TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

When Bohr got it wrong: the impact of a little-known paper on quantum theory

65 点作者 sohkamyung3 个月前

5 条评论

leephillips3 个月前
This is an interesting article due to the historical connections it makes. I mention the paper in question on p. 120 of my book about Noether’s Theorem (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lee-phillips.org&#x2F;noether" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lee-phillips.org&#x2F;noether</a>) and quote Heisenberg on why violation of energy conservation, and therefore the paper, was unacceptable (something that the article doesn’t really discuss—after all, other conservation laws were abandoned or modified as needed): it’s because Noether’s Theorem shows that energy conservation is equivalent to invariance with regard to time translation, something that no one would be willing to give up. This means that energy must be conserved in every interaction, not just statistically.
评论 #42939638 未加载
ForOldHack3 个月前
Michelson–Morley got it wrong too, but getting things wrong, when you know its wrong, its an advancement.
评论 #42921692 未加载
评论 #42921578 未加载
gsf_emergency3 个月前
Sorry to come off as a crackpot, but pilot-wave theory did try to fix the problems of BKS by forcing the conservation of energy-momentum in their updated version of the &quot;virtual field&quot;.<p>Of course, Bohm also tried to do a sleight of hand with causality
gsf_emergency3 个月前
BKS virtual field -&gt; pilot wave?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory</a>
naasking3 个月前
&gt; “Its radically new approach paved the way for a greater understanding, that methods and concepts of classical physics could not be carried over in a future quantum mechanics.”<p>This is incorrect. The Hamiltonian in both statistical and quantum mechanics has the same basic structure. Quantization is the only real difference, but the other methods and concepts are structurally the same.<p>&gt; It was also a crucial factor in Heisenberg’s argument that the probabilistic character of his matrix mechanics (and also of Schrödinger’s 1926 version of quantum mechanics, called wave mechanics) couldn’t be explained away as a statistical expression of our ignorance about the details, as it is in classical statistical mechanics.<p>Too bad that&#x27;s an incorrect inference. Bohmian mechanics proves that this inference is incorrect, and it&#x27;s not the only possibility either.
评论 #42922002 未加载
评论 #42922553 未加载