Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Colecciones

CommentsGo Back

Descargar

a r X i v : q u a n t - p h / 0 0 0 9 0 6 2 v 2 4 O c t 2 0 0 0

October 4, 2000 LBNL-44712

From Quantum Nonlocality to Mind-Brain Interaction

Henry P. Stapp

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California Berkeley, California 94720

Abstract

Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to un-derstand the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practicalrules that describe connections between our observations. However,an examination of certain nonlocal features of quantum theory sug-gests that the perceived need for this renunciation was due to theuncritical importation from classical physics of a crippling metaphys-ical prejudice, and that rejection of that prejudice opens the way to adynamical theory of the interaction between mind and brain that hassigniﬁcant explanatory power.

∗

This work is supported in part by the Director, Oﬃce of Science, Oﬃce of High Energyand Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energyunder Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098

“Nonlocality gets more real”. This is the provocative title of a recentreport in Physics Today (1998). Three experiments are cited. All threeconﬁrm to high accuracy the predictions of quantum theory in experimentsthat suggest the occurrence of an instantaneous action over a large distance.The most spectacular of the three experiments begins with the productionof pairs of photons in a lab in downtown Geneva. For some of these pairs,one member is sent by optical ﬁber to the village of Bellevue, while the otheris sent to the town of Bernex. The two towns lie more than 10 kilometersapart. Experiments on the arriving photons are performed in both villages atessentially the same time. What is found is this: The observed connectionsbetween the outcomes of these experiments defy explanation in terms of ordinary ideas about the nature of the physical world

on the scale of directly observable objects.

This conclusion is announced in opening sentence of thereport (Tittle

et al.

1998) that describes the experiment: “Quantum theoryis nonlocal”.This observed eﬀect is not just an academic matter. A possible appli-cation of interest to the Swiss is this: The eﬀect can be used in principleto transfer banking records over large distances in a secure way (Tittle

et al.

1999). But of far greater importance to physicists is its relevance to twofundamental questions: What is the nature of physical reality? What is theform of basic physical theory?The answers to these questions depend crucially on the nature of physicalcausation. Isaac Newton erected his theory of gravity on the idea of instantaction at a distance. According to Newton’s theory, if a person were tosuddenly kick a stone, and send it ﬂying oﬀ in some direction, every particlein the entire universe would

immediately

begin to feel the eﬀect of that kick.Thus, in Newton’s theory, every part of the universe is instantly linked,causally, to every other part. To even think about such an instantaneousaction one needs the idea of the instant of time “now”, and a sequence of such instants each extending over the entire universe.This idea that what a person does in one place could instantly aﬀect1

physical reality in a faraway place is a mind-boggling notion, and it wasbanished from classical physics by Einstein’s theory of relativity. But theidea resurfaced at the quantum level in the debate between Einstein andBohr. Einstein objected to the “mysterious action at a distance”, whichquantum theory seemed to entail, but Bohr defended “the necessity of a ﬁnalrenunciation of the classical ideal of causality and a radical revision of ourattitude towards the problem of physical reality”(Bohr 1935).The essence of this radical revision was explained by Dirac at the 1927Solvay conference (Dirac 1928). He insisted on the restriction of the appli-cation of quantum theory to our knowledge of a system, rather than to thesystem itself. Thus physical theory became converted from a theory about‘physically reality’, as it had formerly been understood, into a theory abouthuman knowledge.This view is encapsulated in Heisenberg’s famous statement (Heisenberg1958):“The conception of the objective reality of the elementary particles hasthus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept, butinto the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer thebehaviour of the particle but rather our knowledge of this behaviour.”This conception of quantum theory, espoused by Bohr, Dirac, and Heisen-berg, is called the Copenhagen interpretation. It is essentially subjective andepistemological, because the basic reality of the theory is ‘our knowledge’.It is certainly true that science rests ultimately on what we know. Thatfact is the basis of the Coperhagen point of view. However, the tremendoussuccesses of the classical physical theory inaugurated by Galileo, Descartes,and Newton during the seventeenth century, had raised the hope and expec-tation that human beings could extract from careful observation, and theimaginative creation of testable hypotheses, a valid idea of the general na-ture, and rules of behaviour, of the reality in which our human knowledge isimbedded. Giving up on that hope is indeed a radical shift. On the otherhand, classical physical theory left part of reality out, namely our conscious2

experiences. Thus it had no way to account either for the existence of ourconscious experiences or for how knowledge can reside in those experiences.Hence bringing human experience into our understanding of reality seems tobe a step in the right direction: it might allow science to explain, eventually,how we know what we know. But Copenhagen quantum theory is only ahalf-way house: it does bring in human experience, but at the stiﬀ price of excluding the rest of reality.Yet how could the renowned scientists who created Copenhagen quantumtheory ever believe, and sway most other physicists into believing, that acomplete science could leave out the physical world? It is certainly undeniablethat we can never know for sure that a proposed theory of the world aroundus is really true. But that is not a suﬃcient reason to renounce, as a matterof principle, the attempt to form at least a coherent idea of what the world

could

be like. Clearly some extraordinarily powerful consideration was inplay.That powerful consideration was a basic idea about the nature of phys-ical causation that had been injected into physics by Einstein’s theory of relativity. That idea was not working!The problem is this. Quantum theory often entails that an act of acquir-ing knowledge in one place instantly changes the theoretical representationof some faraway system. Physicists were—and are—reluctant to believe thatperforming a nearby act can instantly change a faraway physical reality. How-ever, they recognize that “our knowledge” of a faraway system can instantlychange when we learn something about a nearby system. In particular, if certain properties of two systems are known to be strongly correlated, thenﬁnding out something about one system can tell us someing about the other.For example, if we know that two particles start from some known point atthe same time, and then move away from that point at the same speeds,but in opposite directions, then ﬁnding one of these particles at a certainpoint allows us to ‘know’ where the other particle lies at that same instant:it must lie at the same distance from the starting point as the observed par-3

ticle, but in the opposite direction. In this simple case we do not think thatthe act of observing the position of one particle

causes

the other particle to

be

where it is. We realize that is only our knowledge of the faraway systemthat has changed. This analogy allows us resolve, by ﬁat, any mystery aboutan instantaneous faraway eﬀect of a nearby act: if something faraway caninstantly be altered by a nearby act then it

must be

our knowledge. But thenthe analog in quantum theory of the physical reality of classical physicaltheory

must be

our knowledge.This way of dodging the action-at-a-distance problem was challenged byEinstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935) in a famous paper entitled: “Canquantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”The issue was whether a theory that is speciﬁed to be merely a set of rulesabout connections between human experiences can be considered to be acomplete description of physical reality. Einstein and his colleagues gavea reasonable deﬁnition of “physical reality”, and then argued, directly fromsome basic precepts of quantum theory itself, that the answer to this questionis ‘No’. But Bohr (1935) composed a subtle reply.Given the enormity of what must exist in the universe, and the relativesmallness human knowledge, it is astonishing that, in the minds of mostphysicists, Bohr prevailed over Einstein in this debate: the majority of quan-tum physicists acquiesced to Bohr’s claim that quantum theory, regarded asa theory about human knowledge, is a complete description of physical real-ity. This majority opinion stems, I believe, more from the lack of a promisingalternative candidate than from any decisive logical argument.Einstein (1951), commenting on the orthodox Copenhagen position, said:“What I dislike about this kind of argument is the basic positivistic attitude,which from my view is untenable, and seems to me to come to the samething as Berkeley’s principle,

esse est percipi

, “to be is to be perceived”.Several other scientists also reject the majority opinion. For example, MurrayGell-Mann (1979) asserts: “Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation intobelieving that the problem was solved ﬁfty years ago”. Gell-mann believes4

that in order to integrate quantum theory coherently into cosmology, and tounderstand the evolutionary process that has produced creatures that canhave knowledge, one needs to have a coherent theory of the evolving quantummechanical reality in which these creatures are imbedded.It is in the context of such efforts to construct a more complete theorythat the significance of the experiments pertaining to quantum nonlocalitylies.The point is this: If nature really is nonlocal, as these experiments sug-gest, then the way is open to the development of a rationally coherent theoryof nature that integrates the subjective knowings introduced by Copenhagenquantum theory into an objectively existing and evolving physical reality.The basic framework is provided by the version of quantum theory con-structed by John von Neumann (1932)All physical theories are, of course, provisional, and subject to future re-vision and elaboration. But at a given stage in the development of sciencethe contending theories can be evaluated on many grounds, such as utility,parsimony, predictive power, explanatory power, conceptual simplicity, log-ical coherence, and aesthetic beauty. The development of von Neumann’stheory that I shall describe here fares well on all of these counts.To understand von Neumann’s improvement one must appreciate theproblems with its predecessor. Copenhagen quantum theory gives special sta-tus to measuring devices. These devices are physical systems: they are madeup of atomic constituents. But in spite of this, these devices are excludedfrom the world of atomic constituents that are described in the mathematicallanguage of quantum theory. The measuring devices, are described, instead,in a different language, namely by “the same means of communication asthe one used in classical physics” (Bohr 1958). This approach renders thetheory pragmatically useful but physically incoherent. It links the theory to“our knowledge” of the measuring devices in a useful way, but disrupts thedynamical unity of the physical world by treating in different ways differentatomic particles that are interacting with each other. This tearing apart of 5

the physical world creates huge conceptual problems, which are ducked inthe Copenhagen approach by renouncing man’s ability to understand reality.The Copenhagen version of quantum theory is thus a hybrid of the oldfamiliar classical theory, which physicists were understandably reluctant toabandon completely, and a totally new theory based on radically diﬀerentconcepts. The old ideas, concepts, and language were used to describe ourexperiences, but the old idea that visible objects were made up of tiny ma-terial objects resembling miniature planets, or minute rocks, was dropped.The observed physical world is described rather by a mathematical structurethat can best be characterized as representing

information

and

propensities

:the

information

is about certain

events

that have occurred in the past, andthe

propensities

are objective tendencies pertaining to future events.These “events” are the focal point of quantum theory: they are hap-penings that in the Copenhagen approach are ambiguously associated bothwith the “measuring devices” and with increments in the knowledge of theobservers who are examining these devices. Each increment of knowledge isan event that updates the knowledge of the observers by bringing it in linewith the observed outcome of an event occurring at a device. The agreementbetween the event at the device and the event in the mind of the observer isto be understood in the same way as it is understood in classical physics.But there’s the rub: the connection between human knowledge and thephysical world never has been understood in classical physics. The seven-teenth century division between mind and matter upon which classical phys-ically theory was erected was such a perfect cleavage that no reconciliationhas ever been achieved, in spite of tremendous eﬀorts. Nor is such a reconcil-iation possible within classical physics. According to that theory, the worldof matter is built out of microscopic entities whose behaviours are ﬁxed byinteraction with their immediate neighbors. Every physical thing or activityis just some arrangement of these local building blocks and their motions,and all of the necessary properties of all of these physical components areconsequences of the postulated ontological and dynamical properties of the6

tiny parts. But these properties, which are expressible in terms of numbersassigned to space-time points, or small regions, do not entail the existence of the defining qualities of conscious experience, which are experiential in char-acter. Thus the experiential aspect of nature is not entailed by the principlesof classical physical theory, but must be postulated as an ad hoc supernu-merary that makes no difference in the course of physical events. This doesnot yield the conceptually unified sort of theory that physicists seek, andprovides no dynamical basis for the evolution, through natural selection, of the experiential aspect of nature.The fact that quantum theory is intrinsically a theory of mind-matterinteraction was not lost upon the early founders and workers. WolfgangPauli, John von Neumann, and Eugene Wigner were three of the most rig-orous thinkers of that time. They all recognized that quantum theory wasabout the mind-brain connection, and they tried to develop that idea. How-ever, most physicists were more interested in experiments on relatively simpleatomic systems, and were understandably reluctant to get sucked into thehuge question of the connection between mind and brain. Thus they werewilling to sacrifice certain formerly-held ideals of unity and completeness,and take practical success to be the measure of good science.This retreat both buttressed, and was buttressed by, two of the mainphilosophical movements of the twentieth century. One of these, materialism-behaviourism, effectively denies the existence of our conscious “inner lives”,and the other, postmodern-social-constructionism, views science as a socialconstruct without any objective mind-independent content. The time wasnot yet ripe, either philosophically or scientifically, for a serious attempt tostudy the physics of mind-matter connection. Today, however, as we enterthe third millenium, there is a huge surge of interest among philosophers,psychologists, and neuroscientists in reconnecting the aspects of nature thatwere torn asunder by seventeenth century physicists.John von Neumann was one of the most brilliant mathematicians andlogicians of his age, and he followed where the mathematics and logic led.7

From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes nosense to treat a measuring device as intrisically diﬀerent from the collectionof atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of thephysical universe, and it should be treated as such. Moreover, the consciousthoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected

most directly and immediately

to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happeningout at some measuring device.The mathematical rules of quantum theory specify clearly how the mea-suring devices are to be included in the quantum mechanically describedphysical world. Von Neumann ﬁrst formulated carefully the mathematicalrules of quantum theory, and then followed where that mathematics led.It led ﬁrst to the incorporation of the measuring devices into the quantummechanically described physical universe, and eventually to the inclusion of

everything

built out of atoms and their constituents. Our bodies and brainsthus become, in von Neumann’s approach, parts of the quantum mechani-cally described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in thisunified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoreticalfoundation that heals the rupturing of the physical world introduced by theCopenhagen approach. It postulates, for each observer, that each experien-tial event is connected in a certain specified way to a corresponding brainevent. The dynamical rules that connect mind and brain are very restrictive,and this leads to a mind-brain theory with significant explanatory power.Von neumann showed in principle how all of the predictions of Copen-hagen quantum theory are contained in his version. However, von Neumannquantum theory gives, in principle, much more than Copenhagen quantumtheory can. By providing an objective description of the entire history of the universe, rather than merely rules connecting human observations, vonNeumann’s theory provides a quantum framework for cosmological and bio-logical evolution. And by including both brain and knowledge, and also thedynamical laws that connect them, the theory provides a rationally coherentdynamical framework for understanding the relationship between brain and8

mind.There is, however, one major obstacle: von Neumann’s theory, as heformulated it, appears to conﬂict with Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Reconciliation with Relativity

Von Neumann formulated his theory in a nonrelativistic approximation:he made no attempt to reconcile it with the empirically validated features of Einstein’s theory of relativity.This reconciliation is easily achieved. One can simply replace the non-relativistic theory used by von Neumann with modern relativistic quantumtheory. This theory is called relativistic quantum field theory. The word“field” appears here because the theory deals with such things as the quan-tum analogs of the electric and magnetic fields. To deal with the mind-braininteraction one needs to consider the physical processes in human brains. Therelevant quantum field theory is called quantum electrodynamics. The rele-vant energy range is that of atomic and molecular interactions. I shall assumethat whatever high-energy theory eventually prevails in quantum physics, itwill reduce to quantum electrodynamics in this low-energy regime.But there remains one apparent problem: von Neumann’s nonrelativistictheory is built on the Newtonian concept of the instants of time, ‘now’,each of which extends over all space. The evolving state of the universe,

S

(

t

), is defined to be the state of the entire universe at the instant of timet. Einstein’s theory of relativity rejected, at least within classical physicaltheory, the idea that the Newtonian idea of the instant “now” could haveany objective meaning.Standard formulations of relativistic quantum field theories (Tomonaga1946 & Schwinger 1951) have effective instants “now”, namely the Tomonaga-Schwinger surfaces

σ

. As Pauli once strongly emphasized to me, these sur-faces, while they may give a certain aura of relativistic invariance, do notdiffer significantly from the constant-time surfaces “now” that appear in theNewtonian physics. All efforts to remove completely from quantum theorythe distinctive role of time, in comparison to space, have failed.9

To obtain an objective relativistic version of von Neumann’s theory oneneed merely identify the sequence of constant-time surfaces “now” in his the-ory with a corresponding objectively deﬁned sequence of Tomonaga-Schwingersurfaces

σ

.Giving special objective physical status to a particular sequence of space-like surfaces does not disrupt any testable demands of the theory of relativity:this relativistic version of von Neumann’s theory is fully compatible with thetheory of relativity at the level of empirically accessible relationships. Butthe theory does conﬂict with a

metaphysical idea

spawned by the theory of relativity, namely the idea that there is no dynamically preferred sequence of instantaneous “nows”. The theory resurrects, at a deep level, the Newtonianidea of instantaneous action.The astronomical data (Smoot

et al.

1992) indicates that there doesexist, in the observed universe, a preferred sequence of ‘nows’: they deﬁne thespecial set of surfaces in which, for the early universe, matter was distributedalmost uniformly in mean local velocity, temperature, and density. It isnatural to assume that these empirically speciﬁed surfaces are the same asthe objective preferred surfaces “now” of von Neumann quantum theory.

Nonlocality and Relativity

von Neumann’s objective theory immediately accounts for the faster-than-light transfer of information that seems to be entailed by the nonlocalityexperiments: the outcome that appears first, in the cited experiment, occursin one or the other of the two Swiss villages. According to the theory, thisearlier event has an immediate effect on the evolving state of the universe,and this change has an immediate effect on the

propensities

for the variouspossible outcomes of the measurement performed slightly later in the othervillage.This feature—that there is some sort of objective instantaneous transferof information—conﬂicts with the spirit of the theory of relativity. However,this quantum eﬀect is of a subtle kind: it acts neither on matter, nor on locallyconserved energy-momentum, nor on anything else that exists in the classical10

conception of the physical world that the theory of relativity was originallydesigned to cover. It acts on a mathematical structure that represents, rather,

information and propensities

.The theory of relativity was originally formulated within classical physicaltheory. This is a deterministic theory: the entire history of the universe iscompletely determined by how things started out. Hence all of history canbe conceived to be laid out in a four-dimensional spacetime. The idea of “becoming”, or of the gradual unfolding of reality, has no natural place inthis deterministic conception of the universe.Quantum theory is a different kind of theory: it is formulated as anindeterministic theory. Determinism is relaxed in two important ways. First,freedom is granted to each experimenter to choose freely which experimenthe will perform, i.e., which aspect of nature he will probe; which questionhe will put to nature. Then Nature is allowed to pick an outcome of theexperiment, i.e., to answer to the question. This answer is partially free: it issubject only to certain statistical requirements. These elements of ‘freedomof choice’, on the part of both the human participant and Nature herself,lead to a picture of a reality that gradually unfolds in response to choicesthat are not necessarily fixed by the prior physical part of reality alone.The central roles in quantum theory of these discrete choices—of thechoices of which questions will be put to nature, and which answer naturedelivers—makes quantum theory a theory of discrete events, rather than atheory of the continuous evolution of locally conserved matter/energy. Thebasic building blocks of the new conception of nature are not objective tinybits of matter, but choices of questions and answers.In view of these deep structural differences there is a question of prin-ciple regarding how the stipulation that there can be no faster-than-lighttransfer of information of any kind should be carried over from the invaliddeterministic classical theory to its indeterministic quantum successor.The theoretical advantages of relaxing this condition are great: it pro-vides an immediate resolution all of the causality puzzles that have blocked11

of 39

Leave a Comment

From Quantum Non Locality to Mind-Brain Interaction (WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM)

Orthodox Copenhagen quantum theory renounces the quest to understand
the reality in which we are imbedded, and settles for practical
rules that describe connections between ou... (Más)

Download or Print

1,169 Reads

Información y clasificación

Categoría:	Research > Science
Rating:	(1 Rating)
Upload Date:	06/10/2009
Derechos de autor:	Funciones no comerciales
Etiquetas:	Physics Technology AI Philadelphia Classical research time university intelligence (mas etiquetas) Physics Technology AI Philadelphia Classical research time university intelligence dark Einstein earth laws quantum Computer NASA engineering System Space Shuttle light Modern black electrons neuroscience dimensions experiment Energy extraterrestrial Gravity sun magnetic Wave Field universe David nonlocality theory MIT solar Mechanics Mathematics discovery machine electronics Artificial laboratory de Equations device alien ufo Tesla robotics Bell Albert speed Newton nikola holes Deutsch Switzerland seth propulsion electromagnetic function parallel Roger lloyd spin Everett particle Higgs LHC schrodinger JPL principle alain Antigravity Tera probe NANOTECHNOLOGIES Venus EPR Bohr accelerator HUGH aspect giga Boson multiverse PLANCK Jupiter Bohm gravitational spacecraft antimatter heisenberg broglie cern Penrose wormholes indetermination tr3b elettronvolt neurorobotics (menos)

Free download as PDF File (.pdf), text file (.txt) or read online for free.

Flag document for inapproriate content

Uploaded by

Fausto Intilla (WWW.OL...

Descargar

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Add To Collection
Comments
Readcast
Share

×

Share on Scribd:

Readcast

TIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to quickly search anywhere in the document.

Searching...

Result 00 of 00

00 results for result for

p.

More from This User

Documentos relacionados

More From This User

Perchè Dio ha creato gli animali domestici?

There is No “Theory of Everything” Inside E8 - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

Abstract: We analyze certain subgroups of real and complex forms of the Lie g...

Divina Commedia - Inferno, Canto VII (Analisi e commento)

Tema d'approfondimento: La Fortuna

Next

Does Time exist in Quantum Gravity? (by Claus Kiefer) - WWW.OLOSCIE...

Time is absolute in standard quantum theory and dynamical in general relativ...

Comment on: "The interpretation of gravity as an entropic force (by...

We argue that the relativistic Unruh temperature cannot be associated with th...

The end of gravity as a fundamental force (by Erik Verlinde) - WWW....

Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravit...

Prev · Next

The interpretation of gravity as an entropic force (by Erik Verlind...

Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravit...

Von Der Informationstheorie Zum Konzept Der Seele - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

Von Der Informationstheorie Zum Konzept Der Seele - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

De la Teoría de la Información al concepto de Alma - WWW.OLOSCIENCE...

Uno de los conceptos más fundamentales, en el mundo de la física, surgió de l...

Prev · Next

Informacje z Teorii Do Pojecia Duszy (Polish) - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

Jednym z najbardziej podstawowych pojęć w fizyce świata, zerwał z myślą Alber...

Fra Information Theory Til Begrebet Soul (Danish) - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

En af de mest grundlæggende begreber i fysik verden, sprang fra forstanden ti...

Experimental Free-space Quantum Teleportation - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

Experimental Free-space Quantum Teleportation

Prev · Next

Japanese physicist Masahiro Hotta, proposes method to teleport ener...

Protocols of quantum energy teleportation (QET), while retaining causality an...

Economies Evolve by Energy Dispersal - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

Abstract: Economic activity can be regarded as an evolutionary process govern...

An Electromagnetic Black Hole Made of Metamaterials - WWW.OLOSCIENC...

Traditionally, a black hole is a region of space with huge gravitational fiel...

Prev · Next

Jean Piaget: A portrait of a great swiss epistemologist and psychol...

A portrait of an educator that is also a portrait of the great Swiss epistemo...

An Iterated Search for Influence From the Future on the LHC - WWW.O...

We analyse an iterated version of Nielsen and Ninomiya (N&N)’s proposed card...

Search for Effect of Influence From Future in Large Hadron Collider...

We propose an experiment which consists of drawing a card and using it to de...

Prev · Next

Decoherence in One-dimensional Quantum Walk - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

In this paper we study decoherence in the quantum walk on the line. We genera...

Entanglement Induced by Tailored Environments - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

We analyze a system consisting of two spatially separated quantum objects, he...

Maximal entanglement achievable by controlled dynamics - WWW.OLOSCI...

We consider the feedback control of quantum systems comprised of any number o...

Prev · Next

Magnetometry at the quantum limit of sensitivity and beyond - WWW.O...

Ultimate sensitivity of metrology and sensing is de

ned by the fundamental pr...

THE TOTEM EXPERIMENT AT THE LHC - WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM

The TOTEM experiment at the LHC is dedicated to the measurement of the total ...

A Macroscopic Test of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect (WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM)

The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect is a purely quantum mechanical effect. The orig...

Prev · Next

Verso una Nuova Scienza di Confine (WWW.OLOSCIENCE.COM)

Estratto della Prefazione: In questi ultimi anni, sono stati fatti degli i...

Prev

scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd.