - it is a statement of the deep connection between different branches of the tree of human wisdom, nourished by our imagination, our deep connection with existence, the endless possibilities of our consciousness. Quantum theory was created by brilliant thinkers who not only overcame, step by step, the unprecedented difficulties that stood in their way, but by sages who consciously or unconsciously felt the unity of everything that exists, the need to link different layers of reality, the micro- and macroworld, the multi-layered world and human consciousness. Quantum theory is not only new physics, it's perfect A New Look on nature, on man, on consciousness and cognition.
Everything that was said earlier about “normal” science, to a certain extent, also applies to quantum theory - I mean, first of all, its ingenious “invention” and continuously ongoing modifications and interpretations. From quantum mechanics, which arose in the first half of the twentieth century (I mean, first of all, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation), “horns and legs” have now been preserved, at best a “skeleton”, “backbone”, while all the moments originally included in quantum theory from classical theory, now completely revised in new versions and interpretations. Moreover, I am convinced that a second or even third wave of the “quantum revolution” is coming, which will lead to a qualitatively new and deeper understanding of the world around us *. (* The review by W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003), http://xxx.lanl.gov is devoted to the current state and conceptual issues of quantum theory /abs/quant-ph/0105127).
Here it should be borne in mind that physics has long overcome the positivist approach of recognizing only those facts that can be confirmed experimentally: according to modern theory, at each stage of cognition new knowledge arises, which cannot be confirmed with the help of experiments, that is, speculation in science is no less more important than experiment.
The original (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum theory * (* The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is also called standard or minimalist) today is indeed outdated and is considered inconsistent, since it attempted to combine the classical and quantum worlds, which obey different laws, in a single theory. Hence the pun! - the enormous confusion originates not only with confused states (see below).
Physicists do like to joke, and the witty John Wheeler noted that in the Copenhagen interpretation, “no quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it becomes an observable (recorded) phenomenon.”
A. Sudbury, in a textbook on quantum mechanics intended for mathematicians, criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation for the fact that it does not provide a unified picture of the world. In fact, the same requirements are imposed on quantum mechanics here as on any classical physical theory: “...It cannot be considered correct that the only goal scientific theory consists in predicting the results of experiments... Predicting the results of experiments is not the goal of theory; Experiments only test whether a theory is correct. The purpose of theory is to understand the environment around us physical world*. (* A. Sudbury. Quantum mechanics and physics of elementary particles. M., 1989. P. 294).
Considering possible options for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, A. Sudbury showed that modern stage It is not possible for physicists to choose one of the options, but it is obvious that the Copenhagen option will not be chosen.
Speaking in the language of physics, the Copenhagen interpretation does not describe the quantum world itself, but only what we can say about it using a classical measuring instrument, that is, classical physics or a change in a quantum state under the influence of the external environment.
The “quantum” picture of the world is undergoing such rapid and radical changes that even specialists working in this field do not always have time to follow them. Modern quantum theory changes the entire system of our views on the world so much that it is advisable to study it literally from scratch, so as not to fall into the snare of determinism, duality, causality, locality, materiality, space-time and other defeated canons of classical science.
Commenting on the achievements of quantum physics at the dawn of its creation, A. Einstein admitted: “Then the feeling was as if the ground had disappeared from under one’s feet and there was nowhere to be seen any firmament on which something could be built.” According to S. Hawking, spoken already today, quantum mechanics is the theory of what we do not know and cannot predict.
The description of reality in the Cartesian language of “common sense” from the position of quantum theory looks naive and flat, like a cosmology of the world built on elephants and a turtle. However, this does not prevent many scientists from earning their bread today, knowing almost nothing about the newly discovered realities of the quantum world.
It can be said without exaggeration that quantum theory is a deep breakthrough of science into the beyond, in “ ultimate reality", although this does not mean that we should talk about last word Sciences. I am convinced that this is precisely a breakthrough, because the thorough development of unmanifested or virtual reality is still just ahead. “Our knowledge is incomplete, and our prophecy is incomplete; and when perfection comes, what is incomplete will be done away with” (1 Corinthians 13:9).
Research on quantum theory at all stages of its development was so significant that all its creators, without exception, creators of a new picture of the world, received Nobel Prizes, and, apparently, this will continue.
In the development of quantum theory, two main stages can be distinguished: after its creation, for almost the entire twentieth century, it worked out and improved methods for studying dense matter in its classical or semi-classical consideration, and at the transition stage it developed the ideas of quantum entanglement and otherworldliness *, (* See below, as well as my book “Other Worlds”), and finally burst into the 21st century with ready-made tools for studying purely quantum “subtle worlds”. It can be said without exaggeration that the twentieth century, especially its end, became a turning point in science, and the reason for this turning point is the enormous progress in the application of the quantum mechanical approach to a huge class of physical processes, including those that have no analogues in classical physics.
In the second half of the twentieth century, quantum theory, step by step covering the entire manifested and unmanifested worlds, continuously branched into many independent scientific disciplines, although noticeably separated from each other, but connected by a single thread - from quantum field theory, which arose simultaneously with quantum mechanics itself, to the quantum theory of consciousness processes.
Without exaggeration, we can say that it was quantum theory that became the basis for the entry of science into “other worlds”, previously considered mysticism (subtle levels of reality that go beyond the limits of the material world and do not exist from a classical point of view). We can safely say (and I will try to show this in this book) that the meeting of science and mysticism took place precisely thanks to the latest discoveries of quantum theory, which are completely compatible with the magnificent prophecies of the sages of the past (I will discuss this compatibility in a separate section of this book). By the way, it was the thinkers of antiquity who pointed out the need for the greatest caution in assigning attributes to the “subtle worlds”, expressed in the concepts Everyday life. Nowadays, many physicists have already started talking about the fact that only M-theory or a mystical theory, a mystery theory, can explain the nature of things. The deeper we understand the nature of things, the more miracles we encounter. I am deeply convinced that there are generally no contradictions between physics and mysticism, field and biofield, fact and miracle - this unity, in fact, is what this book is dedicated to.
The quantum approach is a fundamentally different way of describing reality, which has no analogues in classical physics. The development of quantum theory itself literally followed the principle of proliferation of P. Feyerabend - it abandoned the ideals of classical mechanics, step by step overcoming the program of “normal” or classical science of Laplace-Helmholtz and all their invariants.
In recent decades, a tremendous breakthrough has been made in quantum theory: the semi-classical Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which quantum concepts coexisted with classical ones, gave way to a purely quantum approach, in which there was no longer any room for materialistic concessions. Quantum theory no longer requires half-heartedness and becomes a self-sufficient and internally consistent theory, built from unified general principles, no longer in need of the “religious dogmas” of materialism.
The laws of purely quantum systems are radically different from the laws of classical physics, and therefore the reduction of a quantum state into a classical one (say, a state vector into an actually observable object) is inevitably accompanied by the loss of enormous information. This means that the idea of ​​the actual essence quantum particle we inevitably receive it in a distorted form, or, in other words, the measurement process itself leads to a change in the parameters (including sizes) of quantum objects.
Quantum theory also changes classical ideas about the relationship between part and whole, real and unreal, local and non-local. In particular, it allows for the separation of a part from the whole and consideration of the properties of the parts, while the reverse path - from part to the whole - is considered a dead end, unable to lead to an understanding of fundamental physical laws. In particular, quantum theory indicates the inapplicability of the concepts of “individual thing” or “material object” in the field of the microworld.
Quantum theory radically changes ideas about physical reality itself: the concepts of physical characteristics are replaced here by the more fundamental and primary concept of “states” of the system. Moreover, any physical quantities characterizing the system are secondary manifestations, depending on the states of both microparticles and the Universe as a whole.
Quantum theory, especially its latest achievements, change not only physical ideas about the world order, but also universal human approaches to reality and consciousness - perhaps even the entire system of human life values ​​and aspirations. According to S.I. Doronin, author of the book “Quantum Magic”, the main conclusion of this theory can be formulated as follows: “Matter, that is, matter and all known physical fields, are not the basis of the surrounding world, but constitute only a small part of the total Quantum Reality." This conclusion “is fraught with the most profound and far-reaching consequences that cannot even be imagined today.”
Gregory Bateson argues that thinking in the language of substance is a serious methodological and logical fallacy, because in fact we are not dealing with objects, but with their sensory and mental transformations in the sense of the theory of Alfred Korzybski. “The information, distinction, form and pattern that make up our knowledge of the world are dimensionless entities that cannot be localized in space or time.” * (* The author quotes S. Grof).
Indeed, quantum processes cannot be imagined with the immediacy and “common sense” with which we navigate the macroscopic material world. The quantum world is a real Wonderland, in which you even have to speak a different, “non-classical” and unusual language. Here we will have to give up everything we are used to in everyday life. Objects here blur and disappear, and space and time lose their meaning. As we will see, it is here, in the quantum unmanifest and non-local world, that the meeting of modern science with the mystical experience of millennia takes place.
W. Pauli often emphasized that in the quantum world, causality collapses and events happen “for no reason,” that is, approximately as Indian mystics and Jewish Kabbalists felt at the dawn of human wisdom. According to W. Pauli, freedom in the behavior of an individual particle is the most important lesson of quantum theory.
If, within the framework of the Cartesian-Laplacian paradigm, it seemed indisputable that cause-and-effect relationships, expressed in the form of laws of motion, make it possible to accurately predict and explain any phenomenon, then even at the early stage of development of quantum theory, it was necessary to introduce the concepts of probability and uncertainty, calling into question the determinism of classical physics. It turned out that many accurate calculations, say, the decay time of a single radioactive atom, are fundamentally impossible, and the results of the corresponding quantum measurements depend on the presence or absence of an observer.
Here we must keep in mind that the concept of probability is included in quantum physics in a completely different way than in the classical theory of probability: it is not the result of our ignorance, but an essential property of the world order. The wave function describing probability represents reality not in its actual form, but in the form of a possibility, and only the act of observation allows this possibility to be realized. According to W. Heisenberg, this is a revival of the Aristotelian concept of potency, developed in Metaphysics *. (* See V. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Moscow, 1963, pp. 32, 153).
The problem (paradox) of quantum measurement is that the presence of a device or the consciousness of an observer in the measurement destroys the quantum state: the choice of one of the many alternative measurement results turns out to be alien for quantum mechanics, operating only with classical images. This situation is called state reduction, selection of alternatives or collapse wave function. In fact, this means that from a real quantum superposition of states, the observer’s consciousness after measurement retains only one component of the superposition, corresponding to some specific result of the measurement. Or in another way: the properties of a quantum system discovered during measurement may not exist before the measurement; consciousness localizes the nonlocal. The choice by the observer’s consciousness of a single option from a quantum superposition of alternatives means that the problems arising here are fundamentally unsolvable without including the observer’s consciousness in the consideration.
Different interpretations of quantum theory actually come down to an attempt to solve the indicated problem of selecting alternatives and methodologically clarifying the content of the theory. Some of them clearly involve the consciousness of the observer.
A. N. Parshin, reflecting on Kurt Gödel’s theorem *, (* See A. N. Parshin, Questions of Philosophy, 2000, No. 6, pp. 92-109) also concluded that the reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics is similar to a flash of consciousness , the act of spontaneously acquiring something new. Moreover, according to Hermann Weyl, there is a deep analogy between Gödel’s ideas and the act of expansion of a physical system that exists in quantum mechanics. Here we must keep in mind that Niels Bohr himself, one of the most philosophical thinking physicists In the 20th century, reflecting on the problem of the connection between measurement and the observer, he concluded that the boundary between an object and a subject is always uncertain and can shift depending on consciousness. This process of shifting the boundary and expanding the system is in many ways similar to the expansion in Gödel's theorem. Although this was realized in the first half of the twentieth century, a final understanding of the full depth of the connection between Gödel’s theorem and quantum mechanics has not been achieved to this day.
“By considering Gödel’s theorem from precisely this point of view, not as a forced limitation, but as a fundamental philosophical fact, one can come to a much deeper development of psychology, logic and many other sciences that study man than using the limited point of view that dominates before still in the scientific community."
It is generally accepted that quantum theory itself could only arise due to the great influence of the great Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard on Niels Bohr: we are not even talking about the existential motives of his work - the idea of ​​quantum leaps owes to Kierkegaard’s and mystical ideas about leaps in consciousness, which are the states of the prophetic ecstasy, conversion (metanoia), enlightenment, acute spiritual crisis, or, in the language of modern transpersonal psychology, any altered states of consciousness.
Everyone knows Niels Bohr as one of the creators of quantum theory, but few people know the leitmotif of his life as a scientist: a burning interest in the problem of reality and the mysteries of human consciousness-existence. According to Bohr and Prigogine, science is inseparable from the problems of human existence, including human errors and passions.
By the way, today no one hides the fact that Niels Bohr in the 20th century was as committed to philosophical and metaphysical inclusions in intraphysical discourse as Pierre Louis de Maupertuis was in the 18th. Perhaps it was “metaphysics” that helped the formation of new physics, because metaphysical loading made it easier for the creator of quantum theory to overcome the “immutable principles” of classical physics, which constrained the courage of other creators of the emerging paradigm.
When Niels Bohr was granted the dignity of nobility, he took the Chinese Tai Chi as the symbol of his coat of arms, expressing the mystical relationship between the opposing principles of yin and yang. Having visited China in 1937, the author of the concept of complementarity learned about this basis of Chinese mysticism, and this circumstance had a strong impact on him. Since then, N. Bohr's interest in oriental culture never faded away.
Perhaps an excellent knowledge of mystical literature allowed the creators of quantum mechanics to abandon the postulate of “common sense” - the obvious objectivity of visible material reality and to realize the possibility of the existence of “other worlds”, new slices of reality, as well as the large role in the experiment of the consciousness of the observer himself and the instrument he uses .
It is not surprising that it was quantum physics that led to a picture of the world that is completely consistent with the nature of human consciousness, on the one hand, and mystical ideas, on the other.
It must be admitted that quantum theory was created by demanding minds and is essentially inseparable from the processes going on higher levels consciousness and taking place in mystical revelations. That is why the results obtained are so stunningly similar. All the creators of quantum theory were perfectly familiar with the highest achievements of the total human culture and were true idealists in the best sense of the word.
Quantum theory shows that multilayer reality is subject to a more complex logic than Aristotle’s. And here it is very important that the higher consciousness also acts completely differently from the logic by which we think discursively. This is one of the most amazing achievements of science, which means that constructing a clear and complete picture of the world is in principle impossible - visibility for a person can only be realized within the framework of his own logic or system of thinking. But constructing a quantum picture of the world with theoretical thought means that we are able to understand a world that lives according to the laws of a different logic, that is, that our consciousness, infinite as the world, is wider and richer than our scanty discursive thought.
Physicists still continue to describe the microworld with macroscopic concepts only because of the conservatism of science. Unable to observe the quantum world except through the use of macroscopic instruments and using Aristotelian logic in everyday life, we one way or another continue to apply inadequate means and outdated language to the quantum world. Some neophobe physicists, supporters of “ancient piety,” even today believe that quantum theory should be given a deterministic form of classical mechanics, excluding from it all the “mystical dregs” of probabilities, uncertainties, nonlocalities, the absence of cause-and-effect relationships, and even space-time.
For many years, classical science was built on Cartesian dualism (the separation and opposition of subject and object, or better yet, matter and consciousness). I wrote a separate book, “Consciousness-Being,” in order to finally put an end to this misconception, and we are talking not just about philosophy, but about a new paradigm, a new worldview in which holism is extended to the foundations of being and, therefore, to the scientific approach to it. This conclusion about the unity of consciousness and being was first led by the total human wisdom and mysticism, then by psychology and, finally, by modern quantum theory in physics.
Here it all started with quantum particle-wave dualism (W. Heisenberg, M. Born, P. Jordan, E. Schrödinger, P. Dirac, W. Pauli, J. von Neumann), the “uncertainty principle” of W. Heisenberg, “statistical interpretation of the wave function" by M. Born, the "complementarity principle" by N. Bohr, the theory of measurements by J. von Neumann, and ended with ultra-modern ideas of strings, immaterial reality and Everett's many-worlds.
In physics, it is customary to divide objects of observation and their states into classical and quantum. It must be borne in mind that a purely quantum state (see later in this book) is a state that is unmanifest, nonlocal, superpositional, indeterministic, acausal, and non-space-timeless. The “object” of such a state is, as it were, free, it is “everywhere and nowhere,” and this is its main difference from macroscopic, classical, local objects. The stronger the interaction of an object with environment, the better its locality and classicism are manifested. Macroscopic objects combine both states: they are local and classical, being in front of the observer, and from the position of a purely quantum system they are in a local (free and isolated) state.
By the way, Niels Bohr, already in the early stages of the development of quantum theory, perfectly understood how important the interaction of quantum objects with external environment: “The behavior of atomic objects cannot be sharply separated from their interaction with measuring instruments” *. (* N. Bor. Collected scientific works. T. 2. M., 1971).
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the measuring device always turns out to be a classical local object, otherwise the measurement procedure is not defined. In other words, it is fundamentally impossible to break with classical physics here. The classical measurement procedure and the presence of an observer are actually connecting bridges between two realities - classical (materialistic) and quantum (dematerialized).
On the issue of dualism. The basic quantum dualism is not the reductive wave-particle dualism, but the quantum dualism of locality-nonlocality, or the dualism of manifest and unmanifest realities. When applied to a person, this means that as a body he is local and material, but as a spirit he is non-local and unmanifested, that is, he is present “always and everywhere.”
It is curious that from the position of quantum theory, the entire Universe, the world as a whole, is a purely quantum system, because there are no external objects capable of interacting with it. This means that if an outside observer could still exist without interacting with the Universe, he would not see anything in this system. And absolutely stunning is the statement of the legendary mystic, the author of the “Emerald Tablet” Hermes Trismegistus, who declared many thousands of years ago: “The world is invisible in its integrity.” I am simply torn by curiosity: what did this half-man, half-god mean by saying words that became clear to physicists only after many millennia?
The division of a unified and integral quantum system into separate parts invariably leads to a transition from “quantumism” and non-locality to “classicality” and locality, but one should not forget that they have a single hidden source - the entire quantum system in its entirety, which also exists “ everywhere and nowhere." When moving from physics to mysticism, we can say that the concept of quantum theory “a single quantum source of classical correlations” (Single Source of the Total Reality) is identical to the theological concept of “God”.

Everyone has their own God. But it will be soon
understandable to everyone (including me in their choir),
that in an endless conversation,
nayah, crying, strict dispute,
in manifest being-space
God alone is willing to wave *. (* The author quotes poems by R. M. Rilke)

In other words, purely quantum correlations in a system considered as a whole (God) are the source of classical correlations between parts of the system considered separately (World). Or in another way: for quantum theory, what we call reality is the “manifestation” of local objects from an integral system, where these objects are in a non-local form (ideas, forms, images, eidos of Plato, entelechy of Aristotle, Leibniz’s monads, thought forms , egregors, Emptiness, etc.).
However, it should be borne in mind that some quantum states turn out to be more stable, and it is precisely such coherent states that are realized in the macrocosm.
The task of transition from micro-objects to macro-objects interacting with the environment was once posed by R. Feynman. V. Tsurek, A. Leggett and others found that interaction with the environment destroys quantum interference, thereby transforming a quantum system into a classical one, and the faster the greater the mass of the system. In other words, than larger system, the more difficult it is to keep it in a quantum state for a long time.
From the point of view of quantum physics, one should distinguish between isolated and non-isolated systems. Only completely isolated systems that strictly obey the principle of superposition of states can be purely quantum (see below). Sami classical systems(including measuring instruments) exist because they interact with the world around them. This is where many quantum measurements are problematic - namely, the instability of purely quantum states that are destroyed by interaction with the environment. According to one interpretation of the quantum principle of complementarity, it is not the device that influences the world, but the quantum system that “spoils” the device, dematerializing it, giving rise to illusion and mirage.
Numerous attempts to overcome indeterminism and other unusual features of quantum theory or to discover facts that refute it invariably fail. I don’t want to say that this theory is irrefutable, I want to say that all further theories will no longer help to return to the world sought by Albert Einstein: “other worlds” will never again be the predictable cause-and-effect worlds of Laplace.
I fully agree with the famous scientist and sociologist of science M. Moravcsik that the expectations of a conceptual simplification of the theory in its “finally developed” form are no longer justified *. (* M. Y. Moravcsik. The limits of science and the scientific method // Current Contents. 1990. Vol. 30. No. 3. P. 7-12).
Physicists are still looking for alternatives to quantum theory that will allow them to regain the lost foundation of “common sense” and uniformly explain the difference in the behavior of macroscopic and microscopic systems *. (See, for example, the most interesting work in all respects by G. S. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems // Phys. Rev. 1986. D34. P. 470–491). Naturally, attempts to create a quantum ontology that will lead to conventional concepts at the macroscopic level are quite realistic. It would be very reckless, adhering to the idea of ​​the paradigmatic nature of science, to a priori deny the possibilities of new understanding. But whatever it may be, it is difficult for me to imagine a reduction of the complex to the simple - it is unlikely that it will be possible to escape from the principle of uncertainty, probability and unmanifest reality in the microworld.
Today, the powerful mathematical and physical formalism of quantum theory is replete with many guesses, fantastic interpretations, sophisticated models and mysterious formulas that, contrary to the notorious common sense, work and open up absolutely stunning prospects.
Moreover, transistors, lasers, computers, and most of modern technology were created precisely thanks to the development of the principles of quantum theory. To understand the scale of the applications of quantum theory, it is enough to say that 30% of the national product of the United States of America is based on inventions using quantum effects.
Quantum theory is replete with many facts that are incompatible with the principles of constructing “normal” science.
- The famous Schrödinger equation is a kind of revelation - a world mystery that his followers began to diligently solve.
- A quantum object can behave as a wave and as a particle. Because of this, the term “dualism” arose in quantum mechanics, emphasizing the need for a complementary description of the objects under study, but partially bearing “remnants” of the classical approach.
- The wave or material nature of objects is determined by the way the object is observed. The concept of wave-particle dualism relates more to observation, state, and complementary descriptions than to the nature of quantum objects.
- Louis de Broglie introduced the concept of “probability waves” and suggested the particle-wave duality of micro-objects (1923). Not only photons, but electrons and any other particles of matter, along with corpuscular ones (energy, momentum), also have wave properties (frequency, wavelength). “Probability waves” are associated with any objects and reflect their quantum nature. The greater the mass of the particle and its speed, the shorter the de Broglie wavelength. Confirmation of de Broglie's hypothesis was obtained in 1927 in the experiments of D. Thompson, K. Davisson and L. Germer.
- Confirmed empirically de Broglie's idea about the dual nature of microparticles - particle-wave dualism - fundamentally changed ideas about the appearance of the microworld. A need arose for a theory in which the wave and corpuscular properties of matter would not act as exclusive, but as mutually complementary. The basis of such a theory - wave, or quantum, mechanics - was the concept of de Broglie. This is reflected in the name “wave function” for the quantity that describes the state of the system in this theory. The square of the modulus of the wave function determines the probability of the state of the system, and therefore de Broglie waves are often spoken of as probability waves (more precisely, probability amplitudes).
- According to Max Born, “you cannot derive the wave equation strictly logically; the formal steps leading to it are, in essence, only ingenious guesses.”* (* M. Born. Atomic physics. Science, M., 1981).
- The same Max Born found solutions to the Schrödinger equation using a statistical interpretation of the wave function, but at the same time quantum mechanics finally acquired a “mystical” appearance.
- R. Feynman, in his Nobel lecture, proclaimed a completely new approach to the creation of science: “...Perhaps the best way to create a new theory is to guess the equations, without paying attention to physical models or physical explanation.”
- W. Heisenberg discovered a new version of the formalism of quantum mechanics: with the help of matrix calculus and the so-called “uncertainty relation”, disputes and passions around which do not subside to this day.
In contrast to the principles of classical science given at the beginning of this book, quantum theory and new physics are built on a new paradigm characterized by the following ideas:
- the idea of ​​holism - the unity and integrity of everything that exists, including the unity and integrity of consciousness and being;
- the idea of ​​achronism of the quantum world;
- multi-level reality and consciousness;
- the presence of entangled states and non-local connections;
- presence of acausal connections, indeterminism;
- the possibility of dematerialization and rematerialization of studied objects or, better said, states;
- principles of additionality and uncertainty;
- personality and conventionality of knowledge;
- the influence of the observer’s consciousness on the results of observation.
The nature of the statistical nature of quantum theory has several explanations:
- According to Louis de Broglie, statistical laws can be reduced to dynamic ones;
- A. Einstein and M. Born introduced the concept of quantum ensembles to take into account statistics;
- In the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr, statistics are considered as a fundamental property of objects in the microworld. The last concept has become the most widespread among physicists.
The principle of uncertainty underlying quantum theory has fundamentally undermined faith in the growth of “objectivity” and “accuracy” of physical measurements. The most important conclusion from quantum theory is the fundamental uncertainty of measurement results and, therefore, the impossibility of a strict and unambiguous prediction of the future.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that W. Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation also casts doubt on the classical concept of causality. Indeed, we can determine the coordinate of a quantum object from absolute precision, but at the moment when this happens, the impulse takes on a completely arbitrary value. This means that an object whose position we were able to measure absolutely accurately immediately moves as far as we like. Localization loses its meaning: the concepts that form the very basis of classical mechanics undergo profound changes during the transition to quantum theory. The quantum world does not know time or speed at all; here everything happens instantly and simultaneously!
Under the influence external forces a quantum object does not move along a certain trajectory in accordance with Newtonian mechanics, but with certain probabilities along all possible trajectories at once. In another language, “all paths” are available to him. In this case, it makes no sense to talk about the meaning of the parameters of the electron’s motion at a given point in space, since it moves simultaneously in all ways. Isn’t this where the magnificent Jewish intuition comes from: “God knows all ways, God should be served in all ways?” Indeed, quantum systems are in a sense free from choice, or more precisely, they choose all possibilities at once.
The equations of quantum theory are equally applicable to micro- and macro-objects. Bohr's principle of complementarity is broader than it is interpreted in physics textbooks: it characterizes not only the behavior of quantum objects, but also the real knowledge of the multilayer world. Its universality is evidenced by the fact that the very existence of quantum theory is possible only to the extent that classical objects exist. According to the generalized principle of complementarity and the generalized Gödel theorem, one reality necessarily complements another reality, or any attempt to specify the description of reality leads to incompleteness and a narrowing of the very concept of “reality.”
The problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it combines the pure quantumness of objects with the classicality of observation devices, that is, this interpretation is a semiclassical approximation. V. A. Fok writes very clearly about this: “The very concept of state is interpreted... as if it belonged to the atomic object in itself, in isolation from the means of observation. Such an absolutization of the concept of “quantum state” leads, as is known, to paradoxes. These paradoxes were explained by Niels Bohr on the basis of the idea that a necessary intermediary in the study of atomic objects are means of observation (instruments), which must be described classically” *. (* Preface by V. A. Fock to P. Dirac’s book “Principles of Quantum Mechanics”).
In the current state of quantum theory, nods to classical physics are no longer required, and this leads to fruitful “crazy ideas”, without which the development of science is impossible. You cannot make endless patches by pouring new wine into decrepit wineskins - hence Everettism and other new interpretations of quantum theory (see below).
We must be aware that a complete rejection of the classical concepts of old physics leads to a radical change in worldview - to the acceptance of a new paradigm of the existence of quantum entangled states, impossible and “unnatural” from the point of view of classical physics, simply put - immaterial. Moreover, such states are not theoretical abstractions or mathematical symbols, but elements of a new “transcendental” reality that has nothing in common with classical bodies. What should be emphasized here is the very precise linguistic concept of “body” as an entity localized in space and time, while truly quantum objects are in every sense “incorporeal”!
Is it correct to interpret the quantum world as objectively existing? Although there is no clear answer to this question yet, an increasing number of physicists are leaning towards a positive answer. Moreover, modernist physicists believe that the classical world arises only after consciousness chooses it as the only one or one of possible parallel worlds.
In this case, “classical reality” turns out to be only a projection of a multidimensional formation, chosen by the consciousness of the observer, and represents a view of the quantum world from one of the possible points of view. In the quantum world, all alternatives objectively coexist.
I find it difficult to agree with the view that “physical reality” is subjective at the quantum level, where various “alternative possibilities” coexist, forming sums with strange complex weights in theory. One can, of course, despair of such a quantum reality, one can regard quantum theory solely as a computational procedure for calculating probabilities, but I take a fundamentally different point of view: different levels of reality are not simply subject to different theories, but are incomparable levels of reality.
I carefully avoid the concept of “objective reality” here, because quantum reality, it seems to me, goes beyond the meanings embedded in non-existent “objectivity” - non-existent due to its absolute transcendence, ideality, incorporeality, divinity. After all, one can only talk about “objectivity” from the position of God - just like talking about “truth,” which the totalitarian mind usually claims to possess.
Refusal of objectivity not only does not lead to relativism, but, on the contrary, opens up grandiose new worlds for study, including purely quantum systems in a non-local state, other levels of reality and numerous phenomena considered mysticism, esotericism and magic. By the way, the rejection of the latter is also inherent in the same totalitarian mind.
The quantum expansion of reality, as well as the mystical expansion of consciousness, complement each other, expanding the horizons of knowledge, including quantum states in reality and making them objects of scientific approach. Numerous phenomena of enlightenment, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, telepathy, materialization and dematerialization, placebos, prayer therapy, spiritual or esoteric practices also gradually become such.
After a brief introductory description of the fundamental principles of quantum reality, we will move on to some details of its “internal arrangement”.

And most importantly, we refuse to notice that they are applicable only in some routine situations and for explaining the structure of the Universe they turn out to be simply incorrect.

Although something similar was expressed centuries ago by Eastern philosophers and mystics, Einstein was the first to talk about it in Western science. It was a revolution that our consciousness did not accept. With condescension we repeat: “everything is relative,” “time and space are one,” always keeping in mind that this is an assumption, a scientific abstraction that has little in common with our usual stable reality. In fact, it is precisely our ideas that poorly correlate with reality - amazing and incredible.

After in general outline The structure of the atom was discovered and its “planetary” model was proposed, scientists were faced with many paradoxes, to explain which a whole branch of physics appeared - quantum mechanics. It developed rapidly and made great progress in explaining the Universe. But these explanations are so difficult to understand that until now few people can understand them at least in general terms.

Indeed, most of the achievements of quantum mechanics are accompanied by such a complex mathematical apparatus that it simply cannot be translated into any human language. Mathematics, like music, is an extremely abstract subject, and scientists are still struggling to adequately express the meaning of, for example, the convolution of functions or multidimensional Fourier series. The language of mathematics is strict, but has little relation to our immediate perception.

Moreover, Einstein showed mathematically that our concepts of time and space are illusory. In reality, space and time are inseparable and form a single four-dimensional continuum. It is hardly possible to imagine it, because we are used to dealing only with three dimensions.

Planetary theory. Wave or particle

Until the end of the 19th century, atoms were considered indivisible “elements.” The discovery of radiation allowed Rutherford to penetrate under the “shell” of the atom and formulate a planetary theory of its structure: the bulk of the atom is concentrated in the nucleus. The positive charge of the nucleus is compensated by negatively charged electrons, the sizes of which are so small that their mass can be neglected. Electrons revolve around the nucleus in orbits similar to the rotation of planets around the Sun. The theory is very beautiful, but a number of contradictions arise.

First, why don't negatively charged electrons "fall" onto the positive nucleus? Secondly, in nature, atoms collide millions of times per second, which does not harm them at all - how can we explain the amazing strength of the entire system? In the words of one of the “fathers” of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg, “no planetary system that obeys the laws of Newtonian mechanics will ever return to its original state after a collision with another similar system.”

In addition, the dimensions of the nucleus, in which almost all the mass is collected, are extremely small compared to the whole atom. We can say that an atom is a void in which electrons rotate at breakneck speed. In this case, such an “empty” atom appears as a very solid particle. The explanation for this phenomenon goes beyond the classical understanding. In fact, at the subatomic level, the speed of a particle increases the more the space in which it moves is more limited. So the closer an electron is attracted to the nucleus, the faster it moves and the more it is repelled from it. The speed of movement is so high that “from the outside” the atom “looks solid”, just as the blades of a rotating fan look like a disk.

Data that do not fit well within the framework of the classical approach appeared long before Einstein. For the first time such a “duel” took place between Newton and Huygens, who tried to explain the properties of light. Newton argued that it was a stream of particles, Huygens considered light a wave. Within the framework of classical physics, it is impossible to reconcile their positions. After all, for her, a wave is a transmitted excitation of particles of the medium, a concept applicable only to many objects. None of the free particles can move along a wave-like trajectory. But an electron moves in a deep vacuum, and its movements are described by the laws of wave motion. What is excited here if there is no medium? Quantum physics offers a Solomonic solution: light is both a particle and a wave.

Probabilistic electron clouds. Nuclear structure and nuclear particles

Gradually it became more and more clear: the rotation of electrons in orbits around the nucleus of an atom is completely different from the rotation of planets around a star. Having a wave nature, electrons are described in terms of probability. We cannot say about an electron that it is located at such and such a point in space, we can only describe approximately in which areas it can be located and with what probability. Around the nucleus, electrons form “clouds” of such probabilities from the simplest spherical to very bizarre shapes, similar to photographs of ghosts.

But anyone who wants to finally understand the structure of the atom must turn to its basis, to the structure of the nucleus. The large elementary particles that make it up - positively charged protons and neutral neutrons - also have a quantum nature, which means they move the faster the smaller the volume they are contained in. Since the dimensions of the nucleus are extremely small even in comparison with an atom, these elementary particles rush around at quite decent speeds, close to the speed of light. For a final explanation of their structure and behavior, we will need to “cross” quantum theory with the theory of relativity. Unfortunately, such a theory has not yet been created and we will have to limit ourselves to a few generally accepted models.

The theory of relativity has shown (and experiments have proven) that mass is only one form of energy. Energy is a dynamic quantity associated with processes or work. Therefore, an elementary particle should be perceived as a probabilistic dynamic function, as interactions associated with the continuous transformation of energy. This gives an unexpected answer to the question of how elementary elementary particles are and whether they can be divided into “even simpler” blocks. If we accelerate two particles in an accelerator and then collide, we will get not two, but three particles, and completely identical ones. The third will simply arise from the energy of their collision - thus, they will separate and not separate at the same time!

Participant instead of observer

In a world where the concepts of empty space and isolated matter lose their meaning, a particle is described only through its interactions. In order to say something about it, we will have to “snatch” it from the initial interactions and, having prepared it, subject it to another interaction - measurement. So what are we measuring in the end? And how legitimate are our measurements in general if our intervention changes the interactions in which the particle participates - and therefore changes the particle itself?

In modern physics of elementary particles, more and more criticism is caused... by the very figure of the scientist-observer. It would be more appropriate to call him a “participant.”

An observer-participant is necessary not only to measure the properties of a subatomic particle, but also to determine these very properties, because they can only be discussed in the context of interaction with the observer. Once he chooses the method in which he will carry out measurements, and depending on this, the possible properties of the particle are realized. If you change the observing system, the properties of the observed object will also change.

This important moment reveals the deep unity of all things and phenomena. The particles themselves, continually changing into one another and into other forms of energy, do not have constant or precise characteristics - these characteristics depend on the way in which we choose to see them. If you need to measure one property of a particle, another will certainly change. Such a limitation is not associated with the imperfection of devices or other completely correctable things. This is a characteristic of reality. Try to accurately measure the position of a particle, and you will not be able to tell anything about the direction and speed of its movement - simply because it will not have them. Describe the exact motion of a particle - you will not find it in space. Thus, modern physics confronts us with problems of a completely metaphysical nature.

The principle of uncertainty. Place or impulse, energy or time

We have already said that we cannot talk about subatomic particles in the precise terms we are accustomed to; in the quantum world, we are left with only probability. This, of course, is not the probability that people talk about when betting on horse races, but a fundamental property of elementary particles. It’s not that they exist, but rather they can exist. It’s not that they have characteristics, but rather that they can have them. Scientifically speaking, a particle is a dynamic probabilistic circuit, and all its properties are in constant moving equilibrium, balancing like Yin and Yang in the ancient Chinese symbol of Taiji.

No wonder Nobel laureate Niels Bohr, elevated to the rank of nobility, chose this very sign and motto for his coat of arms: “Opposites complement each other.” Mathematically, the probability distribution represents uneven wave oscillations. The greater the amplitude of a wave at a certain location, the higher the probability of a particle existing there. Moreover, its length is not constant - the distances between adjacent crests are not the same, and the higher the amplitude of the wave, the greater the difference between them. While amplitude corresponds to the particle's position in space, wavelength is related to the particle's momentum, that is, the direction and speed of its movement. The larger the amplitude (the more accurately the particle can be localized in space), the more uncertain the wavelength becomes (the less can be said about the particle's momentum). If we can determine the position of a particle with extreme precision, it will have no definite momentum at all.

This fundamental property is derived mathematically from the properties of waves and is called the uncertainty principle. The principle also applies to other characteristics of elementary particles. Another such interconnected pair is the energy and time of quantum processes. The faster the process, the more uncertain the amount of energy involved in it, and vice versa - energy can be accurately characterized only for a process of sufficient duration.

So, we understand: nothing definite can be said about a particle. It moves this way, or not there, or rather, neither here nor there. Its characteristics are this or that, or rather, not this or that. It is here, but it may be there, or it may not be anywhere. So does it even exist?

I do not advise anyone who is interested in this issue to consult Wikipedia material.
What good things will we read there? Wikipedia notes that “quantum field theory” is “a branch of physics that studies the behavior of quantum systems with an infinitely large number of degrees of freedom - quantum (or quantized) fields; is the theoretical basis for the description of microparticles, their interactions and transformations.”

1. Quantum field theory: The first deception. Studying is, whatever you say, receiving and assimilating information that has already been collected by other scientists. Perhaps they meant "research"?

2. Quantum field theory: The second deception. Endlessly large number There are no degrees of freedom in any theoretical example of this theory and there cannot be. The transition from a finite number of degrees of freedom to an infinite number should be accompanied by not only quantitative, but also qualitative examples. Scientists often make generalizations of the following form: “Consider N = 2, after which we can easily generalize to N = infinity.” Moreover, as a rule, if the author has solved (or almost solved) the problem for N=2, it seems to him that he has accomplished the most difficult thing.

3. Quantum field theory: The third deception. “Quantum field” and “quantized field” are two big differences. How between beautiful woman and an embellished woman.

4. Quantum field theory: The fourth deception. About the transformation of microparticles. Another theoretical mistake.

5. Quantum field theory: The fifth deception. Particle physics as such is not science, but shamanism.

Read on.
“Quantum field theory is the only experimentally verified theory capable of describing and predicting the behavior of elementary particles at high energies (that is, at energies significantly higher than their rest energy).”

6. Quantum field theory: The sixth deception. Quantum field theory has not been confirmed experimentally.

7. Quantum field theory: The seventh deception. There are theories that are more consistent with experimental data, and in relation to them we can just as “reasonably” say that they are confirmed by experimental data. Consequently, quantum field theory is not the “only” of the “confirmed” theories.

8. Quantum field theory: The eighth deception. Quantum field theory is not capable of predicting anything. Not a single real experimental result can even be “confirmed” “after the fact” by this theory, let alone that anything could be calculated a priori with its help. Modern theoretical physics at the present stage, all “predictions” are made on the basis of known tables, spectra and similar factual materials, which have not yet been “stitched” in any way by any of the officially accepted and recognized theories.

9. Quantum field theory: The ninth deception. At energies significantly higher than the rest energy, quantum theory not only gives nothing, but the formulation of the problem at such energies is impossible in the modern state of physics. The fact is that quantum field theory, like non-quantum field theory, like any of the currently accepted theories, cannot answer simple questions: “What is the maximum speed of the electron?” , as well as to the question “Is it equal to the maximum speed of any other particle?”
Einstein's theory of relativity states that the maximum speed of any particle is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum, that is, this speed cannot be achieved. But in this case, the question is valid: “What speed CAN be achieved?”
No answer. Because the statement of the Theory of Relativity is not true, and it was obtained from incorrect premises, incorrect mathematical calculations based on erroneous ideas about the admissibility of nonlinear transformations.

By the way, don't read Wikipedia at all. Never. My advice to you.

ANSWER TO THE PYROTECHNICIAN

In this particular context, I wrote that the description of QUANTUM FIELD THEORY IN WIKIPEDIA IS A DECEPTION.
My conclusion from the article: “Don’t read Wikipedia. Never. My advice to you."
How did you conclude that I “don’t like scientists” based on my denial of the scientific nature of some Wikipedia articles?

By the way, I never claimed that “Quantum field theory is a hoax.”
Exactly the opposite. Quantum field theory is an experimentally based theory, which is naturally not as meaningless as Special or General Relativity.
BUT STILL - quantum theory is ERRORAL IN PART OF POSTULATING those phenomena that CAN BE DERIVED AS CONSEQUENCES.

The quantum (quantized - more precisely and correctly) nature of the radiation of hot bodies is determined not by the quantum nature of the field as such, but by the discrete nature of the generation of oscillatory pulses, that is, the COUNTABLE NUMBER OF ELECTRON TRANSITIONS from one orbit to another - on the one hand, and the FIXED DIFFERENCE IN THE ENERGY of different orbits.
The fixed difference is determined by the properties of the movements of electrons in atoms and molecules.
These properties should be studied using the mathematical apparatus of closed dynamic systems.
I did it.
See articles at the end.
I have shown that the STABILITY OF ELECTRON ORBITS can be explained from ordinary electrodynamics, taking into account the limited speed electromagnetic field. From these same conditions one can theoretically predict geometric dimensions hydrogen atom.
The maximum outer diameter of a hydrogen atom is defined as twice the radius, and the radius corresponds to the potential energy of the electron, which is equal to the kinetic energy calculated from the relation E=mc^2/2 (em-ce-squared-in-half).

1. Bugrov S.V., Zhmud V.A. Modeling of nonlinear motions in dynamic problems of physics // Collection of scientific works of NSTU. Novosibirsk 2009. 1(55). pp. 121 – 126.
2. Zhmud V.A., Bugrov S.V. The modeling of the electron movements inside the atom on the base of the non-quantum physics. // Proceedings of the 18th IASTED International Conference “Applied Simulation and Modeling” (ASM 2009). Sept. 7-9, 2009. Palma de Mallorka, Spain. P.17 – 23.
3. Zhmud V.A. Justification of the non-relativistic non-quantum approach to modeling the motion of an electron in a hydrogen atom // Collection of scientific papers of NSTU. Novosibirsk 2009. 3(57). pp. 141 – 156.

By the way, among the possible answers to the question “Why do you dislike scientists so much?”

BECAUSE I LOVE SCIENCE.

Jokes aside: Scientists should not strive for love or non-love. They must strive for the truth. I “love with my mind” those who strive for truth, regardless of whether they are scientists or not. That is, I APPROVED. This is not why I love with my heart. Not for the pursuit of truth. Einstein strove for truth, but not always, not everywhere. As soon as he chose to strive to prove the infallibility of his theory, he completely forgot about the truth. After that, as a scientist, he faded quite considerably in my eyes. He should have thought more deeply about the gaseous nature of gravitational lenses, about the “postal” nature of information delay - we don’t judge the time of their departure by the arrival dates on letters! These two dates are always different. We don't identify them. Why, then, should one identify perceived time, perceived speed, etc., with real time, speed, etc.?
About the fact that I don't like readers? Hello! I'm trying to open their eyes. Is this not to love?
I even love the reviewers who object. Moreover, I especially love those who object reasonably. Those who seek not to object, but simply to deny, to assert the opposite without any reason, without reading into my arguments - I simply feel sorry for them.
“Why are they writing a note on something they haven’t even read?” - I think.

In conclusion, a joke for my readers who are tired of long discussions.

HOW TO WRITE A NOBEL SPEECH

1. Win a Nobel Prize.
2. Look around you. You will find many volunteer, unpaid helpers who would be honored to write this speech for you.
3. Read the four options given. Have a good laugh. Write anything - it will still be better than any of these options, and they, these options, are certainly better than what you can write bypassing point 1 of this sequence.

Quantum mechanics, not to mention quantum field theory, has a reputation for being strange, scary, and counterintuitive. There are those in the scientific community who still do not recognize it. However, quantum field theory is the only theory confirmed by experiment that can explain the interaction of microparticles at low energies. Why is it important? Andrey Kovtun, MIPT student and department employee fundamental interactions, tells how to use this theory to get to the main laws of nature or invent them yourself.

As you know, everything natural Sciences are subject to a certain hierarchy. For example, biology and chemistry have physical foundations. And if we look at the world through a magnifying glass and each time increase its strength, thus reducing knowledge, we will slowly come to quantum field theory. This is a science that describes the properties and interactions of the smallest grains of mother from which we are composed - particles that are commonly called elementary. Some of them - such as the electron, for example - exist on their own, while others combine and form composite particles. The well-known protons and neutrons are just that - they consist of quarks. But quarks themselves are already elementary. So the task of physicists is to understand and deduce all the properties of these particles and answer the question of whether there is something else that lies deeper in the hierarchy of fundamental physical laws.

Our reality is field reality, it consists of fields, and we are only elementary excitations of these fields

For radical scientists, the ultimate goal is a complete reduction of knowledge about the world; for less radical scientists, a deeper penetration into the subtleties of the microworld or supermicroworld. But how is this possible if we are only dealing with particles? The answer is very simple. We simply take them and push them together, literally smash them against each other - like children who, wanting to see the structure of some interesting little thing, simply throw it on the floor and then study the fragments. We also collide particles, and then see which new particles are produced during the collision, and which ones disintegrate after a long journey in splendid isolation. All these processes in quantum theory are described by the so-called probabilities of decay and scattering. Quantum field theory deals with calculations of these quantities. But not only them.

Vectors instead of coordinates and velocities

The main difference between quantum mechanics is that we will no longer describe physical bodies using coordinates and velocities. The basic concept in quantum mechanics is the state vector. This is a box containing quantum mechanical information about the physical system we are studying. Moreover, I use the word “system” because a state vector is a thing that can describe the state of both an electron and a grandmother husking sunflower seeds on a bench. That is, this concept has a very wide scope. And we want to find all state vectors that would contain all the information we need about the object under study.

Then it is natural to ask the question “How can we find these vectors and then extract from them what we want?” Here the next important concept of quantum mechanics comes to our aid - the operator. This is a rule according to which one state vector is associated with another. Operators must have certain properties, and some (but not all) of them extract information from state vectors about the physical quantities we need. Such operators are called operators of physical quantities.

Measure what is difficult to measure

Quantum mechanics consistently solves two problems - stationary and evolutionary, and in turn. The essence of the stationary problem is to determine all possible state vectors that can describe the physical system in this moment time. Such vectors are the so-called eigenvectors of operators of physical quantities. Having identified them at the initial moment, it is interesting to trace how they will evolve, that is, change over time.

A muon is an unstable elementary particle with a negative electric charge and spin 1⁄2. Antimuon - antiparticle with quantum numbers (including charge) opposite sign, but with equal mass and spin.

Let's look at the evolutionary problem from the point of view of the theory of elementary particles. Suppose we want to collide an electron and its partner - a positron. In other words, we have a state-1 vector that describes an electron-positron pair with certain momenta in the initial state. And then we want to find out with what probability a muon and an antimuon will be born after a collision between an electron and a positron. That is, the system will be described by a state vector, which contains information about the muon and its antipartner, also with certain momenta in the final state. Here's an evolutionary task for you - we want to find out with what probability our quantum system will jump from one state to another.

Let us also solve the problem of the transition of a physical system from state-1 to state-2. Let's say you have a ball. He wants to get from point A to point B, and there are many conceivable ways he could take this journey. But everyday experience shows that if you throw a ball at a certain angle and at a certain speed, then it has only one real path. Quantum mechanics says something else. She says that the ball travels along all these trajectories simultaneously. Each of the trajectories makes its own (more or less) contribution to the probability of transition from one point to another.

Fields

Quantum field theory is so called because it describes not particles themselves, but some more general entities called fields. Particles in quantum field theory are elementary carriers of fields. Imagine the waters of the world's oceans. Let our ocean be calm, nothing is seething on its surface, there are no waves, foam, and so on. Our ocean is a field. Now imagine a solitary wave - just one crest of a wave in the shape of a slide, born as a result of some excitement (for example, hitting the water), which now travels across the vast expanses of the ocean. This is a particle. This analogy illustrates the main idea: particles are elementary excitations of fields. Thus, our reality is field reality, and we consist only of elementary excitations of these fields. Being born from these very fields, their quanta contain all the properties of their ancestors. This is the role of particles in a world in which many oceans called fields simultaneously exist. From a classical point of view, the fields themselves are ordinary numerical functions. They can consist of only one function (scalar fields), or they can consist of many (vector, tensor and spinor fields).

Action

Now it’s time to remember again that each trajectory along which a physical system moves from state-1 to state-2 is formed by a certain probability amplitude. In his works American physicist Richard Feynman proposed that the contributions of all trajectories are equal in magnitude but differ in phase. Simply put, if you have a wave (in this case, a quantum probability wave) traveling from one point to another, the phase (divided by a factor of 2π) shows how many oscillations fit along the way. This phase is a number that is calculated using some rule. And this number is called action.

The basis of the universe, in fact, is the concept of beauty, which is reflected in the term “symmetry”

Associated with action is the basic principle on which all reasonable models that describe physics are now built. This is the principle of least action, and, in short, its essence is as follows. Let us have a physical system - it could be either a point or a ball that wants to move from one place to another, or it could be some kind of field configuration that wants to change and become another configuration. They can do this in many ways. For example, a particle tries to get from one point to another in the Earth’s gravitational field, and we see that, in general, there are infinitely many paths along which it can do this. But life suggests that in reality, given the initial conditions, there is only one trajectory that will allow her to get from one point to another. Now - to the essence of the principle of least action. According to a certain rule, we assign a number called an action to each trajectory. Then we compare all these numbers and select only those trajectories for which the action will be minimal (in some cases, maximum). Using this method of choosing paths of least action, you can obtain Newton's laws for classical mechanics or equations describing electricity and magnetism!

There remains a residue because it is not very clear what kind of number this is - an action? If you don't look too closely, this is some kind of abstract mathematical quantity, which, at first glance, has nothing to do with physics - except that it randomly spits out the result we know. In fact, everything is much more interesting. The principle of least action was originally derived from Newton's laws. Then, on its basis, the laws of light propagation were formulated. It can also be obtained from equations describing the laws of electricity and magnetism, and then in the opposite direction - from the principle of least action to arrive at the same laws.

It is remarkable that seemingly different theories acquire the same mathematical formulation. And this leads us to the following assumption: can’t we ourselves come up with some laws of nature using the principle of least action, and then look for them in experiment? We can and we do! This is the meaning of this unnatural and difficult to understand principle. But it works, which makes us think of it as some kind of physical characteristics system, and not as an abstract mathematical formulation of modern theoretical science. It is also important to note that we cannot write any actions that our imagination tells us. Trying to figure out what the action of the next physical field theory should look like, we use the symmetries that physical nature has, and along with fundamental properties space-time we can use many other interesting symmetries that group theory tells us (a section of general algebra that studies algebraic structures called groups and their properties. - Ed.).

About the beauty of symmetry

It’s great that we received not just a summary of laws describing some natural phenomena, namely a way to theoretically obtain laws such as Newton’s or Maxwell’s equations. And although quantum field theory describes elementary particles only at the low energy level, it has already served good service physicists all over the world and is still the only theory, which sensibly describes the properties of the smallest bricks that make up our world. What scientists actually want is to write such an action, only quantum, which would contain everything at once possible laws nature. Although even if this were possible, it would not resolve all the questions that interest us.

At the heart of a deep understanding of the laws of nature are some entities that are of a purely mathematical nature. And now, in order to try to penetrate the depths of the universe, we have to abandon high-quality, intuitive arguments. When talking about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, it is very difficult to find clear and visual analogies, but the most important thing that I would like to convey is that the basis of the universe is, in fact, the concept of beauty, which is reflected in the term “symmetry” " Symmetry is inevitably associated with beauty, as it was, for example, among the ancient Greeks. And it is symmetries, along with the laws of quantum mechanics, that underlie the structure of the smallest bricks in the world that physicists have so far managed to reach.

Describes the interaction of elementary particles based on universal concept quantized physical field. Based on this branch of physics, classical field theory was formed, which today is known as Planck’s constant.

Note 1

The basis of the discipline being studied was the idea that absolutely all elementary particles became quanta of the corresponding fields. The concept of a quantum field arose on the basis of the formation of ideas about traditional field, particles, their synthesis, as well as conclusions within the framework of quantum theory.

Quantum field theory acts as a theory where there are an infinite number of degrees of freedom. They are also called physical fields. The acute problem of quantum theory was the creation of a unified theory that would unite all quantum fields. In Theory at present, the most fundamental fields are those associated with structureless fundamental particles. These microparticles are quarks and leptons, as well as fields associated with carrier quanta four fundamental interactions. Research is carried out with intermediate bosons, gluons and photons.

Particles and fields of quantum theory

More than a hundred years ago, the basic concepts of atomic physics arose, which over time were continued in quantum physics, formulating field theory. There is a duality of classical theory. It was formed at the beginning of the 20th century. Particles were then thought of as little lumps of energy that formed matter. All of them moved according to the well-known laws of classical mechanics, which the British scientist Isaac Newton had previously described in detail in his works. Then Faraday and Maxwell took a hand in further research. He formed the laws of electromagnetic field dynamics.

At the same time, Planck for the first time introduced into physical science the concept of a portion, quantum, and radiation to explain the laws of thermal radiation. Physicist Albert Einstein then generalized this idea of ​​Planck's discreteness of radiation. He suggested that such discreteness is not associated with a specific mechanism of interaction between radiation and matter, but is inherent in internal level electromagnetic radiation itself. Electromagnetic radiation- these are quanta. Such theories soon received experimental confirmation. On their basis, the laws of the photoelectric effect were explained.

New discoveries and theories

About 50 years ago, a number of new generation physicists tried to use a similar approach in describing gravitational interactions. They not only described in detail all the processes occurring in the conditions of the planet, but also turned their attention to the problems of the origin of the Universe, formulating the theory of the Big Bang.

Quantum field theory became a generalization of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics finally became the key to understanding the most important problem of the atom, including opening the door to research by other scientists in understanding the mysteries of the microworld.

Quantum mechanics allows us to describe the movement of electrons, protons and other particles, but not their creation or destruction. It turned out that its application is correct only for describing systems in which the number of particles remains unchanged. The most interesting problem in electrodynamics was the emission and absorption of electromagnetic waves by charged particles. This corresponds to the creation or destruction of photons. The theory was beyond the scope of her research.

Based on initial knowledge, other theories began to be developed. Thus, in Japan, quantum electrodynamics was put forward as the most promising and accurate direction of scientific activity in recent years. Subsequently, the direction of chromodynamics and the quantum theory of electroweak interactions were developed.

Quantum field theory considers the following theories as basic:

• free fields and wave-particle duality;
• interaction of fields;
• perturbation theory;
• divergence and renormalization;
• functional integral.

The quantized free field has a margin free energy and has the opportunity to give it away in certain parts. When the field energy decreases by automatically means the disappearance of one photon of a different frequency. The field transitions to a different state, and a decrease in photon occurs by one unit. After such successive transitions, a state is eventually formed where the number of photons is zero. The release of energy by the field becomes impossible.

The field can exist in a state of vacuum. This theory is not entirely clear, but is completely justified from a physical point of view. An electromagnetic field in a vacuum state cannot be a supplier of energy, but a vacuum cannot manifest itself at all.

Definition 1

Physical vacuum is a state with necessary and significant properties that manifest themselves in real processes.

This statement is true for other particles. And it can be represented as the lowest energy position of these particles and their fields. When considering interacting fields, vacuum is the lowest energy state of the entire system of these fields.

Problems of quantum field theory

Researchers have made many advances in quantum electrodynamics, but it is not always possible to understand how they were demonstrated. All these successes require further explanation. The theory of strong interactions began to develop by analogy with quantum electrodynamics. Then the role of carriers of interaction was attributed to particles that have a rest mass. There is also the problem of renormalizability.

It could not be considered as a consistent construction, since it contains infinitely huge values ​​for certain physical quantities and there is no understanding of what to do with them. The idea of ​​changing normalizations not only explains the effects under study, but also gives the entire theory the features of logical closure, eliminating divergences from it. Scientists face certain problems at various stages of research. A lot of time will be devoted to eliminating them, since exact indicators still do not exist in quantum field theory.