[论文解读] Shut up and let me think. Or why you should work on the foundations of quantum mechanics as much as you please

P. M. Echenique|arXiv (Cornell University)|Aug 26, 2013

Quantum Mechanics and Applications参考文献 58被引用 7

一句话总结

本文主张，量子力学中的基础性问题——尤其是测量问题和诠释争议——仍然是科学上紧迫且具有智力价值的研究领域。作者捍卫对量子理论的深层概念探究是必要而非徒劳的，提倡以'闭嘴，让我思考！'作为回应轻蔑态度的有原则立场，这种态度将物理学等同于单纯计算。

ABSTRACT

If you have a restless intellect, it is very likely that you have played at some point with the idea of investigating the meaning and conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. It is also probable (albeit not certain) that your intentions have been stopped on their tracks by an encounter with some version of the "Shut up and calculate" command. You may have heard that everything is already understood. That understanding is not your job. Or, if it is, it is either impossible or very difficult. Maybe somebody explained to you that physics is concerned with "hows" and not with "whys"; that whys are the business of "philosophy" ---you know, that dirty word. That what you call "understanding" is just being Newtonian; which of course you cannot ask quantum mechanics to be. Perhaps they also added some norms: The important thing a theory must do is predict; a theory must only talk about measurable quantities. It may also be the case that you almost asked "OK, and why is that?", but you finally bit your tongue. If you persisted in your intentions and the debate got a little heated up, it is even possible that it was suggested that you suffered of some type of moral or epistemic weakness that tend to disappear as you grow up. Maybe you received some job advice such as "Don't work in that if you ever want to own a house". I have certainly met all these objections in my short career, and I think that they are all just wrong. In this somewhat personal document, I try to defend that making sense of quantum mechanics is an exciting, challenging, important and open scientific endeavor. I do this by compulsively quoting Feynman (and others), and I provide some arguments that you might want to use the next time you confront the mentioned "opinions". By analogy with the anti-rationalistic Copenhagen command, all the arguments are subsumed in a standard answer to it: "Shut up and let me think"

研究动机与目标

• 挑战广泛存在的对基础量子力学研究的否定态度，认为其无产生成果或无关紧要。
• 主张对'为何'问题的理论理解并非哲学上的分心，而是核心科学任务。
• 反驳量子力学已被完全理解、诠释仅属推测的观点。
• 鼓励研究者在面对机构或同侪压力时，仍坚持深入的概念探究。
• 将量子力学中的'理解'重新定义为必要且可实现的科学任务，而非形而上学的沉溺。

提出的方法

• 运用修辞与哲学论证，大量引用理查德·费曼关于科学谦逊及专家权威局限性的观点。
• 引用历史与当代科学论述，说明'闭嘴，只管计算'心态的普遍性及其危害。
• 对比量子力学的实用主义、工具主义观点与对连贯、物理上具意义的诠释的必要性。
• 提出科学进步源于对专家的怀疑，而非盲目服从既定教条。
• 将基础研究重新定义为一种可独立于大规模实验开展的理论创新形式。
• 提出'闭嘴，让我思考！'作为对基础物理学中轻蔑态度的有原则、建设性替代方案。

实验结果

研究问题

• RQ1 尽管有观点认为理论已完备，为何对量子力学的基础性探究仍具科学相关性？
• RQ2 当有人认为理论已完全理解时，继续研究量子力学诠释的正当性何在？
• RQ3 科学家在质疑量子力学概念基础时，如何负责任地挑战既定专家的权威？
• RQ4 在物理学中抑制深层概念思维会产生何种认识论与道德后果？
• RQ5 如果其概念意义仍未解决，一个理论能否被认为真正被理解？

主要发现

• 量子力学的基础问题——尤其是测量问题——仍未解决，且在科学上依然紧迫。
• '闭嘴，只管计算'的态度并非中立的科学立场，而是一种阻碍批判性探究的认知封闭形式。
• 费曼强调对专家的怀疑以及相信专家亦会无知，支持了基础研究的正当性。
• 量子力学缺乏共识诠释并非失败的标志，而是开放且活跃的科学问题的体现。
• 通过持续而深思熟虑的分析，量子力学中的概念清晰性是可实现的，而不仅依赖实验验证。
• 作者最终认为，对量子力学作出令人满意且一致的解释不仅是可能的，更是物理学未来所必需的。