兔子洞里到底是什么

世事之中，原本就有很多奇奇怪怪的真实事件。那些事都是真实，于是招惹来好奇心重的人去探究，得到结果的人，他（她）就成了科学家。

量子怪诞现象的始祖：双缝实验（视频：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/x7oEmG44Gl2Xr4paPM1TZA）

上面这条短片说的那个伟大的科学探索事件，很可能在不远的未来为揭晓人类宿命中的一个大惊喜。因为科学家已经发现，我们每个人的主观意志，决定了眼前事物的走势。

所以说，量子科学比起以往任何的一门科学，更与我们自己的命运息息相关。

要了解这个会让人眼前一亮的新世界并不需要什么科学基础，只要尊重常识即可。其实我们都耳闻目睹过不少跟这新科学（其实不能说新，因为量子论已经发展了 120 年）密切相关的所谓的怪事。

这门新科学的科普工作肯定没干好。我看到儿子前年高考复习提纲里，还有“物质是第一因”这样的标准答案。

量子科普做得浅显易懂又生动有趣的有下面两件产品，一部科教片，一本历史故事书。上面那视频，就出自这部电影《关于宇宙，你知道个叉!?》（What the βLēēp!?，2006）里面的一小段。

影片译文片段


卡通 Q 博士：

我们来看看所有量子怪诞现象的始祖：臭名昭著的双缝实验。
为了理解这个实验，先来看看微观粒子这些小东西是如何运动的。如果我们随机发射一个小物体，比如一个小弹珠，我们会看到后墙上的一个弹痕，是穿过窄缝的弹珠轰出来的。现在换成双缝挡板，我们看到的弹痕会有两条。

接下来我们看波动。波动通过窄缝辐射到后墙，正对缝隙处的波动最强。屏幕上的亮度显示波动的强度，这与弹珠弄出的弹痕相似。但是，换成双缝挡板之后，不一样的事情发生了。如果一个波的波峰遇到另外一个波的波谷，会相互抵消掉，于是就有一个干涉条纹出现在后壁。两波峰相交的地方，就是亮度最高的地方，形成亮线。两波相消处啥也没有。

就是说，当我们扔东西过去，物质通过双缝之后，我们看到两条弹痕。换成波动，会看到干涉条纹，很多条亮线。

好了，现在就进入量子世界。

电子是一种极极微小的物质，像一个微型弹珠。先将电子束射向单缝挡板，结果和射弹珠一样，只留一条弹痕。将这些小东西射过双缝，应该跟射弹珠一样有两条弹痕。

什么！？怎么会是干涉条纹？射出的可是电子啊？小点点的物质，怎么会是像波的干涉条纹，而不是两条弹珠弹痕呢？怎么可能？小弹珠怎么能弄出波的干涉现象？没道理啊？

好在物理学家够聪明，他们想，“或许是小球碰来碰去，碰撞出这现象。”于是他们决定一次只发射一个电子，以杜绝互相干扰。

就这样轰了几小时，同样的干扰条纹出现了！

结果明摆在那，射出时是一个电子，通过双缝时可能变成了波动，合体之后像弹珠一样打到墙上。用数学来描述就更怪了。它同时通过双缝，或者没过，可能通过了这条缝，或者另外一条。所有这些可能性叠加在一起，物理学家都懵了。

于是他们决定偷看，看它到底穿过了哪条缝。他们在缝隙旁边装了个电眼，看它穿过哪条，然后重启实验。

哼哼~~但量子世界比他们想象的要神秘得多。

被盯上的电子又有不同！变成一个小弹珠，结果打出两条弹痕，而不是很多条的干涉条纹。观察电子会走哪条缝的这种行为，造成它只穿过一条缝，而不是两条。电子决定采取不同的行动，它似乎意识到自己被人偷窥。

就在这里，物理学家们走进了这个奇怪的、前所未有的量子事件世界。

物质是什么？弹珠？还是波动？波动又是什么？观察者跟这些有啥关系？观测者使波函数崩溃了，仅凭简单的观察。

物理学家阿米特·戈斯瓦米（Amit Goswami）：

我们始终都是观察者。但有时候我们对事件太过认同，以至失去了作为观察者的自觉。唯物主义者完全迷失了，认为我们可以没有观察者。

物理学家弗雷德·沃尔夫（Fred Alan Wolf，1934- ）：

物理数据只是我们对物体表象的一种简化。尤其是，当我们观察原子和亚原子粒子，或任何形式的原子和亚原子物质时，我们的发现是，我们如何看待它，或者怎样来检验它，都会改变我们观察对象的性质。

拉姆莎（Ramtha），灵性导师：

是否因为有了观察者，才如此难以理解粒子的怪异反应？是否就因为有了观察者？

我们无法拥有一个量子场，如果没有科学家的观察。因为他们将量子场的面纱一层一层的揭开。即使他们都是观察者，但他们的观点仍未达成一致。因为他们对量子场进行的数学感知，是从不同的角度出发。

物理学家大卫·阿尔伯特（David Albert，1954- ）：

我们不知道在量子力学里，如何把自己作为观察者与世界联系起来。我们不知道如何将自己视为观察者。我们仅仅是所描述的物理系统的另一部分。我们了解量子力学的唯一方法，是把观察者放在你所描述的系统之外。

一旦纳入观察者，矛盾就来了。我们被迫这样来谈量子力学，“看，这书之所以这样，是因为量子力学。” “我看到它，是因为我在那。”你最好不要分析这话的后半段，从应用量子力学的角度。因为它会崩溃。

这就产生了两套独立系统。在物理学发展过程中，一套在你不看时适用，另外一套看时适用。这让人抓狂。

弗雷德·沃尔夫：

我们永远不可能用数学去量化这个有意识的观察者而给出答案。有人会说，“那好，只用测量仪器，将数据都记录在磁带上。”但你忘了方程的一部分，总得有人去看录像带。直到有人看了录像带，它才被记录。

阿米特·戈斯瓦米：

不看时，是各种可能性的波动。看的时候，就是经验的组合。

心理学家杰弗里·萨提纳瓦（Jeffrey Satinover，1947- ）：

我们认为粒子是个固体，事实上它是个所谓的“叠加态”，一个可能位置的扩散波，同时存在于所有位置。你看它的那一刻，咔！就出现在其中一个可能的位置。

大卫·阿尔伯特：

很容易产生这样的情况，波动方程能够预测，例如，某个篮球的波函数均匀分布在整个篮球场上。我们没办法描述那种情况，根据量子力学的法则，它应该是一种状态，那是一种没任何意义的状态。甚至连问“篮球在哪”都没有任何意义。

也就是说，根据量子力学的法则来问问题，“波函数均匀分布在整个篮球场上的篮球会在哪里？”其逻辑等同于询问“5 这个数字的婚姻状况”，是吧？不是你不知道答案，你不会碰巧知道数字 5 是已婚还是单身，这个问题根本就不合情理，数字 5 根本就没有婚姻状况，也就没啥好问的。同样的，如果一个篮球的波函数均匀分布在整个篮球场上，那么篮球的位置甚至不可能被询问。

现在，测量问题的关键是，虽然薛定谔方程在某些情况下可以用来预测，我们基本上知道如何在实验室进行模拟，预测篮球的状态，一种不合任何常理的状态——问“篮球在哪？”是不合理的。

然而，当我们去球场看个究竟，我们总是看到一个篮球在这里，或者有个篮球在那，或者在那。我们在某个特定位置看到篮球这个事实，不是科幻小说中说的那种无法想象的状态，那种状态你不能问“篮球在哪？”我们总是在某个确定的位置看到它，这明显违背了波动方程。测量问题就摆在这里。

弗雷德·沃尔夫：

观察时事情就会发生，不观察就不发生。

小男孩：

超人会用叠加态在各地现身，大家看到的。超人选择他们想要的，同时在很多地方经历不同的事，去拯救世界。

问题是，你想在兔子洞里走多远。

杰弗里·萨提纳瓦：

你自己的思想在你的潜意识中创造了多种可能性，以交叠态存在于你的潜意识中。我的意思是，你能意识到它们的存在。我认为是多种可能性的叠加，过一段时间就崩缩到其中某一个可能。

心理学家迪恩·雷丁（Dean Radin，1952- ）：

是计划，还是意念创造出未来？

小男孩：

投中了。

卡通 Q 博士：

而量子最最古怪的行为，是“纠缠态”。如果说“时间反转对称性”摧毁了时间的概念，那么“纠缠态”就摧毁了我们对空间的经验。

这两个物体，同时生成的一对电子具有纠缠态。把一个送到宇宙的另一边，然后你对其中一个做点什么，另一个立刻就有反应，立刻！所以，无论信息是否真的以无限大的速度传输，它们一直都关联着，它们纠缠在一起。

既然宇宙万物曾经纠缠在一起，在大爆炸那一刻。这就意味着万物本是一体的。空间只是一种构造，它给人一种万物分离的错觉。


影片原版字幕片段

Cartoon Dr. Q：

And here we are, the granddaddy of all quantum weirdness: the infamous double-slit experiment.
To understand this experiment, we first need to see how particles or little balls of matter, act. If we randomly shoot a small object, say a marble, at the screen we see a pattern on the back wall where they went through the slit and hit.

Now, if we add a second slit we would expect to see a second band duplicated to the right.

Now, let's look at waves. The waves hit the slit and radiate out striking the back wall with the most intensity directly in line with the slit. The line of brightness on the back screen shows that intensity. This is similar to the line the marbles make. But when we add the second slit something different happens. If the top of one wave meets the bottom of another wave they cancel each other out. So now there is an interference pattern on the back wall. Places where the two tops meet are the highest intensity—the bright lines—and where they cancel, there is nothing.

So, when we throw things, that is, matter, through two slits we get this—two bands of hits. And with waves, we get an interference pattern of many bands. Good, so far. Now, let's go quantum.

An electron is a tiny, tiny bit of matter like a tiny marble. Let's fire a stream through one slit. It behaves just like the marble: a single band. So if we shoot these tiny bits through two slits we should get, like the marbles, two bands.

What? An interference pattern. We fired electrons, tiny bits of matter, through. But we get a pattern like waves not like little marbles. How? How could pieces of matter create an interference pattern like a wave? It doesn't make sense.

But physicists are clever. They thought, "Maybe those little balls are bouncing off each other and creating that pattern. " So they decide to shoot electrons through one at a time. There is no way they could interfere with each other. But after an hour of this, the same interference pattern is seen to emerge.

The conclusion is inescapable. The single electron leaves as a particle becomes a wave of potentials goes through both slits and interferes with itself to hit the wall like a particle. But mathematically, it's even stranger. It goes through both slits and it goes through neither. And it goes through just one and it goes through just the other. All of these possibilities are in superposition with each other. But physicists were completely baffled by this. So they decided to peek and see which slit it actually goes through. They put a measuring device by one slit to see which one it went through and let it fly.

But the quantum world is far more mysterious than they could've imagined. When they observed, the electron went back to behaving like a little marble. It produced a pattern of two bands not an interference pattern of many. The very act of measuring, or observing which slit it went through meant it only went through one, not both. The electron decided to act differently as though it was aware it was being watched. And it was here that physicists stepped forever into the strange, never—world of quantum events.

What is matter, marbles or waves? And waves of what? And what does an observer have to do with any of this? The observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing.

Amit Goswami：

We are always the observer. But sometimes we identify with the events so much so that we even lose the aspect of the observer. That's why the materialist gets totally lost and thinks that we could do without the observer.

Fred Alan WolfPh.D.（1934- ）：

The physics data tells us that the—that an object itself is really a simplification for what's we call "out there. " One is particularly—When we're looking at atomic and subatomic particles or atomic and subatomic matter in any form what we find is how we go to look at it or what we choose to examine it with actually changes the properties of what we observe to be out there.

Ramtha：

Is this the observer and which is so intricate to understanding the wacky, weird world of quantum particles and how they react? Is this then the observer? And even though we cannot have a quantum field without the observation of scientists who have gone there who have uncovered it layer after layer after layer. They're all observers but not one of them agree conclusively on all points in the field because they're perceiving the field mathematically from different angles of perception.

David Albert Ph.D.（1954- ）：

We don't know in quantum mechanics how to hook ourselves as observers up with the world. We don't know how to treat ourselves as observers as just another part of the physical system that we're describing. The only way we know how to do quantum mechanics as it's traditionally formulated is to keep the observer outside of the system you're describing. Uh, the minute you put him in, you get all these paradoxes. And we're forced to say things in quantum mechanics like "Look, the book is doing what it's doing because of quantum mechanics." "And I see that because I'm there and I see it." "And you'd better not try to analyze that second part of the sentence in terms of applying quantum mechanics to it, because it's gonna break down. " That's why there are these two separate laws of the evolutions of physical systems one that applies when you're not looking at them the other that applies when you are. But that's crazy.

Fred Alan Wolf：

There's no way that we're ever going to mathematize or put into mathematical formula this very act in which a conscious observer comes up with the answer. People say, "Oh, the measuring instruments, the recorder records it. And there it is. It's on the tape. It's recorded. " You forgot one part of the equation. Somebody has to look at the tape. And until somebody looks at the tape, it ain't recorded at all.

Amit Goswami：

When you are not looking, they are waves of possibility. When we are looking, then they're particles of experience.

Jeffrey Satinover M.D.（1947- ）：

A particle, which we think of as a solid thing really exists in a so-called "superposition" a spread-out wave of possible locations and it's in all of those at once. The instant you check on it it snaps into just one of those possible positions.

David Albert：

It's easy to generate situations where the equations of motion will predict that, say, the wave function—the psi of a certain basketball—is uniformly distributed all over the basketball court. We don't have any idea what a state like that would look like. Um, according to the law of quantum mechanics that's supposed to be a state in which it fails to make any sense even to ask the question, "Where is the basketball?" That is, according to the law of quantum mechanics asking the question, "Where is a basketball whose psi is uniformly distributed over a whole basketball court?" is the logical equivalent of asking about, say, the marital status of the number five. Okay? It's not that you don't know the answer—you don't happen to know whether the number five is married or a bachelor—it's that the question somehow is radically inappropriate in the first place. The number five doesn't have a marital status. There's nothing there to ask about. And similarly, a basketball whose wave function was uniformly distributed over the entire basketball court would not have a position that could even coherently be asked about.

Now, um, the crux of the measurement problem is precisely that although the Schrodinger equation predicts under certain circumstances—circumstances which we basically know how to reproduce in the laboratory—that basketballs should go into states like that—states where there fails to be any intelligible fact—um, any—any sensible question even about where they are. And yet, when we go look—look at the basketball court in situations like that we invariably see either a basketball over here or a basketball over there or a basketball over there. The fact that we see the basketball in some specific location as opposed to seeing it in some science fiction state that we can't even imagine what it looks like where there fails to be a question about what its location is—The fact that we always see it in some definite location is an explicit violation of these equations of motion. And it's exactly there that the measurement problem comes up.

Fred Alan Wolf：

When you observe, things happen. When you don't, they don't.

Boy：

Superheroes use superposition with the world being potential strips of reality until we choose. Heroes choose what they want—being in many places at once, experiencing many possibilities all at once and then collapsing on the one. The question is, how far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go?

Jeffrey Satinover：

Your own mind is creating multiple possibilities in your subconscious. The superpositions of possibilities are in your subconscious. I mean, you may be consciously aware of them, but they exist, I think in superposition of multiple possibilities—which after a while will collapse to one or the other.

Dean Radin（1952- ）：

project or plan into the future or cast a thought ahead of itself.

Boy：

Nice shot.

Dr. Q：

But the great, great grandaddy of wacky quantum weirdness is entanglement. If time reversal symmetry destroys the notion of time then entanglement crushes our experience of space.Two objects, two electrons created together are entangled. Send one to the other side of the universe. Now, do something to one and the other responds instantly. Instantly. So, either information is traveling infinitely fast or in reality, they are still connected. They are entangled. And since everything was entangled at the moment of the big bang that means everything is still touching. Space is just the construct that gives the illusion that there are separate objects.

电影《What the Bleep!?: Down the Rabbit Hole》（2006）字幕

https://subscene.com/subtitles/what-the-bleep-down-the-rabbit-hole/english/1723942