With regard to my criticisms of Schneibster's explanation above, I will list evidence in support of my claims that he is substantially wrong.
I already gave a link that covers my first two criticisms about the true story with regard to Planck and Einstein, but here it is again:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/12/8
With regard to my third criticism of his claim that Schrodinger had done his work while Einstein and Planck were formulating ideas about quanta of radiation, and that deBroglie came along after that, here is a link to a chronology:
http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/history/quantumt.html - note that the erroneous claim about Planck and quanta is reproduced there also, however that is dealt with by my first link above.
To summarize:
Planck's idea, 1900
Einstein, Photoelectric Effect, 1905
De Broglie, waves, 1924
Schrodinger Wave Functions, 1926
My third criticism was of his claim that "all matter and all energy are made up of indivisible elementary particles called quanta". The word, "quanta" is an adjective, it refers to a quantity of
something, it is not a noun describing an elementary object in itself. We can talk of quanta of energy, or quanta of angular momentum for example. But there is no elementary particle called a "quantum". I'm not sure how I can prove that, since it would be trying to prove a negative. If Schneibster insists there are elementary particles called "quanta", then the burden of proof is with him.
My fourth criticism was of his description of what quantum mechanics actually
is. Unfortunately, there seem to be many various definitions and so I'll leave it to everyone to look them up themselves and decide if Schneibster's statements are accurate. Here is a possible starting point:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...echanics&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
My fifth criticism was of this statement, "Heisenberg proposed that there were certain parameters of quanta that could not be simultaneously measured". Here is a link to an overview of the Uncertainty Principle, from the American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
From another page also from the American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm (my emphasis):
Heisenberg showed that no matter how accurate the instruments used, quantum mechanics limits the precision when two properties are measured at the same time.
Which clearly refutes the claim that they cannot be simultaneously measured.
With regard to the other claim of Schneibster's that Heisenberg was
at first a proponent of the idea that measurement of one quantity would disturb another but changed his mind later, I offer Heisenberg's own words from his book, Physics and Philosophy, 1958, Chapter 3:
It has been said that the atom consists of a nucleus and electrons moving around the nucleus; it has also been stated that the concept of an electronic orbit is doubtful. One could argue that it should at least in principle be possible to observe the electron in its orbit. One should simply look at the atom through a microscope of a very high revolving power, then one would see the electron moving in its orbit. Such a high revolving power could to be sure not be obtained by a microscope using ordinary light, since the inaccuracy of the measurement of the position can never be smaller than the wave length of the light. But a microscope using ~~-rays with a wave length smaller than the size of the atom would do. Such a microscope has not yet been constructed but that should not prevent us from discussing the ideal experiment.
Is the first step, the translation of the result of the observation into a probability function, possible? It is possible only if the uncertainty relation is fulfilled after the observation. The position of the electron will be known with an accuracy given by the wave length of the y-ray. The electron may have been practically at rest before the observation. But in the act of observation at least one light quantum of the y-ray must have passed the microscope and must first have been deflected by the electron. Therefore, the electron has been pushed by the light quantum, it has changed its momentum and its velocity, and one can show that the uncertainty of this change is just big enough to guarantee the validity of the uncertainty relations. Therefore, there is no difficulty with the first step.
and later in the same chapter:
The observation itself changes the probability function discontinuously; it selects of all possible events the actual one that has taken place. Since through the observation our knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical representation also has undergone the discontinuous change and we speak of a 'quantum jump'. When the old adage 'Natura non facit saltus' is used as a basis for criticism of quantum theory, we can reply that certainly our knowledge can change suddenly and that this fact justifies the use of the term 'quantum jump'.
Therefore, the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place during the act of observation. If we want to describe what happens in an atomic event, we have to realize that the word 'happens' can apply only to the observation, not to the state of affairs between two observations. It applies to the physical, not the psychical act of observation, and we may say that the transition from the 'possible' to the 'actual' takes place as soon as the interaction of the object with the measuring device, and thereby with the rest of the world, has come into play; it is not connected with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer. The discontinuous change in the probability function, however, takes place with the act of registration, because it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function.
I cannot prove the negative that Heisenberg didn't change his mind later, but I have never seen any evidence that he did, and the burden of proof that he did again lies with Schneibster.
My sixth criticism was of Schneibster's claim that, "Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen proposed that one consider a pair of photons emitted simultaneously from an atom under very carefully controlled conditions. Because of these conditions, they could show that the spins of the two photons had to be opposite from one another, due to conservation of angular momentum"
Here is a link to the actual, original EPR paper:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1 Read it and see for yourself that what Schneibster claims is not true. You don't have to understand all the math just to see that there is no mention of photons or angular momentum etc.
My seventh criticism was of Schneibster's claim that, "Bohr answered that in fact, the parameters did not have any value" and that Bohr "basically ignored" the issue of non-locality.
Here is a link to Bohr's actual, original paper:
http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PR/v48/i8/p696_1 Again, read it for yourself and decide if the above is an accurate summary of Bohr's argument.
And with regard to non-locality, here is what Bohr thought about it, from:
Bohr, N., 1935, "Space and Time in Nuclear Physics", Mss 14, March 21, Manuscript Collection, Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
If we only imagine the possibility that without disturbing the phenomena we determine through which hole the electron passes, we would truly find ourselves in irrational territory, for this would put us in a situation in which an electron, which might be said to pass through this hole, would be affected by the circumstance of whether this [other] hole was open or closed; but … it is completely incomprehensible that in its later course [the electron] should let itself be influenced by this hole down there being open or shut. (Bohr 1935b)
Bohr is calling non-locality, "irrational territory".
My eighth criticism was of Schneibster's claim that EPR (EPR started in May 1935) led to the debate over wave function collapse etc. and that the debate continued until Bell in the 1960's. The debate started right from the outset of Copenhagen, somewhere around 1925-1927. The American Institute of Physics article on Heisenberg shows some of this:
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p09.htm And I don't think I need to explicitly prove that the debate didn't end in the 1960's with Bell - just look at any current physics list!
With regard to the measurement problem, here is Stanford University's take on it:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-measurement/ decide for yourself if Schneibster's summary of it is accurate.
My ninth criticism was of Schneibster's claim (speaking of Bell) that, "What he showed was that although the spin on a second axis was not completely dependent upon the spin on the first, the probability of a certain spin was different if the other spin had some known value than if it did not have any value"
Here is a link to Bell's original paper:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell.pdf Again, read it for yourself and see if you can see the above argument anywhere in it.
My tenth criticism also refers to the above paper and in particular that Bell had not shown the inequalities or how to implement them. Again it can be seen that Bell did give a complete argument in his paper. The inequalities are present in that paper (starting with equation 15 onward).
My eleventh criticism was that Aspect in 1982 "proved beyond reasonable doubt that in fact the distribution of values on the measured axis was inconsistent with the existence of a real value consistent with the value measured on the other photon for that axis. The value did not exist, in other words; and "spooky action at a distance" was in fact reality."
Apart from the fact that the two claims (non-existence of the values and non-locality) are each separate possible explanations (but not at the same time) and that the above statement hedges between two different things, you only need to type the following, "aspect experiment conclusive" into google (without the quotes!) to see any number of criticisms and arguments over the meaning and validity of the Aspect experiment.
