On the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement · means of this example. ... Age, education and motivation for engaging this area of research The hands-on assignment within

Diplomarbeit

Titel der Diplomarbeit

On the Counter-Intuitiveness ofQuantum Entanglement

Verfasser

DI(FH) Reinhard Stanzl

angestrebter akademischer Grad

Magister der Philosophie (Mag.phil.)

Wien, im März 2012

Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 296Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: PhilosophieBetreuer: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Martin Kusch

Contents

1 Introduction 71.1 Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2 Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.3 Method and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3.1 Key Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.3.2 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.3.3 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.3.4 Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2 Quantum Entanglement 132.1 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1.1 Thought Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.1.2 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.1.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.2 Schrödinger’s Definition of Entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.2.1 Definition: Entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.2.2 Epistemological Groundwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.2.3 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.2.4 Ψ-function, Catalogue of Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182.2.5 Entanglement by Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3 Interim Conclusion 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.4 Bell Inequalities and Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.5 Interim Conclusion 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 Quantum Opto-Mechanics 253.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.2 The Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2.1 Fabry-Pèrot Cavity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273.2.2 Radiation Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3

Contents

3.2.3 Cantilever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2.4 Putting it Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2.5 Requirements for Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.2.6 Paradigmatic Model and Experimental Forks . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4 The Aspelmeyer Group 354.1 Research Topic and Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.2 My Relationship to the Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.3 Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.4 The Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.4.1 Dr. Witlef Wieczorek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.4.2 Dilek Demir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.4.3 Dr. Nikolai Kiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.4.4 Mag. Florian Blaser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.4.5 Dr. Garrett Cole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.4.6 Jonas Hörsch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.4.7 Prof. Dr. Markus Aspelmeyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.5 Issues Raised by the Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5 Counter-Intuitiveness 435.1 General Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.2 Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.3 Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.3.1 By Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.3.2 Notion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6 Coping 676.1 Aim of Science? Coherent System of Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6.2 New Generations of Scientists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

6.3 Bachelard: Reason Instructed by Fabricated Experience . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.3.1 Pedagogics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6.3.2 Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

7 Conclusion 81

Bibliography 87

Appendices 93

4

Contents

A Acknowledgment 95

B Group: Supplementary Notes 97

C Transcription of Interviews 99

D Resume 137

E Abstract 139E.1 Abstract (English) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139E.2 Abstract (German) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

5

1 Introduction

1.1 Setting

Quantum mechanics is claimed to be a very successful theory in physics. However, there is ageneral debate that a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics might still be lacking.1 Ageneral tone of puzzlement, the complications in conveying the theory to the ‘layman’ and asubtle need for repeated re-assurance of the foundations of quantum mechanics in the lightof newly discovered effects can be seen as indicators for such an explanatory deficiencyof the theory. The feature of quantum mechanics which is at the core of this discussionis quantum entanglement. It is appropriate to consider quantum entanglement as the keyeffect of quantum mechanics. On the one hand because it is central to the debate about theuneasiness, or let us say counter-intuitiveness, of quantum mechanics in the past and present.On the other hand because it is the key resource of recent experimental and technologicalendeavors.

To me as a student of philosophy and physics, this is a unique and noteworthy situation intoday’s sciences. It is even more interesting because of the continuing experimental progressof the last few decades. The thought experiments which provoke counter-intuitiveness are,or are on the verge of, being realized by actual experiments. Additionally, this evolutionaryprocess is being propelled by the prospect of yielding new, unprecedented technologies.

1.2 Goal

In order to make this attractive point in time accessible for debate, I will attempt to depicta plausible picture of the situation. Although limited in cogency due to the use of examplesand samples to state the thesis2, I intend to put forward a comprehensive notion of quan-

1 See for instance Bokulich and Jaegger 2010, p.1.2 Especially due to the fact that I have picked one experimental system, interviewed only the people involved,

and I am also being educated at the same Viennese physics institute, it is apt to claim simply local validity.

7

1 Introduction

tum entanglement at the intersection of fundamental counter-intuitiveness and experimentalproduction. Put differently, I will approach the notion of the counter-intuitiveness of en-tanglement by regarding those carrying out the experiments. Doing so will hopefully helpto clarify what is meant by scientists expressing that “quantum mechanics runs counter totheir/our intuition”, to point out which essential intuitions are involved in the actual experi-ments, and what can be revealed about the peculiarities of this counter-intuitiveness.

1.3 Method and Structure

The method, or the general tone in which this thesis is written, is a hybrid one. I intend todepict a stimulating picture of the current situation concerning the counter-intuitiveness ofquantum entanglement by utilizing different types of approaches:

• Introduction of key principles of quantum mechanics using pivotal papers of the earlyyears

• Description of a current experimental system which tackles the counter-intuitive funda-mentals of quantum mechanics

• Exploration of interviews conducted with the people developing and operating this ex-perimental system

• Scrutinizing the statements made in the interviews in the light of key concepts of GastonBachelard’s epistemology

1.3.1 Key Principles

In this introductory section I will put forward the very aspects of quantum entanglement,which challenge the let us say ‘classical’ intuitions. The theoretical grounds on whichcounter-intuitiveness can be pinpointed are depicted by highlighting the major fundamentaldifferences between quantum and classical mechanics. This specifically concerns the dif-ferent understandings of measurement, entanglement, state and property.3 I will refer to theoriginal papers of Albert Einstein et al. (EPR 1935) and Erwin Schrödinger (Schrödinger1935). On the one hand to appreciate the historicity of this topic, and on the other handbecause these initial contributions are very clear-cut and still valid.

A more universal suitability of the thesis is nevertheless not excluded, but might need further support.3 Wave-particle duality will not be invoked due to its rather minor contribution to the understanding of quan-

tum entanglement.

8


It is important to record that this thesis follows and rests upon a minimal mainstreamCopenhagen-type interpretation. Other interpretations of quantum mechanics are not re-ally considered here, but will be mentioned selectively. It is my conviction4 that one rea-son why there are a multitude of equivalent interpretations around to date (e.g. variants ofBohm’s mechanics, Many Worlds,...) is that each suffers from distinct points of counter-intuitiveness. These might differ in their specific content, but they are equal in their capacityto violate classical intuition. However, it is sensible to explicate the notion of counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement along the lines of the mainstream5 interpretation.It will be the tacit background of this thesis. Distinct tenets which are necessary willbe introduced separately if required for argumentation; for instance Schrödinger’s account(Schrödinger 1935).

1.3.2 Experiment

The entry point of the thesis is a current experiment, or rather an experimental system, whichtries to realize opto-mechanical entanglement. This experimental system is operated by thegroup Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information on the Nano- and Microscale at thefaculty of physics at the University of Vienna, headed by Prof. Dr. Markus Aspelmeyer.6

Their main research objective “[...] is to investigate the quantum effects of nano- and mi-croscale systems and their implications for the foundations and applications of quantumphysics. [Their] goal is to gain access to a completely new parameter regime for experimen-tal physics with respect to both size and complexity.”(Aspelmeyer Group 2011)

This experimental system has been chosen because it incorporates the following features:Firstly, it establishes and studies quantum entanglement, which is the characteristic featureof quantum mechanics, at a size scale close to the ‘classical’ macroscopic world. Henceit questions anew the passage between quantum and classical mechanics.7 Moreover, itsultimate success, i.e. the entanglement of optical and mechanical oscillation, which is closebut has not yet been reached, is a rich soil for anticipating the outcome and contemplating themeaning of the possible results. Secondly, the experimental system poses the fundamentalquestion about the validity limits of quantum mechanics, not explicitly stated by theory and

4 Since I do not have the necessary insights into all interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is more of a pro-found belief. A comparison of the major interpretations with regard to their specific counter-intuitivenesswould be preferable, but is not within the scope of this thesis.

5 At least it is mainstream in the academic education I was schooled in and which I know of from othercolleagues.

6 Henceforth referred to as the ‘group’ or the ‘Aspelmeyer group’.7 For instance, see Schrödinger’s cat (Schrödinger 1935, p.812,vol.48)

9

1 Introduction

hence eminently subject to experimental probing. Thirdly, it nicely illustrates the necessarymastery over technical challenges and limits in order to make the experiments even possible.

For all those general reasons I see this experimental set-up as a typical example for the cur-rent situation in experimental quantum mechanics. Of course, being an example it certainlyhas its particularities. However the idea is to elucidate the questions posed in this thesis bymeans of this example. A vital part of the thesis will thus consist of a non-mathematicalintroduction to this experimental set-up.

1.3.3 Interviews

At the heart of the thesis are the interviews conducted with members of the Aspelmeyergroup. I carried out seven interviews at lengths of about 30 to 45 minutes. The intervieweeswere chosen to be a representative sample of all group members with respect to their aca-demic status and their involvement in the various experiments being currently implementedby the group. I thus interviewed undergraduates, graduates, PhD students, post-doctorateresearch fellows and the group leader. The assortment of the interviews was not carriedout beforehand, but developed during the course of the interviews as it became clear to mewhich people were of interest.

The interviews generally serve two purposes. First they are a viable way of efficiently ap-proaching the group and getting a glimpse of the insights of their structure and their op-erating principles. This will become more apparent in section 4 The Aspelmeyer Group.Secondly, the analysis of the notion of counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement willbe backed by reference to the statements of those people who are responsible for the actualexperimental implementation of the nano- and microscale quantum systems.

The interviews were conducted in a very straightforward and frank way, as everybody, in-cluding myself, but excepting the group leader, were novices to interviews. In addition, mylevel of training in quantum physics allowed me to resort to a common ground of knowledgewith the interviewees and hence communicate on a par. There was also no strict adherenceto a questionnaire. Nevertheless, I did prepare a list of questions, but they served rather as acrib sheet and as a crutch so as not to forget to tackle all of the following key issues:

• Age, education and motivation for engaging this area of research

• The hands-on assignment within the group and the actual experiment

• The interviewee’s personal take on the relationship between interpretation, theory andexperiment, especially in this specific case

10


• Their personal take on the matter of counter-intuitiveness and how to deal with it

• How does experimenting help in comprehending the subject matter

1.3.4 Philosophy

In order to elaborate the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement in more philosoph-ical detail, I will refer to key concepts devised by Gaston Bachelard. As a French physicist,philosopher and historian of science, active in the first half of the twentieth century, he advo-cated a rationalist constructivist epistemology. Long before Thomas Kuhn’s historicism ofscience and his referral to revolutionary breaks in science, Bachelard became a representa-tive of a French tradition of emphasizing the historical dimensions of science and its ruptures(Nickles 2011). In Le Nouvel Esprit Scientifique (Bachelard 1988), Bachelard argues for thepresence of a shift in the conception of the world in physics, considering the new insightsbrought forth by, for instance, quantum physics. Classical perspectives in physics, as ratio-nal they may have been in their own time, appeared to him to have become an obstacle toprogress in physics. Hence a new spirit of scientific rationale was established in that era.However, Bachelard’s account of discontinuity is not as radical as Kuhn’s. Bachelard speaksof progress and development towards the truth. He strongly stressed the fact that successorparadigms, such as non-Euclidean geometry or quantum physics, conserve their predeces-sors as special cases; particularly in their historical and as a consequence in their pedagogicalcontext. In this regard Bachelard developed an intelligible framework for describing scien-tific thinking and its change at the beginning of the twentieth century. I consider some of hisconcepts to be very fitting for studying the situation of the counter-intuitiveness of quantumentanglement.

First, as a physicist his ideas have a natural proximity to the subject matter. Reading aboutthe pivotal physical examples for a new scientific spirit, such as the rise of quantum physics,conveys the feeling especially with someone literate in physics that he certainly captured therelevant aspects in a comprehensible way. Although Bachelard does not specifically refer toquantum entanglement, his practical ideas of how to make conceptualization intelligible inthis context are very helpful and hence will be deployed in this thesis. In concrete terms,I will make use of Bachelard’s idea of the epistemological profile, and to some extend hisPhilosophy of the No (Bachelard 1980). The former will be applied to quantum entangle-ment in order to show and specify, at the locus of the very notion, the difference between‘normal’ physical terms and quantum entanglement.8 The latter will then be used to further

8 See section 5.3.2 Notion

11

1 Introduction

stress the point by applying the basic idea of Bachelard’s Philosophy of the No to quantumentanglement. In general, the idea is that every comprehension of a (physical) matter is thesum of justified criticism to (i.e. saying no to) a specific, initial and naive picture of under-standing.9 I will show that such an initial, naive picture is far from being intuitive in the caseof quantum entanglement.

The second aspect which makes Bachelard a unique source for the tools used to study thecounter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement is his type of rationalism. As a consequenceof the analysis of the new scientific mind, Bachelard advocates the idea that it is best de-scribed by a rationalism whose reason is instructed by fabricated experience. I definitelyagree with such an understanding of what happens in physical experimental science eventoday. This becomes apparent when seen in the light of the experiment(s) put forward inthis thesis, especially their dependence on technology and how a phenomenon like quantumentanglement is actually fabricated.10

As a third concept I will also briefly refer to Bachelard’s historicity of science. SpecificallyI will pick up the idea that the historical genesis of the comprehension of a matter is alsoreflected in the pedagogics of the matter. For instance, although Euclidean geometry isonly a special case of non-Euclidean geometry, in teaching we follow the historical order– which is also a philosophical order – from the naive realistic to the growing rationalistunderstanding. Hence for Bachelard, pedagogics connects the historical with the conceptualaspects. This approach will be the background for cues given at the end of the thesis whenasking if and how we should cope with the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement.

Certainly many other philosophers of science have dealt with each of these three aspects aswell; probably in even more detail and depth. The point of restricting this thesis to Bachelardis generally due to the way these philosophical concepts are applied. My intention is not tocompare different philosophical approaches in the light of a case study, namely quantumopto-mechanics. The idea is to utilize a generally fitting and intelligible set of philosophicalconcepts to depict the situation of the counter-intuitiveness of a physical concept, say quan-tum entanglement, represented by the case study. Bachelard’s thoughts make it possible onthe one hand to comprehensibly present the subject matter, but on the other hand also to raisefurther questions pointing beyond this thesis. As an early representative of the philosophyand history of science, Bachelard’s epistemology anticipates many aspects fleshed out by hissuccessors and hence sustains enough topicality to be of relevance for the questions at hand.

9 See section 5.3.2 Philosophy of the No10 See section 6.3 Bachelard: Reason Instructed by Fabricated Experience

12

2 Quantum Entanglement

2.1 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen

In order to introduce the basis of counter-intuitiveness in quantum mechanics and especiallythat of quantum entanglement, I will roughly retrace the influential key papers of the his-torical developments in this field. The starting point is the paper by Einstein, Podolsky andRosen (EPR) (EPR 1935). By devising a specific thought experiment the authors of theEPR paper intended to show that the quantum mechanical description of physical reality isincomplete. That is to say that not every element of the physical reality has a counterpartin the theory of quantum mechanics. The inability of quantum mechanics to predict themeasurement result of a physical quantity with certainty1 is, according to Einstein et al.,due to the insufficiency of quantum mechanics to consider all relevant variables necessaryto predict a measurement result with certainty. Therefore it is apt to assume a yet unknownhidden variable, which if found and taken into account would yield certain measurementresults instead of the statistical ones put forward by quantum mechanics. Theories followingthis line of thought are called hidden variable theories (HVT).

2.1.1 Thought Experiment

The very core of the EPR paper is a thought experiment which can be paradigmaticallyexplicated as follows:2

For a start we will consider a source which produces two objects, e.g. particles. One is sentto site A, which is commonly called Alice, and the other one to site B, referred to as Bob.Alice and Bob are very far apart; space and time separated. This means that whatever isdone, for instance at Alice, has no immediate influence on what happens at Bob, becausethe fastest possible speed with which an influence could travel from one side to the other is

1 See section 2.2 Schrödinger’s Definition of Entanglement for details.2 For more details see (Mermin 1985)

13


Source

Alice

+

−

+

−

−

+

Bob

−

+

−

+

+

−

1

2

3

4

56

obs:

Figure 2.1: Paradigmatic EPR experiment

the speed of light3. Spacing Alice and Bob so far apart makes it possible to conclude thatmeasurements conducted at Alice can in no way influence the results of measurements atBob, if both measurements are finished in faster succession than light could travel betweenthe two sites. This assumption of the EPR paper is generally called the locality assumption.

The second assumption is about the physical reality of properties. “If without in any waydisturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e. with probability equal to unity) thevalue of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding tothis physical quantity.”(EPR 1935, p.777) In other words, if we are able to predict with cer-tainty the result of a non-disturbed measurement, it is fitting to say that the specific measuredquantity existed prior to the measurement.4

2.1.2 Measurement

Our next step is to conduct a series of measurements. Each new run is a sequence of si-multaneously5 measuring the physical quantity of the objects produced at the source andsent to Alice and Bob anew. For reasons of simplification the physical quantity measuredin our example can only result in + or −. At the end we will have obtained two lists, oneof Alice’s measurement results and one of Bob’s; see figure 2.1. Comparing the results ofthe two lists, we apparently recognize that in this example there is a strong anti-correlationbetween the measurement results of Alice and those of Bob. At the first measurement (obs:

3 See Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT).4 See section 2.2 Schrödinger’s Definition of Entanglement for the differences to quantum mechanics.5 In order to maintain locality.

14

2.2 Schrödinger’s Definition of Entanglement

1) Alice received a + and Bob a −. Analyzing the entire lists, the modest conclusion whichcan be drawn is that whatever we measure at one site, the other site will have the oppositeresult. Due to the assumption of locality, it is impossible that the measurement result knownat one site was somehow sent to the other site and manipulated the measurement there insuch a way as to always show the opposite of the result of the other site. Hence, accord-ing to Einstein et al., the only possibility why we measure such an anti-correlation betweenthe sites, which are so far apart, is that the physical quantity measured was already givenwith certainty at the source of the object prior to the measurement (see reality assumption).Therefore a physical process in the source – which brings about the distinct anti-correlationof the measurement results in each particular case – must be taken for granted.

2.1.3 Conclusion

The core of the matter is that quantum mechanics6, as we will see very soon, describesthe situation and its results, portrayed above, necessarily without the need for a processlocated in the source pre-determining the distinct physical quantities. This circumstanceis primarily owing to its divergent understanding of measurement. From the standpointof Einstein et al., this is exactly why the theory of quantum mechanics is deficient andincomplete. For the sake of having a complete theory, “every element of the physical realitymust have a counterpart in the physical theory.”(EPR 1935, p.777) Quantum mechanics lacksa theoretical representation of the real (i.e. which serves the reality assumption) physicalprocess in the source determining the physical quantities with certainty, which is commonlyparaphrased as the absence of, or the need for, a hidden variable.

How the thought experiment (EPR 1935) is seen from the point of view of quantum me-chanics and its key to a solution, namely entanglement, will be put forward in the light ofSchrödinger’s famous paper (Schrödinger 1935).


The first person to coin the notion of quantum entanglement was Erwin Schrödinger in his1935 article Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik in the journal Die Natur-

wissenschaften (Schrödinger 1935). It was a response, or as Schrödinger called it in a foot-note, a confession, to the other famous article of that year (EPR 1935). The approach of un-

6 Be reminded that Schrödinger’s depiction of quantum mechanics is the point of view here.

15


derstanding quantum mechanics, and especially entanglement, put together by Schrödingercan still be considered influential for the current, orthodox7 comprehension of quantum me-chanics. Therefore it is beneficial to provide a compact rundown of Schrödinger’s reasoningin this paper. I will start by picking out the definition of entanglement and then clarify whichpresuppositions are implied.

2.2.1 Definition: Entanglement

“Maximale Kenntnis von einem Gesamtsystem schließt nicht notwendig maximale Kenntnis

aller seiner Teile ein, auch dann nicht, wenn dieselben völlig voneinander abgetrennt sind und

einander zur Zeit gar nicht beeinflussen.”

– Schrödinger 1935, p.826, vol.49

“Maximal knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its

parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not

influencing each other at all.”

– Schrödinger8

2.2.2 Epistemological Groundwork

For Schrödinger, understanding the behavior of a natural object entails experimental dataand some intuitive imagination, say an own image, idea or conception, which can be muchmore detailed than any possible experience. It is comparable to a mathematical structure ora geometric figure. For example, we have a notion of a triangle which can be fully calculatedand determined by only knowing some of the possible determining parts. One side of thetriangle and its two adjoining angles are enough – given the precise concept of a triangle –to determine all the other possible parameters of the triangle, such as the length of the twoother sides, the third angle, the radius of the inscribed circle and so on.

Considering that natural objects are not geometrical figures, it is advisable not to carry thisanalogy too far. That is to say natural objects change with time, so knowing the determin-ing parts and having a proper idea of the object’s behavior in time allows us to calculate

7 Throughout this thesis a minimalist version – meaning in terms of metaphysical statements necessary forreferencing the mathematics with the experimental phenomena – of the Copenhagen interpretation of quan-tum mechanics is considered orthodox or mainstream.

8 Translation by John D. Trimmer, published in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124,323-38. [And then appeared as Section I.11 of Part I of Quantum Theory and Measurement (J.A. Wheelerand W.H. Zurek, eds., Princeton University Press, New Jersey 1983).]

16


each future state of the object. In addition, despite having an exact model in the realms ofgeometrical figures, we ought to take notions, ideas or models of the real world more ashypotheses. As in the case of hypotheses, we do not circumvent the arbitrariness inherent inevery notion, but it can be isolated in the presuppositions and from a calculus. The classicalmethod of a precise model aims to improve on isolating the inevitable arbitrariness in itssuppositions by adapting it to the continuing experiences gathered (via experiments).

In summary, for Schrödinger, a model of a natural object is the image or idea and contains,for example, certain laws or relations. Each model has variables, e.g. coordinates, massor speed, which can be observed, or rather measured, and hence are called observables. Astate is the concrete realization, i.e. an instance, of the model with definite values of itsobservables.

2.2.3 Measurement

In a classical, naive realistic view, every observable has a specific value at all times. It mightchange over time, but by looking at it at one moment, i.e. at a certain state, it is fixed.Here the measurement just reads out the value of the examined observable. The inability tomeasure an exact value, or better put, to measure within some margin of error, is due to theimperfection of the measurement process. This naive realistic understanding of measure-ment presupposes the pre-existence of a value of an observable prior to its measurement. Aswe have already seen, this is the understanding Einstein clinged to and hence concluded thatquantum mechanics was not complete in its description of physical reality.9

A totally different notion of measurement is the quantum mechanical one. It does not assumea pre-existing value, but considers that ’only what is measured is real’ and refuses any claimto knowledge prior to the measurement. With this notion of measurement it is possible thatthe observable is not necessarily pre-determined, but has a certain probability of deliveringthis or that value in the cause of a certain measurement. Hence this understanding and therelevant calculus can tell to which degree of prediction accuracy a measurement is feasible.In contrast to the classical view, where imperfections in determining the exact value are dueto the imperfections of the measurement, the fundamental probability of obtaining a certainvalue remains, even given that the measurement is perfect. Schrödinger expresses this differ-ence with an illuminating analogy. “Es ist ein Unterschied zwischen einer verwackelten oderunscharf eingestellten Photographie und einer Aufnahme von Wolken und Nebelschwaden.”(Schrödinger 1935, p.812, vol.48) “There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus

9 See section 2.1 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

17


photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.”

As a consequence of rejecting naive realism, it is correct to presume that an observable ingeneral has no specific value prior to its measurement. Bluntly put, since reality does notdetermine the measurement result, the measurement has to determine reality (Schrödinger1935, p.824, vol.49). This implies that by means of the measurement, the observable be-comes the resulting value. Repeating the measurement will result in the same value; ofcourse within error margins. In a strict sense there is no difference between the naive real-istic and the quantum mechanical view; both fulfill the criteria of returning the same mea-surement result on repetition of the measurement. What type of repetition? So far, repeatingthe measurement is understood as just resetting the measurement device and making a newmeasurement. Sticking to the naive realistic view there is no difference if, in addition toresetting the measurement apparatus, the measured object is also set back to its initial state.Classically, a measurement is not supposed to change a pre-exiting value in the course ofthe measurement (non-interfering measurement) and hence the measured value of the objectis no different whether it is the result of the first measurement or a later one. However, ac-cording to the quantum mechanical view there is a uniqueness to the first measurement ofa system. As the measurement determines the previously unknown, or to be more preciseundetermined, value of the observable, there is no interaction-free measurement and everymeasurement of the same object which follows the first one only replicates the result of thisfirst determining measurement. Consequently, in order to acquire information on how themeasured object and the measurement apparatus interact and which distribution of observ-able values one receives, it is necessary to repeat a series of ‘first’ measurements. This meansthat after each measurement everything (measurement apparatus and measured object) hasto be reset to, or to put it more suitably, re-prepared in its initial state. The result of such asequence of ab ovo measurements is a statistical distribution of the values of the measuredobservable resulting from the interaction between the specific state the measured object is inand the measurement process/apparatus.

2.2.4 Ψ-function, Catalogue of Expectations

The instrument of describing and predicting the probability of these measurement resultsis the Ψ-function. It completely represents the system and can been seen as a catalogueof expectations. From a classical point of view the Ψ-function seems to be incomplete10,because it does not determine which specific value will be the result of the measurement,

10 See section 2.1 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen

18


but merely provides the probability of measuring a specific value. However, a specific Ψ-function always has to be considered complete from the perspective of quantum mechanics.This holds true because in quantum mechanics adding a proclaimed unknown observable orhidden variable to the Ψ-function changes it completely. Different Ψ-functions express thatthe system in in different states, while complementary, identical Ψ-functions express thatthe systems are in the same state.

2.2.5 Entanglement by Example

For example, let us assume we have two separated, non-interacting objects, which thus havedifferent Ψ-functions. Now we make them interact and become one system in one state. Inthe classical view we would sum up the properties (specific values of the observables), alterthem by some proper laws of interaction and have a set of properties for the new combinedsystem. Separating the two objects once more would result in two objects with again twoindependent sets of properties. Of course they would not have the same values as before,due to the interaction with each other, but now after the separation they are no longer inter-dependent. This is the understanding of Einstein et al. of the physical process in the sourceof the EPR experiment (see figure 2.1).

From the quantum mechanical point of view, we do not have any pre-measurement values,but probability distributions. Making the two objects interact results in a new Ψ-function forthe total system. As an Ψ-function does not predefine any specific values, there is the possi-bility that due to the interaction of the two objects, the total Ψ-function is comprised of morethan the sum of the two separate ones. To be even more accurate: It is appropriate to saythat if two systems interact with each other, the Ψ-functions do not interact, but they ceaseto exist individually and only one for the total system remains (Schrödinger 1935, p.848,vol.50). This even holds true after the two objects have been separated again. Schrödingerdubbed this phenomenon entanglement.

The following simple example demonstrates this quantum mechanical interrelation betweenthe two systems after interacting (Schrödinger 1935, p.845, vol.50):

q = Q and p = −P (2.1)

This set of equations stands for: If the measurement of the observable q of the first systemreturns a certain value, a measurement of the observable Q of the second system results inthe same value. And the result of a measurement of p in the first system will have the same

19


result as a measurement of P in the second system, but with opposing sign and vice versa.

The measurement of either p or P or q or Q dissolves the entanglement, because as illus-trated above in the section about the quantum mechanical understanding of measurement,measuring determines a specific value and every further measurement yields the same result.Knowing one value renders the entanglement relation useless. If we want to experimentallytest whether this entanglement relation is a good model, we need to make many repetitionsof ab ovo measurements. The results, whatever the actual values are, will show that thereis this kind of entanglement relation (see equations 2.1) between those two systems. Thereliability of this test depends on the amount of repetitions of ab ovo measurements made;the more there are, the more probable is the conclusion of having an entanglement drawnfrom the measurements.

What would be the picture if we remained within the classical naive realistic view? It isalso possible to have a correlation between the two systems after separation as illustratedabove. However, the values exist prior to their measurement. Hence in order to explain thespecific sequence of, in this point of view, certain results of ab ovo measurements, we haveto suppose there is a process controlling this, namely a ‘hidden variable’.

2.3 Interim Conclusion 1

The thought experiment of the Einstein et al. paper (EPR 1935) links the following threefundamental statements about physics in such way that in order to avoid contradiction notall of them can be held to be true. Thus at least one of them must be rendered false.

Completeness: Quantum mechanics is a complete theory. According to the EPR paperthis means in a strict sense that every element of physical reality has its counterpart in thisphysical theory.

Reality: If we can predict with certainty the result of a measurement of a physical quan-tity without disturbing the measured system, then there is an element of physical realitycorresponding to this physical quantity.

Locality: Results of a measurement at one site do not influence the measurement result indistant (space and time separated) sites by any dynamical mechanism faster than the speedof light.

For Einstein et al. the reality and the locality assumption are matters of the very foundationsof physics and are certainly nothing to be abandoned lightly. Therefore they concluded

20


that quantum mechanics does not exhaustively describe physical reality, and opted for theexistence of a hidden variable.

The thought experiment and its showcase of the three contradicting statements is completelydifferently resolved according to Schrödinger’s view of quantum mechanics. As we haveseen, Schrödinger supports a different understanding of measurement and thereby under-mines the classical assumption of reality of the EPR paper. Moreover, and that is the key,by taking the essential principles of quantum mechanics seriously, he ends up with quantum

entanglement. This very notion allows quantum mechanics to give a complete description ofthe physical situation of the EPR thought experiment, but at the cost of subverting the realityassumption and/or the locality assumption. It is not done by blatant opposition, calling thestatements at stake simply false, but by rendering these assumptions irrelevant and pointless.

An important thing to note is that this dismissal of the classical reality and/or the localityassumption was not seen as automatically applying to the entirety of physics. In the earlydays, quantum mechanics was seen as a theory of very small size scales: atoms, particles,and so on. This fact can already be found in the very same paper by Schrödinger. There,besides developing the notion of entanglement, he emphasized the weirdness of applyingthese fundamentals of quantum mechanics to human scale objects by means of his famousSchrödinger’s cat experiment (Schrödinger 1935, p.812, vol.48).

In summary, we have examined two different understandings of how to interpret the EPRthought experiment and what conclusions to draw from it. The Einstein et al. and theSchrödinger perspectives rationally argue in favor of clinging on to fundamental assumptionswhich they want to preserve at the price of having to dismiss others. Both are equal in theirpower to explain the EPR thought experiment. At the time of the emergence of these twoviews there was no instance, preferably experimental evidence, that could decide whichunderstanding was the correct one. Therefore this rather metaphysical question tended to betreated hypothetically and thus did not have the publicity and the verve which we perceive itto have nowadays.11 The actual reason why the EPR thought experiment and the questionsconnected with it gained relevance in the 1970s was the development of a testing scheme(inequality) by John Stewart Bell (Bell 1964). In this way an instance was found that couldexperimentally decide which one of the two perspectives is correct.

11 “[...] (EPR) paper had 36 citations before 1980 and 456 more through June 2003.” (Redner 2005, p.3)

21


2.4 Bell Inequalities and Experiments

The question developed up to now is whether it is possible to understand quantum mechanicsin terms of a hidden variable, thus being a local realistic theory, or not. Despite an early,and to some extent deficient, attempt by von Neumann to prove that it is mathematicallyimpossible to have such a hidden variable in quantum mechanics, it was John Stewart Bellwho devised an inequality to test this question (Bell 1964; Compendium 2009, p.24f). Everylocal realist theory strictly complies with this inequality and quantum mechanics, on thecontrary, violates the inequality. Conducting an experiment which tests the inequality (Bellexperiment) can show that the predictions of quantum mechanics are accurate because theinequality is breached and hence there is experimental affirmation that quantum mechanicscannot be understood in terms of a local realistic theory. In consequence either the localityor the reality assumption, or maybe even both, have to be dismissed or considered pointless.

In 1981 Aspect et al. (Compendium 2009, p.14f) carried out much-noticed experimentsresulting in a violation of the CHSH inequality12 and thereby confirmed that quantum me-chanics is the case. Again, in principle any local realistic theory satisfies the inequality.The experiments show that the inequality is breached. Therefore any local realistic theoryis incapable to account for the experimental results. Whereas quantum mechanics handlesthem very well. Since these first experiments of the CHSH inequality conducted by Aspectet al. in the early eighties, there have been many different types of experiments carried outaffirming the violation of the inequality. (Gröblacher et al. 2007; Rowe et al. 2001; Scheidl2009; Weihs et al. 1998, to name just a few.)

Nonetheless, owing to actual limitations of the experimental capabilities of today, there arestill three types of possibilities to explain the results of these Bell experiments by hold-ing on to local realistic approaches. These categories of loopholes are called Fair Sam-

pling/Efficiency, Freedom of Choice and Locality (Compendium 2009, p.348f). Each ofthese loopholes have been closed individually, and also two of them at once (Quantum 2007;Scheidl 2009). There has been no experimentum crucis excluding all of the loopholes. How-ever, the better and more prudent the experiments are set up, the more complicated and themore devious it becomes to sustain an explanation of these loopholes in terms of a hiddenvariable theory.

12 A derivation of the Bell inequality (Compendium 2009, p.24f)

22



Again, the thought experiment of the EPR paper devises a relation of three fundamentalstatements of physics which renders at least one of them mutually exclusive to the others.Consequently either quantum mechanics is incomplete, measured quantities are not distinctprior to their measurement, or there is something like a superluminal way of interaction.Einstein et al. insisted on the priority of the last two and therefore held quantum mechan-ics to be incomplete. Quantum mechanics, however, here according to the description ofSchrödinger, defines itself very well as complete and consequently rejects the naive under-standing of reality and somehow also locality.

Both points of view refer to the same observable phenomena, i.e. results of the thoughtexperiment. Up until Bell there was no factual experimental criterion to opt for one or theother. He conceived a criterion to distinguish between the predictions of local realistic theo-ries and quantum mechanics (Bell inequality). This made it feasible to conduct experiments,and there have been many of them13 which have certified14 that quantum mechanics is com-plete, as it is able to describe every element of the physical world. The very mechanism,or better say the notion, which derives from the fundamentals of quantum mechanics15 andfully allows us to describe the relevant phenomena, is called quantum entanglement.

13 A very good indicator for the profoundness of the implementation of Bell experiments, at least for me, isthe existence of set-ups for laboratory training of physics students.

14 Of course the loopholes still have to be kept in mind.15 See section 2.2 Schrödinger’s Definition of Entanglement.

23

3 Quantum Opto-Mechanics

3.1 Introduction

A current field of quantum physics which will serve as a showcase and is very illustrative interms of counter-intuitiveness, is quantum opto-mechanics. In order to give a swift insightinto this area, I will start out with a common narrative about the origin or genesis of thisarea of research. It is a short, mostly causal, explanation of why scientists became engagedin this special topic and why “the surf is up”; citing the title of a paper (Aspelmeyer 2010)summarizing the spirit of optimism at a conference in July 2009. Although many papers inthis blossoming field are comprised of similar introductory sections, I will only refer to one(Vitali et al. 2007).

With reference to Schrödinger, the first to coin the term, entanglement is “the characteris-tic trait of quantum mechanics”, and hence the key to the insights of the fundamentals ofquantum physics – indeed of the physical reality – and a resource for the field of quantuminformation processing (e.g. quantum cryptography, teleportation, computing ...). Quantummechanics and consequently entanglement have been situated in the realm of the very small,and extrapolations to the human scale have resulted in odd peculiarities; see Schrödinger’scat (Schrödinger 1935, p.812, vol.48). Up until now experimental expertise and craftsman-ship in quantum physics was limited to the preparation, manipulation and measurement ofphotons, ions, atoms and at best some molecules (Gerlich et al. 2011).

However, in principle quantum mechanics does not pose any limitations to the scale of thesystems to be entangled. Thus, in order to learn more about the fundamentals of quantummechanics – plainly put, the passage between classical physics and quantum physics –, itseems straight-forward to face the challenges of producing entanglement with increasinglylarger macroscopic systems and to test whether one stumbles across any fundamental im-passibility apart from technical ones. Of course there is a large range of systems in physicswhich can be considered macroscopic. Some of them are experimentally workable with cur-rent and near future technologies, including and without further explanation or reference,

25


single-particle interference of macro-molecules, entanglement between collective spins ofatomic ensembles, or entanglement in Josephson-junction qubits. Nevertheless, the iconicprototype of a ‘classical’ system in physics is the mechanical oscillator, such as a pendulumor a mass on a spring.

Thanks to the huge advancements in microfabrication1 in recent years, it became feasible toproduce micro- and nano-mechanical oscillators with very high precision. How can thesesmall mechanical systems be controlled, i.e. prepared and measured? One obvious approachis to utilize a resource which seems to be well-known2 and well suited for the quantumrealm; photons. Combining these two domains, i.e. setting the mechanical system in motionthrough the radiation pressure of the light and also measuring its movement by light, bringsabout a paradigmatic experiment in the field of opto-mechanics. If it is the goal to attainquantum effects with such a set-up, as is the case here, it is apt to call it quantum opto-mechanics. On a theoretical level, several proposals which were written years before theirtechnical realization was possible describe what has to be done and which parameters haveto be met in order to achieve entanglement for such ‘massive’ systems.

However, a demonstration of quantum effects like entanglement using mechanical oscilla-tors has not been carried out so far. The roadblocks in the way of accomplishing the goalmostly consist of the necessary technology and its stable deployment. Therefore it is fairto say that opto-mechanics is currently in the position of a fast-developing field which is onthe verge of meeting its target. It has rich prospects in terms of applying and furthering theknowledge and skills gathered in its development. Reaching the quantum regime, i.e. see ef-fects specific to quantum mechanics, with macroscopic systems, especially ‘classically’ me-chanical ones, could not only trigger insights into the fundamentals of quantum mechanics,but also improvements and applications in areas like high precision measurement, quantumcomputation and storage, and many more not even conceivable to date.

3.2 The Experiments

The following experimental set-up which is being developed by the Aspelmeyer group con-forms with the very picture of a ‘classical’ mechanical oscillator and nicely fits in with themotives about quantum opto-mechanics presented above. It can be seen as the initial or

1 MEMS or NEMS, as it is often abbreviated, describes electromechanical structures in the scale of micro- ornanometers. The field originated from microelectronics and inherited many of its production toolsets, suchas lithography, etching, doping and so on.

2 The Viennese quantum community has established quite some expertise in setting up experiments whichuse photons as means for showing quantum effects (Quantum 2011b).

26

3.2 The Experiments

paradigmatic experiment. Most of the other experiments currently conducted by the groupare a deduction and advancement thereof.

The general goal of the experiment is to produce quantum entanglement between an opticalsystem, i.e. a stream of photons, and the oscillation of a suspended microscopic mirrorpushed by the radiation pressure of these photons (Vitali et al. 2007).

3.2.1 Fabry-Pèrot Cavity

For a starting point it is beneficial to explain what a Fabry-Pèrot cavity is and does. De-veloped in 1897 it consists of two parallel semitransparent mirrors at a specific distance.Light with a given frequency introduced at one side of the set-up enters the cavity via thefirst mirror, gets partially reflected by the second mirror and thus returns back to the firstmirror, gets partially reflected there, returns again to the second mirror and so forth. Hencemost of the light is reflected back and forth within the cavity. However, the mirrors are onlypartially reflective so some of the light leaves the cavity through the second mirror, i.e. getstransmitted through the cavity. The interesting measurement parameters of this cavity arethe intensity of the transmitted light and the phase shift between the light sent into the cavityand the light leaving the cavity.

Inside the cavity the light waves reflecting back and forth interfere with each other. Depend-ing on the length of the cavity, i.e. the distance between the two mirrors, there is either aconstructive interference and consequently a high intensity of the transmitted light or a de-structive interference which nearly annihilates the transmitted light at the output (see figure3.1).

In other words, the intensity of the transmitted light is very sensitive to the length of thecavity. If the length of the cavity is tuned to constructive interference between the injectedlight and the reflected light, the transmitted light is of high intensity. However, detuning thelength of the cavity by a very small amount destroys the constructive interference rapidly.The tiny shift in the light waves reflecting within the cavity add up to destructive interfer-ences due to the many reflections taking place and each contributing to the growing shiftbetween the injected light and the reflected light in the cavity.

This makes the Fabry-Pèrot cavity a simple, but trusted tool for measuring lengths, refractiveindices of matter, gravity waves3, spectroscopy and so on.

3 E.g. the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO 2011)

27


Figure 3.1: Interference within the Fabry-Pèrot cavity. Source: SkullsInTheStars 2008

3.2.2 Radiation Pressure

As early as 1871, James Clerk Maxwell theoretically concluded that electromagnetic radia-tion exerts pressure on the exposed surface. This phenomenon was effectively demonstratedby experiments in the early years of the twentieth century (Lebedew 1901; Nichols and Hull1903). However, radiation applies a very weak force on the lighted object, and hence it israther hard to detect. In order to reach the domain in which the radiation pressure is de-tectable, the mass of the lighted object has to be very small and its surface very reflective. Ina simple, classical picture this can be depicted as a stream of photons, meaning light, hittingthe surface like particles with a certain impetus. The impetus of a photon hitting an objectis fully transferred to the object only when the photon is reflected and not absorbed. On alarger scale, the effect of radiation pressure has been shown by the Japanese Aerospace Ex-ploration Agency4. In May 2010 they deployed a spacecraft which as one of its impellentsunfolded a large, thin kite which allowed it to sail with the radiation of the sun (solar wind);similarly to a kite surfer on earth using the wind for propulsion.

4 See (JAXA 2011)

28

3.2 The Experiments

3.2.3 Cantilever

In physics a cantilever is a beam supported only at one end. A simple example for a can-tilever is a diving board. Pushed by a momentary force, it oscillates with its resonant fre-quency. The oscillation diminishes at a certain rate due to external resistances like air drag,but also because of its suspension. A cantilever is a mechanical oscillator, like a pendulumor a spring.

In order to perform experiments which couple quantum optics with macroscopic mechanicaloscillators, it is necessary for the cantilever to meet certain criteria:

• The optical quality of the mirror at the tip of the cantilever has to be very high; i.e. it hasto be very reflective. Over 99.99% of the photons hitting the mirror have to be reflectedand not absorbed. In addition, the light beam hitting the mirror can only be focused toa certain degree, hence the size of the mirror has to be practically somewhat larger thanseveral micrometers (µm) in diameter.

• Each cantilever has a specific oscillation frequency which depends on its size, its form,the material it is made of and its suspension. There are thus many parameters whichhave to be tuned in order to fabricate a cantilever in the desired frequency range. In thisexperimental set-up an oscillation frequency of several megahertz is typical.

• The mass of the cantilever is also essential as it determines the amount of coupling be-tween the light and the cantilever. The smaller the mass of the cantilever, the more theradiation pressure of the light is able to deflect it. Hence small changes in the intensityof the light lead to a strong deflection of the cantilever, and it becomes apt to call themwell coupled. For those reasons it is crucial to minimize the mass of the cantilever, but ofcourse only in respect of the other constraints already mentioned. A typical mass of thecantilevers used is 50 nanograms (ng).

As a consequence of this manifold of essential parameters to be adjusted, it is vital to haveas much control as possible over the process of designing and fabricating the cantilevers.The person who has the skills, expertise and practical know-how to handle this task for thegroup, put also for other groups, is Garrett Cole.5 With a background in material scienceand engineering, unlike the rest of the group, he manages the production of the cantilevers.Another group member who has developed knowledge and skills about the fabrication ofthe cantilevers is Simon Gröblacher. He started to acquire experience in this area during thecourse of his dissertation (Gröblacher 2010), which is about the very experiment presented

5 His interview statements are notable due to his specific assignment, educational background and his uniqueaccess to quantum opto-mechanics.

29


here. However, because Gröblacher took on a post doctoral position at Cornell Universityand Cole has already been carrying out microfabrication since the turn of the millennium, itis apt to say that Cole is the focal figure concerning the production of the cantilevers for theexperiments.

The actual process of fabrication requires methods well known from computer chip pro-duction and nano technology like lithography, evaporation and etching. Examples of thecantilevers deployed can be found in figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: a: Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a pair of cantilevers(�mirror = 20µm).

b: chip with mechanical resonators of different sizes and shapes. Source:Gröblacher 2010, p.84

3.2.4 Putting it Together

The main idea of this opto-mechanical set-up is to couple the oscillation of the light withinthe Fabry-Pèrot cavity with the mechanical oscillation of a cantilever. In order to accomplishsuch a coupling, we take a Fabry-Pèrot cavity, the length which correlates to the frequencyof the light to have constructive interference. Then we replace the second mirror of theFabry-Pèrot cavity by the small mirror on the tip of a cantilever (see figure 3.3, symbolizedby the mirror with the spring). Henceforth, laser light with a constant frequency enters thecavity through the fixed semitransparent first mirror and reaches the second mirror on thecantilever. The light is reflected from this second mirror and due to the radiation pressure thecantilever is deflected. As a consequence of the deflection of this movable second mirror, thelength of the cavity is detuned. The formerly constructive interference becomes destructiveand the light in the cavity diminishes. In other words, the radiation pressure on the cantilevermirror ceases and the cantilever returns to its initial position. In this way the length of the

30

3.2 The Experiments

cavity returns to the optimum for constructive interference, which is once more the startingpoint for the next iteration of this recurring process.

Figure 3.3: Fabry-Pèrot cavity with movable mirror. Source: Kippenberg and Vahala 2008,p.1172

The outcome of this set-up is the oscillation of the intensity of the light in the cavity, i.e.that there is constructive or destructive interference depending on the deflection of the can-tilever, i.e. the length of the cavity. However, this dependence is not unidirectional, becauseconversely the deflection is reciprocally dependent on the intensity of the light in the cavity.Hence there is an interdependent coupling between the light wave and the deflection of themechanical oscillator.

3.2.5 Requirements for Success

In order to accomplish entanglement it is necessary that the coupling between the opticaland the mechanical regime is larger than the decoherence6 of the two. So the coupling hasto be improved and the decoherence reduced.

The rate of decoherence7 is mainly dependent on temperature. Temperature is motion andas the cantilever is massive it vibrates badly due to its thermal motion. In order to bring thecantilever to its ground state8, it is necessary to cool it close to absolute zero temperature.This is done by placing the cavity including the cantilever in a cryostat9 which cools it to 4K (kelvin). Deeper temperatures such as 20-100 mK (millikelvin) were achieved by using acustom made closed-cycle dilution refrigerator.

The way to increase the coupling between the optical and the mechanical regime is to im-

6 See the concept of decoherence (Bacciagaluppi 2008; Compendium 2009, p.155ff).7 The rate at which the interaction of the system with its environment destroys its quantum state and makes it

classical.8 The system is in its lowest possible energy state.9 A device to maintain cold temperatures. In this case it is a vacuum chamber cooled by liquid helium.

31


prove the quality of the optical and the mechanical parts. As already mentioned10, the mirroron the cantilever in particular has to have very high reflectivity to utilize almost every photonfor deflecting the cantilever. The mass, shape and suspension of the cantilever (see figure3.2) are also crucial and subject to intensive engineering and development. Moreover, theoptical components like the lasers need proper stabilization, for example by locking theemitted frequencies via feedback. Overall it can be stated that it takes quite an effort to ex-clude environmental influences and to detect quantum entanglement. As pointed out before,entanglement is established in this experimental set-up between the intensity of the light inthe cavity and the deflection of the cantilever. The idea is that if the two observables exhibit acorrelation which cannot be explained classically, entanglement between them has been pro-duced. This means that the two entangled observables can only be described by assumingan indivisible joint state of the intensity of the light and the deflection of the cantilever.

3.2.6 Paradigmatic Model and Experimental Forks

On a fundamental level the opto-mechanical experiments are conducted to show that quan-tum effects can also be found in macroscopic systems. Up to now quantum mechanicaleffects have been demonstrated and utilized in systems of a rather small scale, like masslessphotons, elementary particles, atoms, and up to the size of molecules11. In comparison tothese small entities, a typical cantilever can be seen by the naked eye and consists of in theorder of 1020 atoms12, instead of just a few.

On these grounds it is fair enough to call these opto-mechanical systems macroscopic. Itis a considerable leap forward from the scales with which quantum mechanics has so farbeen tested to be applicable. As already discussed, quantum mechanics does not state anytheoretical limit to its domain of applicability based on size, mass and so on. Of course thereare interactions with the environment which hinder quantum effects13, but circumventingthem experimentally allows us to test the limits of the applicability of quantum mechanics.

However, these main physical principles put forward here do not constitute the full-blownexperimental set-up. They rather have to be understood as something like a general model ormaster form for quantum opto-mechanics. The concrete realizations are a derivation thereof.In the case of the Aspelmeyer group the following set of experiments are conducted to tacklevarying aspects of the topic or to circumvent specific difficulties in the course of implemen-

10 See section 3.2.3 Cantilever11 E.g. fullerene C60 (Quantum 2011c).12 Approximated by assuming that the cantilever consists of 50 nanograms of silicon.13 See concept of decoherence (Bacciagaluppi 2008; Compendium 2009, p.155ff).

32

3.2 The Experiments

tation. This list of experiments worked on by the group members should neither be takenas complete, nor equal in their status, nor in their relevance, nor limited to the group. Theattribution of certain persons to a specific experiment (cited in the brackets) must be takenlightly, as it obscures the presence of mutual assistance and the harnessing of individualskills throughout the group (e.g. see Garrett Cole). Besides all of these shortcomings, it isenough to structure the group.

Master form: This is the implementation of the paradigmatic experiment described above.(Dr. Witlef Wieczorek, Dr. Simon Gröblacher, et al.)

Levitating nano balls: Here the oscillating cantilever is replaced by nano balls held intoposition by the radiation pressure of additional light beams14. (Dr. Nikolai Kiesel, Mag.Florian Blaser, Uros Delic)

Tabletop: A tabletop implementation of the paradigmatic model. The goal is to demon-strate the principles. Reaching the quantum regime, i.e. the occurrence of quantum effects,is not part of this experiment. This project has been developed in the course of a diplomathesis. (Dilek Demir)

Pulsed opto-mechanics: Instead of constantly applying a light beam to the cantilever, it ispulsed. The positive features of this method are the reduced dependency on the tempera-ture of the system and the improved ability to observe space-like separated entanglement15.(Mag. Michael Vanner et al.)16

Coupled cavities: In a collaboration with the Quantum Information Theory Group at theUniversity of Potsdam17 a diploma thesis is under development. The idea is to mechanicallycouple two, and maybe many more, of the cavities described above in order to investigatequantum effects with such more complex systems. It is planned that it will not only compriseof a theoretical examination of the problem, mostly carried out in Potsdam, but also of anexperiment here in Vienna. (Jonas Hörsch, Dr. Garrett Cole)

14 Like a pair of light pincers.15 The cantilever and the pulse of the light are entangled, although they are at different locations.16 This is the only experimental set-up for which I was not able to interview any of the participants. However,

they released a paper on this topic very recently (Vanner et al. 2011).17 Headed by Jens Eisert and Markus Aspelmeyer as one of their visiting professors.

33

4 The Aspelmeyer Group

4.1 Research Topic and Genesis

The key resource of information for this diploma thesis are the people and their currentresearch within the group Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information on the Nano-

and Microscale at the Faculty of Physics at the University of Vienna. Their main researchobjective “[...] is to investigate quantum effects of nano- and microscale systems and theirimplications for the foundations and applications of quantum physics. [Their] goal is to gainaccess to a completely new parameter regime for experimental physics with respect to bothsize and complexity.”(Aspelmeyer Group 2011)

The group originated as a spin-off of the initial research about quantum opto-mechanicsstarted at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI 2011). TheIQOQI group around Anton Zeilinger, of which Markus Aspelmeyer was a vital member,innovated and carried out a lot of experiments using photons to demonstrate and utilizequantum effects. Around 2005 the idea came up to also apply this core competence to me-chanical systems. Henceforth Aspelmeyer et al. began their work in the field of quantumopto-mechanics. On the basis of the publication of some initial papers about laser-coolingof micro-mechanical resonators around 2006, it became possible to set out and finance theprojects solely from external funds. In 2009, Aspelmeyer accepted a call for professorship atthe University of Vienna. This resulted in the actual foundation of the group Quantum Foun-

dations and Quantum Information on the Nano- and Microscale at the Faculty of Physicsat the University of Vienna, which Aspelmeyer now heads. Although it was a move fromthe Austrian Academy of Sciences to the University of Vienna it was not a break, but anevolution. It is important to note that there is close collaboration and interrelation among theAustrian quantum research facilities; personnel- and resource-wise. In this case it is nicelyillustrated by the fact that both institutes occupy neighboring buildings connected by a sky-walk. Moreover, a core of the people now leading the experiments within the Aspelmeyergroup started out in the former facility. Despite or even because of that, the actual relocationof the laboratories was only recently completed in April 2011.

35


4.2 My Relationship to the Group

I am studying physics and philosophy at the University of Vienna. One of the main reasonsfor me to study physics was the wish to comprehend quantum mechanics and its assertions.Hence I attended various lectures, seminars and talks, some given by Aspelmeyer. In thecourse of developing this diploma thesis it soon became clear to me that I wanted to refer toactual experimental research work. A colleague of Aspelmeyer gave me the tip to ask him,because of his vein for philosophy. I approached Aspelmeyer in December 2010, presentedmy idea and found a sympathetic ear. Early in January 2011 I held a talk to most of the mem-bers of the group, again to present the outline of the diploma thesis and to generally agree oncooperation and on conducting the interviews. I then initially approached Witlef Wieczorekwith a request to introduce me to the experiments and inform me about the relevant literatureneeded to acquire the technical and physical details of the matter.

The contact with the group – all of them are indeed very kind – was kept very modest. Itis important to note that I was never a part of the group and never attended their day-to-daywork. I am an onlooker trying to figure out a comprehension of quantum entanglement on thebasis of their personal statements about the topic. Although this looks like a harsh limitationon the possibilities of gathering information about the group, which is not the primary taskof this thesis anyway, it allowed me to focus on the specific material (the interviews) andthe questions posed. A profound and fair characterization of such a research group wouldindeed demand a greater and longer amount of involvement. On that account the descriptionof the group contains very few observations on my part about the group, and consists almostcompletely of statements by the group members themselves; i.e. the interviews.

4.3 Facts and Figures

In the period the interviews were taken, from May to July 2011, the group consisted of thefollowing 15 people.1

• Prof. Dr. Markus Aspelmeyer (Group Leader) [i]

• Mag. Florian Blaser [i]

• Dr. Garrett Cole [i]

• Uros Delic

1 See Aspelmeyer Group 2011 section ‘People’.

36

4.4 The Interviewees

• Dilek Demir [i]

• Dr. Simon Gröblacher

• Mag. Sebastian Hofer

• Jonas Hörsch [i]

• Dr. Rainer Kaltenbaek

• Dr. Nikolai Kiesel [i]

• Jonas Schmöle, MSc.

• Mag. Alexandra Seiringer (Administration)

• Alexey Trubarov

• Mag. Michael Vanner

• Dr. Witlef Wieczorek [i]

I conducted seven interviews amounting to half of the group, as indicated by [i] in the listabove. In terms of their degrees/qualifications, I tried to pick a representative sample torepresent the under-graduates, graduates, PhD students and post-doctoral research fellowsaccordingly. Another motive for this selection was the assignment of the people to thevarious experiments2.


The information presented in this section is a summary of the statements given by the respec-tive interviewees concerning their age, academic career, and assignment within the group.Detailed curricula vitae are available of some of the interviewees on the group’s staff web-site3.

4.4.1 Dr. Witlef Wieczorek

Wieczorek is a thirty-two year old post-doctoral research fellow, who studied physics at theTechnical University of Berlin (TU Berlin) and graduated with a diploma thesis on quantumdots. He worked for four years as a post-graduate on multi-photon entanglement at the

2 See section 3.2.6 Paradigmatic Model and Experimental Forks.3 See Aspelmeyer Group 2011 section ’People’.

37


Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich (LMU Munich) (Interviews 2011d, §4).

In his regular curriculum he did not encounter the issues of different interpretations in quan-tum mechanics. However, at a summer school held by Reinhard Werner and Jens Eisert atthe TU Berlin he was introduced to the EPR problem and the Bell experiments (Interviews2011d, §10-13).

In the Aspelmeyer group, Wieczorek is responsible for the realization of the paradigmaticexperiment using cavities with mirrors on cantilevers. Until of late he worked together withSimon Gröblacher, who wrote his dissertation on this experiment and is now Post-Doc at theCalifornia Institute of Technology. Currently Wieczorek is teamed up with Jonas Schmöleet al. on this experiment (Interviews 2011d, §31-32).

4.4.2 Dilek Demir

Demir is twenty-two years old and an undergraduate. After studying physics at the Univer-sity of Vienna, she was, at the time the interview was held, finishing her diploma thesis onradiation pressure effects on macroscopic systems (Interviews 2011a, §5,9,11).

Although she had never heard of quantum physics before studying physics, she quicklybecame attracted by quantum mechanics. Instead of attending some boring lectures, shestarted reading papers and books about the topic; such as the EPR thought experiment.Beyond that, Demir also attended together with some of those who are now her colleagues,the extra-curricular Monday lectures on quantum physics which back then were organizedby Aspelmeyer (Interviews 2011a, §23).

Her assignment, and also the topic of her diploma thesis, is the development, i.e. design,build-up and measurement, of a kind of table-top implementation of the paradigmatic exper-iment, in order to nicely demonstrate radiation pressure. It is not set up to show any quantumeffects, but aims at simplicity and yet precision (Interviews 2011a, §11-15).

4.4.3 Dr. Nikolai Kiesel

Kiesel is a thirty-four year old post-doctoral research fellow who studied physics at theLudwig Maximilian University in Munich (LMU). He joined the Zeilinger group in Viennafor his diploma thesis on three-photon entanglement4 and his dissertation on four-photon

4 On the W state, because the GHZ state (Greenberger, Horne, Zeilinger) has already been implemented inVienna.

38


entanglement. In 2008 he moved to the Aspelmeyer group (Interviews 2011c, §16).

He did not become drawn into this area of physics until almost at the end of his studies. Aseminar held by Harald Weinfurter, who at that time worked with the Zeilinger group, gothim interested in the experimental field of quantum mechanics (Interviews 2011c, §4, 13).

Kiesel started up and is currently heading the experiment on utilizing levitating nano ballsinstead of mirrors on cantilevers. His collaborators are Florian Blaser and Uros Delic. Ad-ditionally Kiesel participates in managing and representing the group (Interviews 2011c,§19,23,30).

4.4.4 Mag. Florian Blaser

Blaser is a post-graduate and thirty years old. He started studying physics at the University ofNeuchâtel (Schwitzerland) and came to the University of Vienna in 2005 to write his diplomathesis on the simulation of mechanical systems. Except for some time after graduationworking in the software industry, he has been part of the opto-mechanical experiments sincethe very beginning with Zeilinger’s group. Now he is doing his PhD with the Aspelmeyergroup (Interviews 2011f, §6-12).

Blaser became interested in quantum entanglement and read some books about quantuminformation, which was not well covered in his small home university. While reading therelevant papers he discovered that the group at the University of Vienna was very active andsuccessful in this field of research. Hence he applied successfully to write his diploma thesiswith the Zeilinger group (Interviews 2011f, §16).

Blaser works together with Nikolas Kiesel and Uros Delic on the experiment using levitatingnano balls. At the time of the interview he was programming LabView5 to automate andimprove the measurement process. Anyhow, he like almost all other experimenters is alsooccupied with setting up and aligning the optics, the electronics, and so on (Interviews 2011f,§31,38-39,43).

4.4.5 Dr. Garrett Cole

Cole is a thirty-two year old research fellow who is a sort of a lateral entrant to the group. Hehas a bachelor’s degree in materials engineering from California Polytechnic State Univer-sity. In addition he went to the University of California, Santa Barbara to study electronics

5 Graphical programming environment to develop measurement, test and control applications.

39


and photonic materials. Cole completed his PhD in 2005 on MEMS-Tunable Vertical-CavitySemiconductor Optical Amplifiers. After graduation, he was employed for a year in the in-dustry and for two years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL Centerfor Micro- and Nanotechnology). Since October 2008 he has been working at the AustrianAcademy of Sciences and the University of Vienna (Interviews 2011b, §5-7).

Cole is well-qualified and experienced in the area of nano- and micro-fabrication, includ-ing design and implementation. His dissertation was on mechanically tunable diode lasers,which are in some ways similar6 to the paradigmatic set-up in quantum opto-mechanics.In the course of his employment at the LLNL Center for Micro- and Nanotechnology, hebecame more and more interested in the physical fundamentals of his work. After readinginto the topic, he came across the work of Aspelmeyer and contacted him. As a result, acollaboration was initiated which had Cole, while still working at the LLNL, fabricate var-ious samples of nano-mechanical devices for testing in Vienna. In 2008, due to a lack ofperspectives at the LLNL, he seized the opportunity to finally join the Viennese quantumcommunity (Interviews 2011b, §7-11).

Although Cole is mainly located within the Aspelmeyer group, his skills and expertise inmicro-fabrication are also made use of by other groups and collaborations. At the time theinterview was held he was engaged in building a test bench to characterize, quantify andoptimize the mechanical response of the fabricated cantilevers, prior to deploying them inthe more time-consuming experiments (Interviews 2011b, §27-31).

4.4.6 Jonas Hörsch

Hörsch is a twenty-five year old undergraduate studying physics at the University of Potsdamas a member of the Quantum Information Theory Group around Jens Eisert. He recentlystarted work on his diploma thesis, which is about mechanically coupled micro-cavities. Itis a cooperation between the Eisert and the Aspelmeyer groups, as there are also plans to testthe theoretical findings on these coupled systems experimentally7 (Interviews 2011e, §3-9,15).

At this early stage in his diploma thesis, Hörsch is still mainly acquiring insights into thedesign and simulation of the mechanical components and the experimental environmenthere in Vienna. However, as a first step he and Cole have already designed some initial

6 They also consist of a cavity, but which is tuned by moving the small mirrors to change the cavity length.The deflection of the mirrors due to radiation pressure, as exploited in quantum opto-mechanics, has beenan unwanted side effect in the context of these lasers.

7 I.e. micro-fabrication by Cole

40

4.5 Issues Raised by the Interviews

prototypes, whose production is to be launched soon (Interviews 2011e, §21-31).

Hörsch was introduced to and became interested in quantum information theory via the lec-tures of Jens Eisert. The University in Potsdam mainly concentrates on the theoretical elabo-ration of quantum information theory and hence lacks the scope of its application. Thereforehe joined the field of quantum opto-mechanics and collaborates with the Aspelmeyer group(Interviews 2011e, §37).

4.4.7 Prof. Dr. Markus Aspelmeyer

He is thirty-seven years old and a professor at the University of Vienna. Aspelmeyer studiedat the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich (LMU) and later on also studied philosophyat the Munich School of Philosophy8. He took a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and wrotehis diploma thesis and dissertation in physics about the investigation of structural phasetransitions of crystals (solid-state physics). Always up for a challenge, he switched his areaof research after graduation and became Post-Doc with the Zeilinger group in Vienna. Since2009 Aspelmeyer has been Professor of Physics at the University of Vienna and head ofthe Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information on the Nano- and Microscale group(Interviews 2011g, §8-11).

His self-proclaimed main task is to interact and communicate with his group as much aspossible. For that reason he tries to be in the laboratories and lend a helping hand wheneverpossible. In this way Aspelmeyer tries to provide new impulses to the group and set thecourse of the research. Another main part of his work is of course to keep the funding forall the experiments pouring in (Interviews 2011g, §21-25).

4.5 Issues Raised by the Interviews

After having introduced the interviewees with regard to their academic vita and assignmentin the group, it is time to illustrate the key topics which emerged in the course of the inter-views. The central issue is certainly the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement, butthe emphasis of its analysis is strongly oriented towards the answers given by the intervie-wees. The two key topics which I discerned from the entirety of the interviews and whichwill serve as my work order for the rest of the thesis are the following:

Counter-intuitiveness: With certain nuances, the interviewees had difficulties in putting8 Hochschule für Philosophie München

41


their tentativeness about the matter into words. Certainly the more educated, involved andinterested in these fundamental questions about the comprehension of quantum mechanicsa scientist is, the more she is able to express and discuss the topic at hand with precision.In short, the group leader is of course more articulate with regard to the subject than anundergraduate. On these grounds it seems appropriate to develop a fitting account of thecounter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement. Firstly by introducing a very general def-inition of counter-intuitiveness.9 Secondly by carving out the specifics regarding quantumentanglement as introduced at the beginning of the thesis10, and thirdly by characterizing thespecific counter-intuitiveness by employing key epistemological thoughts from Bachelard.11

Coping: A key issue for the interviews was the question of whether experimenting helps inovercoming the difficulties of comprehension. The short and superficial answer is probablyno. However, this certainly demands a more detailed examination. Abstracted to a morecomprehensive level, the issue raised is how to generally cope with the counter-intuitivenessof quantum entanglement. Does science and do scientists need to cope with it? 12 What basicconsiderations can be spelled out concerning the possibility of experiments being of assis-tance in evolving our reasoning in order to accommodate the difficulties of comprehendingthe matter? 13

Again, this extraction of the central issues tackled within the interviews not only summarizesthe main content of the interviews, but can also be regarded as a motive for the elaborationswhich follow. Moreover, relevant quotes from the interviews will be deployed as evidencefor supporting particular arguments. Hence the further study of a definition of counter-intuitiveness and the handling of the counter-intuitiveness will rest on three pillars: Theactual context of quantum opto-mechanics and the respective experiment previously intro-duced, the perspectives expressed in the interviews, and the set of tools consisting of keyconcepts of Bachelard’s epistemology.

9 See section 5.1 General Definition.10 See section 5.2 Specifics.11 See section 5.3 Characteristics.12 See section 6.1 Aim of Science? Coherent System of Assumptions.13 See section 6.2 New Generations of Scientists and 6.3 Bachelard: Reason Instructed by Fabricated Experi-

ence.

42

5 Counter-Intuitiveness

5.1 General Definition

In principle there is nothing exceptional about the term “counterintuitive”. Every sensiblelanguage user knows the meaning of this adjective and makes more or less frequent use ofit in the proper context. Nonetheless I will first spell out a definition and then continue fromthere. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, counterintuitive means that somethingis “different from what you would expect”. In the same dictionary, the term is described assomething “not agreeing with what seems right or natural” (Merriam-Webster 2011a).

Hence the adjective counterintuitive labels facts and circumstances as not corresponding towhat one has assumed. If, as the second definition implies, the expected appears to be rightor natural, it is a slippery slope which I am not inclined to travel. In the case of quantumentanglement, but also very generally in science, claims of justification based on what seemsright or what seems natural are very problematic. Thus it is sufficient to initially concentrateon the function of the adjective counterintuitive to indicate a difference between an issueand what we have expected about the issue.

How central this idea of countering is will become clearer by studying the difference be-tween it and something which can be called non-intuitive. At first glance the latter is used tomanifest the case of not having any intuition, and hence any expectation, at all with regardto the subject matter. For instance, it seems close to impossible to actually form an intu-ition about higher dimensional (higher than three dimensions) or warped (curved) spaces.1

However, on second thoughts calling something non-intuitive in normal parlance has a verysimilar usage pattern as counterintuitive. If a subject matter is not intuitive, it is also notaccording to our expectations. Therefore the difference between non- and counter-intuitive

appears to be a matter of gradation. Calling something non-intuitive is a weak indicationof its non-conformance with intuition. By contrast, labeling something counterintuitive is a

1 Some mathematicians might claim to have developed an intuition about those constructs. This is definitelysomething worth taking a closer look at, but certainly not in this thesis.

43


much stronger claim that our intuitions are contradicted by the subject matter. We use it tostate that a matter of fact is in conflict with, or resists, our intuitions. Basically it is a term toemphasize the problematic nature of a contradiction between intuition and a matter of fact.

Another approach to a general understanding of counterintuitive springs from a definitionof intuition. In general, again according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, intuition is“a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof orevidence” (Merriam-Webster 2011b). Taking a look at entries on intuition in other booksof reference (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2011; EnzyklPhilWiss 2010; Rorty 1967), allows usto, probably more universally, define intuition as an immediate apprehension.

The key to this definition of intuition is to consider immediate in two ways here. At firstwe can of course think of it in a more chronological manner, i.e. something is assumed orknown from intuition due to the unavailability of distinct proof or evidence. That is, we drawon intuitions about a subject matter owing to a lack of knowledge about it. However, as soonas there is sufficient proof or evidence, i.e. some process of gaining additional knowledgeand inference is involved, the intuition either dissipates, becomes irrelevant or is definitelyvalidated as justified, unjustified, right or wrong. In this way the intuition is marginalized orsuperseded as soon as there is relevant proof or evidence. Hence no matter if the intuitionand the subject matter do coincide or not, we might not care anyway, as proof or evidenceis valued much higher in this case. Supposing that intuitions are not in accordance with thefacts of the matter, we might be inclined to use the weaker label non-intuitive here.

The second way of considering the immediacy in the definition of intuition is in a, let ussay, logical manner. In contrast to adopting intuitions as a placeholder which are supersededby more knowledge about the matter, intuitions in this sense function as more immediateaccess to the matter in parallel with proof or evidence. Hence it is not a question of whenthe intuition has been formed or whether the knowledge about the subject matter is alreadyin place, but rather the idea that the immediacy of the apprehension in the course of havingintuitions is relevant. If, as in our instance, intuitions do not coincide with our availableknowledge of the matter, we can make the strong case for labeling them counterintuitive.This means that we allow the immediacy of our intuitions to be considered enough to maybeeven challenge or cast doubt on the available proof or evidence.2

In sum, the point I wish to make here is that counterintuitive not only qualifies a subject mat-ter as being not in accordance with our immediate apprehension (= intuition) of the matter,but especially emphasizes its problematic contrariness. How this understanding specifically

2 Certainly this is only the case if the speech act is not considered an empty phrase. For instance, expertsbragging about the unintelligibility of the matter in order to intimidate or impress non-experts.

44

5.2 Specifics

applies to the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement will be studied in the followingsection.

5.2 Specifics

A way to provide a generally conclusive definition of counter-intuitiveness in the realm ofquantum entanglement which is suite to the subject is unfortunately not that straightforward.One of the major difficulties is that a definite contradiction between a concrete intuition anda specific datum of quantum mechanics strongly depends on the respective interpretation ofquantum mechanics and its corresponding assumptions. This means that a specific elabo-ration of the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement is bound to and only valid inthe light of the interpretation chosen. For instance, the notion of quantum entanglementonly makes sense in a couple of interpretations of quantum mechanics. Thus, the notionof counter-intuitiveness in the realm of quantum mechanics first of all indicates that there issome sort of conflict between intuitions and scientific facts and that is the only commonplacewhich can be generally stated. Again, how this contradiction manifests itself in detail hingesvery much on the specific understanding or interpretation of quantum entanglement actuallyput forward.

In this thesis, as already mentioned, the presentation of the counter-intuitiveness of quan-tum entanglement will be carried out against the background of a somewhat mainstreamCopenhagen-type interpretation. In order to be even more precise, I consider the descriptionof quantum mechanics by Schrödinger (Schrödinger 1935) sufficient for the task. Other in-terpretations of quantum mechanics are not considered in this thesis, because I am convincedthat each (e.g. variants of Bohmian mechanics, many worlds ...) individually contains a cer-tain sore point of counter-intuitiveness. This means that although their content is different,they all share the peculiarity of challenging fundamental intuitions which are classicallyheld about the world. An interpretation not burdened with counter-intuitiveness would bethe most probable candidate for quickly becoming the general doctrine in this field. Asthis is not the case, it is sensible to take the notion of the counter-intuitiveness of quantumentanglement for its function of generally marking a contradiction between a theoreticalor experimental phenomenon in quantum physics and common intuitions about the world.However, in order to analyze the notion it has to be studied in a specific context, say adoptingthe perspective of a certain interpretation; as the following will show.

We will briefly recall the core issue introduced in the preceding part of this thesis to begin

45


with. The central EPR thought experiment is basically comprised of three statements whichcannot be simultaneously true. Hence at least one of them is mutually exclusive to the oth-ers, or meaningless in a way. First, the completeness assumption: A theory is complete inthe strict sense that every element of physical reality has to have an appropriate counterpart,i.e. must be represented in the theory. Second, the reality3 assumption: If we are able topredict with certainty the result of a measurement of a physical quantity without disturb-ing the measured system, then there is an element of physical reality which corresponds tothis physical quantity. Third, the locality assumption: Measurement results at one site donot influence the measurement results in far apart (space and time separated) sites by anydynamical mechanism faster than the speed of light. Einstein et al. relied on their knowl-edge and their intuitions about the classical physical world and insisted on the validity ofthe two assumptions about the reality and the locality of physical phenomena. Therefore,due to the cogency of the thought experiment they concluded that quantum mechanics – indescribing the EPR thought experiment – cannot be complete. Again, assuming two of thethree statements to be true excludes the other. As the theory of quantum mechanics cannotbe considered complete in the eyes of Einstein et al., they proposed fixing it by generallyextending the theory by a hidden, not necessarily known, variable.

In contrast, quantum mechanics, here according to the description of Schrödinger, is per-fectly complete as a theory and there is no need for – or even more strongly, it strictlyforbids – the assumption of hidden variables being a part of it. All physical phenomenaare properly describable by quantum mechanics, although new concepts like quantum en-tanglement are the consequence. Now that the completeness of quantum mechanics is thepivotal requirement, one or both of the other assumptions (reality, locality) of the thoughtexperiment have to be circumvented, invalidated or rendered meaningless.

Both points of view refer to and explain the same observable phenomena, i.e. results of thethought experiment, but differ with regard to their counter-intuitiveness. As can easily beseen, the position of Einstein et al. is perfectly consistent with the common, classical intu-itions about the physical world; namely the reality of physical quantities independent of theirmeasurement and the impossibility of instantaneous4 impacts of simultaneous measurementsconducted far apart. Quantum mechanics does, however, contradict or render meaninglessthese common classical intuitions and hence can be regarded as counterintuitive.

3 The notion of reality certainly has huge implications in the philosophy of science. It is definitely not myintention to touch upon any of the vast discussion about reality and its various understandings. Here realis used in a very naive physical sense. In this context it rather means that the value of a physical quantity isdetermined at any given time independently of its measurement. This applies throughout the thesis.

4 With respect to Einstein’s special relativity theory, superluminal.

46

5.2 Specifics

Besides the difference in such soft criteria like compatibility with common intuitions, therewas no factual reason to pick one over the other. It was John Stewart Bell who conceiveda criterion (Bell inequality) to test differing predictions of classical hidden variable theoriesand the theory of quantum mechanics. A great number of experiments (Bell experiments),conducted during the last four decades affirmed5 that statements made on the basis of thetheory of quantum mechanics are the case. Any hidden variable theory is inherently unableto accommodate for the experimental data produced. Consequentially, hidden variable the-ories, although tending to be rather immediately intelligible and intuitive, are ruled out dueto experimental evidence. In reverse the theory of quantum mechanics is experimentallyunderpinned, but does not coincide with common intuitions about the world.

Hitherto this does not sound like a very unusual situation for modern day science. Manyscientific theories are not compatible with the respective common intuitions held about theworld. In addition, despite the fact that the compatibility of a theory with everyday intuitionscan be a criterion for the actual theory choice, much like simplicity or beauty, fortifiedevidence arguably has more weight in this respect. However, the counter-intuitiveness ofquantum entanglement may not be different to other counterintuitive theories in principle,but it certainly is in gradation. The specific trait of the situation of quantum entanglement isthat the intuitions contradicted by evidence are the most fundamental ones. They are sucha fundamental part of our comprehension (perception) of the world that doubting them isindeed imaginable, but nevertheless close to impossible to conceive. This is not only thecase for the layman, but also for the people involved with (experimental) research. Forexample, statements like the following are not in a minority among those interviewed forthis thesis.

“I reckon one will never understand entanglement.” 6

– Witlef Wieczorek, (Interviews 2011d, §83)

Even in a more detailed account we can easily see a fundamental difficulty in expressing theissue. Moreover, it becomes apparent that it is not a settled matter, but demands constantrethinking. Which is a nice indicator that something is not as expected; and thus correspondswith the previously introduced definition of being counterintuitive.

“There are a lot of question marks in quantum mechanics. And theoretically it is interest-

ing, because matters normally evident do become not so evident any more. So in the EPR

experiment for example, you have to read the paper twenty thousand times and you still won’t

understand it. Because there is always something in there you didn’t see before. And it is

rather interesting to me that you can always find something you have to understand anew. It is

5 The loopholes have to be kept in mind of course. (Compendium 2009, p.348f)6 Translated by the author.

47


somehow this contradiction: It should be like this, but quantum mechanics says it is different.

But why? And then you can start pondering about it. I find that pretty cool.” 7

– Dilek Demir, (Interviews 2011a, §45)

The relationship between puzzlement and our intuitions, as well as the perception of quan-tum entanglement as being counterintuitive, is even more directly expressed by this quote:

“We are simply used to the fact, out of intuition, that if a body has some property, this property

is actually there. Or that it is somehow indeed realized. This has to be totally dismissed with

quantum mechanics. Rather, many properties are not determined before a measurement was

made. [...] Hence the phenomena are counterintuitive. Well, you can somehow imagine them,

but? The maximum one can do is to get used to it.” 8

– Jonas Hörsch, (Interviews 2011e, §61)

These quotes just hint at the intricate understanding and the limited means to accuratelyarticulate one’s personal puzzlement. On a more general level, the substance of the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement comes to light when we take a look at the core ideaof quantum opto-mechanics9 which the experiments of the interviewee are based on.

The exciting momentum of quantum opto-mechanics is its implementation at size scaleswhich are close to the human everyday world. This is basically due to two reasons: First,it underlines the theoretical independence of quantum effects with respect to the size of thesystem it is realized with. Secondly, it also reveals the question of where to draw the linebetween the classical realm and the quantum realm; if there is one.

In detail, as already shown in the very implementation of quantum opto-mechanics in theparadigmatic experiment introduced in this thesis10, the starting point is a mechanical oscil-lator. In our case it is a cantilever of nano scale which is easily comprehensible in classicalmechanical terms. First, it is fitted with a little mirror on its tip and mounted as one partof a cavity (two opposing mirrors). Next, laser light is introduced into the cavity, whichtravels back and forth between the two mirrors. The light in the cavity interferes with itsown reflections. Depending on the length of the cavity, the light oscillating interferes eitherconstructively or destructively, and accordingly the intensity of the light is higher or lower.However, as one mirror of the cavity is the cantilever, it becomes deflected by the radiationpressure of the light. The higher the intensity of the light, the higher the deflection of thecantilever. As the cantilever is deflected, the length of the cavity changes, and consequently

7 Translated by the author.8 Translated by the author.9 See section 3.1 Introduction.

10 See section 3.2 The Experiments.

48

5.3 Characteristics

the interference changes, thereby changing the intensity of the light in the cavity. This againleads to a modification of the deflection and hence the modification of the cavity length.Thus the circle is complete. In sum the experiment realizes a correlation between the inten-sity of the laser light and the displacement of the cantilever. Up to now this is very easilyintelligible solely by the use of classical terms. However, after excluding all of the interfer-ing disturbances (e.g. by extensive cooling and suspension) the correlation between thosetwo observables, the intensity of the light and the deflection of the cantilever, will cease tobe classically explainable. The coupling produced between the optical and the mechanicalregime emerges entangled. That means that the very same conclusion which Schrödingergenerally reached when devising quantum entanglement can be realized here11 with a sys-tem normally conceived as classical. The cantilever, an emblem of classical mechanics, hasbecome a matter of quantum effects at size scales visible to the naked eye.

This specific experimental set-up, besides other things, comprises the counter-intuitivenessof quantum entanglement. Its intention is to realize quantum effects with commonly acces-sible concepts (cantilever, cavity, radiation pressure, ...), and accordingly runs into resultsnot expected in the common classical comprehension of the physical world. Certainly ac-cording to the approach of quantum mechanics, the results of the experiments are altogetherexpected. However, the crux of the matter is that the classical way we commonly apprehendour world leads us to label the results of the experiments counterintuitive. This conceptof counter-intuitiveness is, of course, not restricted to the specific implementation of experi-ments yielding quantum effects, but can also be characterized on a more general level; whichwill follow next.

5.3 Characteristics

5.3.1 By Comparison

When studying intuitions more closely, it often turns out that they are mostly not referredto in a positive way. Either they are commonly mentioned as a last resort for minimaljustification in the absence of any evidence or proof of a matter. Or they are deployed todismiss something as specifically implausible and irrelevant. For instance, using the non-compliance of a subject matter with our intuitions as a knockout argument in debate. In otherwords, intuitions are mostly silently at work in our perception and judgement of the world.They surface most obviously when they conflict with contradicting beliefs or empirical data.11 It is safe to be modest as the actual realization has not been accomplished yet.

49


Hence the most apparent form of intuitions is when something is counterintuitive. This iswhere one usually becomes aware of intuitions.

I would like to put forward the following two familiar examples to illustrate the situation.The first one concerns the Müller-Lyer illusion; probably the most famous geometrical-visual trick (see figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Müller-Lyer Illusion. Source: Illusionism.org 2008

We came to realize, e.g. through measurement or by believing the testimony of others pre-senting us with the illusion, that the lengths of both lines (without the arrows) are equal.However, we visually perceive the upper line to be shorter than the lower one. Thus it is in-tuitively backed to claim that the lengths of the lines are different. Although we have perfectknowledge about the illusion, i.e. that it is a visual trick and what the correct comprehensionof it ought to be, it is not possible to overcome our intuition about it. It is very important tonote that intuition in this case is equated with the conditions of the human sense of vision,including physical and psychological characteristics. This may not be permissible, or is atleast up for debate. Nevertheless, the point to be made with this example is not where theintuition comes from, but thta it is an intuition denoting the situation of something seeming

to be the case to a person. George Bealer stresses the seeming as the important differencebetween an intuition and a belief (DePaul and Ramsey 1998, p.208). In the Müller-Lyerillusion it still seems to the viewer that one of the lines is longer than the other, althoughshe neither infers nor believes in the difference in length. Bealer points out that the seemingpersists in spite of the countervailing belief.

The second example will not only bolster, but also broaden the understanding of traits ofintuition. In nearly every physics class this experiment is conducted to demonstrate the lawsof free falling objects. Of course there is a whole lot to know and say about the laws offree fall in terms of physics and the history of science. What we will specifically look at isthe following tricky question: If you drop a feather and a steel ball from the same height,

which one will hit the ground first? The common intuition in this case can be describedas follows: It seems to the person asked that the steel ball is heavier than the feather; ittherefore falls faster and hence hits the ground first. This is exactly the doctrine of Aristotle

50

5.3 Characteristics

and scholasticism, criticized for instance by Giovanni Battista Benedetti12 and refuted byGalileo Galilei’s work.

The physically correct answer demands a counter question to clarify the environment ofthe set-up; and that makes the initial question so tricky. Is the fall set up in a force freeenvironment, except for gravity, or not? For example, the case of dropping a feather and asteel ball in a vacuum13 results in both hitting the ground simultaneously. Conducting thesame experiment in a medium like air would result in the steel ball hitting the ground earlier,because the feather suffers more air drag due to its shape. A law-like statement would soundlike this: Without any forces14 in place, except gravity, all bodies, independent of mass,shape and material, fall with the same rate of acceleration and hence hit the ground at thesame moment if dropped from the same height.

This is presumably the most well-established and millionfold experimentally demonstratedfact in physics. Every person who has ever had physics classes in her life is expected tohold this belief, or science education would have failed its assignment big-time. However,it can be denied that the intuition about heavy objects falling faster is eradicated by thisbelief. When asked unexpectedly, let us say brutally woken from well-deserved sleep at 3o’clock in the morning, many people, even the well educated, are not immune from givingthe intuitive answer. This does not indicate that we gave the intuitive answer just becausethe correct belief slipped our mind. The situation is rather that intuition is more immediateand belief is always in need of some contemplation. Immersion in environments wherethe correct conception of the case is very visible, or familiarization (for example throughrepetitive reflection of the case) might reduce the need for contemplation. We will return tothis matter in due course (see section 6 Coping).

The reason why I referred to the free fall example is because many more people are ableto personally relate to the intuitiveness of it than to the perspective of quantum mechanics.Thus it is a beneficial undertaking to highlight the parallels of these two cases.

The starting point is the phenomenon of the different velocities of falling objects in air. Theanalogon in the case of quantum entanglement would be the EPR thought experiment. Ineach case there are basically two hypotheses explaining the phenomenon. In the free fallexample, the Aristotelian and the Galilean. On the quantum entanglement side there is the

12 He devised a simple thought experiment to disprove the scholastics: Connecting two falling balls witha (mass-less) rod does not change the velocity of fall, although the overall mass of the body increases(O’Connor and Robertson 2009).

13 A gravitational field is implicitly assumed, as without it there would be no fall at all.14 Like resistances (e.g. air drag) or magnetism.

51


Free fall Quantum entanglementPhenomenon Objects falling with different

speeds (in air)EPR thought experiment

Hypotheses Aristotle vs. Galileo Einstein vs. SchrödingerExperiment Galileo, school experiments Bell experimentsInvalidated Aristotle Einstein

(all local realistic theories)Intuitive Aristotle Einstein

(all local realistic theories)Counter-intuitive

Galileo Schrödinger

Table 5.1: Structural comparison of the free fall example with the quantum entanglementcase.

Einstein picture and the Schrödinger picture. In addition there are experiments by Galileoand Bell which in each case flatly invalidate one of the hypotheses, namely the Aristotelianand the Einsteinian picture. However, both experimentally excluded hypotheses are thosethat are closely related to prevailing intuitions. Hence both cases, i.e. the free fall exampleand quantum entanglement, are a matter of counter-intuitiveness.

Unfortunately, like all good analogies this one also has to come to an end. Although the freefall example shares its form of counter-intuitiveness with the quantum entanglement case, itis very well appeased by another intuition. Here it is air drag, which is not much less intuitiveand commonly accessible. The physically correct description of free fall in air does indeedconflict with the direct intuition of heavier objects falling faster, but is perfectly intelligibleusing the other everyday life concept of air drag. This means that gaining a very simple pieceof additional knowledge, like the existence and resistance of air drag, marginalizes the wrongintuition about objects which fall faster.15 The distinction to the quantum entanglement caseare the intuitions violated; e.g. the reality and locality assumption have no proper intuitive

alternative. Thus far these fundamental intuitions have only been rationally negated andhence this situation is far from being reconciled with a common perception of the world.There is nothing similar in the quantum entanglement case to what the intuition of air dragdoes in the free fall case.

The ongoing search for a more fitting interpretation of quantum mechanics is a good indi-cator. For instance, assuming physical objects without properties prior to their observationor “spooky action at a distance” (EPR 1935) are hard to comprehend without a plausible

15 This classical example is very well comprehensible in terms of the definition of intuition as the absence ofproof and evidence. See section 5.1 General Definition.

52

5.3 Characteristics

story that relates it to the commonly perceived world. This intricacy of the situation not onlymanifests itself at the level of countering intuitions, but can also be shown in the very notionof quantum entanglement.

5.3.2 Notion

After carving out some of the characteristics representative for the counter-intuitiveness ofquantum entanglement, we will now take a closer look at the notion itself. Up to now weestablished counter-intuitiveness along the lines of a phenomenon which contradicts ourclassical expectations instructed by the world we live in (e.g. see reality and locality as-sumption). However, as the notion of quantum entanglement arose from this situation, it isvery suggestive to wonder whether counter-intuitiveness finds its expression in the compre-hension of the notion alone. The tool box I am going to use in order study this matter isequipped with, to my mind, suitable conceptions of Gaston Bachelard’s epistemology.

Introduction to Bachelard’s Epistemology16

Bachelard generally assumes science to be an alternation between empiricism and rational-ism. Instead of both extremes being in diametric opposition, he perceives it as a dialecticrelation. Bachelard argues that an empiricism is always in need of clear, deductive lawsin order to be conceivable and teachable. In addition, a rationalism is not very convincingwithout credible evidence and applications in reality. Hence in order to prove the value of anempirical law, it has to become a basis for logical considerations. Vice-versa, a logical con-sideration becomes admissible when it can become the basis for an experiment. ThereforeBachelard does not advocate a dualism, but a dialectic relation where one is complementedby the other. For him, scientific thinking is to enter the epistemological area between theoryand practice, mathematics and experience. In order to comprehend a law of nature scientif-ically, it is necessary to understand it as both, a phenomenon and a noumenon17 (Bachelard1980, p.20f).

Although this relation between empiricism and rationalism is balanced per se, Bachelarddetects a privilege in contemporary physics in direction of rationalism proceeding to expe-rience. His cue is the rise and the weight of mathematical considerations in current physics.This analysis can also be deemed valid for today’s physics. Mainly because much of today’s

16 This introduction is a rendition of the prologue (Bachelard 1980, p.17-30).17 Caution: not Kant’s noumena (Ding an sich), but rather the general idea about something that can only be

recognized by the mind

53


physics relies conceptually on ideas which arose in the period Bachelard is referring to; thefirst half of the twentieth century. Moreover, the very subject of this thesis is a prime ex-emplar for what he calls applied or prospective rationalism18. At the very beginning thereis a rational consideration, say the EPR thought experiment or quantum entanglement, im-posed by other tenets founded in known facts, e.g. blackbody radiation (Compendium 2009,p.39f). Then this rational consideration becomes the subject of a program of experimentalrealization. On the surface, a thought experiment is mostly intended to explicate a theory(or make another theory look preposterous); as in the EPR case.19. Hence there is no needfor realisation in the first place, except in the mind. That is probably one reason, besidesthe technical hurdles, why it took quite some time until an experimental realization was fi-nally devised in the case of quantum entanglement; see the Bell experiments. Furthermore,it is not the blunt implementation of the physical setting of the EPR thought experiment thatmatters, but the realization of the rational idea behind it. Namely to scrutinize whether quan-tum entanglement is the consequence of specific non-classical assumptions (see Schrödinger1935) or proof for the deficiency of quantum mechanics within the framework of classicalassumptions (see EPR 1935). The Bell experiments clearly20 realize quantum entanglementas a phenomenon and the consequence of non-classical assumptions.

According to Bachelard, not only the phenomenon is necessary for scientific comprehension,but also the noumenon. What is the noumenon of quantum entanglement? Is it a clear-cut ra-tional term knowable by its physical definition alone? Where does the counter-intuitivenessof quantum entanglement come into play? Is it inherent to the very notion? The instrumentof choice for answering these questions is the concept of the epistemological profile devisedby Bachelard.

Epistemological Profile

In the book Philosophy of the No, Bachelard explains the idea of the epistemological profile(Bachelard 1980, p.55ff). Hiss starting point is to call into question the generality of therealism held by scientists. Is a scientist a realist in all her thoughts and conjectures? Doesone and the same mind deal with differing gradations of realism in its thinking? Besides,do these gradations depend on the notions concerned, the progression of the beliefs andthe theoretical concepts of the prevailing era? According to Bachelard, a specific notion

18 Rationalisme prospecteur (Bachelard 1980, p.21)19 The scientific tool of the thought experiment is certainly more complex than put forward here (Brown and

Fehige 2011)20 Again, the loopholes concerning Bell experiments have to be kept in mind. (Compendium 2009, p.348f)

54

5.3 Characteristics

is always characterized by a pluralism of philosophical cultures or aspects with divergingweights. The epistemological profile is an instrument to illustrate the psychological effectswhich different philosophical positions have on understanding a notion. An explanation canbe offered based on Bachelard’s own example, the notion of mass:

Bachelard distinguishes five basic philosophical approaches which condition the differentaspects of our personal application of the notion of mass. Naive realism, positivist empiri-cism, Newtonian or Kantian rationalism (classical), complete rationalism (relativistic) andhis dialectic rationalism. At first glance this really looks like a fatal contraction of the vastand diverse field of philosophy into five branches. Nevertheless, if we pay attention to theanalogy Bachelard had in mind, then his approach becomes more reasonable. Think of thevisible spectrum of light from violet to red; it is a continuous spectrum. Each color mergesinto the neighboring one and provides all different kinds of shades of color. The sameapplies to all the possible shades of philosophies. However, within the spectrum of light,pure spectral colors21 are identifiable. In an analogous way, Bachelard designates five basicphilosophies which allow us to categorize the vast spectrum of philosophies. It is implicitwith his approach that the categories devised are not very clear-cut and in turn also consistof a spectrum of different shades. Just as yellow implies all different kinds of yellow.

Again, the visual depiction of the epistemological profile is intended to illustrate the relativerelation of the five philosophies to each other on the x-axis, like a spectrum. The differentvalues on the y-axis of the graph account for the different frequencies of usage, which canalso be interpreted as a relative measure for the relevance of our beliefs regarding this notion.Exact values are of no matter here because, according to Bachelard, such an epistemologicalprofile always refers to a specific notion held by a specific personal mind in time and space.Only a complete collection of the epistemological profiles of all fundamental terms couldbecome the object of what he calls philosophical spectral analysis, which for Bachelardwould be the basis for a comprehensive psychology of the scientific mind. Admittedly wewill not get that far here, but will use the epistemological profile as an instrument to reflect onthe comprehension of counter-intuitive notions; specifically that of quantum entanglement.

To begin with, we promptly introduce Bachelard’s very accessible example of the notionof mass. In principle, almost every person should be capable of sketching her own epis-temological profile of her personal scientific understanding of the notion of mass throughintrospection. Just like Bachelard, we will take the profile given in figure 5.2 as a commonone for our time and culture. Such an assumption is appropriate because in this regard not

21 Colors that are caused by a relatively narrow frequency band of light in the visible spectrum. Violet, blue,green, yellow, orange and red.

55


(1)

naive realism

(2)

positivistempiricism

(3)

Newtonianor Kantianrationalism

(4)

completerationalism(relativistic)

(5)

dialecticrationalism

Figure 5.2: Epistemological profile. Source: Bachelard 1980, p.57

much has changed, although more than seven decades have already passed since his writ-ing. In addition, the most frequent usage of the notion of mass will nowadays resort to aNewtonian or Kantian rationalistic understanding (3). This is what is mainly taught in ourgeneral education system, namely classical mathematics and elementary physics (classicalmechanics).22 Nevertheless, it must be granted that growing importance has been laid onthe relativistic understanding of mass by the likes of Einstein.23 Anyway, it is still not thataccessible, as the classical rationalism described before is very pervasive24. Hence a com-pletely rationalistic (relativistic) understanding of mass accounts for a smaller share (4). Thepositive empirical comprehension of mass is of course strongly represented (2). Weighing isan activity which is not only important to science, but also widespread in our daily lives. Itrelates a distinct number to a distinct mass.25 The scrutinizing glance at the bathroom scale,a frequent routine for many, is a telling form of behaviour in this regard. Besides, from timeto time we do think of mass in a naive realistic way (1). Namely in metaphors where werelate mass to nothing concrete but an undefined amount of some quantity. For instance amass of apples, without weighing them or putting them in any rationalist scientific context.This involves a naive realistic understanding of mass; like just stating that there ‘a lot ofapples’. The smallest share in this spectrum is held by dialectic rationalism (5). This isprobably the hardest one to circumscribe, because it is precisely the openness and dialecticbetween phenomenon and noumenon which Bachelard tries to advocate. The details of this

22 Inertial mass is a quantitative measure of an object’s resistance to the change of its speed. Gravitationalmass is a measure of magnitude of the gravitational force. Classically, the equivalence of both types ofmass is noted but not explicated.

23 See special and general theory of relativity.24 As indicated by its height in the y-axis.25 The physical concept of weight refers to a property of matter related but not equal to mass. Weight is

the gravitational force acting on an object. Its mass is an intrinsic property of this object independent ofgravity.

56

5.3 Characteristics

will become clearer by the end of this chapter. For now a possible example, which was notwithin the scope of Bachelard’s considerations because of its newness, is the role and thesearch for Higgs boson as a hypothetical massive elementary particle predicted by the Stan-dard Model. The so-called Higgs mechanism describes how elementary particles obtain theirmass. We could think of it as a good example of how to envision the relationship betweenrationalization and realization in the sense of Bachelard. For the simple reason that it is aprofoundly rational consideration within the Standard Model which, of course among othermotives, triggered the building of the largest machine to this day in order find the origin ofmass.26

Epistemological Profile of Quantum Entanglement

Bachelard’s example of the epistemological profile of the notion of mass seems to be quiteemblematic for many of our foundational terms. What would an epistemological profileof quantum entanglement look like? Bachelard does not consider it directly, but in a shortpassage (Bachelard 1980, p.121) he indicates which unusual characteristics a epistemologi-cal profile of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would have. As the uncertainty principleis fundamental for quantum mechanics, we will see that it is apt to take up these specificsmentioned by Bachelard and transfer them into the epistemological profile of quantum en-tanglement: Namely Bachelard denies that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has anyrealistic relevance in everyday life. The same can be said about quantum entanglement, buteven more so.

Two other sources are available for constructing the epistemological profile: my personalcomprehension of the notion of quantum entanglement and the statements of the intervie-wees regarding this topic. It is important to recall that Bachelard’s epistemological profileis a spectrum of the personal psychological effects of the different (philosophical) schemesoperating in conceptualization. Although it is a matter of the individual mind, it is alsolocalized in an intellectual culture of the respective period and community. Hence the epis-temological profile of the notion of quantum entanglement which will be devised here isadmittedly deduced from my personal understanding. Nevertheless, as a student of physics Iam trained in quantum entanglement to a degree that is standard for the people scientificallyinvolved with this topic. Thus I find myself as part of the community at issue in this regard,especially when drawing on the people I interviewed in the course of this thesis. They arethe ones conducting opto-mechanical experiments and hence are engaged with the notion of

26 see Cern 2011.

57


quantum entanglement not only theoretically, but also empirically.

Of course the questions and the answers in the interviews concerning this topic do not havethe analytic precision implicated by the instrument of the epistemological profile. They aremore about the general nature of quantum mechanics and the difficulties in understandingit properly. However, they strongly hint at what the epistemological profile of quantumentanglement should eventually reproduce. One very representative quote is the following:

“I already dealt with the Bell inequality, and so on, in my diploma thesis. That is the ‘classical’

example within the quantum mechanical context. And yet, to this day, I have to reconsider it

from a changing perspective again and again. Yet, you have to understand what is happening

there once again. I think that is the fascinating part. Because you can’t lay your finger on what

quantum physics really is. And how to speak about it properly. Therefore you have to develop

so many different models in your mind.” 27

– Nikolai Kiesel, (Interviews 2011c, §32)

An understanding of this kind and the difficulties in conceptually grasping quantum entan-glement are characteristic and can be adequately expressed by the peculiar epistemologicalprofile to follow (see figure 5.3). Not because I am able to assign the exact true weights tothe different columns of the spectrum, but because I reconstruct the structure in a reasonableway, i.e. the relation of negative and positive values, of the profile. This is thus where Iwould locate counter-intuitiveness in this matter; namely in the context of the single notion.

(1)

naive realism

(2)

positivistempiricism

(3)

Newtonianor Kantianrationalism

(4)

completerationalism(relativistic)

(5)

dialecticrationalism

Figure 5.3: Epistemological profile of quantum entanglement.

Like Bachelard with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I will draw the naive realistic (1)aspects of the profile with a negative value. There is nothing in everyday life that wouldbring about an intuitive comprehension of quantum entanglement. Moreover, there is no

27 Translated by the author.

58

5.3 Characteristics

meaningful usage of the term in everyday life as there is with the notion of mass. At firstglance it can be argued that the value should be zero. This would signal that the naiverealistic perspective would not matter at all. However it does, because the experience andthe thinking common to our daily life also preforms our scientific mind. This is also inline with Bachelard, because for him each ‘column’ in the spectrum can be regarded asan epistemological obstacle to the others. We have to take this seriously in the case ofquantum entanglement. It is not just that there is no everyday life experience of quantumentanglement, but common knowledge about daily life contradicts the findings of the theoryand the experiments concerning quantum entanglement. In order to take this into account, anegative value is assigned to naive realism.

The same considerations also apply to Newtonian or Kantian rationalism (3) because, as hasbeen shown throughout this thesis, there is a fundamental contradiction between the classicalassumption about realism and/or locality and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. Ow-ing to the Bell experiments there is also evidence that theories assuming a hidden variableto accommodate for the more intuitive assumptions of reality and locality do not hold true.However, it (psychologically) remains a vital part of the notion of quantum entanglement,but in a negative sense. Again, as with naive realism, Newtonian or Kantian rationalism asthe philosophy of classical physics is incompatible with quantum entanglement, and is thusa resistive element in the spectrum, and a negative value is assigned to it.

The positive empirical comprehension (2) concerns the experiments conducted with quan-tum entanglement, or rather their measurement results. It ranges from the Bell experimentsto the more complex set-ups of late, such as in the field of quantum opto-mechanics. A goodindication of why this perhaps deserves a rather high value is that quantum entanglement isnot only a primary fundamental phenomenon which is being investigated, but also a meansexploited in various applications. Examples of this are quantum teleportation, quantum en-cryption and quantum computing. The experiments realize quantum effects with commonlyaccessible concepts28. It is the results, or let us say the results in the light of the theory,which are non-classical and hence counterintuitive. In general, for quantum entanglement itis a correlation of two observables.29 In the case of the paradigmatic experiment of quantumopto-mechanics featured here, it concerns the entanglement, i.e. non-classical correlation,of the intensity of the light in the cavity and the deflection of the cantilever.30 More generallyin the words of two of the interviewees:

28 For example see cantilever, cavity, radiation pressure, and so forth in the paradigmatic experiment of thisthesis.

29 See the definition of quantum entanglement in section 2.2 Schrödinger’s Definition of Entanglement30 See section 3.2 The Experiments

59


“In the moment when you stand in front of the experiment you are indeed always dealing with

classical apparatuses.” 31


“So I’m doing classical physics [sarcasm]. The hope behind the experiment is to really go into

the quantum regime.”

– Florian Blaser, (Interviews 2011f, §53)

From this it appears that we have to consider the status of the positivist empirical perspectivetwofold. On the one hand, most of the experimental apparatuses involved and the readingsof the instruments are classically intelligible. They are not in conflict with naive realism (1)or Newtonian or Kantian rationalism (3). Hence on this level there is no contradictory rela-tionship between those three philosophies [(1), (2) and (3)], and the epistemological profileshould tend to look like that of mass (see figure 5.2). That means all three perspectives,naive realism (1), positive empiricism (2) and Newtonian or Kantian rationalism (3), arenon-contradictory and hence all positive. However, on the other hand the final outcome ofthe experiments (i.e. the conclusion of the measurement readings as quantum entanglement,as already shown), contradict the account of naive realism (1) and of Newtonian or Kantianrationalism (3).

In order to somehow incorporate this twofold situation with regard to experiments dealingwith quantum effects, the relationship between the three philosophies [(1), (2) and (3)] isdevised as shown in figure 5.3. The perspective of positive empiricism (2) is drawn witha high positive value in order to appreciate the positivist concentration on the empiricalreadings of classical instruments, as is also the case with quantum experiments. However,the contradiction of the experimental outcome to a naive realistic (1) and a Newtonian orKantian rationalist (3) point of view is expressed by the relation of the positive (2) to thenegative (1) and (3). Of course this adds to the previous arguments which already made usassume the naive realistic (1) and the Newtonian or Kantian rationalist (3) perspective to benegative on their own account.

The completely rationalist or relativist perspective (4) is to my mind difficult to properly takeinto account. On a theoretical level, quantum mechanics has not yet been adequately recon-ciled with Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Apart from that, the Copenhagen interpre-tation of quantum mechanics has a tendency to introduce relativity at the point of measure-ment. As the determination of the property value of a particle is a matter of measurement, itcan be comprehended as being relative to the measurement itself and the measurement con-

31 Translated by the author.

60

5.3 Characteristics

text.32 In sum, this aspect of the epistemological profile of quantum entanglement appears tobe neither very tangible nor very conclusive to me. Due to these shortcomings and its ratherminor importance for the overall argument, I cautiously assess it to be of low relevance.33

On the contrary, dialectic rationalism (5) is considered to be of high value. We do not haveto fully comply with Bachelard’s understanding of this aspect in the epistemological profile.For a start, we can conceive of it more modestly as the very comprehension which scientistsengaged in this field have about quantum entanglement; aside from all the other momentain the spectrum of the epistemological profile. In concrete terms, this contains for instancethe underlying assumption of quantum entanglement that particles do not possess definiteproperty values prior to their measurement. And that the correlation established by quantumentanglement is independent of the distance between the objects involved. Schrödinger’sdefinition of quantum entanglement principally also falls into this category. For now, thisis only a quantitative enumeration of statements about what scientists consider quantumentanglement to mean, besides the difficulties involved with the classical understanding.

In order to study some of the qualitative aspects of this dialectic rationalism, it eventuallybecomes necessary to take a closer look at Bachelard’s Philosophy of the No. This will alsoallow us to once again stress the difference between the counter-intuitiveness of quantumentanglement and that of other scientific notions.

Philosophy of the No

Bachelard wrote a short and accessible introduction to his Philosophy of the No (Bachelard1980, p.155ff). Generally speaking, it is not an appeal for plain negation as an end in itself. Itis a reasonable criticism, i.e. expressing a substantiated no against a given understanding of amatter, which is neither an arbitrary negation, nor a negation without evidence, nor rushinga negation out of principle. What it rather implies is a strong synthetic and constructiveimpetus.

Examples for Bachelard are the panning out of Newtonian mechanics as a special case ofnon-Newtonian mechanics (i.e. the theory of relativity), the Euclidean within non-Euclideangeometry, and so on. In these cases, the negation of key assumptions of the initial theorydid not make them incorrect, but allowed them to be synthetically superposed in a morecomplete understanding. As Bachelard puts it, there is no automatism which would allow

32 This is generally referred to as the so-called measurement problem in quantum mechanics.33 Nonetheless, this aspect is very underexposed here and would deserve more attention beyond the scope of

this thesis.

61


us to logically reduce the new tenets to the old ones (Bachelard 1988, p.13f). For himthey are true irreversible extensions not only to the matter, but also to the scientific mindcomprehending it.

Therefore, as a means of generalization and conceptualization, the philosophy of the no re-tains what it negates. The example Bachelard refers to is the notion of the atom (Bachelard1980, p.159f). Nowadays the most common intuitive image of the atom, mentally and pic-torially, is a simplified version of Bohr’s model. It basically resorts to an analogy with themodel of the planetary system. The naive realistic picture is that the electrons circle aroundthe nucleus on defined paths due to electrostatic forces, just as the planets orbit the sun dueto gravitational forces. This is a nice and intuitively accessible picture, but one we are notentitled to take too literally from a scientific perspective. For instance, according to Heisen-berg’s uncertainty principle the electrons are not explicitly locatable on their way aroundthe nucleus. This is just one of the many more adaptations to the model needed in order tosatisfy other physically relevant tenets. Concerning the notion of the atom, Bohr’s model istherefore merely the starting point for an application of critical scientific thinking that dis-misses, i.e. says no to, an ever growing number of details implicated by the original material.Increasing scientific knowledge about the atom therefore increases the divergence betweenthe initial intuitive image and the current scientific comprehension of the notion of the atom.

The essential insight of Bachelard is that the actual notion of the atom always retains a ref-erence to its relative historical genesis from prior realistic and rational representations. Thisis exactly what the epistemological profile tries to make explicit. Whatever is abandonedfrom the comprehension of the notion due to scientific scrutiny still remains inherent to thenewly evolved notion. In short, for Bachelard the actual notion of the atom is the sum, andnot the result, of the scientific criticism based on its first intuitive images. These primary

imaginings are very important, because they serve science as an originator which is intendedto be eradicated but which one ultimately never succeeds in doing. In this regard Bachelardemphasizes the atom model of Bohr as a very good representative of its kind. Scientificallyspeaking, almost nothing remained from the original picture, and its dissolution necessitatedso many no’s that scientific knowledge about the atom made huge progress. It is importantto note that these initial intuitive images are of course not primary in a strong sense, i.e.metaphysically given or universals. They should only be assumed as being initial in theweak sense that they are only a relative starting point depending on the currently prevailingscientific mind. This already becomes obvious in the example stated here. The Bohr modelof the atom is an initial intuitive image bound to a certain era and a certain community. Inthe past the notion of the atom and hence the epistemological profile has certainly factored

62

5.3 Characteristics

in other naive realistic and rationalist images than the Bohr model. Accordingly the notionof the atom will certainly refer to (new) intuitive images due to the progress of science andof the scientific mind in the future.

However, in this day and age the notion of the atom has undergone the very conceptualizationdepicted so far. This can also easily be seen in how the notion of the atom is taught. TheBohr model is still the earliest starting point for introducing somebody to what is knownabout atoms. In this regard the educational process is thus a replication of the historicalprocess of conceptualization.

Bachelard has put forward a fairly plausible example regarding the notion of the atom. Howabout the notion of quantum entanglement? What would the initial intuitive image be in thatcase? Is it possible to reconstruct it in accordance to the Philosophy of the No of Bachelard?What are the difficulties in doing so? And what is the difference compared to the notion ofthe atom?

From all what has been said so far, it should be easy to identify the initial image that is thestarting point of the notion of quantum entanglement. Indeed it is remarkable that it is theabsolute starting point for this notion; there was nothing beforehand. Although the namingfollowed shortly afterwards by Schrödinger (Schrödinger 1935), it has to be rememberedthat devising the notion was a response to Einstein et al. (EPR 1935). Therefore it is apt toassume the EPR thought experiment as the actual underlying image of the notion of quantumentanglement.

Therefore the first to apply something like a no to Einstein’s comprehension of the matterwas Schrödinger. Besides being the first no, it was also the essential one, because it reversedthe entire reasoning of the thought experiment. As we already know, Einstein et al. con-cluded that the theory of quantum mechanics is incomplete on the basis of the fundamentalassumption that objects have property values independent of their observation and the im-possibility of ‘spooky action-at-a-distance’. Schrödinger, however, starts out by assumingthat the theory of quantum mechanics is complete and thus concludes that the assumptionsembraced by Einstein et al. cannot be upheld.

Based on this, we can certainly identify a major difference compared to the image of Bohr’smodel in the notion of the atom. As already stated, Bachelard depicts the progressive dis-mantling of the initial intuitive image by scientific criticism; i.e. saying no to the details theimage implies if taken too literally. This is not the case with quantum entanglement. Onthe contrary, the first step of progression in the conceptualization of quantum entanglementis already the complete reversal of the proposition implied by the starting point. This very

63


situation has been incorporated into the previously devised epistemological profile of thenotion of quantum entanglement by assuming negative values for the naive realistic (1) andthe classical rationalistic (3) perspective (see figure 5.3).

Consequently a distinction can be drawn on the basis of the relation of the conceptualizationtowards its initial intuitive image. This difference also characterizes the grade of counter-intuitiveness inherent in the notion. At first sight both scientific notions, that of the atomand that of quantum entanglement, are counter-intuitive in relation to normal everyday lifeexperience. However, taking a closer look shows that they are distinguishable in this matterexactly because of the differing status of their initial images.

The notion of the atom is counterintuitive because the initial intuitive image is refined bya succession of critiques, whereby each of these steps is counterintuitive in relation to theinitial intuitive image. This means that in the case of the notion of the atom the counter-intuitiveness is the sum of counterintuitive refinements employed on the initial intuitiveimage. It is important to note that the relation to the initial intuitive image prevails in apositive way. Although almost completely altered by the criticism, it is possible to back-track and hence reproduce a positive connection to the naive realistic aspects of the notionof the atom.

In contrast, the initial image of the notion of quantum entanglement is somewhat counterin-tuitive all along. The starting point of the notion is already a radical challenge to physicallyvery intuitive assumptions34 which are fundamental to our common comprehension of theworld. A cue that the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement enters right at the be-ginning comes from Schrödinger himself. He devised the notion of quantum entanglement,and in the very same paper also the thought experiment of Schrödinger’s cat (Schrödinger1935, p.812, vol.48). The latter is the radical upscaling of the consequences of quantumentanglement to human dimensions. Thus Schrödinger vividly expressed the fundamentalcounter-intuitiveness of his findings right away.

This means that the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement is already constitutiveof the initial image of the notion and not so much a matter of its refinements. We couldpractically speak of an initial counterintuitive image as the starting point of the conceptual-ization of quantum entanglement. It can thus be deemed impossible to reconstruct a positiveconnection to any naive realistic or classical rationalistic aspects.

The fact that quantum mechanics, and with it quantum entanglement, is backed by numer-ous experiments is of no great relevance here. For example, the experiments of quantum34 E.g. objects are bearers of distinct property values independent of their observation and there is no superlu-

minal influence between distant physical objects.

64

5.3 Characteristics

opto-mechanics try to establish quantum effects at human-size scales. They offer a sortof relationship to the everyday world, because the experiments mostly rely on classical in-struments and concepts in order to realize quantum entanglement. We may recall the basicphysical concepts put forward earlier in this thesis, such as two opposing mirrors making upa cavity, the radiation pressure of light and so on35. None of them are very counterintuitiveper se. However, there is a regime where all of this classical set-up realizes data which isonly comprehensible in terms of quantum entanglement. This passage seems impossibleto comprehend solely by empirical means and without recourse to a positive intuitive im-age. Of course these considerations were also taken into account in the previously devisedepistemological profile of the notion of quantum entanglement (see again (2) in figure 5.3).

Conclusion

We were able to study the specifics of the counter-intuitiveness of the notion of quantumentanglement by employing parts of Bachlard’s epistemological framework and examples.Following Bachelard’s main thought that the comprehension of a notion is comprised ofa spectrum of philosophical perspectives allowed me to generally illustrate the rooting ofcounter-intuitiveness in the very notion. The specific differences between quantum entan-glement and, for instance, the classical notion of mass were shown by producing an epis-temological profile of quantum entanglement. As a result, the notion of quantum entangle-ment revealed a repugnancy in its relationship to the naive realistic and classical rationalisticaspects. More specifically, a distinct counter-intuitiveness for the notion of quantum entan-glement has been identified by also considering the historical genesis of conceptualizationbased on Bachelard’s Philosophy of the No. Namely a counter-intuitiveness that alreadyemerges in the initial image, the originator of a conceptualization. In other words, instead ofan initial intuitive image underlying the comprehension of a notion, such as with commonnotions, an initial counterintuitive image is constitutive of the comprehension of the notionof quantum entanglement.

The path which has led us to these conclusions has been pursued in the light of a weaktype of Copenhagen interpretation, and we will continue to follow it. As has been repeat-edly mentioned, other interpretations such as Bohm’s mechanics, Many Worlds and so on,are not within the scope of this thesis. Therefore it must remain open, whether reasoningbased on different interpretations would have resulted in widely differing conclusions. Inprinciple it should be equally possible to also employ the same instruments, e.g. devising

35 See section 3.2 The Experiments

65


an epistemological profile, on all other interpretations; with certainly equally exciting re-sults. The circumstance that strongly speaks for the generality of the conclusions drawnhere is that the as yet unsuccessful search for a proper interpretation of quantum mechan-ics parallels the lack of an initial intuitive image for the notion of quantum entanglement.The sought-after interpretation would have to lessen the contradicting aspects of the currentcomprehension of the matter. In this way it would also automatically supply an initial intu-itive image which would dissolve the counter-intuitiveness of our depiction. The other wayround, if we can somehow come up with an initial intuitive image of quantum entanglement,it would be rather strange to think that a proper interpretation could not easily be found bystraight-forward reasoning.

Of course the hunt for a proper interpretation or an initial intuitive image is one possibil-ity to ease the counter-intuitiveness and the problems in comprehending the subject matter.The alternative, followed up on in the next section, springs from another consideration ofBachelard (Bachelard 1988, p.11). He stresses that our scientific mind, i.e. our reasoningand intuition, is mainly instructed by synthetically produced experience. Hence instead ofsearching for an initial image that fits our scientific mind, it is all about evolving our scien-tific mind in a direction where the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement becomes‘inconceivable’.

66

6 Coping

Until now we have dissected the specifics and highlighted several of the characteristics of thecounter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement. In the course of doing this, I have assumedand shown that counter-intuitiveness can be understood as an indicator of a problematicsituation; moreover a prominent one.

That raises the following questions: If it is considerable and undesirable, then how shouldwe cope with it? Can we look forward to resolving the situation and improving comprehen-sion of the matter? What are the conceivable prospects? In principle, several scenarios areimaginable; none of them are really exclusive, but nevertheless distinguishable in a broadoutline.

Probably the most wide spread one is the hope for a more viable interpretation of quantummechanics. One which is not smitten with counter-intuitiveness. Such a fitting interpretationmay be found due to some flash of inspiration either based on that which is already known,or led by new discoveries. The following quote is an expression of such an approach:

“As long as there are, how shall I put it, phenomenal equivalent interpretations, I mean those

which obviously do not produce any contradiction to the observations. As long as there are

so many phenomenally equivalent world views, I think our reasoning is still fundamentally

wrong. I really think that there can be only one. Now the question is whether we can learn new

things by experimenting.” 1

– Markus Aspelmeyer, (Interviews 2011g, §70)

The last sentence of the quote was rather a rhetorical question when one considers that quan-tum opto-mechanics, the research field of the experimental group, has the basic intention ofrealizing quantum effects with larger systems. Namely, they plan to stretch the applicabil-ity of quantum entanglement to the limits, other than technical ones, and see what happensthere.2

1 Translated by the author.2 For instance, one of the challenges of the coming years will be to take a closer experimental look at the

relation between quantum physics and gravity (Interviews 2011g, §73).

67

6 Coping

Another scenario is to contest the importance of the problem of counter-intuitiveness. Froma pragmatic point of view, it can be argued that for doing the actual physics it is not impor-tant whether the corresponding theory is intuitively comprehensible or not. What is mainlyvalued with a theory is the power of its mathematical framework and how it enables us topredict and describe the results of the experiments. Quantum mechanics is known to fulfillthese pragmatic criteria very well. A specific variant of this scenario is made explicit in thefollowing quote:

“What entanglement is as such mainly defines itself by what you can do with it, because I

believe nobody really knows what it is. You know a little bit about how to quantify it. How you

can tell if you have got a lot of or a little entanglement. And you ... oh well, you can see the

effects. Sort of teleportation or transmission of information. Simply a resource.” 3


“And that is entanglement for me. This operational complex. Having said that I cannot say

what it actually is either.” 4


However, in my opinion the question remains whether such a ‘retreat’ into mere mathemat-ical craftsmanship and an operational understanding of the matter is reasonable in the finalconsequence. With all the opportunities theoretical physics and, more generally, mathemat-ics embodies, well justified by its rise in importance in physics, it must be pointed out thatother vital traits of the discipline of physics also have to be kept in mind. Specifically thetrait which tries to consistently interrelate the knowledge gained with our realm of experi-ence. Bluntly put, physics, in contrast to mere mathematics, is commonly accepted to yieldconceivable explanations – going well beyond operational definitions – about the physicalworld.5 Nonetheless, conceiving quantum entanglement as a resource, like energy, is indeedcommon (Bub 2010).

The third scenario concerns the ability of scientific thinking to progress, adapt and familiar-ize itself with the matter at hand. This means that we might not just rely on ignoring counter-intuitiveness, awaiting new scientific facts or sudden inspiration, but take into account thatour reasoning in that matter is also subject to development and change. The following two

3 Translated by the author.4 Translated by the author.5 For instance, the parameters of statistical thermodynamics are made conceptually comprehensible by in-

terrelating them with the intuitive picture of vast quantities of molecules colliding with each other. In thecontext of the epistemological profile this explanatory effort is connected to utilizing the share of naiverealism (see section 5.3.2 Epistemological Profile of Quantum Entanglement) and stress the historical,pedagogical aspects in order to further comprehension of the matter.

68

statements of an interviewee indicate the possibility of such a change in thinking and inconsequence how the matter is taught:

“This battle between realists and local non-realists is quite fascinating. Because right now it is

becoming hard to find a guy who believes in local hidden variable theories, or even non-local

hidden variable theories. To me personally this looks like people trying to keep the old way of

looking at things; not making the step necessary to understand quantum mechanics.”


“Unless there is a big change to quantum mechanics [...], I think the change that might happen

is only at the pedagogical level. People learning differently, having access to more examples.”


Particular attention will be paid to the last sentence of this quote, as it motivates the investi-gation of pedagogics6 and technology7 as means of coping with the counter-intuitiveness ofquantum entanglement.

For now, it is important to summarize that these scenarios are neither a complete line-up norexclusive alternatives. In a probable outlook, more or less all of them will play a certainrole: It is very understandable to concentrate on the detailed development and experimentalapplication of the theory, when trying to rationally resolve the counter-intuitiveness of thematter on a general level seems so fruitless; as I have tried to illustrate by this thesis. Thusin the practical work done in this field, it is assumed that scientific facts are to be found inthe future that if not bluntly suggesting a single valid interpretation, at least exclude someof them from the current plethora of possible interpretations. Of course there is more toscience than mere craftsmanship8; for instance its conveyance or its history (pedagogics).Subsequently we have to take into account that science can be conceived as a socio-culturalcomplex, generally disposed to proceed also in its reasoning.9 This implies that in the pro-cess of research, of advancing knowledge and conveying it, not only the comprehension ofthe matter changes, but in the long run also the intuitions about it. Matters which today seemto be counterintuitive are not necessarily immune to being perceived as intuitive when onehas become accustomed to or familiarized with them over time. It is thus conceivable thatthe issue of the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement discussed in today’s contextmay dissipate and become a non-issue in the (near or distant) future. The reasons for thisconjecture will be presented and questioned in the remainder of this chapter.

6 See section 6.3.1 Pedagogics.7 See section 6.3.2 Technology.8 Cf. the philosophical term techne9 See section 6.3 Bachelard: Reason Instructed by Fabricated Experience.

69

6 Coping

6.1 Aim of Science? Coherent System of

Assumptions

Thus far I have established that the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement is prob-lematic in its own right. However, I have not discussed whether this is a relevant matter forthe science of physics. In other words, is there a fundamental need for science to get ridof the incoherences in its assumptions – in our more comprehensive diction referred to ascounter-intuitiveness – or can the science of physics, or even more precise the physicists,live perfectly well with sets of basically contradictory assumptions?

In order to illustrate what could be meant by this, we will take a look at parts of the inter-view conducted with Markus Aspelmeyer. In Interviews 2011g, §50-71 a dialogue unfoldedwhich precisely addresses this topic. The starting point is the widely shared idea10, here inthe words of Aspelmeyer, that the ultimate aim of science is that have all your expectationsshould be consistent with all your observations. This vindicates the assumption of at leastone11 world view which is totally consistent with all our observations. However, in the lightof fundamentally conflicting assumptions visible in the counter-intuitiveness of quantumentanglement, for example, Aspelmeyer is willing to allow for some doubt:

“I think, at least in the empirical sciences, there is the implicit assumption that a world view

[Weltbild] exists which in the end can be carved out. However, I want to underline that this per-

haps must not be the case. So maybe complementarity is something that is also relevant to epis-

temology. Complementarity is something, also in principle, which is applicable to world views

[Weltanschauungen]. That there are different, equivalent descriptions of the world, which are

mutually exclusive because they use complementary notions, but refer to the very same nature,

the very same being [Sein]. That’s a maybe.” 12 13

– Markus Aspelmeyer, (Interviews 2011g, §53)

All in all the general aspiration of the science of physics, put forward here, is to find a worldview which is maximally consistent. Hence it is apt to claim that counter-intuitiveness in

10 Certainly this is only one of many possible conceptions of science and its aims. However, it is the one Ifound with the people interviewed.

11 Multiple to unlimited equivalent world views are also conceivable and not precluded.12 Translated by the author.13 As an aside, it is apposite to suggest that complementarity can easily be comprehended in two different

ways. First it is all about world views being different, even mutually exclusive, but equally capable ofconsistently describing the observable data. On the other hand, the second concerns the situation whereultimately all the observable data cannot be consistently apprehended by one world view, but only bya multitude of mutually exclusive world views. This is a much stronger statement as it precludes thepossibility of a final coherent system of assumptions.

70

6.2 New Generations of Scientists

this field is also an issue for the science of physics in general, as it strives to overcome itin the long run. This is nicely backed by the general tenor that pervaded the interviews.The difficulties in comprehending the matter, i.e. counter-intuitiveness, are not seen as asource of despair but more as a motivation. Almost all of the interviewees stated that theyare challenged by the puzzling features of the matter rather than daunted by them. Forexample see Interviews 2011a, §45 and Interviews 2011f, §51. A more hands-on motive forexperimental work is nicely revealed by the following quote:

“When standing downstairs [in the lab] and optimizing something, this [question about the

comprehension and counter-intuitiveness of quantum mechanics] is of course not relevant.

There I couldn’t care less. But it is simply my motivation, when I am tinkering around to

obtain the last few percent of AOM [acoustic-optical modulator] efficiency [...].” 14


At this point it must again be remarked that this specific orientation towards the larger ques-tions about the comprehension of the matter is probably also owing to the fact that researchon the foundations of quantum physics is a core theme of the quantum institute here inVienna. Hence the validity of this observation is first and foremost local.15

6.2 New Generations of Scientists

Another general conception we can draw on in studying how the issue is coped with is thefollowing: New findings which maybe hard to grasp and their handling need one, two ormore generations of scientists to be taken for granted. Max Planck, a founding father ofquantum physics16, who was himself not very confident with his own findings, mentionedthis idea in his Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie, Leipzig 1948. He wrote that new sci-entific truths are not established by convincing their opponents, but by them dying out anda new generation which has been raised and acquainted with the truth taking their place.Another and maybe more fitting reference are the following words by Richard Feynman:

“We always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum

mechanics represents. At least I do, because I’m an old enough man that I haven’t got to the

point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it. And therefore, some of

the younger students ... you know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or

two until it becomes obvious that there’s no real problem. It has not yet become obvious to me

14 Translated by the author.15 Cf. section B Group: Supplementary Notes16 See for instance law of black-body radiation (Compendium 2009, p.39f).

71

6 Coping

that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no

real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem.”

– Richard Feynman, (Feynman 1982, p.471)

This quote is especially telling, because it is eminently vague and hence fertile soil in whichto raise the following three issues:

First of all, we will identify what Feynman is circumscribing as a real problem, includingdoubting its existence, with what in our diction is label with counter-intuitiveness. Indeedit appears to be rash to equate something very specific, such as what I have developed sofar, with something so vague as Feynman puts it. However, this reaffirms the picture advo-cated in this thesis that our study of the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement isone of many possible dedicated instances of the prevalent discomfort with the explanatoryinconsistency of the matter. What Feynman vaguely outlined as a real problem can indeedbe pinpointed, but only in the light of an already specific understanding.

The second element of vagueness in the quote concerns the meaning of ‘generations of sci-entists’ in this context. How long does a generation of physicists last? What is a generation,and especially in the context of quantum physics? Answering these questions adequatelycertainly exceeds the scope of this thesis. Here I will primarily raise such questions. Thedominating concerns are the conflating definitional aspects of the term generation. In gen-eral, generations are separable in a cursory manner based on time constraints. However,these time constraints which separate generations only make sense due to other distinguish-ing features. For instance, a human familial generation can be defined by the average timebetween a mother’s first offspring and her daughter’s first offspring. This implies that notonly the biological, but also all the social circumstances17 of procreation are represented inthe time tag a generation is labeled with. In the context of generations of scientists, thisinvolves not only the reproduction of knowledge, say education, but also for instance thetime it takes new generations of scientists to become influential and efficacious. What areapt criteria for calling the upcoming scientists a new generation? Exaggerating the quote byFeynman illustrates the intricacy of the issue. The general idea is that the comprehension ofa matter changes over the course of one or two generations of scientists. In order to distin-guish between generations, we need criteria which reveal them to be specifically differentfrom others. A simple criterion such as time which has passed is not sufficient. The mostfitting criterion would be that of a fundamental change in the comprehension of the matter

17 E.g. when is it culturally accepted and common to become pregnant. For an introduction to the topic andas example see Denham 2011

72

6.3 Bachelard: Reason Instructed by Fabricated Experience

at stake.18 However, with such a definition of generations it is rather circular to state thatthere is change through successive generations. We can make this even more tangible. Quitesome time has passed since the beginnings of quantum physics, and even Feynman’s quoteis already thirty years old. Have new generations of scientists already emerged in this fieldof research? In terms of the time scale, we might have to say yes. In terms of generationsthat have fundamentally changed their comprehension of the matter, we might be inclinedto generally tend to say no. As shown in this thesis for example, we are able to call the fun-damental questions raised at the beginning of quantum entanglement (EPR, Schrödinger)still valid, relevant and unresolved. Thinking in generations in this matter thus can be veryambiguous if examined in detail, as has just been hinted at.

The third issue which is vague in this quote by Feynman is the mechanism or process inplace which makes generations proceed in their thinking. What is it that makes us assumethat new generations of scientists will cope differently with the questions raised by oldergenerations? It will not just be time passing by. Hence this is again a vast question toelaborate on and can certainly not be dealt with exhaustively within the scope of this thesis.As a consequence I will just take a look at the two already broached aspects of pedagogicsand technology in the following sections.

6.3 Bachelard: Reason Instructed by Fabricated

Experience

Again we will first employ an idea stemming from Gaston Bachlard. He tries to show thatscientific thinking is essentially oriented towards the realization of the rational (Bachelard1988). Thus Bachelard establishes that this type of realization is the unique feature of to-day’s19 scientific thinking, which clearly distinguishes it from the preceding ones. Thisrealization has nothing to do with a traditional philosophical realism. It is a second orderrealism which is a response to a familiar reality and which is in conflict with the immediate.It is a realism based on a realization of reason instructed by produced experience (Bachelard1988, p.10f).

In order to apply this assessment of scientific thinking by Bachelard, we first of all haveto assume that it is still viable for today’s science. It seems very apt to do so, especiallyin the case of quantum physics. Bachelard invoked quantum physics as one of the major

18 In Kuhnean terms we might speak of a change of paradigms.19 Bachelard refers to the science of his days, roughly at the beginning of the twentieth century.

73

6 Coping

examples20 for this shift towards a new scientific spirit. Furthermore, the fundamentalsof quantum physics, which originated at the beginning of the twentieth century, are stillgenerally valid and in place. Hence we can consider Bachelard’s reflections appropriate fortoday. This can also be bolstered by recalling the actual experiments presented in this thesis.

Bachelard calls this second order realism and we can easily obtain an the idea of it in thecase of quantum opto-mechanics. In the beginning there is a rational consideration thatquantum effects, such as quantum entanglement, are theoretically not bound to the size ofthe system they are implemented with. This thought is in conflict with the immediate andfamiliar comprehension of the world; in our diction meaning it is counterintuitive. Hencethe immediate reality is not the subject matter of our knowledge any more. Rather it isthe produced reality and the experience gathered there which amounts to our knowledge inthis case. Therefore experiments have to be conducted in order to create the phenomena.It is important to note that this is done not because it is easier and more reproducible toaccomplish an observation in the laboratory, but the phenomenon simply would not existif it were not produced there. For Bachelard the conditions of the produced experienceare determined by the requirements of the experiment (Bachelard 1988, p.15). Which, asBachelard continues, shifts the emphasis to the technical problems that have to be masteredin order to produce the phenomena. In the case of quantum opto-mechanics, as well as mostother quantum experiments, it is about excluding environmental influences.21 For example,such technical measures are the extreme cooling of the apparatus and its placing in a vacuum.Even more specifically, in the case of the experiments introduced in this thesis, the possibilityto even come close to a realization of quantum effects strongly depends on the mastery of theproduction of these tiny high quality mirrors on a cantilever. Nevertheless, everything whichis done in order to conduct the experiments is done to produce experience. Experience whichagain feeds back and instructs reasoning accordingly. Referring to our case of quantumopto-mechanics, the general idea, aim or hope is that by fabricating quantum effects at evergrowing size scales, new experiences and hence new knowledge22 will be gathered.

In order to better apprehend this fabrication of experience, we will take a closer look at twocentral aspects (pedagogics and technology) of rationally immersing oneself in a manufac-tured experience especially in the case of quantum opt-mechanics.

20 See chapter 4 in Bachelard 1988, p.86-10021 See the concept of decoherence (Bacciagaluppi 2008; Compendium 2009, p.155ff).22 One future scenario is that of reaching a yet unknown border which would hint at a limit to the applicability

of quantum mechanics, or maybe something else as yet unforeseen.

74


6.3.1 Pedagogics

A very important facet in the progression of the comprehension of a matter, such as the me-diation of the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement in our case, is its conveyance.The first things that come to mind are the educational means utilized in the rearing of newgenerations of scientists. However, we should not just confine ourselves to that, becausethere is also conveyance to those who are not future scientists; that is the ordinary people.

The understanding of pedagogics Bachelard advocates throughout his conception of the sci-entific mind is rooted in his epistemology (Bachelard 1980, 1988). The intellectual history ofthe subject matter mainly determines the way its comprehension is imparted. For instance,Bachelard analyzes the passage from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry as a rationalleap and not a continuous improvement (Bachelard 1988, p.24ff). The dropping of the Eu-clidean assumption of parallels as lines not intersecting on a plane is not a developmentof Euclidean geometry itself, but due to a fundamental change of thinking. According toBachelard (Bachelard 1988, p.27) it was not the case that mathematicians deeply doubtedthe parallel postulate, but that to a greater degree they attained the freedom to generallyquestion the role parallels on a plane play in Euclidean geometry. In retrospect of course,Euclidean geometry is a nicely deducible special case of non-Euclidean geometry. Hencein contrast to its erratic historical genesis, the chronological latter is prior to the formerin logical terms. Bachelard also analogously exemplifies the transition from Newtonian tonon-Newtonian mechanics (Bachelard 1988, p.45f).

According to Bachelard, the crucial purpose or assignment of the pedagogics in science israther to replicate its historical sequence and convey the change of paradigms than to di-rectly teach the logical order suggested by analyzing the subject matter in retrospect. This isperfectly backed by taking a look at the curriculum of today. Before we learn non-Euclideangeometry, we start out from Euclidean geometry. First we learn Newtonian mechanics be-fore we engage with the theory of relativity. Many other examples could easily be mentionedhere.

That such pedagogics are in place adds up pretty well with the other parts of Bachelard’sepistemology mentioned earlier in this thesis. Take for instance his Philosophy of the No23,building on the idea that our comprehension of a matter is the sum of an initial image andthe rational criticism applied to it. Therefore it is that which is immediately accessible is thestarting point, not only in our conceptualization, but also in our conveyance of the concept toothers. For example, in order to explain or teach someone what an atom is, we most probably

23 See section 5.3.2 Philosophy of the No

75

6 Coping

begin by presenting Bohr’s model of the atom and then inch along the inadequacies of thisstarting point. With that said, it is also apparent that concerning the epistemological profileof a notion, the relativistic and rationalistic fraction are formed in distinction to the precedingnaive realistic and positive empirical fractions.24

The specifics of our actual theme of quantum entanglement with regard to the epistemologi-cal profile and its constitution on a counterintuitive instead of an intuitive image has alreadybeen explicated in section 5.3.2 Conclusion. What is left to ask is whether this particular-ity of comprehending quantum entanglement also manifests itself in the pedagogics of thematter. In essence, Bachelard’s pedagogic of reproducing the relevant historical change inthinking is also applicable in this case. Conveying and teaching the subject matter along thelines of a historical shift in reasoning is basically not impeded by its counter-intuitiveness.However, it adds a relevant degree of difficulty to the pedagogical undertaking.

In fact, the intricacy of the matter seems to be so problematic to convey that in actual physicstraining this Bachelardean approach tends to be rather avoided. The tangible lead which en-titles us to adopt this assertion is the educational vita of the interviewees.25 Across the boardit can be discerned that primary access to the knowledge in this research field normallyproceeds via the teaching of formalism.26 Knowledge concerning the EPR thought experi-ment, for instance, the fundamental considerations of Schrödinger, Bell and so on turns outto be the result of either special personal interest27 or individual professors committed tothis issue28. In this regard, the following story of an interviewee is particularly informative,as extracurricular learning (in summer school) of the historical and the experimental coreaspects led to personal interest in the matter.

“He [Reinhard Werner] had these detectors which somehow clicked subsequently [EPR/Bell

experiment]. And then he also told us about Einstein’s paper [EPR paper]. It certainly doesn’t

happen often that: A) it did not get cited very much at the beginning; almost not at all. And B)

that it took thirty years until there was a relevant answer [Bell inequality]. You could measure

it in an experiment. And that was somehow exciting. The history was exciting, as well as the

problem itself.” 29


24 See section 5.3.2 Epistemological Profile25 Again it is important to recall that the data collected only allows claims with local validity.26 For instance see Interviews 2011d, §16-27.27 E.g. see Interviews 2011a, §19 and Interviews 2011f, §6.28 E.g. see Interviews 2011c, §4 and Interviews 2011e, §37.29 Translated by the author.

76


6.3.2 Technology

If we follow Bachelard, merely with his thoughts put forward so far, it becomes clear thattechnology plays a major role in the realization of phenomena. The necessary deploymentof technology determines the actual realization of the phenomena.

The question is how this refers to the overall issue of handling counter-intuitiveness in thismatter. I fleshed out that counter-intuitiveness marks the conflict between everyday lifeexperience and the assumptions necessary for comprehending the phenomenon of quantumentanglement. In principle it is indeed imaginable that one day our everyday life experiencewill be fabricated such as to render familiar the subject matter which is now conceivedas counterintuitive. Of course it is impossible to imagine today what this future everydaylife experience would actually be like. Nevertheless, following Bachelard, instruments arematerialized theories (Bachelard 1988, p.18); as in our case quantum entanglement wouldbe. Hence it would be foreseeable that technology derived from experiments made in thisfield would yield some sort of quantum technology that could find its way into everydaylife. It is not for nothing that the prospect of highly capable appliances (e.g. quantumcryptography or quantum computing) is a driving force in this research area; at least to courtthe funding. Hence what we can hypothetically anticipate is an emergence of technologythat materializes the momentarily counterintuitive theories of quantum mechanics.

Besides such a speculative forecast, it is probably more interesting to study the role of tech-nology in the realm of the scientists engaged in the field. Their working environment, theirmanufactured experience is located in the laboratory. Devising and conducting experimentsis their job. As a consequence it is obvious to assume that if they are engaged with quantumentanglement, they are immersed in all the devices and knowledge applicable to the field.Put differently, if we were to look for a place which would maximally confront us with thepuzzling phenomenal experience of quantum mechanics, like quantum entanglement, wewould have to visit their laboratories.

Nevertheless, immersion in a technological environment where quantum effects are pro-duced does not self-evidently yield a better comprehension of the matter, less struck bycounter-intuitiveness. Let us again make this issue more tangible by referring to the inter-views with the experimenters of the Aspelmeyer group. One of the major questions posedin all the interviews was whether hands-on experimenting helps in becoming accustomed toor appeased with the counter-intuitiveness of the subject matter.

When looking at quantum opto-mechanics we come upon the situation that they are on thebrink of manufacturing quantum phenomena. However, even when fabricating quantum

77

6 Coping

phenomena, they are basically confronted with classical devices in the laboratory.

“At the moment when you stand in front of the experiment you are indeed always dealing with

classical apparatuses.” 30


As we have seen in the description of the experiment31, it consists of parts which are veryintelligible in terms of classical physics. The Fabry-Pèrot cavity for example, radiation pres-sure, mirrors on a cantilever and so on. Unfortunately, we also have to bear in mind that thefunctioning of some parts of the set-up are only properly conceivable on the basis of settledquantum physics.32 The lasers deployed or the method of side-band cooling are examplesof such elements. In sum, the experimenters are dealing with an experimental environmentconsisting of instruments which are materialized theories (following Bachelard) of classi-cal physics and quantum physics. The point, however, is that the targeted counterintuitivephenomenon of quantum entanglement is not part of the apparatuses, but rather the resultof bringing them into a distinct state. That means that when the phenomenon has eventu-ally been produced, it will be cognizable by a readout that is classically perceptible, albeitonly interpretable along the lines of quantum mechanics. We need to recall that in essencequantum entanglement is a non-classical correlation of classical measurement results.33 Thesame idea also applies in the quantum opto-mechanical set-up at hand.

For this reason it would seem rather odd to assert that the experimenters are very immersedin a technological environment which actually renders the counter-intuitiveness of the phe-nomena. Hence we should not expect too much familiarization or acquaintance with counter-intuitiveness by means of the present implementation in the experiments. Rather it is apt tothink that the manufacturing of experience is still at an early stage. In addition, althoughstrongly emphasized in this thesis, we should now take a step back from the laboratory anda specific implementation of the phenomenon, and move to the level of the scientific com-munity engaged in this subject matter. There, a growing plethora of varying experimentalset-ups has already been devised to prepare quantum entanglement. On this level it is pal-pable that experience of the phenomenon is manufactured by many diverging instances ofit. We have to keep in mind here, recalling Bachelard, that it is not merely about produc-ing the phenomenon, but about reason being instructed by the experience of the fabricatedphenomenon. A concrete hint on how we might make this intelligible is given by the ex-

30 Translated by the author.31 See section 3.2 The Experiments.32 I.e. quantum physics which is not counterintuitive in the sense put forward in this thesis. For example the

functioning of lasers is well understood in terms of quantum physics and undisputed in its comprehension.33 See section 2.1 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

78


perimenters themselves. It is not so much the specific technological realization which ishelpful in comprehending the subject matter, it is rather the intellectual exchange about therealization of the phenomenon with colleagues and the community which furthers the un-derstanding and the acquaintance with quantum entanglement. For instance, when askedwhether experimenting helps in understanding the matter, Blaser nicely summarizes withhis answer the subtle attitude I encountered among the experimenters interviewed :

“So with this current experiment, no. From the theory I read, the theory papers I read, I get

a bit. I guess I still increase my understanding of the things through interactions with other

people from the quantum group.”


79

7 Conclusion

In sum, this thesis, motivated by a common dictum that quantum mechanics is counterin-tuitive and based on a field study of an experimental group, aimed to raise questions aboutthe counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement, a key phenomenon in quantum mechan-ics. The notion of counter-intuitiveness put forward here plausibly describes the situationregarding a common comprehension of quantum entanglement. However, this thesis is justa starting point and is far from covering the topic exhaustively. Moreover, it is dependent onthe presumed mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, the notion ofcounter-intuitiveness is apt to generally signify and specify the intricacies of comprehendingquantum entanglement.

The following basic properties of the notion of counter-intuitiveness have been demon-strated:

• Per definition, labeling something as counterintuitive expresses that the matter is not inagreement with the immediate expectations. In the case of the counter-intuitiveness ofquantum entanglement, this conflict touches upon fundamental expectations about theworld we ‘classically’ live in. For example, recall the classical assumption about theproperty values of objects being determined prior to their measurement, or of the localityof events. This high degree of contradiction is well captured by the counter in counter-intuitiveness. It is not that people concerned with the issue do not have intuitions aboutquantum entanglement (= being non-intuitive).1 It is rather the case that the phenomenonof quantum entanglement, already by its definition2, contradicts our classical expectationsmanifested in our everyday lives. This has been specifically made visible by reference tothe actual experiments of the Aspelmeyer group.3

• Besides defining the term counter-intuitiveness, it is also appropriate to analyze someof the more apparent characteristics of the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entangle-ment. This has been accomplished in two steps. First, by comparison with the inevitabil-

1 See section 5.1 General Definition2 See section 2.2 Schrödinger’s Definition of Entanglement3 See section 5.2 Specifics

81

7 Conclusion

ity of perceptual intuitions (Müller-Lyer illusion) and with the counter-intuitiveness ofdeeply classical-physics matters, such as free fall.4 The former indicated that the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement can be described as prevailing despite counter-vailing beliefs, such as perceptual intuitions. The latter illustrated that the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement is more fundamental and less reconcilable withcommon assumptions held about the world than classical – and nevertheless also – coun-terintuitive concepts. Second, this account of the fundamental counter-intuitiveness ofquantum entanglement has been refined by locating the counter-intuitiveness in the com-prehension of the very term quantum entanglement. I devised an epistemological profileof quantum entanglement in order to demonstrate the intricacy at the level of conceptual-ization5. In order to reflect the counter-intuitiveness within the epistemological profile, Icontrived the contribution of a naive realistic and of a Newtonian or Kantian rationalisticunderstanding of quantum entanglement to be negative. With regard to the naive realism,it is assumed negative because there is nothing in daily life which brings about an intu-itive comprehension of quantum entanglement. In the case of the Newtonian or Kantianrationalism, the negative value is owing to the elementary contradiction between classi-cal assumptions of physics, for instance depicted by Einstein’s et al. understanding of theEPR thought experiment and the fundamentals of quantum entanglement.6 Furthermore,I exemplified this difference in conceptualization between the notion of quantum entan-glement and other scientific notions7 by utilizing Bachelard’s Philosophy of the No. Asa result, quantum entanglement, in contrast to other scientific notions, is outlined by thelack of an intuitive initial image upon which refining criticism (saying a justified no tothe initial image) could be based. The conceptualization of quantum entanglement couldbe apprehended as resting on an initial image which is already counterintuitive and hencelocates the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement at this very fundamental levelof comprehension.

In virtue of this, admittedly non-exhaustive, account of counter-intuitiveness and its char-acteristics with regard to quantum entanglement, it is apposite to actually call quantum en-tanglement counterintuitive. With that said, the second issue of interest was just around thecorner, namely analyzing the coping of this counter-intuitiveness. The starting point wasthe question whether the counterintuitive understanding of quantum entanglement is easedby hands-on experimenting. The answers given by the interviewees backed the following

4 See section 5.3.1 By Comparison5 See figure 5.36 See section 2.3 Interim Conclusion 17 Cf. figure 5.2 and figure 5.3

82

assertions:

• Before studying how the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement is coped with,I established that this is a relevant issue. Namely, under the assumption that empiricalscience aims at the consistency of all our expectations with all our observations (i.e.classical and quantum), it is apt to claim that there is a basic aspiration to overcome aspresented here.8

• In order to lead to the question at hand, I differentiated three possible attitudes towardsthe handling of counter-intuitiveness. None of them is actually exclusive, but nonethe-less distinguishable. The first is the longing for a conclusive interpretation of quantummechanics which is not burdened with a counter-intuitiveness which is as fundamentalas propagated in this thesis. The means to accomplish this task are flashes of inspirationconcerning the already known or new discoveries. Secondly, one can also adopt a moreagnostic attitude with respect to the severity of the counter-intuitiveness; for instance astrictly operational definition of quantum entanglement.9 The third and pivotal consid-eration linked to the initial question is based on the idea that reason is able to progress,adapt and familiarize itself with the matter at issue. Hence subject matters which arecounter-intuitive today might become more intuitive in the future due to familiarization.How this applies and which issues could be raised with regard to quantum entanglementhas been shown by the following:

• A central figure of thought in the concept of getting used to initially counterintuitivematters is often associated with the succession of generations of scientists. I gave nodetailed analysis in this regard, but addressed an essential question or issue. If we ascribeupcoming generations with a more casual, or let us say intuitive comprehension of matterswhich have puzzled older generations, we need to come up with criteria for this change incomprehension other than time passing by.10 The obvious one of making new discoverieshas already been mentioned (see last point). The one I pursued in detail is rests uponBachelard’s rationalism that reason can be instructed by fabricated experience.11

• This second order realism according to Bachelard, i.e. actively producing the phenomenato be experienced and thus instructing reason, has been revealed to be a good repre-sentation of the situation of experimental research in this field. Quantum entanglementis far from being passively observable and is actually only realized by the experiment.

8 See section 6.1 Aim of Science? Coherent System of Assumptions9 Cf. quantum entanglement as resource. (Bub 2010)

10 See section 6.2 New Generations of Scientists11 See section 6.3 Bachelard: Reason Instructed by Fabricated Experience

83

7 Conclusion

Therefore at first glance it seemed that quantum entanglement is a candidate suited toinstructing reason by experimenting with the phenomenon. However, having had a lookat two tangible means of experience which bring about the instruction of reason, namelypedagogics and technology, there is a catch to it in the case of quantum entanglement:

– Again I followed Bachelard and conceived pedagogics as being analogue to the in-tellectual history of the subject matter. In other words, pedagogics in science tendsto replicate the historical sequence and conveys the corresponding changes in reasonrather than establishing a sequence of learning which is logical to the subject matter.For instance, Euclidean geometry is usually taught before non-Euclidean geometry,although the former is just a special case of the latter. The reason being that Euclideangeometry is more initial, more immediate relatable to the world we live in. In thisregard, pedagogics is also associated with the Philosophy of the No. In this concept ofBachelard, an initial image of the matter, which conceivability is the prime criteria, isthe starting point for a critical differentiation of the comprehension of the matter. Con-cerning quantum entanglement, the catch is that we cannot make out such an initialintuitive image, but are straight away confronted with the counter-intuitiveness of thematter.12 Hence the pedagogics of quantum entanglement deviates from the given ex-amples and might demand specific deliberations. Elaborating on those was not withinthe scope of this thesis, which humbly restricted itself to raising the issue.13

– The second means of experience which can be deemed instructive for reason is im-mersion into a technological environment which realizes and applies the phenomenon.The people the most in touch with the realization of quantum entanglement are scien-tist conducting quantum experiments, like the Aspelmeyer group. Nonetheless, basedon statements by the interviewees and the counterintuitive character of quantum en-tanglement as described, it turned out that intricacies can also be found here. As hasbeen presented, experiments realizing quantum effects comprise of apparatuses whichare comprehensible in terms of classical physics or settled14 quantum physics. Conse-quently the apparatuses do not constitute a quantum world you could immerse yourselfto. Quantum entanglement is cognizable by a readout that is classically perceptible,albeit only interpretable along the lines of quantum mechanics. This of course cor-rupts the idea of significantly instructing reason in relation to quantum entanglement

12 See section 5.3.2 Philosophy of the No13 See section 6.3.1 Pedagogics14 I.e. quantum physics which is not counterintuitive in the sense put forward in this thesis. For instance, a

laser is well understood in terms of quantum physics and undisputed in its comprehension.

84

by dealing with the technology realizing the phenomenon.15

Although major impediments to two central facets of instructing reason by experiencehave been identified in the case of the comprehension of the phenomenon of quantumentanglement, the thesis finishes with an optimistic outlook. A general hint deduciblefrom the interviews is that intellectual exchange with colleagues and the community aboutthe realization of the phenomenon is a furthering factor concerning the understanding ofand the acquaintance with quantum entanglement.16

In conclusion, this thesis has accomplished its goal of starting off a comprehensive notionof quantum entanglement which illustrates its counter-intuitiveness along the line of threeaccounts which have been discerned but not separated. The introduction of the theoreticaland experimental foundations, drawing on the interviews with researchers in the field andthe instrumentalization of key concepts of Bachelard’s philosophy of science, facilitated ahopefully stimulating analysis of the dictum of quantum entanglement being counterintu-itive. The hope for stimulation is certainly plausible, as the thesis raises more issues than itsettles.

15 See section 6.3.2 Technology16 This is certainly an interesting aspect worthy of detailed elaborations.

85

Bibliography

Aspelmeyer Group

2011 Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information on the Nano- and Microscale,Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, http://aspelmeyer.quantum.at/ (visitedon 11/05/2011).

Aspelmeyer, Markus

2010 “Quantum mechanics: The surf is up”, in Nature, 2010/04/01/print, pp. 685–686,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/464685a.

Bacciagaluppi, Guido

2008 “The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics”, in The Stanford Encyclope-

dia of Philosophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2008, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-decoherence/.

Bachelard, Gaston

1980 Die Philosophie des Nein. Versuch einer Philosophie des neuen wissenschaftlichen

Geistes. (’La philosophie du non’, 1940), Suhrkamp(stw325), Frankfurt/Main.

1988 Der neue wissenschaftliche Geist, (’Le nouvel esprit scientifique’, 1934),Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.

Bell, John S.

1964 “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox”, in Physics, vol. 1, pp.195–200.

Bokulich, Alisa and Gregg Jaegger

2010 Philosophy of quantum information and entanglement, Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge, XXX, 277 S.–.

Brown, James Robert and Yiftach Fehige

2011 “Thought Experiments”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. byEdward N. Zalta, Fall 2011, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/thought-experiment/.

87

http://aspelmeyer.quantum.at/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/464685a

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-decoherence/

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-decoherence/

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/thought-experiment/

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/thought-experiment/

Bibliography

Bub, Jeffrey

2010 “Quantum Entanglement and Information”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-

losophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta, Winter 2010, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/qt-entangle/.

Cern - European Organisation for Nuclear Research

2011 Why the LHC?, http://user.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/WhyLHC-en.html (visitedon 11/21/2011).

Compendium of Quantum Physics: Concepts Experiments, History and Philosophy

2009 , ed. by D.M. Greenberger, K. Hentschel, and F. Weinert, Springer.

Denham, Woodrow W

2011 Familial Generations Tutorial, http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5m51s6k6(visited on 01/14/2012).

DePaul, Michael R. and William Ramsey

1998 Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical

Inquiry, Rowman & Littlefield, Savage, Md. [u.a.], XVI, 335 S.–.

Einstein, Albert, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen

1935 “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Com-plete?”, in Phys. Rev., 47, 10 (May 1935), pp. 777–780, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.777.

Encyclopædia Britannica

2011 “Intuition”, in Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Aca-

demic Edition, ed. by Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/292162/intuition (visited on 11/29/2011).

Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie (EnzyklPhilWiss)

2010 “Intuition”, in Ins - Loc: Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, ed.by Jürgen Mittelstraß and Gottfried Gabriel, Metzler, Stuttgart [u.a.], pp. 59–61.

Feynman, Richard

1982 “Simulating physics with computers”, in International Journal of Theoretical

Physics, 21 (6 1982), pp. 467–488, ISSN: 0020-7748, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179.

FoQuS - Foundations and Applications of Quantum Science

2011 , University of Innsbruck, http://www.uibk.ac.at/foqus/ (visited on 09/20/2011).

88

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/qt-entangle/

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/qt-entangle/

http://user.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/WhyLHC-en.html

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5m51s6k6

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/292162/intuition

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/292162/intuition

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02650179

http://www.uibk.ac.at/foqus/

Bibliography

Gerlich, Stefan et al.

2011 “Quantum interference of large organic molecules”, in Nat Commun, 2 (Apr.2011), pp. 263–, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1263.

Gröblacher, Simon

2010 Quantum opto-mechanics with micromirrors: combining nano-mechanics with

quantum optics, PhD thesis, Universität Wien, http://homepage.univie.ac.at/simon.groeblacher/SGroeblacher_Dissertation.pdf.

Gröblacher, Simon et al.

2007 “An experimental test of non-local realism”, in Nature, 446, (Apr. 2007), pp. 871–875, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529.

Illusionism.org

2008 Müller-Lyer Illusion, Illusionism.org, http://www.illusionism.org/shape-distortion/m%FCller-lyer+illusion/ (visited on 10/11/2011).

Interviews

2011a Interview with Dilek Demir, ed. by Reinhard Stanzl, Transcription (see Appendix,p.100: Dilek_110524).

2011b Interview with Dr. Garrett Cole, ed. by Reinhard Stanzl, Transcription (see Ap-pendix, p.105: Garrett_110610).

2011c Interview with Dr. Nikolai Kiesel, ed. by Reinhard Stanzl, Transcription (see Ap-pendix, p.111: Nikolai_110525).

2011d Interview with Dr. Witlef Wieczorek, ed. by Reinhard Stanzl, Transcription (seeAppendix, p.115: Witlef_110510).

2011e Interview with Jonas Hörsch, ed. by Reinhard Stanzl, Transcription (see Appendix,p.121: Jonas_110622).

2011f Interview with Mag. Florian Blaser, ed. by Reinhard Stanzl, Transcription (seeAppendix, p.127: Florian_110525).

2011g Interview with Prof. Dr. Markus Aspelmeyer, ed. by Reinhard Stanzl, Transcription(see Appendix, p.131: Markus_110706).

IQOQI - Institute of Quantum Optics and Quantum Information

2011 , Austrian Academy of Sciences, http://iqoqi.at/ (visited on 09/20/2011).

JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

2011 IKAROS Project, http://www.jspec.jaxa.jp/e/activity/ikaros.html (visited on02/08/2011).

89

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1263

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/simon.groeblacher/SGroeblacher_Dissertation.pdf

http://homepage.univie.ac.at/simon.groeblacher/SGroeblacher_Dissertation.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

http://www.illusionism.org/shape-distortion/m%FCller-lyer+illusion/

http://www.illusionism.org/shape-distortion/m%FCller-lyer+illusion/

http://iqoqi.at/

http://www.jspec.jaxa.jp/e/activity/ikaros.html

Bibliography

Kippenberg, T. J. and K. J. Vahala

2008 “Cavity Optomechanics: Back-Action at the Mesoscale”, in Science, 321, 5893,pp. 1172–1176, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5893/1172.full.pdf.

Lebedew, P.

1901 “Untersuchungen über die Druckkräfte des Lichtes”, in Annalen der Physik, 311,pp. 433–458, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.19013111102.

LIGO - Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory

2011 , http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ (visited on 03/18/2011).

Mermin, David N.

1985 “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory.”, inPhysics Today (Apr. 1985), pp. 38–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.880968.

Merriam-Webster

2011a “counterintuitive”, in Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary, ed. by Merriam-Webster, http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/counterintuitive (visited on12/16/2011).

2011b “intuition”, in Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary, ed. by Merriam-Webster,http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/intuition (visited on 12/16/2011).

Nichols, E. F. and G. F. Hull

1903 “The Pressure Due to Radiation. (Second Paper.)”, in Phys. Rev. (Series I), 17 (1July 1903), pp. 26–50, http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSeriesI.17.26.

Nickles, Thomas

2011 “Scientific Revolutions”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Ed-ward N. Zalta, Spring 2011.

O’Connor, J.J. and Robertson, E.F.

2009 Giovanni Battista Benedetti, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Benedetti.html (visited on 03/09/2012).

Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information

2007 Entanglement based quantum communication over 144 km, Quantum Optics,Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information, http://www.quantum.at/research/quantum-teleportation-communication-entanglement/entangled-photons-over-144-km.html (visited on 10/15/2011).

90

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5893/1172.full.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.19013111102

http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.880968

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/counterintuitive

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/intuition

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSeriesI.17.26

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Benedetti.html

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Benedetti.html

http://www.quantum.at/research/quantum-teleportation-communication-entanglement/entangled-photons-over-144-km.html



Bibliography

2011a , http://quantum.at/ (visited on 09/20/2011).

2011b Research: Quantum Teleportation & Communication & Entanglement, Fac-ulty of Physics, University of Vienna, http://www.quantum.at/research/quantum-teleportation-communication-entanglement.html (visited on 10/05/2011).

2011c Research: Wave–particle duality of C60 molecules, http://www.quantum.at/research/molecule-interferometry-foundations/wave-particle-duality-of-c60.html(visited on 03/29/2011).

Redner, S.

2005 “Citation Statistics from 110 Years of Physical Review”, in Physics Today, vol. 58,p. 49, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506056v2.

Rorty, Richard

1967 “Intuition”, in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Donald M. Borchert, 2nd ed.,2006, Macmillan Reference, Detroit, Mich. [u.a.], vol. 4, pp. 722–732.

Rowe, M. A. et al.

2001 “Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection”, in Nature,409, 6822 (Feb. 2001), pp. 791–794, ISSN: 0028-0836, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057215.

Scheidl, Thomas

2009 A fundamental test and an application of quantum entanglement, PhD thesis, Uni-versität Wien. Fakultät für Physik, http://othes.univie.ac.at/4739/.

Schrödinger, Erwin

1935 “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik”, in Naturwis-

senschaften, 48,49,50, pp. 807–812, 823–828, 844–849, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01491987.

Skulls in the Stars

2008 Fabry, Perot, and their wonderful interferometer (1897, 1899), http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/10/16/fabry-perot-and-their-wonderful-interferometer-1897-1899/ (visited on 03/11/2011).

Vanner, M. R. et al.

2011 “Pulsed quantum optomechanics”, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-

ences, vol. 108, no. 39, pp. 16182–16187, http://www.pnas.org/content/108/39/16182.full.

91

http://quantum.at/

http://www.quantum.at/research/quantum-teleportation-communication-entanglement.html

http://www.quantum.at/research/quantum-teleportation-communication-entanglement.html

http://www.quantum.at/research/molecule-interferometry-foundations/wave-particle-duality-of-c60.html

http://www.quantum.at/research/molecule-interferometry-foundations/wave-particle-duality-of-c60.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506056v2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057215

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057215

http://othes.univie.ac.at/4739/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01491987

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01491987

http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/10/16/fabry-perot-and-their-wonderful-interferometer-1897-1899/



http://www.pnas.org/content/108/39/16182.full

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/39/16182.full

Bibliography

VCQ - Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology

2011 , http://vcq.quantum.at/ (visited on 09/20/2011).

Vitali, D. et al.

2007 “Optomechanical entanglement between a movable mirror and a cavity field”, inPhys. Rev. Lett., 98, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609197.

Weihs, Gregor et al.

1998 “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions”, inPhys.Rev.Lett., 81, pp. 5039–5043, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080v1.

92

http://vcq.quantum.at/

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609197

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080v1

Appendices

93

A Acknowledgment

First of all I would like to thank the people of the Aspelmeyer group. The openness withwhich they shared their thoughts with me in the course of the interviews was a stimulatingexperience. Their useful statements motivated and structured the issues raised in the thesisand provided it with actual relevance. Moreover, they were really talkative, and thus for me,a total novice at conducting interviews, the perfect counterparts.

I also wish to thank my supervisor Martin Kusch for his continuous support from the firstdraft of the idea to the final thesis. After all, its formation spread over a year and in thistime he constantly assisted me with very proficient and productive feedback which providedguidance without being patronizing. The most salient assessment to make of our cooperationis the circumstance that I not only learned a whole lot, but that I was able to also provideMartin Kusch with some insights; admittedly mostly concerning physics.

In addition, I also want to mention my fellow students who were, like me, among the last tocomplete the expiring diploma programme in philosophy here in Vienna. The last of a dyingbreed confronted with a shared deadline. These aggravations motivated me to start off aninitiative to support one another by practical means and ease some of the (self-)proclaimedmaverick attitude of philosophers. Again, this was something I did for the first time andwhich has turned out to be a horn of plenty for new exciting experiences. I hope it has notonly been a big help for me but also for others. Thanks to those that became engaged.

Finally, I want to thank all the others who had also a share, however small, in the realizationof this thesis. All those who spared a word of encouragement, took interest in the overalltopic and supported me, of course not only intellectually but also in any other ways. I willnot name anyone – I am really bad with names – you know who I mean, so please feelthanked.

95

B Group: Supplementary Notes

Besides the information already stated, the interviews also contain interesting issues andtrivia which are not directly linked to the subject of the thesis. Even so, they are worthmentioning, at least to convey a more detailed picture of the group.

For people working together, whether in science or any other working environment, an im-portant facility for ‘socializing’ is the break room or kitchen. It is common source and spacefor not only satisfying the elementary needs for food and drink, but also for communicationand coordination. Moreover, it is also a place to celebrate accomplishments1 and discusseveryday business and, likely after long working hours and adequate beverages, the morefundamental questions. In the case of the Aspelmeyer group, the kitchen is steeped in his-tory because it is located in the former office of Erwin Schrödinger. Schrödinger’s desk, inthe corner of the kitchen, is not treated like an exhibit, but still serves its designated use fromtime to time.

Although it might seem obvious, it is important to note that the Aspelmeyer group is partof a larger quantum community in Austria and linked up with research groups around theglobe. It is not a task of this thesis to unravel the entire structure of the Austrian quan-tum community2. It is more relevant to remark that the ‘Viennese community’ has a moreor less homogeneous point of view in terms of the interpretation of quantum mechanics;vaguely describable as a Copenhagen-type attitude with an emphasis on information as thedetermining entity. This can be ascribed to two aspects. First, maintaining diversity onthe fundamental issues, like in this case the interpretation of quantum mechanics, within ateam does not foster collaboration on day-to-day details. As a second aspect, the quantumcommunity in Austria is largely influenced and shaped by Zeilinger3 and his scientific suc-cessors. These circumstances are neither unique nor astonishing for a research community,

1 My very first contact with the group was a spontaneous invitation to the appreciation of Demir reaching asignificant milestone in her project.

2 For a starting point see FoQuS 2011; IQOQI 2011; Quantum 2011a; VCQ 2011.3 This is just to name one of the publicly known contemporary contributors to quantum physics in Aus-

tria. Certainly there are many others to name who have had their share in taking the Austrian quantumcommunity to a high stage.

97

B Group: Supplementary Notes

but worth bearing in mind.

Another interesting detail which was mentioned in the interviews was the difference betweenthe physicists working theoretically and those doing experiments. Wieczorek and Hörschremarked that there is quite some gap between the theoretical and the experimental mind-set, or relationship to the object of research. Unsurprisingly they noted that quite sometranslation work is required in the course of collaboration (see Interviews 2011e, §57 andInterviews 2011d, §78).

The next remark tackles the interconnection of different research fields by the implementa-tion of equal fundamental physical tenets. Shortly before I conducted the interviews, someof the group members attended a presentation about the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO 2011). In principle they also deploy a Fabry-Pèrot cavity4, in theircase on a very large scale to measure very minuscule length variations presumably causedby gravitational waves. The mutual fascination relies on the common demand for highlyreflective mirrors, although those of LIGO are several centimeters in diameter and the onesin opto-mechanics just a few micrometers.

A further circumstance to note is that interpretations and their equivalence in describing theempirical phenomenon of quantum entanglement were not part of the standard curriculumof many of the interviewees. This reflects the impression that in general academic train-ing5 there is a mainstream concept of quantum mechanics which utilizes a minimum set ofassumptions of a Copenhagen-type interpretation, enough to bolster formalism, but not somuch as to remain agnostic about the more fundamental, philosophical inferences of theassumptions. Interpretations which further a different formalism, e.g. Bohmian mechan-ics, are a minority program. This is only an impression about academic education in thisfield and not about the actual, personal standpoints of the long-serving physicists driving thequantum community.

4 See section 3.2 The Experiments for details.5 I am well aware that my personal experience and the handful of statements about the academic training

of two to three universities, mostly located in German-speaking countries, do not allow for such a generalassertion. However, it is apt to assume that a scientific community that is strongly interconnected aroundthe globe will arrive at a minimum standard of formalism for practical collaboration; granted local color.Hence standard academic training is geared towards conveying a mainstream understanding of quantummechanics, especially as natural sciences generally tend to carve out one valid school of thought. Examin-ing one implementation of academic training can therefore be sufficient to make more general assertions.

98

C Transcription of Interviews

The following are transcriptions of the interviews with the members of the Aspelmeyergroup. They have been transcribed in the language they were conducted (German or En-glish). Translations have only been made in the course of citations within in the thesis.

99

Dil

ek_1

10524

Inte

rvie

w m

it D

ilek D

em

ir v

om

24

.05

.20

11

Tra

nsc

rib

ed

by

yott

a,

vers

ion

1 o

f 1

10

52

5

An

fan

g,

pers

ön

lich

e D

ate

n,

Au

sbil

du

ng

(no s

peaker)

Sm

all

talk

1.

Rein

hard

Gu

t. I

ch w

ill

am

An

fan

g n

ur

so F

orm

ali

en

wis

sen

.2

.D

ilek D

as

heis

st?

3.

Rein

hard

Ja.

Wie

alt

du

bis

t?4

.D

ilek W

art

e,

wie

alt

ich

bin

? Ic

h b

in 2

2.

5.

Rein

hard

Nu

r ein

fach

...

Ich

weiß

es

eig

en

tlic

h e

h a

uch

all

es,

dass

du

gera

de D

iplo

marb

eit

sch

reib

st u

sw.

Ab

er

dein

akad

em

isch

er

Gra

d i

st h

alt

gera

de v

or

dem

Mag

iste

r. W

as

du

ja h

off

st z

u w

erd

en

.

6.

Dil

ek Ir

gen

dw

an

n e

inm

al.

7.

Dip

lom

arb

eit

Rein

hard

Ab

er

das

heis

st d

u s

chre

ibst

ja h

ier

die

Dip

lom

arb

eit

.8

.D

ilek Ja

. S

ag

en

wir

ein

mal

so e

igen

tlic

h b

in i

ch s

chon

am

Sch

reib

en

. A

ber

ich

mu

ss n

och

was

nach

mess

en

pra

kti

sch

. A

lso i

st e

s so

ein

e Ü

berg

an

gsp

hase

wo m

an

halt

noch

nic

ht

Dip

lom

an

d i

st u

nd

au

ch n

ich

t m

eh

r S

tud

en

t is

t, a

ber

au

ch n

ich

t sc

hon

weit

er

ist,

son

dern

irg

en

dw

o d

azw

isch

en

noch

heru

meie

rt u

nd

dara

uf

hoff

t, d

ass

es

en

dli

ch e

inm

al

zu E

nd

e i

st.

9.

Rein

hard

Das

Th

em

a g

en

au

der

Dip

lom

arb

eit

ist

...?

10

.D

ilek E

s is

t "R

ad

iati

on

Pre

ssu

re E

ffect

s on

Macr

osc

op

ic S

yste

ms"

. A

lso e

igen

tlic

h m

eh

rM

ech

an

ik u

nd

Op

tik.

Als

o b

asi

cs.

Un

d d

as

ein

zig

qu

an

ten

mech

an

isch

e a

n d

em

Gan

zen

ist

eh

er

dan

n d

er

Str

ah

lun

gsd

ruck

eff

ekt

selb

er.

Die

Id

ee d

er

Dip

lom

arb

eit

ist

ein

fach

nu

r ein

sim

ple

s, e

infa

ches

Exp

eri

men

t zu

hab

en

, b

ei

dem

man

Str

ah

lun

gsd

ruck

dem

on

stri

ert

.

11

.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

as

heiß

t es

au

fzu

bau

en

...?

12

.D

ilek E

s h

at

so B

ere

chn

un

gen

geg

eb

en

un

d d

an

n h

at

sich

halt

hera

usg

est

ell

t, d

as

mü

sste

eig

en

tlic

h f

un

kti

on

iere

n.

Un

d m

ein

e A

ufg

ab

e l

ag

dan

n m

eh

r od

er

min

der

dari

n,

dass

ich

da e

in E

xperi

men

t se

lbst

- a

m A

nfa

ng

mit

Hil

fe n

atü

rlic

h -

, ab

er

dan

n a

uch

selb

er

desi

gn

t, a

ufg

eb

au

t u

nd

gem

ess

en

hab

e.

Un

d jetz

t kom

mt

halt

dan

n:

geg

en

En

de m

üss

en

wir

das

Gan

ze a

uch

dan

n n

och

in

terp

reti

ere

n u

nd

13

.

hera

usfi

nd

en

ob

dan

n a

uch

der

vorh

erg

esa

gte

Eff

ekt

[Str

ah

lun

gsd

ruck

] au

chw

irkli

ch g

en

utz

t w

ord

en

ist

.R

ein

hard

Un

d d

as

ist

jetz

t d

an

n s

ozu

sag

en

der

aktu

ell

e S

tress

das

hin

zub

ekom

men

?1

4.

Dil

ek G

en

au

, w

eil

in

Lu

ft h

ab

en

wir

es

mal

au

spro

bie

rt u

nd

da h

at

es

ziem

lich

gu

tg

ep

ass

t. U

nd

nu

r ein

e M

ess

un

g,

da w

are

n w

ir e

in b

isse

rl d

an

eb

en

un

d w

ir w

isse

nn

ich

t w

aru

m d

as

so i

st.

Jetz

t si

nd

wir

halt

im

Vaku

um

. D

as

wir

d n

och

mal

üb

erp

rüft

un

d d

an

n s

chau

en

wir

was

pass

iert

.

15

.

Stu

diu

m u

nd

Zu

gan

g z

ur

QM

Rein

hard

Wie

bis

t d

u e

igen

tlic

h..

. A

lso w

ie i

st d

ein

Hin

terg

run

d v

om

Stu

diu

m h

er?

16

.D

ilek A

ber

was

gen

au

mein

st d

u m

it H

inte

rgru

nd

vom

Stu

diu

m?

17

.R

ein

hard

Ja a

lso w

ir k

en

nen

un

s ja

teil

weis

e v

om

gem

ein

sam

en

Stu

diu

m.

Als

o n

eh

me i

ch a

n,

dass

du

hie

r in

Wie

n s

tud

iert

hast

. D

u h

ast

als

o h

ier

beg

on

nen

?1

8.

Dil

ek Ja

mit

Nu

ll W

isse

n a

n d

ie P

hys

ik h

era

ng

em

ach

t. A

lso i

ch h

ab

e g

ar

kein

Wis

sen

geh

ab

t, w

as

ja n

orm

al

bei

den

Ph

ysik

ern

nic

ht

so i

st. D

en

n a

lle a

nd

ern

die

beg

inn

en

sin

d i

rgen

dw

ie s

chon

von

An

fan

g a

n O

lym

pio

nik

en

[z.

B.

Ph

ysik

-O

lym

pia

de]

un

d w

as

weiß

ich

nic

ht

noch

all

es.

Das

war

halt

bei

mir

nic

ht

der

Fall

.D

as

heiß

t ic

h h

ab

e n

och

nie

in

mein

em

Leb

en

zu

vor

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik g

eh

ört

. U

nd

wie

ich

dan

n z

ur

Qu

an

tem

ech

an

ik g

ekom

men

bin

war

dan

n w

eil

es

mic

h e

infa

chin

tere

ssie

rt h

at.

Das

war

so e

in p

ap

er,

dass

ich

gele

sen

hab

e u

nd

da k

am

EP

R,

EP

R?,

vor

un

d d

an

n h

ab

e i

ch m

ich

gefr

ag

t n

a w

as

ist

den

n d

as.

Un

d d

an

n h

ab

e i

chh

alt

vers

chie

den

e B

üch

er

darü

ber

gele

sen

. Ja

, d

esw

eg

en

.

19

.

Rein

hard

Ok.

Ab

er

das

war

dan

n s

ozu

sag

en

im

Zu

ge v

om

Stu

diu

m?

20

.D

ilek E

s w

ar

eh

er

Fre

izeit

. E

s w

ar

dan

n e

in p

aar

Sem

est

er

lan

g s

og

ar

so,

dass

ich

mein

eS

ach

en

die

ich

eig

en

tlic

h m

ach

en

mu

sste

zu

rück

gest

au

cht

hab

e u

nd

dan

n m

eh

rF

reiz

eit

, u

nte

r A

nfü

hru

ng

szeic

hen

, g

en

om

men

hab

e u

nd

dan

nq

uan

ten

mech

an

isch

e S

ach

en

gele

sen

hab

e.

Au

ch w

en

n s

ie h

alt

zu

hoch

ware

n.

21

.

Rein

hard

Un

d w

an

n w

ar

das

un

gefä

hr?

Zeit

lich

jetz

t im

Stu

diu

m?

Wen

n m

an

jetz

t sa

gt,

dass

die

T2

Vorl

esu

ng

[Vorl

esu

ng

üb

er

die

Th

eori

e d

er

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik,

viert

es

Sem

est

er

im D

iplo

mst

ud

ien

pla

n]

das

Ers

te i

st w

o e

s q

uan

ten

mech

an

isch

losg

eh

t.

22

.

Dil

ek S

o r

ich

tig

th

eore

tisc

h i

st e

s n

atü

rlic

h b

ei

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ikvo

rlesu

ng

losg

eg

an

gen

. A

ber

vorh

er

hab

e i

ch a

uch

sch

on

vers

uch

t w

as

mir

selb

stb

eiz

ub

rin

gen

. A

uch

wen

n e

s n

och

nic

ht

gan

z th

eore

tisc

h g

ew

ese

n i

st.

Das

war

soab

dem

zw

eit

en

Sem

est

er.

Als

o a

b d

er

Pri

nzi

pie

n-V

orl

esu

ng

[P

rin

zip

ien

der

Mod

ern

en

Ph

ysik

(S

pezi

ell

e R

ela

tivi

täts

theori

e u

nd

Ele

men

tare

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik),

gro

be Ü

berb

lick

svorl

esu

ng

, zw

eit

es

Sem

est

er

imD

iplo

mst

ud

ien

pla

n]

eig

en

tlic

h.

Davo

r h

ab

e i

ch d

en

Arn

dt

[Mark

us

Arn

dt,

leit

et

die

Fors

chu

ng

sgru

pp

e d

er

Mate

riew

ell

en

(W

ell

e-T

eil

chen

Du

ali

smu

s)]

in d

er

Op

tik

[Vorl

esu

ng

] b

esu

cht

un

d d

er

hat

dan

n i

mm

er

gesa

gt

geh

en

sie

halt

zu

den

Vort

räg

en

. U

nd

dan

n w

ar

es

dan

n e

her

so,

dass

ich

die

lan

gw

eil

ige P

rin

zip

ien

-Vorl

esu

ng

- d

ie h

at

der

Bau

mg

art

ner

[Bern

hard

Bau

mg

art

ner]

zie

mli

ch l

an

gw

eil

ig

23

.


100

geh

alt

en

- g

ela

ssen

hab

e u

nd

zu

die

sen

Mon

tag

s-Vorl

esu

ng

en

im

mer

geg

an

gen

bin

. A

b u

nd

zu

halt

. U

nd

das

hat

zirk

a a

b d

em

zw

eit

en

Sem

est

er

eig

en

tlic

hb

eg

on

nen

.R

ein

hard

Un

d d

as

hat

dic

h z

ur

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik u

nd

zu

den

Leu

ten

geb

rach

t?2

4.

Dil

ek Ja

. W

itzi

gerw

eis

e w

en

n i

ch m

ich

so z

urü

ck e

rin

nere

, w

are

n d

ie L

eu

te d

ie d

an

n i

nd

iese

n M

on

tag

svorl

esu

ng

en

gew

ese

n s

ind

, d

ie s

ind

jetz

t all

e d

a i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e.

Als

o d

er

Mark

us

[Mark

us

Asp

elm

eye

r] w

ar

dan

n o

ftm

als

der,

der

dan

n v

orn

eg

est

an

den

ist

un

d i

rgen

dw

as

gere

det

hat.

Als

o i

ch b

in d

a i

m n

ach

hin

ein

dan

nd

ara

ufg

ekom

men

, d

ass

er

die

org

an

isie

rt h

at.

Ein

paar

halt

von

der

Gru

pp

e s

ind

au

ch d

rin

gese

ssen

, ab

er

ich

hab

e d

ie n

atü

rlic

h d

am

als

noch

nic

ht

gekan

nt.

25

.

Pers

pekti

ve

Rein

hard

Ste

llst

du

dir

vor

dan

n i

n d

em

Feld

zu

ble

iben

, od

er?

So e

ine P

ers

pekti

ve n

ach

der

Dip

lom

arb

eit

?2

6.

Dil

ek A

h,

das.

Ja,

ich

weiß

nic

ht,

ich

fin

de e

s re

cht

inte

ress

an

t. I

ch g

lau

be a

uch

, d

ass

in

kom

men

der

Zu

ku

nft

wir

d d

as

halt

ein

...

Als

o m

an

kan

n s

ich

er

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ikau

ch i

rgen

dw

an

n e

inm

al

so v

erw

en

den

, d

ass

das

jed

er

zuh

au

se s

teh

en

hat

un

dw

as

völl

ig n

orm

ale

s is

t.

27

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

ja.

Man

hat

das

Gefü

hl,

dass

es

nic

ht

so e

in t

ote

s F

eld

der

Ph

ysik

ist

. Fall

s es

üb

erh

au

pt

so e

twas

gib

t.2

8.

Dil

ek N

ein

, eig

en

tlic

h ü

berh

au

pt

nic

ht.

Ich

gla

ub

e e

s g

era

de d

as

Pro

ble

m,

dass

man

da

noch

vie

l m

ach

en

mu

ss.

Tot

gla

ub

e i

ch i

st e

s n

ich

t. A

lso e

s is

t all

es

an

dere

als

tot.

29

.

Rein

hard

Von

an

dere

n B

ere

ich

en

der

Ph

ysik

, h

at

man

an

dere

Vors

tell

un

gen

, w

as

man

dort

mach

en

kan

n.

30

.

Dil

ek D

u m

ein

st a

uch

ric

hti

g A

nw

en

du

ng

en

? B

ei

mein

er

Dip

lom

arb

eit

, d

a i

st n

ur

seh

rw

en

ig Q

uan

tem

ech

an

ik e

igen

tlic

h d

ab

ei,

bzw

. fa

st g

ar

kein

e, ab

er

mein

Sys

tem

kön

nte

man

lock

er

verw

en

den

als

Sen

sor.

Od

er

kein

e A

hn

un

g,

als

Pow

erm

ess

gerä

t. M

an

mü

sste

es

ein

wen

ig u

mm

od

eli

ere

n,

od

er

als

Dete

kto

r. M

an

kan

n e

s sc

hon

verw

en

den

.

31

.

Au

fgab

e i

m E

xp

eri

men

t /

Roll

e i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e

Rein

hard

Das

bri

ng

t m

ich

dan

n e

igen

tlic

h e

h d

azu

nach

dein

er

Roll

e i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e o

der

imE

xperi

men

t [z

u f

rag

en

]. W

eil

du

sag

st,

dass

ist

ja n

ur

eh

er

so a

m R

an

de

qu

an

ten

mech

an

isch

. T

rotz

dem

ist

es

vom

Pri

nzi

p h

er

Teil

der

ja b

ei

den

an

dere

nE

xperi

men

ten

verw

en

det

wir

d.

32

.

Dil

ek Ja

, d

as

stim

mt.

Weil

eig

en

tlic

h v

erw

en

det

zum

Beis

pie

l d

er

Wit

lef

[Wit

lef

Wie

czore

k,

Beis

pie

lexp

eri

men

t m

ein

er

Dip

lom

arb

eit

] ja

au

ch c

an

tile

vers

un

d d

er

verw

en

det

das

als

cavi

ty.

Un

d e

r kön

nte

eig

en

tlic

h,

un

d s

og

ar

dan

n a

uch

der

Nik

ola

i [N

ikola

i K

iese

l] u

nd

der

Flo

rian

[F

lori

an

Bla

ser]

[beid

e b

eim

Exp

eri

men

tü

ber

die

su

perp

osi

tion

iert

en

Nan

okü

gelc

hen

], d

ie k

ön

nte

n a

uch

ih

re S

yste

me a

ls

33

.

hoch

em

pfi

nd

lich

e S

en

sore

n b

en

utz

en

.R

ein

hard

Das

wäre

dan

n,

wo d

u e

her

so d

ie "

Tis

ch"-

an

wen

du

ng

mach

st.

Es

ist

die

Fra

ge o

bd

ein

es

so e

in D

em

on

stra

tion

ssys

tem

ist

?3

4.

Dil

ek A

lso p

rim

är

ist

es

als

Dem

on

stra

tion

sexp

eri

men

t g

ed

ach

t. D

as

war

au

ch d

er

Gru

nd

waru

m w

ir e

s ü

berh

au

pt

gest

art

et

hab

en

. N

aja

, eig

en

tlic

h g

ab

es

da e

ine

chall

en

ge v

on

den

Op

to-M

ech

an

ikern

un

d d

a w

oll

te d

er

Mark

us

[Mark

us

Asp

elm

eye

r] u

nb

ed

ing

t w

as

hab

en

. U

nd

das

war

eig

en

tlic

h n

ur

ein

Som

merp

roje

kt

un

d h

ätt

e n

iem

als

sow

eit

kom

men

dü

rfen

od

er

soll

en

. U

nd

es

war

natü

rlic

h a

lsD

em

on

stra

tion

spro

jekt

ged

ach

t. E

s g

ab

sch

on

im

Jah

re 1

90

1 E

xperi

men

te d

azu

.

35

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

es

ist

halt

die

Fra

ge w

ie a

ufw

en

dig

od

er

wie

ein

fach

die

Din

ger

dan

n s

ind

.3

6.

Dil

ek G

en

au

. A

ber

vor

all

em

, ic

h b

eto

ne d

as

au

ch g

ern

, w

eil

das

hab

e i

ch l

etz

ten

s b

eim

DP

G-M

eeti

ng

[D

eu

tsch

e P

hys

ikali

sch

e G

ese

llsc

haft

?] e

rleb

t, w

o d

an

n d

ie L

eu

te z

um

ir g

ekom

men

sin

d u

nd

gesa

gt

hab

en

: "J

ö,

sch

au

ein

Sch

üle

rexp

eri

men

t".

Das

hat

so w

eh

geta

n.

Das

hat

so w

eh

geta

n.

Weil

eig

en

tlic

h k

an

n m

an

au

ch e

ben

zu

mB

eis

pie

l fü

r A

FM

-Can

tile

ver,

als

o d

as

ist

Ato

mic

Forc

e M

icro

scop

y, d

a i

st ja d

as

Pri

nzi

p,

dass

du

so e

inen

can

tile

ver

hast

un

d v

orn

e e

ine S

pit

ze.

Un

d d

an

n f

äh

rst

du

üb

er

die

Pro

be d

rüb

er

un

d m

isst

die

Au

slen

ku

ng

. U

nd

eig

en

tlic

h i

st e

s d

as

selb

e u

nd

kön

nte

st e

s m

it d

em

au

ch m

ach

en

. O

der

halt

noch

sen

isti

ver,

in

dem

du

das

Sys

tem

ein

bis

sch

en

um

mod

eli

ers

t. N

atü

rlic

h m

uss

t d

u A

rbeit

hin

ein

steck

en

,ab

er

es

wäre

mög

lich

.

37

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

es

ist

halt

sch

on

seh

r g

em

ein

es

als

Sch

üle

rexp

eri

men

t zu

beze

ich

en

.3

8.

Dil

ek A

ber

es

gab

au

ch L

eu

te,

die

zu

mir

gesa

gt

hab

en

: "W

ow

sch

ön

, S

chü

lere

xperi

men

t.D

am

it k

ön

nte

n s

ie v

iel

Geld

mach

en

. G

rün

den

sie

doch

ein

Un

tern

eh

men

". D

as

hab

e i

ch e

ben

au

ch g

eh

ört

.

39

.

Rein

hard

Es

ist

halt

ein

Un

ters

chie

d,

dass

eb

en

au

ch z

u z

eig

en

; w

en

n i

ch s

ag

e i

ch s

tell

e e

ing

an

zes

Lab

or

voll

od

er

ich

hab

e g

en

au

das

gle

ich

e g

eze

igt

mit

vie

l w

en

iger.

40

.

Dil

ek G

en

au

. W

ir h

ab

en

es

sog

ar

Sch

üle

rn g

eze

igt.

Die

fan

den

das

au

ch r

ech

tin

tere

ssan

t. E

s w

äre

eb

en

halt

ein

bis

sch

en

an

stre

ng

en

d w

en

n m

an

sie

gle

ich

vor

ein

en

Gry

ost

ate

n [

"Kü

hls

chra

nk"

in d

em

das

Sys

tem

ru

nte

rgekü

hlt

wir

d u

m d

en

Gru

nd

zust

an

d d

es

Sys

tem

s in

dem

Qu

an

ten

eff

ekte

au

ftre

ten

zu

err

eic

hen

] st

ell

tu

nd

sag

t, d

a m

ach

en

wir

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik,

da k

üh

len

wir

ru

nte

r. A

ls w

ie d

iese

skle

ine K

om

pakte

un

d [

wo m

an

leic

ht

zeig

en

kan

n],

da h

ab

en

wir

den

Can

tile

ver,

un

d d

a h

ab

en

wir

den

Lase

rstr

ah

l u

nd

so w

eit

er.

41

.

Rein

hard

Es

ist

dan

n e

h d

ie S

ach

e,

wie

du

dan

n a

uch

die

Sach

en

irg

en

dw

ie d

ars

tell

st o

der

vers

tän

dli

ch m

ach

st.

Weil

du

kan

nst

zw

ar

den

Gry

ost

ate

n z

eig

en

un

d d

ie g

an

zen

Kis

ten

, ab

er

es

ist

halt

sch

on

ein

Un

ters

chie

d o

b i

ch d

as

nach

voll

zieh

en

kan

n.

42

.

Dil

ek Z

ug

eg

eb

en

. F

eyn

man

, d

er

hat

sich

au

ch m

it g

an

z kom

pli

ziert

en

Din

gen

besc

häft

igt,

hat

ab

er

au

ch i

mm

er

wie

der

gesc

hau

t, w

irkli

ch d

ie b

asi

cs [

zum

ach

en

]. E

s als

o r

un

terz

usc

hra

ub

en

un

d d

an

n a

uch

wir

kli

ch e

s ve

rstä

nd

lich

zu

mach

en

.

43

.

Fasz

inati

on

an

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik

101

Rein

hard

Ob

woh

l d

ein

Exp

eri

men

t n

ur

am

Ran

de m

it Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ik z

utu

n h

at,

was

wü

rdest

du

sag

en

ist

es

was

dic

h i

rgen

dw

ie a

n d

er

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik a

nzi

eh

t?O

der

waru

m e

s in

tere

ssan

t is

t fü

r d

ich

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik z

u m

ach

en

? W

as

dic

hh

alt

fasz

inie

rt d

ara

n?

44

.

Dil

ek A

lso t

heore

tisc

h fi

nd

e i

ch Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ik z

iem

lich

cool,

weil

irg

en

dw

ie l

äu

ft d

as

bei

mir

etw

as

intu

itiv

ab

. A

lso n

ich

t d

as

ich

, kein

e A

hn

un

g,

der

Best

e i

nQ

uan

tem

ech

an

ik o

der

so w

äre

. W

eil

ich

gla

ub

e s

o e

inen

gib

t es

ein

ers

eit

s n

ich

t,w

eil

nie

man

d e

s so

ric

hti

g v

ers

teh

t, a

nd

ere

rseit

s ab

er.

.. W

as

woll

te i

ch jetz

t sa

gen

?G

en

au

. E

s si

nd

halt

vie

le F

rag

eze

ich

en

in

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik.

Un

d t

heore

tisc

hg

ese

hen

ist

es

inso

fern

in

tere

ssan

t, w

eil

ein

fach

Sach

en

, d

ie n

orm

al

kla

r si

nd

dan

nn

ich

t m

eh

r kla

r si

nd

. A

lso m

an

mu

ss s

ich

eig

en

tlic

h,

zum

Beip

iel

das

EP

R-E

xperi

men

t, d

as

pap

er

mu

ss m

an

sic

h g

lau

be i

ch z

wan

zig

tau

sen

d m

al

du

rch

lese

n u

nd

man

vers

teh

t es

imm

er

noch

nic

ht.

Weil

im

mer

wie

der

was

dri

n i

st,

was

man

vorh

er

nic

ht

gese

hen

hat.

Un

d d

as

ist

eig

en

tlic

h z

iem

lich

in

tere

ssan

t,fi

nd

e i

ch,

in d

er

Th

eori

e,

dass

man

irg

en

dw

as

fin

det,

was

man

im

mer

wie

der

vers

teh

t. E

s is

t ir

gen

dw

o d

iese

r W

iders

pru

ch:

So s

oll

te e

s eig

en

tlic

h s

ein

, ab

er

die

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik s

ag

t es

an

ders

. W

aru

m w

oh

l? U

nd

dan

n k

an

n m

an

darü

ber

grü

beln

. D

as

fin

de i

ch z

iem

lich

cool.

45

.

Un

d e

xperi

men

tell

sin

d h

alt

im

Mom

en

t d

ie E

xperi

men

te,

die

ich

so i

m K

op

f h

ab

e -

als

o w

ir b

esc

häft

igen

un

s ja

mit

cavi

ties

un

d m

it S

pie

geln

- d

as

ist

eig

en

tlic

h v

oll

sch

räg

, w

eil

mein

e c

an

tile

vers

zu

m B

eis

pie

l, d

ie s

ind

sch

on

ric

hti

g m

akro

skop

isch

.U

nd

die

an

dere

n s

ind

au

ch r

ech

t g

roß

. U

nd

wen

n m

an

sic

h jetz

t ü

berl

eg

t, e

s g

ibt

die

s L

IGO

Leu

te [

Lase

r In

terf

ero

mete

r G

ravi

tati

on

al-W

ave

Ob

serv

ato

ry]

am

MIT

[Mass

ach

use

tts

Inst

itu

te o

f Tech

nolo

gy]

, d

ie d

an

n s

o r

ich

tig

mass

ive S

pie

gel

verw

en

den

. A

lso l

etz

ten

s, d

as

war

eh

gest

ern

, w

are

n w

ir b

ei

so e

iner

Kon

fere

nz,

bei

so e

iner

Au

stell

un

g.

Un

d d

a h

ab

en

sie

eb

en

die

se S

pie

gel

au

sgest

ell

t u

nd

die

ware

n s

o g

roß

[ze

igt

mit

den

Hän

den

ein

e A

bst

an

d v

on

~5

0cm

] u

nd

so d

ick [

zeig

tm

it d

en

Hän

den

ein

e D

ick v

on

~1

5cm

]. A

lso d

as

ware

n k

ilog

ram

m-s

chw

ere

Sp

ieg

el.

Un

d jetz

t m

uss

man

mal

vers

teh

en

die

Th

eori

e,

die

man

eig

en

tlic

h n

ich

tso

ric

hti

g g

ut

vers

teh

t, w

ird

um

gese

tzt

au

f ein

e E

xperi

men

t u

nd

das

noch

dazu

so

gro

ß.

Ich

fin

de d

as

cool.

46

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

weil

es

dan

n s

chon

mass

iver

wir

d. D

as

sin

d ja d

an

n s

chon

an

gre

ifb

are

Din

ge.

47

.D

ilek D

as

fin

de i

ch e

ben

zie

mli

ch i

nte

ress

an

t. U

nd

die

Exp

eri

men

te s

ind

halt

seh

r, s

eh

rin

tere

ssan

t, w

as

die

[d

ie L

IGO

Leu

te]

mach

en

.4

8.

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

Rein

hard

Un

d w

eil

du

das

vorh

er

bei

der

Th

eori

e g

esa

gt

hast

. E

ben

, d

ass

man

sic

h n

ich

tsi

cher

sein

kan

n.

Od

er

eb

en

wie

du

vorh

er

gem

ein

t h

ast

, d

ass

man

sic

h i

mm

er

hin

terf

rag

en

mu

ss u

nd

im

mer

neu

sic

h d

as

üb

erl

eg

en

mu

ss,

je n

ach

Sit

uati

on

. Is

td

a i

rgen

dw

ie r

ele

van

t d

ie I

nte

rpre

tati

on

en

? A

lso w

en

n m

an

jetz

t d

ie n

imm

t d

ie e

sg

ibt,

sozu

sag

en

im

Stu

diu

m z

um

ind

est

ein

mal

hin

gest

ell

t b

ekom

men

hat?

49

.

Dil

ek N

aja

, im

Stu

diu

m g

lau

be i

ch k

rieg

t m

an

ja n

ich

t all

es

au

fgeti

sch

t. E

inig

es

wir

dein

em

nic

ht

erk

lärt

. A

nd

ere

Sach

en

, d

a m

uss

man

gla

ub

e i

ch d

reim

al

irg

en

dw

oh

ing

eh

en

dam

it m

an

ein

mal

an

satz

weis

e e

rklä

rt b

ekom

mt

was

es

zu b

ed

eu

ten

hat

od

er

mal

vers

teh

t.

50

.

Rein

hard

Un

d d

as

ist

halt

die

Fra

ge o

b d

u s

ozu

sag

en

da e

xtra

nach

frag

en

hast

mü

ssen

. O

der

Din

ge h

alt

nic

ht

au

s d

em

Stu

diu

m s

o e

ind

eu

tig

[g

en

an

nt]

word

en

sin

d.

Was

wäre

nd

as

für

Sach

en

, d

ie d

u v

orh

er

gem

ein

t h

ast

?

51

.

Dil

ek Z

um

Beis

pie

l g

ibt

es

ja d

ie K

op

en

hag

en

er

Deu

tun

g,

die

wir

d ja e

inem

eig

en

tlic

h,

ob

woh

l d

ie h

at

au

ch w

ied

er

Form

en

, ab

er

eig

en

tlic

h d

as

All

gem

ein

ste i

st ja d

ieK

op

en

hag

en

er

Deu

tun

g.

52

.

Rein

hard

Die

min

imals

te V

ari

an

te [

der

Kop

neh

ag

en

er

Deu

tun

g]

die

notw

en

dig

ist

um

...

53

.D

ilek D

ie w

ird

ja e

inem

beig

eb

rach

t. A

ber

zum

Beis

pie

l is

t ja

nic

ht

kla

r w

ie d

as

mit

der

Boh

m's

chen

Mech

an

ik i

st.

Un

d d

a w

ar

ich

sog

ar

bei

ein

em

Sem

inar

wo s

ie d

as

sog

en

au

du

rch

gen

om

men

hab

en

. D

a h

at

man

au

ch s

chon

sch

räg

e S

ach

en

geh

ört

. D

aw

ar

es

halt

dan

n s

chw

ieri

g,

dass

was

man

gele

rnt

hat

mit

dem

an

dere

n z

uve

rgle

ich

en

un

d d

an

n i

n V

erb

ind

un

g z

u b

rin

gen

. U

nd

dan

n r

ich

tig

hera

usz

ud

eu

ten

,w

as

ist

jetz

t fa

lsch

, w

as

ist

nic

ht

fals

ch. W

ie h

ab

en

es

die

Ein

en

betr

ach

tet,

wie

hab

en

es

die

An

dere

n b

etr

ach

tet.

Un

d d

as

hat

dan

n f

ür

ziem

lich

vie

lD

isku

ssio

nss

toff

geso

rgt,

wäh

ren

d d

em

Sem

inar.

54

.

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

/ T

heori

e /

Exp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

Un

d w

ie w

ürd

est

du

das

verb

ind

en

mit

dem

was

du

jetz

t h

ier

bra

uch

st?

Was

sozu

sag

en

hie

r re

leva

nt

ist?

55

.

Dil

ek Ic

h m

uss

zu

geb

en

ich

bin

ja,

wie

am

An

fan

g g

esa

gt,

zie

mli

ch a

m A

nfa

ng

. U

nd

weil

ich

am

An

fan

g b

in u

nd

weil

das

Stu

diu

m s

elb

er

ziem

lich

th

eore

tisc

h i

st,

mu

ss m

an

ein

mal

exp

eri

men

tell

ein

iges

au

fhole

n.

Als

o i

ch g

lau

be i

ch h

ab

e v

ier

Sem

est

er

lan

gT

heori

e g

eh

ab

t, w

eil

ich

ja n

och

im

Dip

lom

stu

diu

m b

in.

Un

d e

xperi

men

tell

ware

nh

alt

nu

r so

das

An

fän

gerp

rakti

ku

m u

nd

dan

n h

ab

e i

ch n

och

das

Qu

an

ten

op

tikp

rakti

ku

m g

em

ach

t, u

nd

au

ch d

a l

ern

t m

an

nic

ht

wir

kli

ch w

as.

Un

du

m e

hrl

ich

zu

sein

, d

as

was

ich

wäh

ren

d d

em

Stu

diu

m g

ele

rnt

hab

e ü

ber

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik,

das

wen

de i

ch jetz

t se

hr

wen

ig b

is e

igen

tlic

h g

ar

nic

ht

an

.

56

.

Nu

r h

alt

wen

n e

s d

aru

m g

eh

t b

ei

an

dere

n E

xperi

men

ten

, w

o e

s m

eh

r u

mQ

uan

ten

mech

an

ik g

eh

t u

nd

wo d

an

n d

isku

tiert

wir

d,

da k

rieg

t m

an

sch

on

ein

iges

mit

un

d e

s g

ibt

au

ch w

ied

er

neu

e S

ach

en

. A

ber

ich

kan

n n

ich

t w

irkli

ch e

twas

imM

om

en

t an

wed

en

, m

uss

ich

zu

geb

en

. Ic

h m

uss

mic

h e

her

dam

it r

um

sch

lag

en

,w

elc

her

Dete

kto

r am

best

en

pass

t u

nd

wie

ich

das

am

gesc

heit

est

en

ju

stie

re u

nd

so w

as.

Das

ist

dan

n w

ied

er.

.. T

heore

tisc

h g

ese

hen

kan

n i

ch s

o g

ut

wie

garn

ich

tsan

wen

den

. U

nd

exp

eri

men

tell

bie

tet

sich

gera

de b

ei

mein

em

Exp

eri

men

t d

as

nic

ht

so g

esc

heit

an

. Ic

h g

lau

be w

en

n m

an

wir

kli

ch d

as

Sta

diu

m e

rreic

ht,

wo m

an

das

an

wen

den

kan

n,

was

man

vor

Jah

ren

in

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ikvo

rlesu

ng

gele

rnt

hat,

dan

n v

erg

eh

en

ein

mal

so e

inig

e J

ah

re.

Es

mu

ss e

inm

al

au

ch e

in E

xperi

men

tse

in,

das

sch

on

sow

eit

ist

, u

nd

dan

n e

rst.

Ab

er

vorh

er

kan

nst

du

es

verg

ess

en

, d

as

kan

nst

du

sp

aß

halb

er

mach

en

.

57

.

Rein

hard

Un

d I

nte

rpre

tati

on

en

, w

ie d

u g

esa

gt

hast

vorh

er

bei

dem

Sem

inar,

sin

d ja d

an

nn

och

weit

er

weg

? F

ür

das

eig

en

tlic

he E

xperi

men

t d

an

n v

iell

eic

ht

noch

wen

iger

rele

van

t?

58

.

Dil

ek Ja

, ic

h g

lau

be s

chon

.5

9.

Rein

hard


102

Ab

er

du

wü

rdest

sch

on

sag

en

, d

ass

das

zum

ind

est

als

Dis

ku

ssio

n s

chon

statt

fin

det?

Als

o I

nte

rpre

tati

on

ssach

en

od

er

die

se T

heori

eg

esc

hic

hte

n?

60

.

Dil

ek D

och

sch

on

, w

eil

es

gib

t ja

im

Mom

en

t ein

Exp

eri

men

t -

bald

hoff

en

tlic

h s

ow

eit

ist

- u

nd

da w

ird

es

dan

n,

sob

ald

man

Erg

eb

nis

se h

at,

wie

der

aktu

ell

werd

en

. A

lso i

mS

inn

e v

on

: d

a w

ird

man

sic

h n

och

mal

üb

erl

eg

en

mü

ssen

, w

ie m

an

das

üb

ert

räg

tau

f d

as

Exp

eri

men

t. A

lso w

en

n m

an

die

gan

ze S

ach

e m

it d

em

, kein

e A

hn

un

g,

Tele

port

iere

n o

der

mit

dem

EP

R d

ara

uf

üb

ert

räg

t. D

a b

in i

ch m

ir s

ich

er

wir

d s

eh

rvi

el

dis

ku

tiert

werd

en

. [S

ie s

pri

cht

hie

r vo

n d

er

An

wen

du

ng

op

to-m

ech

an

isch

er

Qu

an

ten

syst

em

e,

wie

sie

in

der

Gru

pp

e e

rfors

cht

werd

en

, fü

r d

ieQ

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

stech

nik

]

61

.

Vers

teh

en

du

rch

Exp

eri

men

te?

Rein

hard

Wie

sie

hst

du

das

in B

ezu

g a

uf

das

Vers

teh

en

? H

elf

en

dir

sozu

sag

en

die

Exp

eri

men

te -

nach

zuvo

llzi

eh

en

od

er

zu v

est

eh

en

-,

hil

ft d

ir d

as

au

ch b

ei

den

grö

ßere

n S

ach

en

?

62

.

Dil

ek W

as

mein

st d

u m

it g

röß

ere

n S

ach

en

?6

3.

Rein

hard

Ja,

wie

jetz

t In

terp

reta

tion

en

od

er

die

th

eore

tisc

hen

Sach

en

od

er

die

EP

RG

esc

hic

hte

n. W

ürd

e e

s h

elf

en

wen

n d

u s

ieh

st w

as

in d

er

Gru

pp

e p

ass

iert

jetz

t m

itd

en

can

tile

ver

Sach

en

un

d d

en

Vers

chän

ku

ng

s S

ach

en

. U

nd

wen

n d

u d

an

nzu

rück

geh

en

wü

rdest

un

d d

ir d

ie E

PR

Sach

en

an

sch

au

st,

hil

ft e

s d

an

n?

64

.

Dil

ek D

as

man

es

bess

er

vers

teh

t? I

ch g

lau

be w

en

n m

an

das

Exp

eri

men

t se

lber

au

fbau

t,d

an

n h

at

man

sch

on

irg

en

dw

ie e

inen

Bezu

g z

u d

em

un

d v

ers

teh

t es

au

ch v

iel

bess

er,

als

wie

wen

n e

s ein

Koll

eg

e m

ach

t u

nd

sag

t ja

ich

hab

e d

as

un

d d

as

Resu

ltat.

Da m

uss

man

dan

n s

ich

er

län

ger

darü

ber

dis

ku

tiere

n a

ls w

en

n m

an

es

selb

er

gem

ach

t h

at.

Un

d o

b e

s d

an

n h

ilft

die

Th

eori

e b

ess

er

zu v

ers

teh

en

? [P

au

se]

Ich

mein

e,

ich

hab

e e

ine Q

uell

e,

es

geh

t in

die

an

dere

Ric

htu

ng

, u

p o

der

dow

n,.

..Ic

h h

ab

e e

s zu

min

dest

gem

ess

en

. D

.h.,

dass

mein

Resu

ltat

der

Th

eori

e e

nts

pri

cht.

65

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

ab

er

wir

d e

s zu

min

dest

etw

as

reale

r? W

en

n m

an

nu

r d

ie T

heori

e h

at,

ist

es

viell

eic

ht

ein

bis

serl

wu

nd

erl

ich

er,

gera

de w

en

n m

an

so K

on

zep

te h

at

wie

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

od

er

so?

66

.

Dil

ek N

ein

, ic

h g

lau

be n

ich

t. I

ch g

lau

be e

s w

ird

im

mer

noch

ein

bis

sch

en

geb

en

, w

o m

an

sich

den

kt:

Waru

m i

st e

s d

en

n s

o.

Waru

m g

era

de s

o u

nd

nic

ht

an

ders

. U

nd

waru

mp

ass

t g

era

de d

ie T

heori

e z

um

Exp

eri

men

t. I

ch g

lau

be d

ie F

rag

e w

ird

es

imm

er

geb

en

.

67

.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

a s

chein

t d

as

Exp

eri

men

t n

ich

t so

arg

weit

er

zu h

elf

en

?6

8.

Dil

ek D

och

sch

on

, w

eil

du

mach

st M

ess

un

gen

un

d d

u k

an

nst

dam

it w

as

mach

en

. A

ber.

..6

9.

Rein

hard

Vom

Vers

tän

dn

is h

er

wir

d e

s im

mer

noch

kom

isch

, m

erk

wü

rdig

od

er

wie

im

mer

man

das

nen

nen

wil

l? A

lso d

as

ist

die

Fra

ge,

wen

n m

an

rü

ckb

lick

en

d a

uf

die

Sach

en

, d

ie p

ap

ers

die

du

gele

sen

hast

usw

., [

sch

au

t],

un

d jetz

t zu

m U

nte

rsch

ied

exp

eri

men

tell

selb

st m

eh

r in

der

Han

d h

at.

Ob

der

Um

gan

g jetz

t etw

as

leic

hte

ris

t?

70

.

Dil

ek W

en

n i

ch a

n m

ein

Exp

eri

men

t d

en

ke,

dan

n i

st e

s b

ei

mein

e E

xperi

men

t sc

hon

so:

Es

gib

t ein

e T

heori

e,

ich

hab

e e

s g

em

ess

en

, es

pass

t g

en

au

mit

der

Th

eori

eü

bere

in.

Un

d d

.h.

ja d

an

n m

uss

es

halt

so s

ein

. A

ber

bei

den

ric

hti

gen

Qu

an

tem

ech

an

ikexp

eri

men

ten

sin

d e

s ja

vie

l g

öß

ere

Exp

eri

men

te m

it v

iel,

vie

lm

eh

r Para

mete

rn u

nd

da m

uss

man

wir

kli

ch s

org

fält

ig s

ein

. W

en

n m

an

ab

er

sorg

fält

ig g

ew

ese

n i

st u

nd

das

rich

tig

gem

ach

t h

at,

mü

sste

n e

igen

tlic

h k

ein

eF

rag

en

off

en

ble

iben

. A

ber

ich

mu

ss z

ug

eb

en

ich

hab

e s

o e

in E

xperi

men

t n

och

nic

ht

geh

ab

t. I

ch h

att

e n

och

nic

ht

die

Mög

lich

keit

sow

as

zu ü

berp

rüfe

n,

desw

eg

en

gla

ub

e i

ch w

äre

jed

e A

uss

ag

e d

ie i

ch jetz

t tr

eff

e n

ich

t g

an

z d

er

Wah

rheit

en

tsp

rech

en

d.

71

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

das

ist

kla

r.7

2.

Dil

ek A

lso z

u B

eg

inn

hab

e i

ch b

ei

mein

em

au

ch n

iem

als

dara

n g

ed

ach

t, d

ass

ein

makro

skop

isch

er

Sp

ieg

el

du

rch

Ph

oto

nen

bew

eg

t w

ird

un

d i

mm

er

noch

ist

die

Fra

ge o

ffen

ob

es

wir

kli

ch s

o i

st.

Im M

om

en

t is

t es

so,

ab

er

es

kan

n s

ich

jed

eM

inu

te ä

nd

ern

.

73

.

Rein

hard

D.h

. ab

er

meh

r zu

exp

eri

men

tiere

n w

ürd

e d

an

n h

elf

en

,zu

min

dest

mit

den

Sach

en

,w

en

n m

an

so w

ill,

heru

mzu

spie

len

?7

4.

Dil

ek N

ein

, d

as

eig

en

tlic

h a

uch

nic

ht.

Weil

irg

en

dw

an

n e

inm

al

ist

es

halt

so.

Man

kan

nfü

nft

au

sen

d m

al

noch

mess

en

, d

ass

ist

dan

n e

infa

ch s

o.

75

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

ab

er

das

du

zu

min

dest

in

ein

er

an

dere

n V

ari

an

te d

ie D

ing

e n

och

mal

[üb

erp

rüfs

t].

76

.

Dil

ek A

lso w

en

n d

as

Erg

eb

nis

im

mer

noch

das

selb

e i

st u

nd

die

Para

mete

r im

mer

noch

gle

ich

sin

d,

od

er

an

näh

ere

nd

gle

ich

, d

an

n w

ird

man

, g

lau

be i

ch,

nic

ht

noch

meh

rd

ran

sp

iele

n,

weil

es

ein

fach

so i

st.

Weil

eb

en

die

Th

eori

e d

an

n m

it d

em

Exp

eri

men

t n

ich

t ü

bere

inst

imm

t, u

nd

vie

lleic

ht

fin

det

man

da e

inen

Wid

ers

pru

ch.

Un

d z

eig

t d

an

n s

og

ar,

dass

die

gan

zen

hu

nd

ert

Jah

re d

ie d

ie P

hys

iker

dara

uf

au

fgew

en

det

hab

en

, n

ur

Sch

wach

sin

n g

ew

ese

n s

ind

. R

ech

t sc

hw

ieri

ge F

rag

eeig

en

tlic

h.

Ich

hab

e a

uch

selb

er

mir

nie

selb

st d

iese

Fra

ge g

est

ell

t.

77

.

Rein

hard

Es

ist

au

ch d

ie F

rag

e o

b s

o e

twas

für

ein

en

selb

st r

ele

van

t is

t. O

der

eig

en

tlic

h e

gal

ist,

weil

es

für

das

Kon

kre

te n

ich

ts a

uss

ag

t od

er

nic

ht

hil

ft.

78

.

Dil

ek A

lso i

m M

om

en

t h

alt

nic

ht.

79

.

Tech

nis

ch

er

Fort

sch

ritt

Rein

hard

Hat

jetz

t eig

en

tlic

h b

ei

dein

em

Exp

eri

men

t d

er

tech

nis

che F

ort

sch

ritt

geh

olf

en

hat?

Od

er

sin

d e

s eig

en

tlic

h S

ach

en

die

es

sch

on

län

ger

gib

t?8

0.

Dil

ek N

aja

. D

ie S

pie

gel

die

jetz

t g

eb

au

t w

ord

en

sin

d,

da i

st e

s sc

hon

die

zw

eit

eG

en

era

tion

an

Sp

ieg

el

die

wir

verw

en

den

. S

o g

ese

hen

...

81

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

weil

du

bra

uch

st z

iem

lich

gu

t re

flekti

ere

nd

e S

pie

gel.

82

.D

ilek

103

Gen

au

. S

eh

r, s

eh

r, s

eh

r, s

eh

r g

ute

Sp

ieg

el

mit

geri

ng

er

Ab

sorp

tion

. O

bw

oh

l ic

hm

ich

wu

nd

ere

, ic

h h

ab

e i

mm

er

noch

meh

r A

bso

rbti

on

, als

die

se f

ett

en

LIG

O [

Lase

rIn

terf

ero

mete

r G

ravi

tati

on

al-W

ave

Ob

serv

ato

ry]

Sp

ieg

el.

Das

war

un

fass

bar,

die

sin

d s

o g

roß

un

d s

o d

ick u

nd

, kein

e A

hn

un

g,

25

Kil

og

ram

m s

chw

er.

Un

d m

ein

s is

tn

ur

nan

og

ram

m-s

chw

er.

Ab

er

die

hab

en

im

mer

noch

wen

iger

Ab

sorp

tion

.

83

.

Un

d e

s g

eh

ört

gla

ub

e i

ch s

chon

au

ch e

in b

issc

hen

Wis

sen

un

d e

ben

ein

e A

rt v

on

Fert

igkeit

dazu

die

se S

pie

gel

au

ch b

au

en

zu

kön

nen

. U

nd

eig

en

tlic

h h

ab

en

es

die

frü

her

19

01

mit

gan

z si

mp

len

, als

o a

uch

mit

gro

ßen

Sp

ieg

eln

gem

ach

t, a

lso a

uch

so M

ikro

skop

spie

geln

, u

nd

sic

h e

ine g

an

z ve

rrü

ckte

Au

fhän

gu

ng

üb

erl

eg

t. U

nd

dan

n h

ab

en

sie

es

halt

gem

ach

t. W

ir h

ab

en

halt

die

kle

inen

Sp

ieg

eln

. Ja

, ic

hg

lau

be w

en

n m

an

die

se d

iele

ktr

isch

en

Sp

ieg

el,

so w

ie s

ie g

eb

au

t w

erd

en

...

Hätt

ees

die

nic

ht

geg

eb

en

, h

ätt

e e

s d

as

Exp

eri

men

t au

ch n

ich

t g

eg

eg

eb

en

. D

ieD

ete

kto

ren

die

ich

verw

en

de s

ind

eig

en

tlic

h,

als

o i

m V

erg

leic

h z

u 1

90

1..

.

84

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

ok.

Ab

er

es

sin

d s

chon

Din

ger,

die

man

ein

fach

bekom

men

kan

n.

Bis

au

f d

ieS

pie

gel,

die

mu

ss m

an

ext

ra h

ers

tell

en

, d

a m

uss

man

Au

fwan

d r

ein

steck

en

, d

en

Rest

nim

mt

man

sozu

sag

en

vom

Reg

al.

85

.

Dil

ek Ja

, d

as

stim

mt.

Es

hat

ja a

uch

vorh

er

die

Sp

ieg

el

geg

eb

en

un

d d

an

n i

st d

ie I

dee

gekom

men

. S

ow

ie H

en

ne o

der

ist

das

Ei

vorh

er

dag

ew

ese

n.

86

.

Rein

hard

D.h

. ab

er

[zu

ers

t] d

ie t

ech

nis

che M

ög

lich

keit

den

Sp

ieg

el

zu h

ab

en

un

d d

an

nsc

hau

e i

ch m

ir a

n,

dass

ich

das

dam

it m

ach

en

kan

n.

87

.

Dil

ek G

en

au

. U

nd

norm

ale

rweis

e w

erd

en

bei

un

sere

n E

xperi

men

ten

, b

is a

uf

beim

Mic

hael

[Mic

hael

Van

ner]

, ve

rwen

den

all

e a

nd

ere

n e

h n

ur.

.. a

lso W

itle

f [W

itle

fW

iecz

ore

k]

zum

Beis

pie

l, s

ein

Sp

ieg

el

ist

nu

r au

f d

er

ein

en

Seit

e h

och

refl

ekti

v,ab

er

au

f d

er

Rü

ckse

ite n

ich

t. U

nd

das

mu

sste

eb

en

bei

mir

sein

. W

eil

ich

von

der

ein

en

Seit

e A

usl

ese

un

d d

as

von

der

an

dere

n S

eit

e a

usl

en

ke.

Dafü

r h

at

Garr

ett

[Garr

ett

Cole

] zi

em

lich

vie

l A

rbeit

sch

on

rein

gest

eck

t, d

am

it e

r ein

mal

hera

usfi

nd

et

wie

man

au

f b

eid

en

Seit

en

das

ed

ged

.

88

.

En

de

Rein

hard

[Pau

se]

Als

o m

ein

e F

rag

en

wäre

n d

am

it e

rsch

öp

ft.

89

.D

ilek P

rüfu

ng

best

an

den

?9

0.

Rein

hard

Es

gib

t kein

e P

rüfu

ng

. A

lso w

en

n,

dan

n b

in i

ch d

er

Prü

flin

g i

n d

iese

r S

itu

ati

on

.9

1.

Wen

n d

u n

och

Fra

gen

hast

?9

2.

(no s

peaker)

Ku

rzes

Gesp

räch

, w

as

so d

er

Ph

iloso

ph

mach

t. D

an

ksa

gu

ng

un

d a

usk

lin

gen

der

small

talk

.9

3.


104

Garr

ett

_110610

Inte

rvie

w m

it D

r. G

arr

ett

Cole

vom

10

.06

.20

11

Tra

nsc

rib

ed

by

yott

a,

vers

ion

5 o

f 1

10

61

7

An

fan

g,

pers

ön

lich

e D

ate

n,

Au

sbil

du

ng

(no s

peaker)

[in

tro s

mall

talk

]1

.R

ein

hard

Just

for

a s

tart

, co

uld

you

tell

me y

ou

r ag

e?

2.

Garr

ett

I ju

st t

urn

ed

32

in

May

31

st.

3.

Rein

hard

Th

en

, w

hat

is y

ou

r ed

uca

tion

al

back

gro

un

d?

4.

Garr

ett

Bach

elo

rs d

eg

ree i

n m

ate

rials

en

gin

eeri

ng

. S

o I

'm o

rig

nall

y fr

om

San

Fra

nci

sco

are

a.

Th

en

I w

en

t to

th

is s

chool

in,

you

neve

r h

eard

of,

Cali

forn

ia P

oly

tech

nic

Sta

teU

niv

ers

ity.

It'

s li

ke a

sm

all

poly

tech

nic

sch

ool.

Th

ey

had

a m

ate

rials

en

gin

eeri

ng

for

bach

elo

rs.

An

d t

hen

I w

en

t to

San

ta B

arb

ara

, U

C S

an

ta B

arb

ara

, fo

r, i

t's

just

call

ed

'M

ate

rials

' th

ere

, b

ut

it's

mate

rials

sci

en

ce a

nd

en

gin

eeri

ng

. B

ut

it's

als

o i

nth

e c

oll

eg

e o

f en

gin

eeri

ng

th

ere

. S

o i

t is

con

sid

ere

d a

n e

ng

ineeri

ng

dep

art

men

t.M

ate

rials

is

a v

ery

bro

ad

field

. S

o I

act

uall

y d

id e

lect

ron

ic a

nd

ph

oto

nic

mate

rials

.S

o i

t's

more

ap

pli

ed

con

den

sed

matt

er

stu

ff;

ap

pli

ed

soli

d s

tate

. A

nd

th

ere

I d

id m

yP

hD

in

20

05

. A

nd

th

en

I w

ork

ed

in

in

du

stry

for

a y

ear.

I w

ork

ed

at

Law

ren

ceL

iverm

ore

, it

's a

Nati

on

al

Lab

ora

tory

in

th

e U

S,

for

two y

ears

. A

nd

th

en

here

.L

iverm

ore

is

a b

ig...

So t

here

is

Los

Ala

mos

an

d L

iverm

ore

. S

o L

os

Ala

mos

was

firs

t...

Liv

erm

ore

was

bu

ild

to d

eve

lop

th

e h

ydro

gen

bom

b.

So i

t's

to b

uil

dth

erm

on

ucl

ear

wep

on

s. S

o i

t's

a w

eap

on

s la

b.

Bu

t n

ow

it'

s ju

st a

gen

era

l sc

ien

tifi

cre

searc

h l

ab

.

5.

Werd

eg

an

g

Rein

hard

How

did

you

kin

d o

f tr

an

sfer

from

th

e m

ate

rial

en

gin

eeri

ng

part

to s

om

eth

ing

lik

eh

ere

, th

e p

hys

ics

dep

art

men

t?6

.

Garr

ett

So m

y b

ack

gro

un

d i

s in

mic

ro-n

an

o f

ab

rica

tion

. I

have

a r

eall

y w

eir

d b

ack

gro

un

d.

So e

ven

th

ou

gh

by

deg

ree,

the d

eg

ree m

ate

rial

scie

nce

, m

ost

of

the w

ork

I'v

e d

on

eh

as

been

ju

st a

pp

lied

devi

ce d

esi

gn

an

d f

ab

rica

tion

. F

or

my

dis

sert

ati

on

rese

arc

h I

mad

e d

iod

e l

ase

rs.

So t

hese

mech

an

icall

y tu

neab

le d

iod

e l

ase

rs.

Th

ey

are

th

ese

fun

ny,

very

sp

eci

fic

typ

es

of

surf

ace

am

en

din

g l

ase

rs.

So h

ow

to d

o s

urf

ace

leg

it.

Th

en

I m

ad

e a

sm

all

movi

ng

mir

ror

that

wou

ld c

han

ge t

he c

avi

ty l

en

gth

. A

nd

you

cou

ld t

un

e t

he c

en

ter

of

wave

len

gth

wit

h t

his

devi

ce.

If y

ou

look,

this

is

wh

ere

th

eco

nn

ect

ion

s co

me i

n.

I m

ad

e m

ovi

ng

mir

rors

! B

ut

mu

ch m

ore

com

ple

x, c

au

se y

ou

had

a f

ull

dio

de l

ase

r st

ruct

ure

th

at

you

had

to b

uil

d w

ith

th

is m

ovi

ng

mir

ror.

Asu

spen

ded

mir

ror

that

you

ele

ctro

stati

call

y m

ove

d.

An

d t

hen

I d

id t

hat

con

tin

uou

sly

aft

erw

ard

s. S

o i

n i

nd

ust

ry t

here

is

a c

om

pan

y th

at

act

uall

y li

cen

ced

ap

ate

nt

for

som

e o

f th

e w

ork

th

at

we d

id.

Th

ey

stil

l d

eve

lop

th

ese

devi

ces.

An

d a

tL

iverm

ore

I ju

st d

id s

en

sor

deve

lop

men

t. T

hese

th

ing

s are

reall

y fa

st t

un

eab

lela

sers

; n

arr

ow

lin

ew

idth

, ve

ry f

ast

tu

nin

g.

So f

or

gas

sen

sin

g o

r d

isp

lace

men

t

7.

sen

sin

g.

Th

en

I s

aw

th

is o

pto

-mech

an

ics

work

cam

e u

p.

Act

uall

y in

my

stru

ctu

res,

if y

ou

had

hig

h e

nou

gh

in

tra c

avi

ty p

ow

er,

you

cou

ld s

ee s

tati

c d

isp

lace

men

ts o

fth

e m

irro

r; t

hro

ug

h r

ad

iati

on

pre

ssu

re f

orc

es.

Cau

se t

he c

avi

ty l

en

gth

was

two

mic

ron

s, s

o y

ou

get

mass

ive d

isp

lace

men

ts.

Rein

hard

Alt

hou

gh

you

don

't w

an

t th

em

.8

.G

arr

ett

You

don

't w

an

t th

em

! T

hey

are

act

uall

y b

ad

. T

hey

hu

rt t

he s

tab

ilit

y of

the l

ase

r.B

ut

it w

as

alw

ays

an

in

tere

stin

g s

ort

of

asi

de.

Noth

ing

we w

ou

ld e

ver

pu

bli

sh o

n i

t,b

ut

we u

sed

it

just

to p

lay

aro

un

d.

You

cou

ld c

han

ge t

he c

en

tre o

f w

ave

len

gth

of

the l

ase

r b

y p

utt

ing

en

ou

gh

pow

er

in i

t. A

nd

th

en

on

20

05

th

ere

is

these

firs

tp

ap

ers

com

ing

up

, li

ke p

ara

metr

ic o

scil

lati

on

in

th

ese

devi

ces;

in

op

to-m

ech

an

ical

devi

ces.

So I

alw

ays

kin

d o

f w

atc

hed

it.

Wh

en

I w

as

at

Liv

erm

ore

th

e p

osi

tion

was

reall

y n

ice.

Half

of

the t

ime y

ou

had

to d

o w

ork

for

the l

ab

ora

tory

an

d h

alf

th

e t

ime

you

cou

ld d

o a

nyt

hin

g y

ou

wan

ted

; w

hic

h w

as

aw

eso

me.

I en

ded

up

...

So I

sta

rted

tryi

ng

to g

et

mon

ey

inte

rnall

y to

do t

he w

ork

lik

e w

ith

som

e o

ther

peop

le i

n t

he

lab

ora

tory

an

d i

t n

eve

r g

ot

acc

ep

ted

. I

mean

it

was

an

en

gin

eeri

ng

dep

art

men

tan

d t

he a

lways

wan

ted

ap

pli

cati

on

s an

d u

se.

So i

t w

as

alw

ays

sh

utd

ow

n.

An

d t

hen

at

on

e p

oin

t I

was

act

uall

y ju

st w

rote

in

[??

?] t

o p

eop

le t

o w

ork

. A

nd

I w

as

bore

dan

d s

o I

ju

st t

yped

a m

ess

ag

e t

o M

ark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r],

wh

o I

'd n

eve

r m

et.

An

d ju

stsa

id:

Ok t

his

is

very

in

tere

stin

g a

nd

I c

an

do m

icro

fab

. H

ere

are

som

e i

deas.

An

dse

nt

it t

o h

im.

9.

Rein

hard

An

d h

ow

you

get

to [

kn

ow

] M

ark

us?

10

.G

arr

ett

I sa

w t

he p

ap

ers

. Ye

s ou

t of

the p

ap

ers

. A

nd

I c

on

tact

ed

th

em

an

d M

ark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] w

rote

me b

ack

. A

nd

th

en

for

ab

ou

t a y

ear

from

Liv

erm

ore

I w

ork

ed

wit

h M

ark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] l

ike f

or

very

sm

all

sid

e p

roje

cts.

Fab

rica

te s

am

ple

s, s

hip

them

to V

ien

na,

they

wou

ld t

est

th

em

, se

nd

me t

he r

esu

lts,

make n

ew

devi

ces

an

dsh

ip t

hem

back

. S

o t

hat

wen

t on

for

a y

ear.

An

d t

hen

un

fort

un

ate

ly t

he l

ab

ora

tory

had

som

e m

ajo

r fi

nan

cial

pro

ble

ms.

So t

hat'

s a w

hole

lon

g s

tory

. S

o t

hey

laye

d o

fflo

ts o

f p

eop

le.

I w

as

exc

ep

t fr

om

th

e l

ayo

ff.

I co

uld

not

get

fire

d,

bu

t it

was

very

dep

ress

ing

.

11

.

Rein

hard

Th

at'

s a p

oin

t to

ju

mp

off

an

d d

o s

om

eth

ing

diff

ere

nt?

12

.G

arr

ett

It l

ook r

eall

y b

ad

an

d I

did

n't

lik

e t

he w

ay

thin

gs

were

goin

g.

I h

ad

a t

alk

to

Mark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] a

bou

t it

an

d h

e a

sked

if

I w

an

ted

to c

om

e t

o V

ien

na;

full

tim

e.

So i

t's

a v

ery

lon

g a

nd

com

ple

x co

nn

ect

ion

.

13

.

Rein

hard

Yeah

, b

ut

it i

s kin

d o

f ext

raord

inary

sto

ry,

not

very

com

mon

sto

ry t

o t

ell

.1

4.

Garr

ett

It's

a w

eir

d o

ne.

15

.

ph

ysik

-th

eore

tisc

her

Hin

terg

run

d

Rein

hard

So t

hat

is y

ou

r b

ack

gro

un

d a

lso i

n k

ind

of

ph

ysic

s? T

he t

heory

stu

ff?

16

.G

arr

ett

Th

at'

s ve

ry w

eak.

So c

om

ing

fro

m a

n e

ng

ineeri

ng

back

gro

un

d,

like f

or

my

bach

elo

rs d

eg

ree,

I to

ok a

nu

mb

er

of

soli

d s

tate

cou

rses

an

d a

lots

of

mate

rial

scie

nce

cou

rses.

Bu

t I

took o

ne i

ntr

o..

. It

wasn

't e

ven

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics,

it

was

17

.

105

mod

ern

ph

ysic

s. S

o i

t h

ad

lik

e r

ela

tivi

ty a

nd

som

e i

ntr

o t

o q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

An

d w

hen

I s

tart

ed

gra

du

ate

sch

ool,

I g

uess

I ju

st t

ook t

wo q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics

cou

rses.

So I

took a

gain

som

eth

ing

lik

e a

n i

ntr

o,

bu

t fo

r q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

An

dth

en

I t

ook s

om

e,

I d

on

't e

ven

rem

em

ber

the n

am

e,.

.. n

ow

th

is i

s te

n y

ears

ag

o.

Som

e m

ixed

leve

l q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics

cou

rse. I

start

ed

to t

ake a

noth

er

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics

cou

rse,

act

uall

y th

rou

gh

th

e p

hys

ics

dep

art

men

t. A

nd

I w

as

alr

ead

yd

oin

g r

ese

arc

h a

nd

it

was

just

too m

uch

, so

I s

top

ped

. T

hat

was

it.

Bu

t m

ost

eve

ryth

ing

was

mu

ch m

ore

ap

pli

ed

. A

nd

beca

use

I w

as

in t

his

lik

e e

lect

ron

icm

ate

rials

pro

gra

m..

. S

o y

ou

sort

of

basi

call

y g

ot

the q

uan

tum

iss

ues,

bu

t m

ost

of

itw

as

ap

pli

ed

to l

ike c

on

fin

ed

ele

ctro

nic

str

uct

ure

s.R

ein

hard

Han

dle

d a

s ju

st a

sid

e e

ffect

, w

hic

h y

ou

pro

bab

ly d

on

't w

an

t to

have

?1

8.

Fasz

inati

on

an

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik

Garr

ett

Yeah

. S

o t

hat

was

inte

rest

ing

. I

mean

it

was

alw

ays

in

tere

stin

g t

o m

e.

Lik

e t

he

'mod

ern

ph

ysic

s' c

ou

rse I

took f

or

my

bach

elo

rs.

I d

idn

't g

et

an

y cr

ed

it f

or

that

class

. It

wasn

't p

art

of

my

curr

icu

lum

, I

just

ad

ded

it

beca

use

I t

hou

gh

t it

was

inte

rest

ing

.

19

.

(no s

peaker)

[lit

tle i

nte

rru

pti

on

]2

0.

Garr

ett

So I

alw

ays

had

an

in

tere

st i

n b

asi

c p

hys

ics.

Th

at'

s on

e o

f th

e r

easo

ns

wh

y I

wou

ldco

me h

ere

. It

wou

ld b

e h

ard

to ju

stif

y co

min

g h

ere

, b

ut

did

n't

lik

e t

he m

ore

fun

dam

en

tal

stu

ff.

21

.

Rein

hard

Th

at

is t

he q

uest

ion

wh

eth

er

you

can

pin

poin

t to

som

ew

here

wh

ere

you

got

start

ed

to b

e i

nte

rest

ed

?2

2.

Garr

ett

No,

it w

as

just

sort

of

alw

ays

th

ere

. I

can

go b

ack

an

d s

ay

som

e w

hole

th

ing

lik

ew

hen

I w

as

you

ng

er.

I l

iked

ast

ron

om

y an

d I

had

som

e [

???]

book t

hat

desc

rib

ed

mod

ern

sci

en

tifi

c st

uff

an

d i

t h

ad

a l

ittl

e d

esc

rip

tion

ab

ou

t th

ing

s li

ke q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

So i

t is

alw

ays

in

tere

stin

g.

I'm

su

re e

very

bod

y sa

ys t

he s

am

e t

hin

g,

bu

tju

st t

he c

ou

nte

r-in

tuit

iven

ess

was

inte

rest

ing

to s

om

e d

eg

ree;

rig

ht.

Cau

se t

here

is

som

eth

ing

you

don

't e

xpect

or

don

't s

ee.

23

.

Rein

hard

So t

hat

is o

ne o

f th

e a

ttra

ctio

n p

oin

ts,

esp

eci

all

y in

th

e b

eg

inn

ing

. W

hen

th

ey

com

eu

p w

ith

sta

tem

en

ts t

hat

are

hard

to b

eli

eve

, or

hard

to g

et.

24

.

Garr

ett

Exa

ctly

. It

was

fun

ju

st t

o l

earn

th

e c

on

cep

ts.

25

.

Au

fgab

e i

m E

xp

eri

men

t /

Roll

e i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e

Rein

hard

So w

hat

is y

ou

r cu

rren

t ro

le i

n t

he g

rou

p?

Wh

at

are

you

doin

g?

26

.G

arr

ett

So I

've b

een

here

tw

o a

nd

half

years

now

. I

had

th

is M

ari

e-C

urr

ie f

ell

ow

ship

, w

hic

hw

as

kin

d o

f n

ice.

So m

ain

ly f

or

the g

rou

p I

do l

ike d

esi

gn

th

e r

eso

nato

rs,

mic

rofa

bri

cati

on

of

the r

eso

nato

rs a

t th

e t

ech

nic

al

un

ivers

ity

[Tech

nis

che U

niv

ers

ität

Wie

n].

An

d t

hen

ch

ara

cteri

zati

on

of

the r

eso

nato

rs.

So w

e b

uil

d a

sm

all

test

setu

p..

. C

au

se t

he fi

nal

exp

eri

men

t is

in

th

is d

ilu

tion

fri

dg

e t

hat

takes

days

to c

ool

27

.

dow

n a

nd

it'

s co

mp

lex.

Th

e fi

rst

goal

was

to b

uil

d a

qu

ick t

urn

aro

un

d t

est

ing

syst

em

. S

o i

t w

asn

't t

he f

ull

exp

eri

men

t, b

ut

was

en

ou

gh

to c

hara

cteri

ze t

he

mech

an

ics.

So I

bu

ild

th

is c

ryog

en

ic-e

nab

led

Fab

ry-P

ero

t in

terf

ero

mete

r sy

stem

,w

here

we c

ou

ld l

oad

ch

ips

in, m

easu

re t

he m

ech

an

ical

resp

on

se o

f th

e d

evi

ces

[can

tile

vers

on

th

e c

hip

].It

wasn

't i

nti

all

y th

e p

lan

, b

ut

at

on

e p

oin

t w

e s

tart

ed

gett

ing

...

All

th

ese

th

ing

s are

lim

ited

by

the q

uali

ty f

act

or

of

the r

eso

nan

ce, so

th

e m

ech

an

ical

dam

pin

g o

f th

ere

son

an

ce.

Wh

ich

is

the b

igg

est

road

blo

ck t

o a

ll t

hese

op

to-m

ech

an

ical

exp

eri

men

ts.

So w

e s

tart

ed

lookin

g i

nto

ways

of

qu

an

tifi

ng

an

d u

nd

ers

tan

din

g t

he

mech

an

ical

dam

pin

g i

n t

he s

yste

ms.

28

.

Rein

hard

To i

mp

rove

th

en

on

th

e m

ech

an

ics.

29

.G

arr

ett

So t

hen

I t

ook,

that

was

like t

wo y

ears

alm

ost

, li

ke a

year

an

d a

half

ju

st f

ocu

sin

gon

th

is.

Ult

imate

ly w

e a

lso g

ot

som

e n

ice p

ap

er.

So i

t's

basi

call

y d

esi

gn

, fa

b,

chara

cteri

zati

on

of

the r

eso

nato

rs.

An

d t

hen

th

ere

is

alw

ays

lots

of

litt

le s

ide

thin

gs

that

pop

up

. B

ut

my

main

role

wou

ld b

e t

he g

uy

wh

o w

ork

s in

th

e c

lean

room

.

30

.

Rein

hard

Makin

g a

ll t

his

reso

nato

rs.

An

d t

he o

thers

th

en

sp

oil

th

em

.3

1.

Garr

ett

Ad

ap

t th

em

! T

here

is

Dil

ek [

Dem

ir],

th

is d

iplo

ma s

tud

en

t d

oes

the r

ad

iati

on

pre

ssu

re t

est

wit

h t

hese

can

tile

vers

th

at

I m

ake f

or

her.

I m

ad

e s

om

e d

evi

ces

for

Mic

hael

[Van

ner]

. T

here

is

a g

rou

p a

t M

IT t

hat

use

s so

me o

f th

e d

evi

ces

that

Im

ad

e h

ere

. W

e h

ave

th

e r

eso

nato

rs t

hat

we u

se f

or

the c

ooli

ng

exp

eri

men

t.M

akin

g n

ew

reall

y sh

ort

cavi

ty r

eso

nato

rs f

or

som

e o

ther

exp

eri

men

ts.

Th

ere

is

alw

ays

som

eth

ing

. A

nd

an

ytim

e s

tuff

need

s to

be d

on

e,

like r

eall

y h

igh

pre

ciso

n,

like m

icro

scop

y. L

ike t

he b

eat

exe

peri

men

t, t

hey

wan

t to

see t

he s

ize o

f th

eir

beat

[???

]. A

nyt

hin

g t

hat

goes

on

ou

tsid

e o

f th

e l

ab

th

at

we c

urr

en

tly

have

. S

o a

nyt

hin

gth

at

need

s to

be d

on

e i

n l

ike a

cle

an

room

.

32

.

Rein

hard

So y

ou

do t

his

alo

ne?

Or

is t

here

som

eb

od

y els

e?

33

.G

arr

ett

Sim

on

[G

röb

lach

er]

for

a w

hil

e w

as

goin

g t

o C

orn

ell

[U

niv

ers

ity]

. S

imon

Grö

bla

cher?

I n

eve

r sa

y h

is l

ast

nam

e p

rop

erl

y eve

r. H

e w

ou

ld g

o t

o C

orn

ell

an

dd

o t

he f

ab

rica

tion

. H

e i

s als

o c

ap

ab

le o

f d

oin

g t

he f

ab

rica

tion

; in

a m

ore

lim

ited

sen

se.

He c

an

make t

hose

mech

an

ical

reso

nato

rs,

bu

t n

ot

as

like..

. I

mean

I h

ave

don

e m

acr

ofa

b s

ince

19

99

or

20

00

. S

o i

t's

just

mu

ch m

ore

lik

e v

ari

ety

, w

hic

h I

'mst

ill

very

good

at.

Bu

t I

thin

k h

e i

s als

o b

ett

er.

I m

ean

his

focu

s is

at

the c

ooli

ng

exp

eri

men

t. S

o i

t's

bett

er

for

him

to n

ot

have

to g

ot

to t

he f

ab

, th

at'

s n

ice.

So i

t's

pre

dom

inan

tly

then

me.

Bu

t I

wou

ld s

ay:

me 9

0%

, S

imon

10

%.

34

.

Rein

hard

Ok.

So a

lth

ou

gh

not

work

ing

here

, h

e i

s g

ivin

g s

om

e i

np

ut.

35

.

Zu

ku

nft

sau

ssic

ht

Rein

hard

Do h

ave

an

y p

lan

s or

pro

spect

s w

hat

you

are

goin

g t

o d

o f

utu

rew

ise?

36

.G

arr

ett

I d

on

't k

now

, I

don

't k

now

. T

hat'

s act

uall

y b

een

a p

ain

, it

has

been

th

ou

gh

. C

au

se I

have

n't

reall

y p

ut

a l

ot

of

eff

ort

in

to i

t. A

nd

I d

on

't r

eall

y kn

ow

, w

hat

I w

an

na d

o.

Iw

ork

ed

for

the i

nd

ust

ry,

then

I w

as

at

Liv

erm

ore

, th

en

here

an

d t

hen

...

I w

as

goin

g

37

.


106

back

an

d f

ort

h t

hin

kin

g a

bou

t aca

dem

ic p

osi

tion

s. B

ut

it d

oesn

't..

. R

igh

t n

ow

it'

sso

rt o

f le

an

ing

aw

ay

from

th

at.

I d

on

't k

now

wh

at

I w

an

na d

o.

Rein

hard

So i

t's

just

...

Leave

it

op

en

an

d s

ee w

hat

is g

oin

g t

o c

om

e.

An

d w

ait

for

that.

38

.

Fasz

inati

on

an

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik

Rein

hard

I m

ean

we a

lread

y ta

lked

ab

ou

t it

, b

ut

cou

ld y

ou

tell

wh

at

fasc

inate

s yo

u a

bou

t li

ke

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics?

Or

more

[exp

lici

t],

the s

tuff

th

at

is d

on

e h

ere

, b

asi

call

y in

th

eexp

eri

men

ts?

39

.

Garr

ett

I ju

st l

ike t

he c

on

cep

t of

like..

. Ju

st e

xpla

inin

g t

he c

on

cep

t of

the w

ork

to

som

eb

od

y is

cra

zy t

o t

hin

k a

bou

t. C

au

se t

he s

ize s

cale

s are

very

diff

ere

nt.

Isn

'tth

at

triv

al?

Say,

if

you

make a

sin

gle

ph

oto

n s

up

erp

osi

tion

, or

do s

om

eth

ing

lik

eop

tica

l en

tan

gle

men

t exp

eri

men

t. B

ut

to t

ake i

t to

a f

air

ly m

acr

osc

op

ic m

ech

an

ical

syst

em

. I

mean

I g

o t

o t

he c

lean

room

, I

start

do s

om

e t

hin

gs

wit

h m

y h

an

ds

an

d i

nth

e e

nd

you

have

a l

ittl

e r

eso

nato

r; r

igh

t. A

nd

peop

le s

ay

you

can

see w

ith

you

reye

, alm

ost

. It

's a

mazi

ng

to t

hin

k t

hat

you

cou

ld t

hen

do,

say

in t

he l

on

g r

un

, h

ave

som

e -

- n

ow

we c

ou

ldn

't d

o -

- b

ut

som

e m

ass

ive s

up

erp

ost

ion

, w

here

you

have

th

isth

ing

both

sta

tic

an

d d

isp

laci

ng

. S

o s

om

e z

ero

-poin

t m

oti

on

of

the t

hin

g a

nd

th

en

som

e v

ibra

tion

am

pli

tud

e o

f th

e t

hin

g s

imu

ltan

iou

sly.

I t

hin

k t

his

is

reall

y co

ol.

Aco

ol

con

cep

t. I

t is

ju

st i

ntr

igu

ing

to t

he p

oin

t th

at

peop

le a

re l

ookin

g a

t th

is.

An

dth

ere

is

all

kin

ds

of

fun

ky.

.. I

use

d t

o d

o t

his

stu

die

s of

these

non

-lin

ear

reso

nan

ces,

class

ical

non

-lin

ear

reso

nan

ces.

Th

ey

can

be r

eall

y fu

nn

y st

uff

. S

o t

hese

th

ing

sh

ave

th

is h

yste

resi

s. B

ut

if y

ou

had

a q

uan

tum

reso

nato

r th

at

was

cap

ab

le o

f d

oin

gth

at,

it

wou

ld ju

st l

ead

to,

I d

on

't k

now

if

you

eve

n c

all

th

is t

un

neli

ng

. B

ut

it c

ou

ldh

op

betw

een

th

ose

tw

o s

tate

s...

40

.

Rein

hard

...w

ith

noth

ing

in

betw

een

...

41

.G

arr

ett

Yeah

. S

o i

t's

fasc

inati

ng

to t

hin

k a

bou

t th

ing

s li

ke t

hat.

I t

hin

k i

t's

more

of

the s

ize

scale

. B

eca

use

a l

ot

of

these

con

cep

ts h

ave

been

don

e.

You

kn

ow

.4

2.

Rein

hard

So a

re t

hey

sett

led

for

you

? O

r are

th

ey

stil

l kin

d o

f in

trig

uin

g?

43

.G

arr

ett

So I

wou

ld s

ay,

in

my

min

d e

very

thin

g ju

st s

eem

s to

be a

tech

nic

al

hu

rdle

. L

ike i

t is

ph

ysic

all

y p

oss

ible

. N

ot

to i

nfi

nit

y, b

ut

to a

very

larg

e s

cale

. I

don

't s

ee a

ny

road

blo

cks

there

. It

's ju

st a

tech

nic

al

chall

en

ge i

sola

tin

g t

his

th

ing

pro

perl

y. T

hat'

sth

e w

ay

I se

e i

t.

44

.

Rein

hard

So t

he c

on

cep

t is

th

ere

. T

he t

heory

says

it

work

s, s

o..

.?4

5.

Garr

ett

Th

at'

s tr

ue.

I m

ean

th

eory

[??

?] w

ork

s fo

r, r

igh

t n

ow

, u

p t

o s

om

eth

ing

lik

e t

hese

sort

of

reso

nato

rs,

we a

re l

ookin

g a

t. S

om

eth

ing

th

at'

s on

ly i

n t

he o

rder

of

som

eh

un

dre

ds

of

nan

og

ram

s. T

hat'

s fe

asa

ble

. If

you

wan

na g

o m

uch

larg

er

than

th

at,

no.

At

the s

am

e t

ime y

ou

see r

esu

lts

like f

rom

LIG

O [

Lase

r In

terf

ero

mete

rG

ravi

tati

on

al

Wave

Ob

serv

ato

ry],

th

e g

ravi

tati

on

al

wave

typ

e t

hin

g.

An

d t

hey

have

mu

lti

kil

og

ram

mir

rors

an

d t

hey

are

gett

ing

dow

n t

o f

ew

hu

nd

red

ph

on

on

s[q

uasi

part

icle

, w

hic

h r

ep

rese

nts

an

exc

ited

sta

te o

f th

e m

od

es

of

vib

rati

on

s of

ela

stic

str

uct

ure

s of

inte

ract

ing

part

icle

s. T

he s

mall

er

the n

um

ber

of

ph

on

on

s, t

he

close

r yo

u a

re a

t th

e g

rou

nd

sta

te o

f th

e s

yste

m a

nd

to a

qu

an

tum

reg

ime.]

. S

o

46

.

hon

est

ly s

eein

g t

hat,

it

makes

me t

hin

k i

t w

ou

ldn

't b

e t

hat

mu

ch h

ard

er

to k

eep

pu

shin

g t

hat.

Th

at'

s h

um

on

gou

s.R

ein

hard

So t

his

is

als

o a

n i

nte

rest

ing

way

just

to g

o t

here

, p

ush

tech

nic

all

y th

e l

imit

s an

dse

e w

hat

the o

utc

om

e i

s? B

e s

urp

rise

d,

or

not.

47

.

Helf

en

Exp

eri

men

te d

em

Vers

tän

dn

is?

Rein

hard

Do y

ou

see t

hese

exp

eri

men

ts a

s so

meth

ing

th

at

mig

ht

help

in

un

ders

tan

din

g,

like

the i

ntr

igu

ing

part

s?4

8.

Garr

ett

I th

ink s

o. T

he t

hin

g t

hat

alw

ays

com

es

up

an

d f

or

me i

t's

more

lik

e -

- w

hat'

s th

eri

gh

t w

ord

--

para

din

g o

r [?

??].

.. B

eca

use

th

eore

tica

l m

y b

ack

gro

un

d i

s n

ot

nearl

yth

at

stro

ng

.

49

.

(no s

peaker)

[lit

tle i

nte

rru

pti

on

]5

0.

Garr

ett

Ok.

Wh

at

was

the l

ast

qu

est

ion

? W

e h

ave

to r

ew

ind

an

d s

ee.

51

.R

ein

hard

Oh

, if

lik

e d

oin

g t

he e

xperi

men

ts c

ou

ld h

elp

in

un

ders

tan

din

g t

he i

ntr

igu

ing

thin

gs.

Or

just

gett

ing

sett

led

ab

ou

t it

.5

2.

Garr

ett

I co

me f

rom

a t

ota

lly

diff

ere

nt

back

gro

un

d,

such

as

weir

d t

hat

the w

ay

I th

ink

ab

ou

t it

mig

ht

be d

iffere

ntl

y. W

hic

h i

s in

tere

stin

g,

I u

nd

ers

tan

d.

Wh

en

peop

leta

lkin

g a

bou

t all

th

is q

uan

tum

cla

ssic

al

tran

siti

on

: Is

th

ere

lik

e a

bou

nd

ary

in

betw

een

th

ese

th

ing

s? M

ine i

s: I

don

't s

ee t

hat

they

are

an

y d

iffere

nt.

Bu

t on

e i

sju

st s

om

e e

xtre

me f

orm

of

the o

ther.

So I

th

ink i

t w

ou

ld b

e n

ice t

o s

how

th

at

you

can

take s

om

eth

ing

mass

ive a

nd

see q

uan

tum

eff

ect

s in

it.

I d

on

't r

eall

y kn

ow

how

man

y p

eop

le i

n t

his

field

or

in t

his

are

a,

wou

ld e

very

th

ink t

here

is

som

e s

ud

den

chan

ge w

hen

you

go f

rom

on

e s

ide o

f p

hys

ics

to t

he o

ther.

I t

hin

k a

nyb

od

y d

oin

gth

is,

it'd

be s

urp

risi

ng

if

they

thou

gh

t th

at

way.

I'd

act

uall

y b

e s

urp

rise

d,

if t

here

is

an

y [?

??]

that

act

uall

y als

o t

hin

ks

that

way.

Bu

t it

'd b

e n

ice t

o p

roof,

th

at

you

can

take s

om

eth

ing

th

at

mass

ive a

nd

sh

ow

som

e q

uan

tum

eff

ect

s in

it.

53

.

I th

ink t

he m

ost

in

tere

stin

g,

like t

ech

nic

al,

th

ing

to s

tud

y, i

s to

see w

hat

cau

ses

itto

ap

pear,

to b

e c

om

ple

tely

...

Wh

at

cau

ses

it t

o b

e c

lass

ical,

I g

uess

. S

o i

n t

hat

sen

se,

in t

hat

dir

ect

ion

you

need

to s

tud

y th

e d

eco

here

nce

mech

an

ism

s th

at

work

.T

hat

wou

ld k

ill

those

qu

an

tum

eff

ect

s in

th

ese

big

sys

tem

s. S

o t

here

's l

ots

of

neat

pro

posa

ls,

like t

his

Pen

rose

mod

el

an

d t

hese

oth

er

on

es

I d

on

't k

now

th

e d

eta

ils

of

an

d t

he n

am

es

of.

It'

d b

e a

[??

?] t

o s

ee l

ike s

ay:

We c

an

pre

pare

, fi

st s

om

e n

an

om

ech

an

ical

reso

nato

rs a

nd

larg

er

mic

rom

ech

an

ical

reso

nato

rs,

an

d e

ven

tuall

yth

ose

LIG

O s

cale

, li

ke k

ilog

ram

str

uct

ure

. A

nd

th

en

pre

pare

it

in s

om

e s

tate

an

dth

en

let

it s

it a

nd

evo

lve,

an

d ju

st d

ie b

ack

to s

om

e b

ori

ng

, d

um

b [

class

ical

state

].H

ow

fast

is

that

tim

e s

cale

hap

pen

ing

on

. W

hat

does

the t

heory

sh

ow

it

hap

pen

son

. A

nd

th

en

com

pare

th

is a

nd

see w

hat'

s it

lik

e.

54

.

It s

ort

of

goes

back

to w

hat

I sa

id e

arl

ier,

bu

t in

th

e e

nd

eve

ryth

ing

is

just

...

If y

ou

take a

nyt

hin

g a

nd

pro

perl

y is

ola

te a

t le

ast

on

e d

eg

ree o

f fr

eed

om

or

on

e t

hin

g t

hat

you

can

get

som

e c

hara

cteri

stic

of.

Have

th

e m

easu

rem

en

t h

as

to b

e s

om

e p

oin

tw

ere

you

can

see q

uan

tiza

tion

, yo

u c

an

see s

om

e q

uan

tum

eff

ect

s in

th

at

state

. If

you

pro

perl

y re

move

d i

t's

con

nect

ion

s fr

om

eve

ryth

ing

. W

hic

h b

eco

mes

just

more

tech

nic

all

y ch

all

en

gin

g a

s yo

u y

ou

move

up

in

sca

le.

So i

t's

just

kin

d o

f n

eat

toth

ink a

bou

t th

at.

Th

at'

s m

ayb

e n

ot

the m

ost

exc

itin

g o

utc

om

e,

to m

e i

t w

ou

ld b

en

eat

to s

ee.

55

.

107

Rein

hard

So t

he e

xperi

men

ts,

at

least

try

...

56

.G

arr

ett

Sh

ort

term

all

th

ese

exp

eri

men

ts fi

rst

have

to g

et

there

; to

ward

s re

peata

ble

... S

o i

fyo

u g

o b

ack

an

d l

ook a

t li

ke t

he i

on

tra

pp

ing

or

ato

m c

ooli

ng

. A

nd

peop

le w

ork

ed

for

a l

on

g t

ime a

nd

now

it'

s, I

wou

ldn

't c

all

it

rou

tin

e,

bu

t it

's f

air

ly r

ou

tin

e t

op

rep

are

th

ese

sta

tes.

An

d n

ow

you

can

do l

ike v

ery

beau

tifu

l p

hys

ics

wit

h t

hese

syst

em

s. S

o w

e a

re a

t th

e p

oin

t w

ere

we'r

e d

eve

lop

ing

th

e b

ack

gro

un

d s

tep

s to

get

there

. It

's r

eall

y ch

all

en

gin

g,

bu

t th

ere

wil

l b

e a

poin

t li

ke y

ears

fro

m n

ow

, w

hen

peop

le l

ook b

ack

an

d s

ay:

Now

it'

s d

on

e,

now

we c

an

bu

y a m

od

el

an

d p

ress

ab

utt

on

. A

nd

you

do i

t, r

igh

t. S

o w

e a

re a

t th

e m

ore

diffi

cult

sta

ge o

f ju

st p

rep

ari

ng

,ju

st l

ayi

ng

th

e g

rou

nd

wort

h t

o g

et

to t

he q

uan

tum

reg

ime w

ith

th

e d

evi

ces;

rig

ht.

On

ce t

hey

are

th

ere

, th

en

you

can

sta

rt l

ookin

g a

t w

hat

sort

of

ph

ysic

s ca

n y

ou

do

wit

h t

hese

sys

tem

s. P

rep

are

som

e e

nta

ng

led

sta

te o

r su

perp

osi

tion

sta

te o

f th

em

ech

an

ics.

Let

them

evo

lve i

n t

ime a

nd

do t

hese

measu

rem

en

ts.

57

.

I m

ean

it'

s alr

ead

y h

ere

. B

eca

use

th

e C

lela

nd

gro

up

at

San

ta B

arb

ara

[htt

p:/

/ww

w.p

hys

ics.

ucs

b.e

du

/~cl

ela

nd

gro

up

/] h

ad

th

is d

em

on

stra

tion

last

year.

Th

is t

hin

g w

as

rap

idly

deca

yin

g,

bu

t n

eat

ele

ctro

mech

an

ical

reso

nato

r. J

ust

beca

use

it'

s so

hig

h f

req

uen

cy t

hey

can

cool

it t

o t

he g

rou

nd

sta

te.

It w

as

cou

ple

dto

th

is t

wo l

eve

l q

ub

it.

Th

ey

cou

ld w

rite

sin

gle

ph

on

on

s on

to i

t. R

ead

it

ou

t. T

hey

cou

ld p

ut

sin

gle

ph

on

on

su

perp

osi

tion

sta

tes

in i

t. T

his

th

ing

was

a l

arg

e s

tru

ctu

re.

Th

is i

s als

o a

mic

ron

-sca

le d

evi

ce.

58

.

Rein

hard

Nic

e!

59

.G

arr

ett

We a

re b

asi

call

y th

ere

. W

e a

re o

n t

he b

rin

k w

here

it'

s li

ke b

ein

g a

ble

to r

eali

zeth

is.

An

d t

hen

wh

at

you

do n

ext

? S

o t

hen

you

pre

pare

, ju

st f

or

sort

of

glo

ry,

these

fan

zy q

uan

tum

sta

tes,

eve

n t

hou

gh

th

ey

may

not

last

for

an

y so

rt o

f ti

me. B

ut

it's

just

to s

how

th

at

we c

an

do t

his

. A

nd

th

en

wh

en

it

beco

mes

more

rep

rod

uca

ble

to

create

th

ese

th

ing

s, s

tud

y h

ow

th

ey

surv

ive.

An

d t

hen

you

can

do a

ll t

he s

am

e s

ort

of

exp

eri

men

ts y

ou

did

wit

hin

op

tica

l d

om

ain

[b

ut]

wit

h t

hese

larg

e m

ech

an

ical

syst

em

s. D

o t

hey

beh

ave

th

e s

am

e?

60

.

It's

neat

to s

ee,

com

ing

ou

t of

like..

. W

e s

tart

ed

at

IQO

QI

[In

stit

ut

fuer

Qu

an

ten

op

tik u

nd

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

, A

kad

em

ie d

er

Wis

sen

sch

aft

en

], s

o i

nA

nto

n Z

eil

ing

ers

in

stit

ute

th

ere

. S

o h

e s

tart

ed

way

back

wit

h t

he n

eu

tron

exp

eri

men

ts,

op

tica

l exp

eri

men

ts.

An

d t

hen

th

e e

xten

sion

to l

arg

er

stu

ff,

like

Mark

us

Are

nd

ts w

ork

. A

nd

so t

hen

you

keep

walk

ing

up

th

e s

ize s

cale

. N

ow

we

have

fu

ll m

icro

fab

rica

ted

devi

ces.

It'

s n

eat

to s

ee t

he p

rog

ress

ion

. It

's r

eall

y co

ol

that

they

[Mark

us

Are

nd

t g

rou

p]

are

doin

g t

his

basi

c, a

rch

ety

pal

dou

ble

sli

texp

eri

men

t. F

irst

wit

h t

he C

60

[fu

llere

ne]

an

d n

ow

it'

s li

ke p

rote

ins

an

d c

razy

stu

ff.

61

.

Rein

hard

On

pap

er,

in

pri

nci

ple

, it

is

qu

ite n

ice a

nd

easy

, an

d n

ot

com

pli

cate

d a

t all

. Yo

u ju

st[h

ave

to i

mp

lem

en

t it

][sa

rcsm

]6

2.

Garr

ett

Th

e b

asi

c p

hys

ics

ob

viou

sly

have

in

terf

ere

nce

occ

ur.

It'

s th

e s

am

e.

Be i

t si

ng

lep

hoto

n,

be i

t b

uck

y b

all

[C

60

, fu

llere

ne];

you

kn

ow

. Ju

st t

he b

uck

y b

all

has

lots

more

deg

rees

of

freed

om

. S

o t

hey

can

see s

om

e n

eat

thin

gs.

Eve

n t

hou

gh

th

ese

are

lau

nch

ed

ou

t of

an

ove

n,

wit

h s

om

eth

ing

lik

e i

nte

rnal

tem

pera

ture

s of

hu

nd

red

s of

Celc

ius

at

least

. A

nd

th

at

these

th

ing

s d

on

't ju

st i

nst

an

ten

iou

sly

deco

here

. T

hey

just

eve

n c

an

sti

ll s

ee e

ffect

s. T

hat

is v

ery

im

pre

ssiv

e.

Bu

t th

esa

me a

rgu

men

ts c

an

be m

ad

e o

f li

ke..

. T

his

is

som

eth

ing

som

e p

ers

on

s p

ut

in t

he

lab

, m

ad

e w

ith

th

eir

han

ds,

bro

ug

ht

ou

t, w

eld

ed

in

to a

mach

ine.

You

kn

ow

, if

you

63

.

make t

he c

on

dit

ion

s ri

gh

t yo

u c

an

cool

to t

he g

rou

nd

sta

te a

nd

th

en

see t

hese

eff

ect

s. I

th

ink i

t's

exc

itin

g.

I d

on

't k

now

if

it m

akes

it m

ore

tan

gib

le t

o t

he g

en

era

l p

ub

lic,

bu

t it

's..

. O

k,

wh

en

you

have

a s

ing

le e

lect

ron

, or

giv

e a

neu

tron

or

those

th

ing

s. P

eop

le w

ou

ld k

now

the w

ord

s, b

ut

they

have

no i

dea w

hat

that

thin

g i

s. R

igh

t? A

t n

ext

we a

re m

ovi

ng

up

to s

ay

a m

ole

cule

, li

ke a

bu

cky

ball

[C

60

, fu

llere

ne].

Th

at

is s

tart

ing

to g

et

ali

ttle

more

...

You

can

sh

ow

pic

ture

s of

a s

occ

er

ball

, th

at'

s w

hat

it l

ooks

like.

It's

beco

min

g m

ore

tan

gib

le t

o t

he n

orm

al

pers

on

. A

nd

th

en

as

you

pro

gre

ss u

p i

n t

he

size

of

clu

sters

an

d d

iffere

nt

org

an

ic m

ole

cule

s. T

hen

it

beco

mes

more

rele

van

t.A

nd

th

e s

am

e t

hin

g,

I th

ink f

or

us.

Now

we a

re s

tart

ing

to m

ake s

om

e m

ech

an

ical

reso

nato

rs,

the e

xtre

me a

gain

is

this

LIG

O m

irro

r, t

hat

is m

ass

ive,

like ju

st a

gia

nt

fat

din

er

pla

te.

Som

eth

ing

you

cou

ld a

ctu

all

y g

o s

ee t

hat.

You

cou

ld t

ell

th

em

wh

at

it w

as

doin

g.

Th

en

it

beco

mes

mu

ch,

mu

ch m

ore

tan

gib

le t

o t

he g

en

era

l p

ub

lic.

64

.

Rein

hard

At

least

in

creasi

ng

som

e k

ind

of

rele

van

ce.

65

.G

arr

ett

Yeah

. E

ven

if

it's

ju

st s

ize g

ain

. O

r so

meth

ing

som

eon

e c

an

see.

Or

som

eth

ing

th

at

you

are

fam

ilia

r w

ith

. Yo

u c

an

alw

ays

tu

rn t

o d

esc

rib

e o

ur

devi

ces

like i

t's

a m

irro

r,a t

un

ig f

ork

. It

's s

om

eth

ing

more

th

at

they

can

im

ag

ine a

s a l

ittl

e r

eso

nato

r. R

igh

t?Vers

us

like I

have

a n

eu

tron

. [l

au

gh

s] T

o s

om

e d

eg

ree t

he p

hys

ics

are

n't

very

diff

ere

nt,

bu

t ju

st a

noth

er

pla

tform

to d

isp

lay.

An

d t

here

are

ob

viou

sly

new

th

ing

sth

at

com

e i

nto

pla

y.

66

.

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

Rein

hard

Are

you

som

eh

ow

in

to t

he d

iscu

ssio

n a

bou

t in

terp

reta

tion

of

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics?

67

.G

arr

ett

Th

e p

rob

lem

is.

.. T

hat'

s g

ett

ing

to f

ar

ou

t fo

r m

e s

om

eti

mes.

I m

ean

ju

st b

eca

use

...

Th

at'

s on

e t

hin

g I

'm a

ctu

all

y sl

igh

tly

dis

ap

poin

ted

wit

h m

yself

here

so f

ar.

I t

hin

kyo

u ju

st g

et

cau

gh

t u

p i

n t

he w

ork

th

at

you

have

to d

o.

Wh

en

I fi

rst

got

here

Ip

rom

ised

mys

elf

: O

k,

I re

all

y si

t d

ow

n a

nd

stu

dy

like b

asi

c q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics

tom

ore

th

oro

ug

hly

part

icip

ate

in

th

e c

on

vers

ati

on

s. B

ut

at

som

e p

oin

t yo

u h

ave

to

stop

, ca

use

you

have

you

r d

ay-

to-d

ay

stu

ff t

hat

you

need

to d

o.

Un

fort

un

ate

ly n

o.

I'm

act

uall

y re

all

y b

ad

wit

h t

hat.

68

.

Rein

hard

Bu

t yo

u s

ee t

hat

there

is

som

e k

ind

of

dis

cuss

ion

goin

g o

n?

69

.G

arr

ett

I se

e t

hose

dis

cuss

ion

s. I

feel

like h

ere

...

Hon

est

ly t

hat

is p

ure

ly m

y in

terp

reta

tion

,b

ut

it s

eem

s li

ke b

eca

use

to s

om

e d

eg

ree e

very

bod

y b

ran

ches

ou

t fr

om

An

ton

[Zeil

ing

er]

. T

here

is

not

a h

ug

e d

ivers

ity

in s

ort

of

min

d s

et.

Lik

e e

very

on

e s

ort

of

ag

gre

es.

Man

y ti

ny

deta

ils

that

peop

le d

isag

gre

e w

ith

, b

ut

it's

...

Th

ere

is

on

e t

eam

here

. T

here

is

like o

ne s

ing

le i

nte

rpre

tati

on

th

at

wil

l b

e f

oll

ow

ed

here

. B

ut

that'

sju

st w

hat

I w

ou

ld g

uess

.

70

.

Rein

hard

Pla

usi

ble

.7

1.

Garr

ett

Yeah

. I

see e

xam

ple

s w

hen

vis

itors

wil

l co

me a

nd

th

ere

wil

l b

e d

iscu

ssio

ns

wit

h t

he

visi

tors

. T

hey

then

dis

ag

ree w

ith

wh

at

mayb

e s

ort

of

a n

orm

here

. B

ut

it s

eem

s li

ke

the d

iscu

ssio

n w

ith

in t

he g

reate

r, l

ike u

niv

ers

ity,

IQ

OQ

I, a

nd

th

e g

rou

ps

that

inte

ract

wit

h I

QO

QI

from

th

e u

niv

ers

ity.

Eve

ryb

od

y se

em

s to

be o

n t

he s

am

e t

rain

of

thou

gh

t. T

his

is

ou

r in

terp

reta

tion

an

d t

hat

is h

ow

th

ing

s are

.

72

.


108

Rein

hard

I se

e.

So y

ou

are

als

o i

n t

his

set

of

inte

rpre

tati

on

.7

3.

Garr

ett

Kin

d o

f. I

th

ink I

have

n't

been

exp

ose

d t

o a

nyt

hin

g e

lse.

74

.R

ein

hard

Th

e q

uest

ion

is

wh

eth

er

it i

s of

an

y re

leva

nce

? P

rop

ab

ly n

ot

for

the d

ay-

to-d

ay

work

, b

eca

use

...?

75

.

Garr

ett

I d

on

't k

now

if

this

is

tru

e,

bu

t...

Ob

viou

sly

the p

eop

le w

ho c

om

e h

ere

, to

som

ed

eg

ree a

gre

e w

ith

wh

at'

s g

oin

g o

n.

So f

oll

ow

th

at

inte

rpre

tati

on

. A

nd

th

en

als

o i

tw

ou

ld b

e h

ard

er

if y

ou

cam

e w

ith

a c

om

ple

tly

con

trad

icto

ry v

iew

to s

ell

you

rself

to

com

e i

nto

th

e d

ep

art

men

t li

ke t

hat.

As

I sa

id f

or

me,

I h

ave

on

ly b

een

exp

ose

d t

oth

is h

on

est

ly.

76

.

tech

nis

ch

er

Fort

sch

ritt

Rein

hard

How

do y

ou

see,

that

is k

ind

of

an

ob

viou

s q

uest

ion

,...

How

do y

ou

see t

he

infl

uen

ce o

f th

e t

ech

nic

al

en

han

cem

en

ts t

hat

were

goin

g o

n.

Pro

pab

ly t

hose

exp

eri

men

t w

ou

ldn

't b

e p

oss

ible

if

on

e c

ou

ld n

ot

en

gin

eer

those

th

ing

s.

77

.

Garr

ett

Th

is i

s on

all

fro

nts

th

ou

gh

. I

mean

th

e t

hin

g i

s yo

u h

ave

to,

at

least

for

ou

rexp

eri

men

ts s

peci

fica

lly,

have

very

hig

h p

erf

orm

an

ce,

like l

ow

dam

pin

g,

hig

hre

flect

ivit

y, v

ery

pre

cise

geom

etr

y m

ech

an

ical

reso

nato

rs,

rig

ht.

Th

at

reli

es

full

yon

mic

ro-n

an

o f

ab

rica

tion

tech

nolo

gie

s, l

ike h

ave

th

eir

root

in i

nte

gra

ted

cir

cuit

s.S

o l

ike f

rom

th

e fi

ftie

s. A

nd

eve

ry t

ime t

hat

ad

van

ces,

th

en

we c

an

bu

ild

off

th

ose

ad

van

cem

en

ts,

rig

ht.

Bu

t eve

ryth

ing

in

th

e l

ab

...

I th

ink i

t's

tru

e o

f all

sci

en

ce t

oso

me d

eg

ree t

hat

like t

hese

eff

ect

s h

ave

been

th

ere

.

78

.

It t

akes

som

eon

e t

o c

om

e u

p w

ith

a t

heory

to l

ook f

or

it i

n t

he fi

rst

pla

ce o

r yo

uacc

iden

tall

y d

isco

ver

it,

wh

ich

is

als

o p

oss

ible

. B

ut

then

to e

xperi

men

tall

y m

easu

rean

y of

these

th

ing

s th

ere

has

to b

e a

dva

nce

men

ts i

n t

he t

ools

to d

o t

he

measu

rem

en

t. A

ll t

he b

asi

c ele

ctro

nic

s, ju

st s

tuff

lik

e t

he o

scil

losc

op

e,

spect

rum

an

aly

zers

, w

hate

ver

it m

ay

be.

As

they

beco

me m

ore

sen

siti

ve,

then

it'

s easi

er

toso

rt o

f fi

nd

ou

t th

ese

tin

y fu

nn

y th

ing

s. M

ost

of

the o

bvi

ou

s eff

ect

s are

kin

d o

fg

on

e.

Un

less

you

com

e u

p w

ith

an

en

tire

ly n

ew

ph

ysic

al

fact

th

at

was

som

eh

ow

ove

rlooked

or

un

der

som

e c

on

dit

ion

s so

meth

ing

pop

s u

p.

Th

at'

s ra

re.

So y

ou

are

reall

y lo

okin

g f

or

hig

her

ord

er

thin

gs

that

peop

le d

id n

ot

an

tici

pate

, d

idn

't e

xpect

or

cou

ldn

't m

easu

re ju

st b

efo

re;

rig

ht.

79

.

I m

ean

for

us

it's

...

You

kn

ow

we a

re d

eali

ng

wit

h r

ad

iati

on

pre

ssu

re.

So w

e s

ort

of.

.. a

mp

lifi

y is

not

the c

orr

ect

tech

nic

al

term

, b

ut

we m

ake t

his

vis

ible

. B

eca

use

we h

ave

th

is c

avi

ty a

nd

beca

use

we a

re m

od

ifyi

ng

th

e d

ynam

ic,

the r

esp

on

se o

fth

e m

ech

an

ical

reso

nato

r. W

e a

lso h

ave

an

exp

eri

men

t ou

t, w

hic

h i

s kin

d o

f fu

n,

wh

ere

we ju

st h

ave

th

ese

larg

e c

an

tile

vers

. L

arg

e?!

I c

all

th

em

larg

e,

beca

use

th

ey

are

th

ree m

illi

mete

rs.

Bu

t th

ey

are

3 m

illi

mete

rs b

y 6

mic

ron

s b

y 5

mic

ron

s. S

oth

ey

are

lik

e l

ittl

e h

air

s. W

e u

se r

ad

iati

on

pre

ssu

re ju

st t

o d

efl

ect

th

ose

, I

mean

just

to d

rive

th

em

in

to r

eso

nan

ce.

80

.

An

d t

he n

ice t

hin

g i

s, w

e c

an

fu

lly

do t

his

on

a t

ab

le t

op

. T

hat'

s b

eca

use

I h

ad

ave

ry n

ice l

ase

r so

urc

e.

It t

ook a

dva

nce

men

ts t

o m

ake t

his

lik

e n

ice l

ittl

e l

ase

r. I

t's

a g

reen

narr

ow

lin

e d

iod

e l

ase

r, I

can

mic

rofa

bri

cate

th

is t

hin

g [

the c

an

tile

ver]

.B

eca

use

th

e m

ate

rials

ava

ilab

le n

ow

ad

ays

are

in

all

very

nic

e;

sort

of

hig

h q

uali

tym

ate

rial.

Th

e m

icro

fab

rica

tion

has

gott

en

to t

he p

oin

t w

here

I c

an

make t

his

com

ple

x st

ruct

ure

. A

nd

th

en

I h

ave

som

e r

ead

ou

t sy

stem

wit

h t

his

sp

lit

ph

oto

dio

de,

wh

ere

I c

an

measu

re t

he d

isp

lace

men

t of

this

lit

tle b

eam

. O

n t

he t

ab

le I

can

81

.

now

bu

ild

th

is s

et

up

th

at

I ca

n s

how

you

th

e m

om

en

tum

tra

nsf

er

wit

h p

hoto

ns

refl

ect

ing

of

the s

urf

ace

, m

akin

g a

mech

an

ical

syst

em

move

. W

hic

h i

s alr

ead

y...

Th

ere

is

not

like f

un

dam

en

tal

qu

an

tum

eff

ect

s th

ere

un

less

you

sta

rt g

et

sin

gle

ph

oto

ns.

I m

ean

th

is i

s p

hys

ics,

th

at

in p

rin

cip

le s

hou

ld h

ave

alw

ays

been

th

ere

, b

ut

it's

ju

stso

hard

to s

ee.

So t

he o

rig

inal

exp

eri

men

ts i

n t

hat

are

a w

ere

in

19

01

, w

here

th

isg

uy

Leb

ed

ev,

th

en

Nic

hols

/Hu

ll [

Ern

est

Fox

Nic

hols

an

d G

ord

on

Ferr

ie H

ull

], t

hese

am

eri

can

gu

ys.

Th

ey

had

...

If y

ou

look a

t p

ictu

res

of

their

exp

eri

men

ts,

they

basi

call

y h

ave

som

e m

ass

ive l

igh

t so

urc

e,

these

len

ses,

th

ese

sil

vere

d m

irro

rs n

eed

hu

ge [

???]

arc

hs.

Th

ese

th

ing

s ta

ke u

p a

wh

ole

room

. A

nd

th

ey

are

measu

rin

gte

en

y, t

een

y, t

iny

forc

es

an

d t

iny

dis

pla

cem

en

ts.

An

d t

hey

are

usi

ng

ju

st e

ith

er

their

eye

an

d a

sm

all

gu

ide t

o s

ee a

defl

ect

ion

. S

o i

t's

am

azi

ng

ju

st w

hat

you

can

see.

Now

we c

an

rou

tin

ely

...

Mark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] w

hen

he g

ave

his

An

trit

tsvo

r...

.

82

.

Rein

hard

Die

An

trit

tsvo

rlesu

ng

.8

3.

Garr

ett

I st

op

ped

cau

se I

th

ou

gh

t th

at

was

reall

y w

ron

g.

So w

e m

ad

e l

ike a

lit

tle d

em

o.

Did

you

go t

o t

hat?

84

.

Rein

hard

Yeah

, I

have

seen

th

at.

85

.G

arr

ett

So t

hat

was

this

exp

eri

men

t act

uall

y I

just

desc

rib

ed

. In

to t

he p

oin

t w

here

we

cou

ld b

uil

d i

t an

d r

oll

it

into

th

e a

ud

itori

um

an

d s

how

it.

An

d i

f yo

u'd

sh

ow

it

som

eon

e l

ike L

eb

ed

ev

or

Nic

hols

/Hu

ll,

it's

a h

un

dre

d a

nd

ten

years

late

r. S

o t

here

is a

lot

of

ad

van

cem

en

ts i

n t

ech

nolo

gy;

on

all

fro

nts

. L

ike f

rom

ju

st t

he v

ibra

tion

isola

tin

g o

pti

cal

tab

le t

o t

his

dio

de l

ase

r, t

o t

hese

ele

ctro

nic

s th

at

do t

he r

ead

ou

t.E

very

thin

g w

e d

o r

eli

es

on

ad

van

cem

en

ts i

n t

hese

tools

. T

he e

xtre

me c

ase

of

that

is m

easu

rin

g q

uan

tum

eff

ect

s. I

f w

e a

re g

oin

g t

o m

easu

re s

om

e..

. A

t so

me p

oin

tw

e h

ave

to b

e a

ble

to m

easu

re t

he r

eso

luti

on

bett

er

than

th

e z

ero

poin

t m

oti

on

of

this

mech

an

ical

reso

nato

r; r

igh

t. A

nd

ju

st t

he p

reci

sion

th

at'

s n

ece

ssary

to

measu

re t

hat

is a

bsu

rd.

It's

am

azi

ng

ly t

hat

you

can

eve

n g

et

there

. S

o g

o b

ack

ten

,tw

en

ty,

thir

ty y

ears

, it

's ju

st n

ot

poss

ible

to d

o.

Th

ese

exp

eri

men

ts c

ou

ld h

ave

been

pro

pose

d,

bu

t th

ey

wou

ld n

eve

r h

ap

pen

un

til

the t

ech

nolo

gy

cau

gh

t u

p.

86

.

Rein

hard

Do y

ou

see..

. th

is t

hin

gs

dri

vin

g t

he t

ech

nolo

gy

the o

ther

way.

Say

beca

use

th

ere

is

need

for

the e

xperi

men

ts t

o h

ave

su

ch a

pre

cisi

on

en

gin

eeri

ng

, th

at

als

o t

he

en

gin

eeri

ng

pro

fits

fro

m i

t.

87

.

Garr

ett

I th

ink o

ur

field

is

ext

rem

ely

new

, so

it'

s h

ard

to s

ee d

irect

ly t

he i

mp

act

. B

ut

ag

ain

giv

en

th

ing

s li

ke L

IGO

. T

he g

ravi

tati

on

al

wave

peop

le a

re e

ssen

tiall

y...

they

are

not

lookin

g f

or

qu

an

tum

eff

ect

s. B

ut

their

req

uir

em

en

ts a

re v

ery

sim

ilar

to o

urs

. T

hey

are

very

para

llel

to w

hat

we d

o.

I m

ean

th

ese

gu

ys h

ave

pu

shed

th

e l

imit

of

like

these

op

tica

l co

ati

ng

s to

make t

hese

hig

h r

efl

ect

ing

mir

rors

, w

hic

h y

ou

can

now

get.

.. A

ll t

he o

pti

cs w

e u

se a

re c

oate

d w

ith

stu

ff b

ase

d o

n t

ech

nolo

gy

deve

lop

ed

for.

.. d

rive

n b

y th

at

exp

eri

men

t.

88

.

Sam

e t

hin

g f

or

us

now

, w

here

we r

eall

y h

ave

...

Lik

e t

he o

ne e

xam

ple

, ca

use

th

is i

sals

o v

ery

rece

nt,

it'

s ti

ed

to s

tuff

I a

lso u

sed

to d

o.

So w

e n

eed

to a

mp

lify

very

,ve

ry,

very

low

lig

ht

leve

ls n

ow

. W

e h

ave

th

is o

pti

cal

cavi

ty,

we s

en

d i

n v

ery

, ve

ry,

very

weak l

igh

t an

d w

e w

an

na r

ead

ou

t th

e s

tate

of

lig

ht

com

ing

ou

t of

this

. A

nd

that'

s act

uall

y re

all

y to

ug

h t

o d

o.

To t

ake t

his

very

, ve

ry..

.th

is t

iny

sig

nal

ou

t of

the

nois

e a

nd

am

pli

fy i

t. A

nd

so w

e o

rdere

d..

. It

was

act

uall

y a c

om

pan

y I

use

d t

o w

ork

for.

So w

e ju

st b

ou

gh

t th

is a

mp

lifi

er

from

th

em

, w

hic

h d

id n

ot

exi

st u

p u

nti

l th

ey

start

off

eri

ng

it

a y

ear

ag

o.

An

d n

ow

it

looks

like...

We'll

see,

if i

t w

ork

ed

. B

ut

in

89

.

109

pri

nci

ple

th

at

can

en

ab

le u

s to

reall

y d

rop

th

e p

ow

er.

It

makes

a l

ot

of

thin

gs

exp

eri

men

tall

y n

icer.

For

the p

ast

year

plu

s, I

've b

een

pu

shin

g t

hem

. I

had

work

ed

on

th

ese

devi

ces

befo

re a

nd

we h

ad

a n

eed

for

som

eth

ing

lik

e t

hat.

An

d I

said

: W

e n

eed

th

is,

we

need

th

is,

we n

eed

th

is,

we n

eed

th

is.

So r

eall

y p

ush

ing

th

em

. C

au

se t

hey

were

makin

g d

evi

ces

like f

or

pro

of

of

pri

nci

ple

stu

ff.

In t

he U

S a

lot

of

is d

rive

n b

yd

efe

nce

rela

ted

stu

ff.

Th

ey

were

makin

g d

evi

ces

for

these

defe

nce

con

tract

s, b

ut

reall

y n

ot

to b

e a

pp

lied

in

an

yth

ing

. It

was

more

ju

st a

dva

nce

th

e s

tate

of

the a

rtan

d t

hen

mayb

e fi

nd

a u

se. T

hen

I h

ave

to e

mail

or

call

th

em

, p

est

er

these

gu

ysan

d s

ay:

I k

now

you

can

meet

these

sp

ecs

, if

you

keep

try

ing

. A

nd

if

you

say

we

wil

l b

uy

them

an

d w

e w

ill

use

it.

An

d i

f w

e s

how

, w

e g

et

good

pre

ss f

or

this

an

doth

er

peop

le w

an

t to

bu

y it

. It

op

en

s a l

ittl

e m

ark

et.

It'

s sm

all

rig

ht

now

in

ou

rsp

eci

fic

field

. B

ut

there

's l

ots

of

measu

rem

en

t te

chn

olo

gy

that

can

ben

efi

t fr

om

measu

rin

g t

hese

ext

rem

ely

low

lig

ht

leve

ls,

weak l

igh

t le

vels

. S

o i

t d

oes

go b

ack

an

d f

ort

h.

I d

efi

nit

ely

th

ink i

t fe

ed

s b

ack

.

90

.

An

d s

o o

ne m

ore

th

ing

ju

st c

au

se w

e..

. T

he o

ther

on

e w

as,

an

oth

er

con

crete

exa

mp

le,

these

posi

tion

ing

sys

tem

s. T

his

very

lik

e e

sote

ric.

Very

sp

eci

fic

stu

ff w

eh

ave

to d

o t

ech

icall

y. W

e h

ave

to w

ork

at

very

low

tem

pera

ture

s an

d w

e h

ave

to

move

a l

ittl

e c

hip

[T

he c

hip

wit

h t

he c

an

tile

vers

on

it]

aro

un

d.

An

d t

here

is

ag

erm

an

com

pan

y, c

all

ed

[??

?],

that

makes

these

sys

tem

s. A

nd

th

en

th

ey.

.. O

ne

thin

g t

hat

was

alw

ays

an

noyi

ng

befo

re,

you

neve

r kn

ew

wh

ere

you

were

loca

lly.

You

cou

ld m

ove

, b

ut

I ca

n n

eve

r ask

th

e s

yste

m,

wh

ere

did

you

move

to.

Itw

ou

ldn

't k

now

. S

o i

t w

ou

ld m

ove

, m

ove

, m

ove

, m

ove

. M

ayb

e I

kn

ew

wh

ere

Ist

art

ed

, b

ut

I h

ave

no i

dea w

here

I e

nd

ed

up

for

sure

.

91

.

So t

hen

we t

alk

ed

to t

hem

an

d t

hey

said

th

at

they

were

deve

lop

ing

an

en

cod

ed

syst

em

, th

at

can

reco

rd w

here

th

e t

hin

g w

as

an

d w

e c

an

read

th

at

ou

t. W

e s

how

ed

som

e i

nte

rest

an

d w

e s

aid

yes.

An

d n

ow

th

ere

is

a l

ot

of

gro

up

s, n

ot

just

us,

bu

tth

ere

's t

on

s of

ap

pli

cati

on

s fo

r th

at

to h

ave

it.

Bu

t w

e p

ush

ed

th

em

. W

e t

hou

gh

t it

was

a fi

nis

hed

com

merc

ial

devi

ce,

bu

t it

tu

rned

ou

t it

was

more

of

a p

roto

typ

e.

Beca

use

we h

ad

an

au

tom

ate

d s

yste

m,

som

e s

oft

ware

to r

ead

ou

t w

ere

th

is t

hin

gw

as.

Bu

t th

at

did

n't

work

at

all

. I

don

't a

gre

e w

ith

it,

beca

use

we s

pen

t to

ns

of

tim

e d

eve

lop

ing

th

is s

oft

ware

, ess

en

tiall

y fo

r th

em

, to

make i

t w

ork

. A

nd

th

en

feed

back

to t

hem

. H

op

efu

lly

they

now

have

a m

ore

rob

ust

pro

du

ct.

92

.

En

de

(no s

peaker)

[Th

an

ks

for

the i

nte

rvie

w]

93

.


110

Nik

ola

i_110525

Inte

rvie

w m

it D

r. N

ikola

i K

iese

l vo

m 2

5.0

5.2

01

1T

ran

scri

bed

by

yott

a,

vers

ion

1 o

f 1

10

52

6

An

fan

g,

pers

ön

lich

e D

ate

n,

Au

sbil

du

ng

Rein

hard

Zu

Beg

inn

wil

l ic

h e

igen

tlic

h e

h n

ur

all

gem

ein

e F

rag

en

ste

llen

. W

ie a

lt b

ist

du

?1

.N

ikola

i3

4.

2.

Rein

hard

Kan

nst

du

ku

rz s

chil

dern

: d

ein

Stu

diu

m,

dein

en

Werd

eg

an

g.

Wo d

u s

tud

iert

hast

?3

.N

ikola

iIc

h b

in z

um

stu

die

ren

nach

Mü

nch

en

geg

an

gen

. Ic

h k

om

me a

us

Nord

baye

rn,

au

sF

ran

ken

. In

der

Sch

ule

war

eig

en

tlic

h n

ich

t kla

r ob

ich

jetz

t C

hem

ie,

Ph

ysik

od

er

Math

e s

tud

iere

. U

nd

dan

n h

ab

e i

ch M

ath

e u

nd

Ph

ysik

an

gefa

ng

en

un

d b

in b

ei

der

Ph

ysik

hän

gen

geb

lieb

en

. N

ach

den

Lect

ure

s vo

n F

eyn

man

, als

o n

ach

dem

Bu

ch.

Dan

n h

ab

e i

ch i

n M

ün

chen

Ph

ysik

stu

die

rt.

Un

d h

ab

e e

igen

tlic

h e

rst

geg

en

En

de

dan

n i

n e

inem

Sem

inar

mit

gekri

eg

t vo

n d

en

exp

eri

men

tell

en

Sach

en

zu

rQ

uan

ten

ph

ysik

; vo

n H

ara

ld W

ein

furt

er

dort

. D

er

au

ch b

eim

An

ton

Zeil

ing

er

war.

Das

war

gan

z sp

an

nen

d u

nd

dan

n h

ab

e i

ch m

ir d

as

an

gesc

hau

t. U

nd

eh

er

noch

so

theore

tisc

he S

ach

en

zu

r S

up

ers

trin

gth

eori

e.

Ich

hab

e m

it i

n d

en

Url

au

bg

en

om

men

, d

ie p

ap

ers

. Fan

d i

ch d

an

n d

ie E

xperi

men

te d

er

Qu

an

ten

ph

ysik

doch

span

nen

der.

Dan

n w

ar

ich

dort

zu

r D

iplo

marb

eit

un

d d

an

n n

ach

ein

em

halb

en

Jah

rPau

se,

dan

n a

uch

zu

r D

okto

rarb

eit

.

4.

Rein

hard

Üb

er

was

die

Dip

lom

arb

eit

?5

.N

ikola

iD

as

war

Dre

i-P

hoto

nen

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

. Ic

h h

att

e e

inen

exp

eri

men

tell

en

Au

fbau

zu

ein

er

best

imm

ten

Art

von

Dre

i-P

hoto

nen

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

. A

lso W

-Sta

te,

imG

eg

en

satz

zu

dem

GH

Z-Z

ust

an

d [

Gre

en

berg

er,

Horn

e u

nd

Zeil

ing

er]

der

da [

inW

ien

] sc

hon

gem

ach

t w

ar.

Dan

n w

ar

ich

ein

halb

es

Jah

r w

eg

un

d b

in d

an

n a

uch

wie

der

in M

ult

i-P

hoto

nen

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

. A

lso d

an

n v

ier

Ph

oto

nen

.

6.

Rein

hard

Ja,

man

mu

ss s

ich

ste

igern

.7

.N

ikola

iG

en

au

, g

en

au

. A

uch

ein

ige m

eh

rere

Zu

stän

de.

Dan

n z

ur

Dokto

rarb

eit

geb

lieb

en

un

d d

an

n n

och

ein

Jah

r als

Post

-Doc.

Un

d d

an

n b

in i

ch h

ierh

er

geg

an

gen

zu

mM

ark

us

[Mark

us

Asp

elm

eye

r].

8.

Rein

hard

Das

war

jetz

t vo

r zw

ei

Jah

ren

, od

er?

9.

Nik

ola

iD

as

war

vor

zweie

inh

alb

Jah

ren

. W

eil

dan

n w

ar

es

mal

Zeit

irg

en

dw

ie t

hem

ati

sch

leic

ht

zu w

ech

seln

. A

lso e

s is

t im

mer

noch

natü

rlic

h e

xperi

men

tell

eQ

uan

ten

ph

ysik

, zu

min

dest

wü

nsc

hen

wir

un

s d

as

jetz

t h

ier.

Ab

er

halt

doch

ein

bis

serl

ein

an

dere

s S

yste

m,

un

d a

nd

ere

Hera

ng

eh

en

sweis

e,

neu

e M

eth

od

en

.

10

.

Rein

hard

Als

o a

uch

die

Moti

vati

on

wie

der

etw

as

neu

es

zu m

ach

en

?1

1.

Un

d w

ie b

ist

du

dan

n a

uf

hie

r g

ekom

men

?1

2.

Nik

ola

iIc

h h

ab

e m

ich

so e

in b

issc

hen

um

gesc

hau

t. E

s w

ar

kla

r d

as

es

Qu

an

ten

ph

ysik

sein

soll

. E

s w

ar

kla

r d

as

es

zum

ind

est

ein

bis

sch

en

Gru

nd

lag

en

sein

soll

en

. Ic

h w

oll

ten

ach

Mög

lich

keit

irg

en

dw

ie m

it m

ein

em

Wis

sen

um

gru

nd

leg

en

de S

ach

en

...

Als

om

it P

hoto

nen

kan

n m

an

halt

all

es

mög

lich

e s

chon

mach

en

, w

eil

sie

so e

infa

ch z

uh

an

dle

'n s

ind

. W

as

man

nic

ht

so r

ich

tig

lern

t si

nd

natü

rlic

h d

ie g

an

zen

Meth

od

en

die

an

kom

pli

ziert

ere

n E

xperi

men

ten

sta

ttfi

nd

en

. U

nd

ich

woll

te h

alt

das

irg

en

wie

kom

bin

iere

n.

Das

ich

die

an

dere

n M

eth

od

en

lern

e,

ab

er

da m

ein

Wis

sen

ein

bri

ng

e.

Weil

vie

le G

rup

pen

- d

as

wir

d jetz

t im

mer

wen

iger

- h

att

en

nic

ht

so A

hn

un

g v

or

ein

iger

Zeit

noch

. W

en

n m

an

jetz

t Q

ub

its

[Zw

eiz

ust

an

ds-

Qu

an

ten

syst

em

, an

alo

gzu

m k

lass

ich

en

Bit

in

der

Info

rmati

k]

hat,

was

man

da m

ach

en

kan

n;

au

ßer

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

.

13

.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

as

es

da a

uf

dem

Leve

l st

eh

en

geb

lieb

en

ist

, od

er?

14

.N

ikola

iJa

. D

as

kam

halt

meis

ten

s vo

n d

er

Sach

e h

er,

jetz

t zu

m B

eis

pie

l S

up

erc

on

du

ctin

gQ

ub

its.

Das

kam

halt

meis

ten

s vo

n d

er

Sach

e h

er:

Ja,

jetz

t h

at

man

ein

Sys

tem

.Q

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

ist

irg

en

dw

ie c

ool

un

d d

esw

eg

en

ist

Qu

bit

s to

ll.

Un

d jetz

tm

ach

t m

an

so Q

ub

its

un

d n

atü

rlic

h w

ill

man

vie

le.

Un

d m

an

wil

l d

as

inte

gri

ert

fü

rein

en

Qu

an

ten

com

pu

ter.

Ab

er

das

es

jetz

t d

a e

ine g

an

ze W

elt

- a

lso v

iell

eic

ht

un

ters

tell

e i

ch d

as

au

ch n

ur

- vo

n T

heori

e z

ur

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

gib

t u

nd

das

man

nic

ht

imm

er

nu

r ein

e B

ell

Un

gle

ich

un

g m

ess

en

mu

ss,

wen

n m

an

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

nach

weis

en

wil

l; z

um

Beis

pie

l. D

as

ware

n S

ach

en

die

jetz

t ers

t so

mit

der

Zeit

so

rich

tig

bekan

nt

werd

en

; g

lau

be i

ch.

15

.

Au

fgab

e i

m E

xp

eri

men

t /

Roll

e i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e

Rein

hard

Was

ist

da s

o d

ein

e R

oll

e i

n G

rup

pe?

Ich

weiß

, d

ass

du

das

Exp

eri

men

t m

it d

en

"Ku

gerl

n",

od

er.

..1

6.

Nik

ola

iM

it d

en

Nan

oku

geln

.1

7.

Rein

hard

Kli

ng

t ein

bis

sch

en

pro

fess

ion

ell

er.

18

.N

ikola

iN

an

o-K

ug

eln

ist

au

ch n

ich

t so

pro

fess

ion

ell

. Ja

, als

ich

vor

zweie

inh

alb

Jah

ren

kam

in d

ie G

rup

pe,

da h

ab

e i

ch e

igen

tlic

h n

och

so e

in b

issc

hen

mit

gearb

eit

et

am

Exp

eri

men

t, a

n d

em

jetz

t au

ch W

itle

f [W

itle

f W

iecz

ore

k]

ist,

mit

den

can

tile

vern

.H

ab

e m

ich

hau

pts

äch

lich

...

Als

o i

ch b

in ja i

m R

ah

men

von

ein

em

Hu

mb

old

t-S

tip

en

dia

t h

ier.

Das

gin

g i

m w

ese

ntl

ich

um

Ein

zel-

Ph

oto

nen

Qu

an

ten

-O

pto

mech

an

ik u

nd

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

. W

ie s

o o

ft i

n s

olc

hen

Sach

en

zie

ht

sich

das

halt

län

ger

hin

. U

nd

so z

ur

halb

en

Zeit

, od

er

sow

as,

kam

dan

n d

iese

s...

Als

o v

or

ein

ein

halb

Jah

ren

fast

jetz

t, k

am

dan

n d

iese

Sach

e a

uf

mit

den

Nan

oku

geln

. U

nd

da b

in i

ch d

an

n a

ufg

esp

run

gen

. A

ls i

ch k

am

war

die

Gru

pp

e n

och

nic

ht

so r

iesi

g.

Da w

are

n w

ir i

rgen

dw

ie z

u f

ün

ft;

gla

ub

e i

ch.

In d

er

Zw

isch

en

zeit

, d

urc

h d

en

Ru

fvo

m M

ark

us

[Mark

us

Asp

elm

eye

r],

sin

d w

ird

jetz

t h

alt

noch

zw

ei

meh

r Post

-Docs

un

d n

och

ein

paar

Leu

te.

Ich

ble

ibe a

uch

noch

län

ger

da.

19

.

Rein

hard

Ein

e g

röß

ere

Pla

nu

ng

? A

lso s

chon

weit

er

gep

lan

t, w

as

du

mach

en

wil

lst?

20

.N

ikola

iG

en

au

. A

lso d

as

Exp

eri

men

t w

erd

e i

ch jetz

t w

eit

er

mit

au

sbau

en

. U

nd

bin

ich

natü

rlic

h a

uch

bei

den

gan

zen

Nic

ht-

exp

eri

men

tell

en

Sach

en

so m

itb

ete

ilig

t. W

as

21

.

111

halt

im

mer

dam

it z

u t

un

hat?

Was

man

halt

so m

it d

er

Zeit

au

ch m

ach

t.R

ein

hard

Un

d d

as

wäre

?2

2.

Nik

ola

iN

aja

. D

as

sin

d h

alt

so S

ach

en

, w

ie w

en

n e

s u

m i

rgen

dw

elc

he V

era

nts

talt

un

gen

geh

t. A

lso w

as

halt

mit

der

Zeit

au

f ein

en

zu

kom

mt,

wen

n m

an

dan

n m

al

irg

en

dw

an

n s

elb

er

sow

eit

ist

, w

ie d

er

Mark

us

[Mark

us

Asp

elm

eye

r].

Dan

n k

om

mt

man

eh

nic

ht

meh

r in

s L

ab

or.

Im

Mom

en

t b

in i

ch n

och

vie

l im

Lab

or;

das

ist

gu

t.

23

.

Rein

hard

Wie

ist

den

n u

ng

efä

hr

der

Sta

tus

im E

xperi

men

t?2

4.

Nik

ola

iD

er

Sta

tus

im E

xperi

men

t [L

ach

en

]. D

er

än

dert

sic

h t

äg

lich

. D

as

Exp

eri

men

t sa

ham

An

fan

g w

ie i

mm

er

gan

z ein

fach

au

s. D

a w

ar

es

au

ch s

o,

dass

es.

.. E

s is

t im

mer

noch

was

gan

z n

eu

es.

Es

hat

in d

iese

r F

orm

bis

jetz

t n

och

kein

er

levi

tiert

eN

an

o-K

ug

eln

in

Cavi

ty-O

pto

-Mech

an

ik v

erw

en

det.

Dad

urc

h s

oll

te d

as

ja a

uch

sch

nell

geh

en

, d

am

it e

s n

iem

an

d a

nd

ers

vor

un

s m

ach

t; g

an

z kla

r. A

ber

es

ist

gan

zkla

r, d

ass

die

Moti

vati

on

von

dem

Exp

eri

men

t n

atü

rlic

h i

st,

irg

en

dw

an

n g

ute

Qu

an

ten

ph

ysik

zu

mach

en

. W

eil

levi

tiert

e K

ug

eln

su

per

geeig

net

sin

d.

25

.

Der

Sta

tus

im E

xperi

men

t is

t d

er:

Mit

der

Zeit

fin

det

man

dan

n r

au

s w

o e

s h

akt.

Un

d w

ir h

att

en

dan

n i

m w

ese

ntl

ich

en

all

es

dast

eh

en

. N

ur

un

sere

Ku

geln

die

bra

uch

en

wir

ja b

ei

tiefe

m V

aku

um

. U

nd

ein

e S

ach

e d

ie n

ich

t kla

r is

t, w

aru

m w

irn

ich

t in

s ti

efe

Vaku

um

kön

nen

. W

eil

die

Ku

geln

geh

en

vorh

er

verl

ore

n.

Die

ble

iben

nic

ht

in d

er

Fall

e.

Bei

ein

bis

sch

en

un

ter

ein

em

Mil

lib

ar

vers

chw

ind

en

die

. D

as

ist

ein

e S

ach

e,

die

jetz

t so

ist

. Ja

, g

ar

nic

ht

qu

an

ten

mech

an

isch

, n

ur

an

stre

ng

en

d.

Au

fd

er

an

dere

n S

eit

e i

st e

s so

, d

ass

wir

natü

rlic

h d

ie C

avi

ty-O

pto

-Mech

an

ik s

eh

en

woll

en

un

d d

a i

st e

s in

letz

ter

Zeit

zie

mli

ch g

ut

geg

an

gen

. W

ir s

eh

en

jetz

t ein

Sig

nal

in d

er

cavi

ty u

nd

dam

it k

ön

nen

wir

jetz

t d

ie e

rste

n M

eth

od

en

zeig

en

. U

nd

zeig

en

, p

roof-

of-

pri

nci

ple

, d

ass

wen

n m

an

den

n m

al

zu e

inem

nie

dri

gere

m D

ruck

kom

mt,

dass

man

dan

n a

uch

ein

Gro

un

d-S

tate

-Cooli

ng

[d

.h.

das

Sys

tem

in

den

Gru

nd

zust

an

d=

Qu

an

ten

zust

an

d z

u b

rin

gen

] u

nd

so m

ach

en

kan

n. In

sofe

rn i

st d

as

ein

gu

ter

Zeit

pu

nkt

die

Fra

ge z

u s

tell

en

.

26

.

Rein

hard

Die

best

e Z

eit

ist

wah

rsch

ein

lich

, w

en

n m

an

das

voll

e E

rgeb

nis

hat

un

d s

chon

all

ep

ap

ers

rau

s. D

as

ist

der

best

e S

tatu

s vo

m E

xperi

men

t.2

7.

Nik

ola

iIc

h g

lau

be d

er

best

e S

tatu

s is

t in

dem

Mom

en

t w

o m

an

weiß

was

man

jetz

tau

fsch

reib

en

kan

n.

Weil

wen

n d

ie p

ap

er.

.. d

an

n w

ird

es

sch

on

wie

der

an

stre

ng

en

d.

28

.

Rein

hard

Un

d b

ei

dem

Exp

eri

men

t w

ars

t d

u v

on

An

fan

g a

n d

ab

ei?

D.h

. au

ch i

n d

er

Kon

zip

ieru

ng

un

d t

heore

tisc

hen

En

twic

klu

ng

?2

9.

Nik

ola

iJa

, d

as

hab

e i

ch a

ufg

ezo

gen

. E

s g

ab

ein

Th

eori

e-P

ap

er

davo

r; a

lso v

on

an

dere

nG

rup

pen

. U

nd

da a

rbeit

en

wir

au

ch m

it e

iner

zusa

mm

en

; m

it d

er

Ign

aci

o C

irac

[Gru

pp

e]

in M

ün

chen

. A

ber

all

es

was

das

Exp

eri

men

tell

e b

etr

ifft

un

d w

ie w

ir e

sau

fbau

en

, h

ab

e i

ch d

an

n a

ng

efa

ng

en

. U

nd

dan

n k

am

ein

Dp

lom

an

d d

azu

un

d d

an

nsp

äte

r n

och

Flo

rian

[F

lori

an

Bla

ser]

als

Dokto

ran

d.

Jetz

t m

ach

en

wir

das

som

itein

an

der.

30

.

Fasz

inati

on

an

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik

Rein

hard

Jetz

t zu

etw

as

an

dere

m.

Was

wü

rdest

du

als

fasz

inie

ren

stes

Featu

re s

eh

en

, je

tzt

31

.

von

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik?

Was

dic

h b

eg

eis

tert

in

die

sem

Feld

? W

as

ein

en

moti

viert

?N

ikola

iD

as

hat

viele

Asp

ekte

. E

in H

au

pta

spekt

ist

der,

dass

die

se A

ha-E

rleb

nis

se n

ich

tau

fhöre

n.

Als

o i

ch h

ab

e jetz

t...

Wir

hab

en

letz

ten

s d

ie D

isku

ssio

n g

eh

ab

t. I

ch h

ab

ein

mein

er

Dip

lom

arb

eit

eb

en

au

ch m

it B

ell

Un

gle

ich

un

gen

un

d s

o s

chon

zu

tu

ng

eh

ab

t. A

lso d

as

"kla

ssis

che"

Beis

pie

l im

qu

an

ten

mech

an

isch

en

Kon

text

. U

nd

trotz

dem

mu

ss m

an

es

imm

er

noch

mal

von

ein

er

an

dere

n S

eit

e a

nsc

hau

en

. U

nd

trotz

dem

mu

ss m

an

noch

mal

vers

teh

en

was

da p

ass

iert

. Ic

h g

lau

be d

as

ist

das

Fasz

inie

ren

de.

Dad

urc

h d

as

man

es

nic

ht

dir

ekt

gre

ifen

kan

n,

was

den

n jetz

t d

ieQ

uan

ten

ph

ysik

au

smach

t. U

nd

wie

man

es

jetz

t ri

chti

g s

ag

t. D

ad

urc

h m

uss

man

so

viele

vers

chie

den

e M

od

ell

e i

m K

op

f en

twic

keln

. A

lso i

ch w

eiß

bei

mir

pers

ön

lich

,d

ass

was

mir

am

meis

ten

Sp

aß

mach

t -

üb

erh

au

pt

an

der

Ph

ysik

- i

mm

er

die

Sic

htw

eis

e z

un

än

dern

. Ic

h g

lau

be,

dass

das

eh

er

ein

all

gem

ein

es

Ph

än

om

en

ist

.

32

.

An

dere

rseit

s, e

s kli

ng

t kom

isch

, ab

er

was

natü

rlic

h i

rgen

dw

ie t

oll

war,

gera

de i

nd

er

Zeit

der

Dip

lom

arb

eit

- d

as

ist

jetz

t m

it d

en

Exp

eri

men

ten

die

wir

jetz

t m

ach

en

ein

bis

sch

en

an

ders

-..

. D

iese

Qu

bit

Rech

nere

i is

t ja

rela

tiv

ein

fach

zu

gän

gli

ch.

Das

war

ein

Geb

iet

in d

em

man

rela

tiv

sch

nell

ein

steig

en

kon

nte

Sach

en

zu

mach

en

,d

ie jetz

t si

ch n

och

nie

man

d s

o ü

berl

eg

t h

att

e.

Od

er

man

neu

e I

deen

hab

en

kon

nte

,oh

ne d

as

man

wir

kli

ch e

in r

iesi

ges

Fu

nd

am

en

t vo

n W

isse

n g

eb

rau

cht

hätt

e.

Das

ist

natü

rlic

h m

it d

en

Exp

eri

men

ten

wie

es

jetz

t h

ier

ist,

od

er

was

wir

au

ch p

lan

en

wir

kli

ch Q

uan

ten

ph

ysik

dam

it z

u m

ach

en

, n

ich

t m

eh

r g

an

z so

ein

fach

.

33

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

sch

ein

t h

alt

mit

der

Zeit

meh

r zu

werd

en

. E

s w

ird

ja i

mm

er

meh

r Tech

nik

rein

gest

eck

t. O

der

Din

ge d

ie d

u d

an

n z

usä

tzli

ch b

rau

chst

. W

ie d

u s

chon

gesa

gt

hast

, n

ich

t m

eh

r so

ein

fach

wie

die

Bell

Exp

eri

men

te s

ind

.

34

.

Nik

ola

iE

s w

ird

au

ch k

on

zep

tion

ell

sch

wie

rig

er.

Wen

n m

an

jetz

t g

era

de s

ieh

t h

ier

bei

un

sm

it m

ass

iven

Ob

jekte

n g

eh

t n

atü

rlic

h i

n e

inen

Bere

ich

wo e

s an

Gra

vita

tion

stö

sst.

Da w

oll

en

wir

ja a

uch

hin

. D

as

verl

an

gt

natü

rlic

h a

uch

, d

ass

man

sic

h d

as

zusä

tzli

che W

isse

n a

neig

net.

Was

ja S

inn

un

d Z

weck

der

Üb

un

g i

st.

Als

o,

in a

nu

tsh

ell

: D

as

Fasz

inie

ren

dst

e f

ür

mic

h i

st d

as.

.. M

an

kan

n e

s n

ich

t d

irekt

beg

reif

en

, d

esw

eg

en

mu

ss m

an

so v

iele

Pers

pekti

ven

fin

den

au

s d

en

en

man

es

besc

hre

iben

kan

n.

35

.

Inte

rpre

tati

on

/ T

heori

e /

Exp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

Ab

er

das

treib

t d

as

Din

g a

uch

irg

en

dw

ie w

eit

er.

Das

mach

t ja

dan

n a

uch

die

Moti

vati

on

fü

r E

xperi

men

te a

us.

Wen

n m

an

eb

en

nic

ht

gan

z si

cher

ist

au

f w

as

das

hin

au

släu

ft.

Ob

das

Exp

eri

men

t so

jetz

t fu

nkti

on

iert

, od

er

ob

man

nic

ht

au

f n

eu

es

stöß

t?

36

.

Nik

ola

iE

iners

eit

s ü

berh

au

pt

au

f g

an

z n

eu

es

stöß

t. A

nd

ere

rseit

s -

das

kli

ng

t fa

stab

wert

en

d z

um

Exp

eri

men

t is

t ab

er

gar

nic

ht

so g

em

ein

t, i

m G

eg

en

teil

- i

st e

sn

atü

rlic

h e

ine A

rt s

ich

dam

it z

u b

esc

häft

igen

, d

ie e

inen

zw

ing

t S

ach

en

dan

n h

alt

rich

tig

zu

seh

en

. D

an

n d

en

kt

man

darü

ber

nach

un

d d

en

kt

das

mü

sste

so u

nd

so

sein

. Is

t es

dan

n e

ben

jetz

t n

ich

t so

, n

ich

t w

eil

die

Th

eori

e i

rgen

dw

ie g

eän

dert

werd

en

mü

sste

, so

nd

ern

ein

fach

weil

man

noch

ein

en

Kn

ote

n i

m H

irn

hat.

Es

ist

ein

e A

rt d

am

it z

u s

pie

len

. W

en

n m

an

rech

t n

ett

ist

, ein

e a

nd

ere

Art

dam

it z

usp

iele

n.

37

.

Rein

hard

Wie

wü

rdest

du

dan

n d

ie B

ezi

eh

un

g s

o v

on

Th

eori

e u

nd

Exp

eri

men

t se

hen

? W

eil

es

38

.


112

ja s

chw

ieri

g i

st.

Th

eori

e u

nd

Exp

eri

men

t g

eh

t ja

dan

n n

och

, ab

er

wen

n m

an

dan

nso

an

In

terp

reta

tion

en

den

kt.

Die

sp

iele

n d

an

n i

m E

xperi

men

t d

an

n k

au

m e

ine

Roll

e?

Nik

ola

iIn

dem

Mom

en

t w

o m

an

am

Exp

eri

men

t st

eh

t h

at

man

ja i

mm

er

mit

kla

ssic

hen

Gerä

ten

zu

tu

n.

Da w

o e

s ab

er

sch

on

au

f ein

e A

rt,

man

chm

al,

selt

en

rein

kom

mt

ist

natü

rlic

h w

en

n m

an

dan

n..

. M

an

mu

ss ja n

ich

t n

ur

üb

erl

eg

en

jetz

t: I

ch w

eiß

jetz

tw

ie i

ch d

as

mach

e u

nd

dan

n s

eh

e i

ch d

as

am

Sch

luß

, od

er

was

seh

e i

ch d

an

n a

mS

chlu

ß.

Son

dern

jetz

t is

t d

as

all

es

nic

ht

so w

ie i

ch e

s w

ill,

kan

n i

ch t

rotz

dem

ein

en

Eff

ekt

seh

en

. U

nd

in

dem

Mom

en

t m

uss

man

natü

rlic

h w

ied

er

darü

ber

nach

den

ken

. U

nd

sie

ht

viell

eic

ht

was

neu

es,

was

ein

em

nic

ht

vorh

er

kla

r w

ar,

dass

da i

st.

Ab

er

das

ist

tats

äch

lich

, g

lau

be i

ch,

das

Ein

zig

e w

o d

as

Exp

eri

men

t...

Wen

nm

an

nic

ht

die

ric

hti

gen

Bil

der

im K

op

f h

at,

dan

n h

at

man

au

ch n

ich

t d

ie r

ich

tig

eId

ee w

ie m

an

das

mach

t.

39

.

Rein

hard

Vers

teh

e.

Un

d i

st e

s ir

gen

dw

ie p

ers

ön

lich

in

tere

ssan

t fü

r d

ich

die

se S

ach

en

... S

ind

die

rele

van

t, I

nte

rpre

taio

nen

, d

ie e

s d

a,

wen

n m

an

wil

l au

ch "

kla

ssis

ch"

nen

nen

[kön

nte

], g

ibt?

Fall

s m

an

sie

üb

erh

au

pt

mit

bekom

mt?

D.h

. w

as

man

im

Stu

diu

mle

rnt,

bzw

. w

as

du

gele

rnt

hast

?

40

.

Nik

ola

iN

och

mal?

Ich

hab

e d

as

nic

ht

gan

z ve

rsta

nd

en

.4

1.

Rein

hard

Nein

, ob

so p

rin

zip

iell

e F

rag

en

, w

ie jetz

t ein

e I

nte

rpre

tati

on

wie

die

Kop

en

hag

en

er

Deu

tun

g o

der

Boh

msc

he M

ech

an

ik,

Vie

l-W

elt

en

Th

eori

en

un

d w

as

da s

oh

eru

msc

hw

irrt

. E

iners

eit

s ob

man

das

üb

erh

au

pt

im S

tud

ium

irg

en

dw

iem

itb

ekom

mt.

Un

d o

b d

as

üb

erh

au

pt

ein

e R

oll

e s

pie

lt?

42

.

Nik

ola

iIm

Stu

diu

m m

itb

ekom

mt?

Ja.

Als

o i

ch h

ab

e i

m S

tud

ium

sch

on

ein

bis

sch

en

was

mit

bekom

men

. W

as

zum

Teil

dara

n l

ag

, d

ass

es

halt

, zu

m B

eis

pie

l, s

o e

inen

Boh

m'ian

er

an

der

LM

U [

Lu

dw

ig-M

axi

mil

ian

s-U

niv

ers

ität

Mü

nch

en

] g

ibt.

Der

hatt

e e

ine M

ath

e V

orl

esu

ng

, d

ie e

ine v

ers

teck

te B

oh

m V

orl

esu

ng

war.

43

.

Rein

hard

Mu

sste

er

sich

vers

teck

en

?4

4.

Nik

ola

iJa

, es

ist

sch

on

...

Ich

gla

ub

e d

er

hat

ein

en

hart

en

Sta

nd

da.

Als

o d

as

ist

all

es

seh

rkon

serv

ati

ves

Um

feld

. W

en

n m

an

so w

ill,

qu

an

ten

mech

an

isch

kon

serv

ati

ves

Um

feld

.

45

.

Rein

hard

Da i

st e

s eb

en

die

Fra

ge,

was

da n

och

du

rch

sch

ein

t? O

der

ob

du

nu

r d

en

norm

ale

nq

uan

ten

mech

an

isch

en

Leh

rpla

n h

ast

? D

er

eh

zie

mli

ch g

leic

h i

st ü

bera

ll.

46

.

Nik

ola

iN

ein

, in

der

Form

wie

ich

es

jetz

t g

esa

gt

hab

e,

hat

man

das

sch

on

mit

gekri

eg

t. O

bic

h e

s je

tzt

halt

noch

so s

eh

en

wü

rde,

ob

das

so i

st o

der

ob

das

nu

r so

verm

itte

lt[w

urd

e],

weiß

ich

nic

ht.

Ab

er

mir

kam

das

dam

als

so v

or:

Ja,

der

hat

jetz

t d

iese

an

dere

In

terp

reta

tion

. D

er

hat

das

au

ch m

it F

eu

ere

ifer

vers

uch

t kla

r zu

mach

en

,d

ass

das

die

bess

ere

Sic

htw

eis

e i

st.

Un

d d

as

er

da a

ng

eeck

t is

t, d

as

war

au

chall

seit

s b

ekan

nt.

In

sofe

rn w

ar

das

au

ch i

nte

ress

an

t. A

lso i

ch w

ar,

das

hän

gt

jaim

mer

viel

davo

n a

b,

mit

vie

len

Leu

ten

mit

den

en

man

dan

n ü

ber

die

se S

ach

en

gere

det

hat

beie

inan

der.

Au

ch B

ell

un

d s

o w

eit

er.

Was

bed

eu

tet

es

un

d w

ie k

an

nm

an

es

vers

teh

en

. R

ele

van

t? J

a,

es

ist

für

mic

h h

au

pts

äch

lich

rele

van

t, w

eil

es

ein

evo

n d

en

Sach

en

ist

, d

ie m

ich

am

meis

ten

in

tere

ssie

ren

. Ic

h g

lau

be i

ch k

ön

nte

, d

ass

was

ich

jetz

t m

ach

e g

en

au

so m

ach

en

, w

en

n i

ch d

as

jetz

t n

ich

t so

wü

sste

all

es.

Ab

er

gera

de w

en

n e

inen

das

inte

ress

iert

ist

hie

r d

as

rich

tig

e U

mfe

ld,

gla

ub

e i

ch.

47

.

Rein

hard

Die

Fra

ge i

st a

uch

ob

in

wie

weit

ein

en

sow

as

zum

ind

est

hil

ft b

ess

er

zu v

ers

teh

en

?O

der

zum

ind

est

, w

en

n m

an

meh

rere

Sic

htw

eis

en

hat,

zu

m B

eis

pie

l d

ie B

oh

m's

che

so d

an

eb

en

ste

llt,

im

Verg

leic

h e

in b

ess

ere

s G

efü

hl

bekom

mt?

Wie

die

Sach

e l

ieg

t,od

er

was

die

ein

e e

rklä

rt,

was

die

an

dere

sch

wie

rig

er

erk

lärt

?

48

.

Nik

ola

iIc

h m

uss

dazu

sag

en

jetz

t...

Es

ist

ein

ext

rem

un

ters

chie

dli

ches

Leve

l au

f d

em

ich

die

se S

ach

en

un

ters

chie

dli

ch k

en

ne.

Bei

Boh

m jetz

t zu

m B

eis

pie

l kan

n i

ch n

ich

tvi

el

dazu

sag

en

, d

a g

ibt

es

nu

r zw

ei,

dre

i B

ild

er

im K

op

f. A

uf

ein

em

Vers

tän

dn

is-L

eve

l h

ilft

es.

Als

o a

uf

ein

em

ein

fach

th

eore

tisc

hen

Leve

l h

ilft

es

ein

fach

deh

alb

, w

eil

wen

n m

an

was

au

ch a

nd

ere

s ve

rste

hen

kan

n,

dan

n m

uss

man

sich

fra

gen

waru

m m

an

es

so u

nd

nic

ht

an

ders

mein

t. A

uf

dem

Leve

l, ja.

Wie

gesa

gt

für

die

kon

kre

te A

rbeit

, n

ein

. A

lso i

ch g

lau

be,

dass

...

Kon

kre

te A

rbeit

mein

eic

h jetz

t L

ab

ora

rbeit

, ab

er

natü

rlic

h i

st e

s Teil

der

Arb

eit

. D

en

n w

ir d

isku

tiere

n ja

hie

r st

än

dig

üb

er

solc

he S

ach

en

.

49

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

das

sch

ein

t au

ch e

ine M

ög

lich

keit

zu

sein

, zu

min

dest

in

der

Besc

häft

igu

ng

dam

it,

das

Vers

tän

dn

is z

u s

teig

ern

. D

as

wil

l m

an

ja z

um

ind

est

, d

ass

man

Din

ge

bess

er

vers

teh

t. U

nd

das

ist

au

ch f

ür

dic

h e

in M

itte

l d

as

bess

er

zu v

ers

teh

en

?

50

.

Nik

ola

iJa

, ja

. A

uf

jed

en

Fall

.5

1.

tech

nis

ch

er

Fort

sch

ritt

Rein

hard

Ein

e F

rag

e i

st n

och

in

wie

weit

wü

rdest

du

das

ein

sch

ätz

en

, w

ie s

ich

du

rch

tech

nis

che M

ög

lich

keit

en

eb

en

die

Mög

lich

keit

en

im

Bere

ich

der

exp

eri

men

tell

en

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik a

usw

irken

? W

eil

es

sch

ein

t ja

doch

ein

, m

uss

man

sch

on

sag

en

ein

paar

Jah

re o

der

man

kan

n s

chon

bald

Jah

rzeh

nte

sag

en

...

dass

es

da d

och

ein

en

zie

mli

chen

An

sch

ub

gib

t, w

en

n m

an

vie

lleic

ht

die

vorh

eri

gen

Peri

od

en

verg

leic

ht.

52

.

Nik

ola

iJa

, d

a i

st p

lötz

lich

vie

l p

ass

iert

in

ku

rzer

Zeit

. S

pezi

ell

der

tech

nis

che A

spekt

ist

gera

de jetz

t m

it d

er

Op

to-M

ech

an

ik s

o,

dass

ein

fach

vor

zeh

n J

ah

ren

die

Tech

nolo

gie

nic

ht

da w

ar

um

die

Exp

eri

men

te z

u m

ach

en

. D

as

kan

n m

an

sch

lich

tu

nd

erg

reif

en

d s

o s

ag

en

. D

a g

ab

es

natü

rlic

h d

ie I

deen

das

zu m

ach

en

un

d a

uch

Leu

te,

die

das

an

gefa

ng

en

hab

en

. A

ber

die

Tech

nolo

gie

das

so z

u m

ach

en

ist

jetz

ters

t d

a.

Vie

le S

yste

me w

erd

en

natü

rlic

h e

rst

so e

ntw

ickelt

, ab

er

die

Meth

od

en

sin

d e

rst

da.

Von

dah

er

hat

es

ein

en

rie

sig

en

Ein

flu

ß.

Das

gil

t je

tzt

hau

pts

äch

lich

für

die

Exp

eri

men

te [

hie

r in

die

ser

Gru

pp

e].

Wen

n m

an

die

Ph

oto

nen

exp

eri

men

tean

sch

au

t is

t m

ir n

ich

t g

an

z kla

r w

aru

m d

as

an

ein

er

Ste

lle s

o e

inen

Sch

ub

gab

.W

eil

das

hätt

e m

an

au

ch v

orh

er,

wen

n m

an

es

gep

ush

t h

ätt

e,

viell

eic

ht

frü

her.

..A

ber

da b

rau

chts

halt

dan

n n

och

die

Leu

te,

die

das

mach

en

ein

fach

.

53

.

Rein

hard

Es

hat

sich

sic

her

au

ch M

oti

vati

on

slag

e g

eän

dert

. Ir

gen

dw

ie g

ibt

es

ja d

en

Wu

nsc

hm

it d

em

was

an

zufa

ng

en

. A

nw

en

du

ng

en

zu

hab

en

. A

lso w

en

n i

ch d

ie S

chla

gw

ört

er

sag

e:

Qu

an

ten

com

pu

ter,

Kry

pto

gra

ph

ie u

nd

In

form

ati

on

stech

nik

...

54

.

Nik

ola

iS

ich

er

gib

t es

Leu

te,

die

gen

au

die

Vis

ion

hab

en

. W

ob

ei

gen

au

die

Ap

pli

kati

on

ssch

lag

wort

e n

atü

rlic

h s

chon

sta

rk g

etr

ieb

en

sin

d,

weil

man

sie

au

chfi

nan

ziere

n m

uss

. A

lso i

ch g

lau

be,

dass

, je

tzt

wen

iger,

ab

er

vor

all

em

in

der

Zeit

wo d

as

geb

oom

t h

at

am

An

fan

g.

Das

ist

vor

mein

er

wis

sen

sch

aft

lich

seh

r akti

ven

55

.

113

Zeit

, d

esw

eg

en

kan

n i

ch d

as

nu

r ra

ten

. A

ber

die

all

er

meis

ten

Leu

te,

die

was

gem

ach

t h

ab

en

, ers

tmal

gar

nic

ht

dara

n i

nte

ress

iert

ware

n A

nw

en

du

ng

en

zu

mach

en

. U

nd

das

halt

nu

r ein

e F

inan

zieru

ng

ssach

e w

ar.

Jetz

t w

o d

ie T

ech

nolo

gie

nw

eit

gen

ug

sin

d,

gib

t es

da e

inig

e d

ie d

a w

irkli

ch a

kti

v u

nd

erf

olg

reic

h d

ara

narb

eit

en

. A

ber

das

ist

meh

r so

, d

as

ist

jetz

t b

öse

gesa

gt,

ab

er

wen

n e

inem

was

bess

ere

s ein

fall

en

wü

rde w

as

Gru

nd

lag

en

ph

ysik

betr

ifft,

dan

n w

ürd

en

die

All

erm

eis

ten

das

lieb

er

mach

en

. A

ls jetz

t h

ier

bess

ere

Lase

r zu

bau

en

, d

ie d

an

nein

en

Qu

an

ten

com

pu

ter

erm

ög

lich

en

. D

er

Boom

ist

ers

tau

nli

ch,

der

dan

nir

gen

dw

an

n k

am

. D

as

inte

ress

an

t. H

än

gt

natü

rlic

h a

uch

mit

dem

zu

sam

men

, d

ass

dan

n G

eld

da w

ar

für

Qu

an

ten

com

pu

ter.

Rein

hard

Das

ist

es

ja a

uch

, d

ass

man

hie

r W

ach

stu

m s

ieh

t. A

uch

exp

eri

men

tell

. In

gew

isse

rW

eis

e s

chein

en

die

Th

eori

en

, zu

min

dest

der

math

em

ati

sch

e K

orp

us,

geg

eb

en

. D

ieG

run

dla

gen

au

f je

den

Fall

. F

ür

die

Mu

lti-

Ph

oto

nen

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

bra

uch

t m

an

viell

eic

ht

au

ch m

ath

em

ati

sch

meh

r. E

xperi

men

tell

gib

t es

noch

meh

rU

nen

tdeck

tes.

56

.

Nik

ola

iJa

, es

gib

t zu

min

dest

vie

l zu

tu

n.

Es

gib

t h

alt

vie

l zu

tu

n,

weil

wen

n m

an

an

Ap

pli

kati

on

en

den

kt

au

ch d

er

Tra

nsi

tor

noch

nic

ht

erf

un

den

ist

[A

nsp

ielu

ng

, d

ass

man

gern

e e

in Q

uan

ten

an

alo

gon

zu

m k

lass

ich

en

Tra

nsi

stor

fin

den

wü

rde]

inkein

er

von

den

gan

zen

Sys

tem

en

.

57

.

Au

sbli

ck /

mög

lich

e L

ösu

ng

?

Rein

hard

Sie

hst

du

eig

en

tlic

h e

ine M

ög

lich

keit

, d

ass

was

du

vorh

er

gesa

gt

hast

, d

ass

da

noch

etw

as

un

best

imm

t is

t od

er

dass

man

sic

h D

ing

e i

mm

er

noch

ein

mal

an

sch

au

en

mu

ss u

m s

ich

er

zu g

eh

en

, d

ass

man

sic

h a

uch

wir

kli

ch i

m B

ere

ich

der

Qu

an

ten

befi

nd

et,

dass

man

das

irg

en

dw

ie a

ufl

öse

n k

an

n?

Od

er

das

sich

da i

rgen

detw

as

erg

ibt?

Od

er,

dass

man

ein

e A

rt H

off

nu

ng

hat,

dass

irg

en

dw

an

n jem

an

d m

itein

er

Th

eori

e k

om

mt

die

ein

em

das

pla

usi

ble

r m

ach

t od

er

dir

ekt

zug

än

gli

cher?

Od

er

mu

ss e

s im

mer

off

en

, im

Wech

sels

pie

l, b

leib

en

?

58

.

Nik

ola

iIc

h d

en

ke,

dass

man

sic

h s

tark

dara

n a

np

ass

en

wir

d.

Vie

les

was

ein

em

jetz

tkom

isch

vork

om

mt.

.. D

as

ist

jetz

t ein

e s

eh

r su

bje

kti

ve M

ein

un

g.

Ab

er

es

ist

jair

gen

dw

ie n

ur

ein

e G

ew

oh

nh

eit

. W

ir h

att

en

kü

rzli

ch d

ie D

isku

ssio

n,

um

ein

kon

kre

tes

Beis

pie

l zu

sag

en

: M

ess

pro

ble

m u

nd

jetz

t sa

gt

man

irg

en

dw

o m

uss

ja

die

se W

ell

en

fun

kti

on

dan

n d

och

kola

bie

ren

. Ja

, w

aru

m e

igen

tlic

h.

Das

kön

nte

man

sich

ja v

ors

tell

en

: W

ir s

ind

halt

Teil

die

ser

gro

ßen

Well

en

fun

kti

on

. U

nd

wie

wir

halt

gera

de d

asi

tzen

ist

nu

r so

ein

e R

eali

sieru

ng

. D

afü

r b

rau

cht

man

au

ch n

ich

tV

iele

-Welt

en

, w

eil

Su

perp

osi

tion

. Pass

t sc

hon

. W

o i

st e

igen

tlic

h d

as

Pro

ble

m?

Es

ist

lust

ig,

weil

es

sin

d..

. Je

der

mit

dem

ich

hie

r re

de h

at

sich

au

sgie

big

st m

itQ

uan

ten

mech

an

ik a

use

inan

derg

ese

tzt.

Un

d v

iele

, ic

h g

lau

be d

ie a

lten

Hase

nw

ürd

en

eh

er

ein

e k

riti

sch

ere

An

twort

dara

uf

geb

en

kön

nen

, ab

er

viele

sag

en

: W

ois

t eig

en

tlic

h d

as

Pro

ble

m?

59

.

Ich

gla

ub

e,

dass

man

sic

h a

n S

ach

en

gew

öh

nt.

Un

d m

an

che d

avo

n s

ind

fals

ch u

nd

man

che s

ind

ric

hti

g.

Un

d z

u s

ag

en

, w

o i

st d

a e

igen

tlic

h d

as

Pro

ble

m i

st s

chon

ein

Hin

weis

dara

uf.

Fü

r m

ich

fü

hlt

sic

h d

as

nic

ht

fals

ch a

n e

s zu

sag

en

. Ic

h h

ab

em

ein

e M

od

ell

e w

ie i

ch m

ir v

ors

tell

en

kan

n w

ie d

as

sein

soll

. U

nd

das

war

es.

Kan

nn

atü

rlic

h s

ein

, d

ass

es

da e

in g

ute

s A

rgu

men

t g

ibt,

das

es

nic

ht

so s

ein

soll

te.

Un

dd

an

n m

uss

man

eb

en

wie

der

ein

en

Para

dig

men

wech

sel

irg

en

dw

ie s

chaff

en

.D

esw

eg

en

gla

ub

e i

ch n

ich

t, d

ass

es

ein

e g

run

dle

gen

de Ä

nd

eru

ng

in

dem

Vers

tän

dn

is d

er

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik g

eb

en

wir

d.

Eh

er.

.. W

ir s

chärf

en

un

sere

Bil

der

60

.

un

d i

rgen

dw

an

n f

üh

lt s

ich

das

all

es

rech

t ri

chti

g a

n.

Rein

hard

Un

d s

ind

da d

ie E

xperi

men

te s

o e

ine A

rt I

nst

rum

en

t u

m d

en

Um

gan

g b

ess

er

zusc

hu

len

? W

eil

man

hie

r ja

die

Hän

de d

ara

uf

leg

en

kan

n?

61

.

Nik

ola

iB

is z

u e

inem

gew

isse

n G

rad

gla

ub

e i

ch ja.

Ab

er

ich

weiß

nic

ht

ob

es

dara

n l

ieg

t,d

ass

man

Han

d a

nle

gen

kan

n.

Als

o e

in E

xperi

men

t is

t im

mer

die

letz

teE

nts

cheid

un

g.

Man

kan

n s

ich

halt

da n

ich

ts v

orm

ach

en

. U

nd

zw

ar

sch

on

im

Kle

inen

. Ic

h m

ein

e d

as

jetz

t g

ar

nic

ht

nu

r w

en

n m

an

ein

e g

roß

e T

heori

e w

iderl

eg

t,so

nd

ern

sch

on

im

Kle

inen

, w

en

n m

an

ein

fals

ches

Bil

d i

m K

op

f h

at.

Un

d e

s is

t ja

imm

er

wie

der

ers

tau

nli

ch:

Da r

ed

en

wir

mit

jem

an

den

, m

it d

em

man

seit

zw

ei

Jah

ren

arb

eit

et,

un

d p

lötz

lich

bei

der

fun

dam

en

tals

ten

Sach

e m

erk

t m

an

, d

ass

man

eig

en

tlic

h e

in k

om

ple

tt u

nte

rsch

ied

lich

es

Bil

d i

m K

op

f h

at.

Un

d d

an

n w

ett

et

man

meis

ten

s ein

Bie

r d

ara

uf.

Dafü

r, s

chon

im

Kle

inen

die

Bil

der

im K

op

f zu

prä

gen

.

62

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

es

gib

t h

alt

Sic

herh

eit

. D

as

Exp

eri

men

t is

t d

a u

nd

die

s is

t sc

hon

ein

seh

rst

ark

er

Hin

weis

.6

3.

Nik

ola

iIc

h h

ab

e jetz

t le

tzte

s m

al

etw

as

nic

ht

meh

r au

sgere

chn

et,

weil

ich

mir

ged

ach

th

ab

e,

jetz

t lo

hn

t es

sich

nic

ht

meh

r, jetz

t se

hen

wir

es

eh

gle

ich

im

Exp

eri

men

t. E

sw

äre

fals

ch g

ew

ese

n w

as

ich

dach

te d

as

[bei

der

Rech

nu

ng

] ra

usk

om

mt.

In

sofe

rnw

ar

es

die

ric

hti

ge E

nts

cheid

un

g.

Von

dah

er

gla

ub

e i

ch,

dass

die

Exp

eri

men

te a

uf

jed

en

Fall

helf

en

. U

nd

dan

n n

atü

rlic

h,

wie

gesa

gt,

es

gib

t ein

paar

Sach

en

wo m

an

halt

sic

h v

iell

eic

ht

an

Sach

en

gew

öh

nen

kan

n,

die

au

ch n

ich

t ri

chti

g s

ind

. D

iem

uss

man

dan

n a

n e

iner

best

imm

ten

Ste

lle d

an

n w

iderl

eg

en

. D

as

fin

de i

ch g

era

de

das

span

nen

de h

ier

in d

er

Gru

pp

e.

In e

iner

beso

nd

ers

au

sgep

räg

ten

Weis

e h

alt

gesc

hau

t w

ird

wo k

an

n i

ch jetz

t S

ach

en

test

en

, d

ie w

irkli

ch a

n e

ine S

tell

e g

eh

en

,w

o i

ch m

ir w

irkli

ch u

nkla

r b

in w

as

rau

skom

mt.

Wo i

ch n

ich

t sa

ge,

da m

üss

te d

as

jetz

t ra

usk

om

men

, ab

er

sch

au

en

wir

mal

nach

. S

on

dern

wo e

s w

irkli

ch e

infa

chn

ich

t kla

r is

t je

tzt.

Das

ist

span

nn

en

d.

Es

ist

natü

rlic

h d

ie F

rag

e i

n w

elc

hem

Zeit

rah

men

es

pass

iert

, ob

ich

dan

n i

mm

er

noch

das

selb

e m

ach

e?

64

.

En

de

Rein

hard

Von

mein

er

Seit

e a

us

wäre

es

das.

Wen

n d

u n

och

etw

as

sag

en

wil

lst?

65

.(n

o s

peaker)

Gesp

räch

üb

er

den

In

halt

un

d M

oti

vati

on

mein

er

Dip

lom

arb

eit

. U

nd

in

wie

weit

das

Ph

iloso

ph

ie i

st.

Dan

ksa

gu

ng

un

d a

usk

lin

gen

der

small

talk

.6

6.


114

Wit

lef_

110510

Inte

rvie

w m

it W

itle

f W

iecz

ore

k v

om

10

.05

.20

11

Tra

nsc

rib

ed

by

yott

a,

vers

ion

4 o

f 1

10

83

0

An

fan

g,

pers

ön

lich

e D

ate

n,

Au

sbil

du

ng

Rein

hard

+ W

itle

f1:

ipod

? W

ie l

an

ge k

an

n m

an

au

fneh

men

?2:

ja,

ext

ern

es

Mik

ro.

So l

an

g B

att

eri

e o

der

Pla

tz r

eic

ht.

1.

1:

Als

o d

u h

ast

es

(DA

-Exp

ose

IV_R

ST.

pd

f) g

ele

sen

? D

.h.

du

weiß

t u

ng

efä

hr

um

was

es

geh

t. D

ie F

rag

en

werd

en

, d

an

n e

h n

ich

t so

sp

ezi

ell

sein

.2:

Ja,

ich

hab

es

gele

sen

.

2.

Rein

hard

Am

An

fan

g w

ill

ich

eig

en

tlic

h n

ur

seh

r g

en

ere

lle S

ach

en

wis

sen

. Z

.B.

dein

Alt

er?

3.

Wit

lef

32

. Post

-Doc.

Seit

ein

em

Jah

r h

ier.

Davo

r in

Mü

nch

en

gew

ese

n.

Da w

ar

ich

vie

rJa

hre

Dokto

ran

d.

Mu

ltip

hoto

nen

vers

chrä

nku

ng

gem

ach

t. U

nd

davo

r d

ieD

iplo

marb

eit

in

Berl

in.

Da h

ab

e i

ch g

ar

nic

ht

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

gem

ach

t, d

a w

are

nes

eh

er

Qu

an

ten

pu

nkte

.

4.

Rein

hard

D.h

. ab

er

son

st b

ist

du

eig

en

tlic

h z

iem

lich

in

dem

Feld

jetz

t d

rin

nen

?5

.W

itle

fJa

, sc

hon

wir

kli

ch jetz

t lä

ng

ere

Zeit

. S

o f

ün

f, s

ech

s Ja

hre

.6

.

Moti

vati

on

Rein

hard

Grü

nd

e w

aru

m d

u d

as

mach

st?

Fall

s m

an

sow

as

üb

erh

au

pt

an

geb

en

kan

n.

7.

Wit

lef

Als

o g

en

au

jetz

t O

pto

mech

an

ik o

der

an

sic

h P

hys

ik,

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

,...

?8

.R

ein

hard

Fan

gen

wir

mit

dem

All

gem

ein

sten

an

, P

hys

ik ü

berh

au

pt?

Waru

m t

ut

man

sic

h d

as

an

?9

.

Wit

lef

Ich

bin

ein

bis

sch

en

vorg

ep

räg

t d

urc

h m

ein

en

Vate

r w

ah

rsch

ein

lich

, w

eil

der

ist

selb

st P

hys

iker.

Un

d h

at

au

ch a

ls P

hys

iker

gearb

eit

et,

au

ch a

ls E

xperi

men

tato

r.A

ber

ein

fach

nu

r vo

n z

uh

au

se.

Da w

are

n i

rgen

d w

ie i

mm

er

nu

r ir

gen

dw

elc

he

Gerä

te z

uh

au

se.

Irg

en

dw

as

zum

löte

n u

nd

so ;

un

d h

ab

das

halt

gem

ach

t.

10

.

Ab

er

als

an

gefa

ng

en

hab

zu

stu

die

ren

wu

ßte

ich

gar

nic

ht,

dass

ich

Ph

ysik

mach

en

woll

te.

Als

o i

ch w

oll

te s

chon

was

natu

rwis

sen

sch

aft

lich

es

mach

en

, w

eil

das

au

chin

der

Sch

ule

tota

l vi

el

Sp

aß

gem

ach

t h

at.

In

der

Sch

ule

wars

gar

nic

ht

mal

eig

en

tlic

h P

hys

ik w

as

rich

tig

, ri

chti

g v

iel

Sp

aß

gem

ach

t h

at.

Da w

ar

es

eh

er

Ch

em

ie,

ab

er

das

lag

ein

bis

sch

en

am

Leh

rer.

Dan

n w

oll

te s

o e

in K

reu

zfach

stu

die

ren

, so

wie

Bio

ph

ysik

od

er

ph

ysik

ali

sch

e C

hem

ie.

Ab

er

das

gab

es

nic

ht

sori

chti

g i

n B

erl

in.

Ich

hab

au

ch n

ich

t w

eit

er

geku

ckt.

Ich

weiß

au

ch n

ich

t m

eh

rw

aru

m.

Jetz

t w

ürd

e i

ch e

s m

ach

en

, ab

er

dam

als

halt

nic

ht.

11

.

Un

d d

an

n h

ab

e i

ch h

alt

Ph

ysik

stu

die

rt,

weil

irg

en

dw

ie h

ab

en

mic

h E

xperi

men

ted

ah

in g

eb

rach

t. W

eil

dort

an

der

TU

Berl

in g

ab

s so

was

wie

ein

Pra

kti

ku

m,

Pro

jektl

ab

or

hie

ß d

as,

wo m

an

halt

in

der

Gru

pp

e g

leic

h z

usa

mm

en

an

fän

gt

zu

12

.

arb

eit

en

un

d n

ich

t sc

hon

die

Exp

eri

men

te a

ufg

eb

au

t si

nd

. M

an

mu

sste

sic

h h

alt

selb

st e

ins

üb

erl

eg

en

, p

lan

en

, au

fbau

en

un

d a

usw

ert

en

. A

lso d

as

war

tota

l g

en

ial.

Un

d Q

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

? D

ah

in b

in i

ch e

igen

tlic

h e

rst,

als

o b

in i

ch w

äh

ren

d d

es

Stu

diu

ms

gekom

men

, w

eil

ich

au

ch o

f so

ein

er

Som

mers

chu

le w

ar,

die

halt

üb

er

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

war.

Un

d d

a w

ar

der

Rein

hard

Wern

er

un

d d

er

Jen

s E

isert

,u

nd

ich

gla

ub

e d

ie s

ind

ein

bis

sch

en

bekan

nt.

Beid

es

Th

eore

tiker

un

d g

era

de d

er

Rein

hard

Wern

er

kon

nte

mic

h t

ota

l d

afü

r b

eg

eis

tern

. D

en

n e

r h

at

au

ch s

ozu

sag

en

gesa

gt,

ja d

a g

ibts

halt

Pro

ble

me m

it B

ell

'sch

er

Un

gle

ich

un

g.

Un

d i

rgen

dw

iese

itd

em

hat

mic

h d

as

eig

en

tlic

h i

nte

ress

iert

.

13

.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

as

fän

gt

eig

en

tlic

h s

chon

an

mit

der

Pro

ble

mst

ell

un

g s

ozu

sag

en

. A

lso w

en

nd

u d

a s

ag

st,

dass

du

gen

au

dort

...,

au

fzu

zeig

en

, d

er

ers

te K

on

takt,

un

d d

as

es

eb

en

nic

ht

so e

infa

ch i

st.

14

.

Wit

lef

Ja,

das

war

au

ch s

o e

in b

issc

hen

der

Vort

rag

wie

er

ihn

gem

ach

t h

at.

Er

[Rein

hard

Wern

er]

ist

ein

Men

sch

der

den

Lap

top

nic

ht

nu

r als

Beam

erp

roje

kto

r n

imm

t,so

nd

ern

au

ch d

en

Sou

nd

. E

r h

at

halt

so D

ete

kto

ren

geh

ab

t, d

ie d

an

n s

o g

ekli

ckt

hab

en

[E

PR

/BE

LL

Exp

eri

men

t].

Un

d d

an

n h

at

er

au

ch g

esa

gt

das

Ein

stein

das

Pap

er

[EP

R A

rtik

el]

rau

sgeb

rach

t h

at.

Un

d e

s p

ass

iert

ja n

ich

t so

oft

: A

) D

ass

es

nic

ht

so z

itie

rt w

ird

, g

leic

h a

m A

nfa

ng

; a

lso e

s w

urd

e ja g

ar

nic

ht

ziti

ert

am

An

fan

g.

Un

d,

dass

ers

t d

reiß

ig J

ah

r g

ed

au

ert

hat

bis

dan

n e

ine A

ntw

ort

kam

. D

as

man

es

exp

eri

men

tell

mess

en

kan

n.

Un

d d

as

war

dan

n i

rgen

dw

ie s

pan

nen

d.

Die

Gesc

hic

hte

halt

war

span

nen

d,

un

d d

an

n d

as

Pro

ble

m h

alt

au

ch.

15

.

Au

sbil

du

ng

Rein

hard

Fast

ein

kla

ssic

her

Ein

stie

g,

ich

wü

sste

jetz

t n

ich

t w

ie d

ies

so..

.1

6.

Wit

lef

Weil

im

Stu

diu

m w

ar

das

gar

nic

ht,

als

o k

am

das

gar

nic

ht

vor

bei

un

s.1

7.

Rein

hard

Im S

tud

ium

selb

st n

ich

t?1

8.

Wit

lef

Ja d

as

hän

gt

von

der

Un

ivers

ität

ab

.1

9.

Rein

hard

Wie

war

da d

er

Zu

gan

g f

ür

jetz

t Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ik?

Rein

nu

r...

20

.W

itle

fK

ast

en

pote

nti

al,

Wass

ers

toff

ato

m,

dan

n S

töru

ng

srech

nu

ng

, D

iracf

orm

ali

smu

s.A

ber

nie

irg

en

dw

ie d

iese

s P

rob

lem

an

gesp

roch

en

. A

ber

das

hän

gt

von

der

Un

i ab

.2

1.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

wie

hab

en

die

das

dan

n e

xperi

men

tell

verb

un

den

, od

er

hat

es

das

dan

n n

ich

tg

eg

eb

en

?2

2.

Wit

lef

Sozu

sag

en

in

der

Un

i, i

n d

en

Vorl

esu

ng

en

? N

e g

ar

nic

ht.

Als

o h

alt

die

hab

en

nie

erw

äh

nt

das

es

Bell

'sch

e U

ng

leic

hu

ng

en

gib

t. O

der

das

es

Exp

eri

men

te d

azu

gib

t.O

der

das

es

halt

ein

Pro

ble

m g

ibt.

Un

d b

ei

der

Inte

rpre

tati

on

nu

ll.

23

.

Ab

er

ich

gla

ub

e d

as

hän

gt

halt

wir

kli

ch d

avo

n a

b w

o d

ie a

uch

selb

st g

ele

rnt

hab

en

. U

nd

ob

sie

es

halt

rein

bri

ng

en

woll

en

. Ic

h m

ein

man

hätt

e e

s au

ch b

ei

stati

stis

cher

Ph

ysik

mach

en

kön

nen

, d

a w

är

es

au

ch g

eg

an

gen

. Ir

gen

dw

o,

Dic

hte

matr

ix,

Qu

an

ten

form

ali

smu

s h

ätt

e m

an

es

ein

fach

mach

en

kön

nen

, h

ab

en

sie a

ber

nic

ht.

24

.

Rein

hard

115

D.h

. es

ist

fast

rein

beim

Form

ali

smu

s g

eb

lieb

en

un

d..

.2

5.

Wit

lef

Gen

au

, es

ist

ein

fach

Form

ali

smu

s oh

ne I

nte

rpre

tati

on

. O

der

oh

ne F

olg

en

.2

6.

Rein

hard

Oh

ne g

roß

moti

viert

[zu

werd

en

]. E

s g

eh

t zw

ar

üb

er

Wass

ers

toff

, d

as

Kast

en

pote

nti

al,

usw

. A

ber

es

nic

ht

so..

.2

7.

Au

fgab

e i

m E

xp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

Ja,

jetz

t b

ist

du

da i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e u

nd

hast

das

Exp

eri

men

t ü

ber.

28

.W

itle

fÜ

ber?

Als

o d

as

ich

es

nic

ht

meh

r m

ag

?2

9.

Rein

hard

Nein

, als

o d

ass

du

der

Hau

ptz

ust

än

dig

e b

ist.

30

.W

itle

fA

h !

Zu

r Z

eit

ja.

Als

o w

eil

der

Sim

on

[G

röb

lach

er]

. S

imon

hat

ja p

rakti

sch

an

dem

Exp

eri

men

t se

ine D

okto

rarb

eit

dra

n g

esc

hri

eb

en

. E

r h

at

das

au

fgeb

au

cht.

Un

d e

ris

t je

tzt

halt

als

Post

-Doc

am

CalT

ech

[C

ali

forn

ia I

nst

itu

te o

f Tech

nolo

gy]

. Teil

weis

ed

ort

, te

ilw

eis

e h

ier.

Un

d i

ch m

an

ag

e p

rakti

sch

das

Exp

eri

men

t ;

bau

e d

a a

uf.

Un

dw

ir s

ind

ja g

era

de a

m U

mzi

eh

en

. "Ü

ber"

ist

lu

stig

. B

ei

un

s w

ürd

e d

as

heiß

en

, d

ass

du

es

nic

ht

meh

r m

ag

st.

Hast

du

das

Exp

eri

men

t je

tzt

sch

on

üb

er!

?

31

.

Ne,

als

o v

on

dah

er

bin

jetz

t p

rakti

sch

Hau

ptv

era

ntw

ort

lich

er.

Ab

er

zur

Zeit

ste

ht

ich

halt

pra

kti

sch

nu

r im

Lab

or.

32

.

Rein

hard

Ja i

st k

lar,

jetz

t m

it d

em

Um

zug

.3

3.

Wit

lef

Ich

besc

häft

ige m

ich

im

Mom

en

t n

ich

t so

vie

l m

it T

heori

e.

Das

ist

ein

bis

sch

en

Sch

ad

e,

weil

ich

fin

de g

era

de a

ls P

ost

-Doc

wäre

das

gera

de e

ine A

ufg

ab

e u

nd

sic

hau

ch ü

berl

eg

en

was

man

fü

r zu

kü

nft

ige E

xperi

men

te m

ach

en

kan

n.

Un

d w

eil

es

halt

wic

hti

g i

st,

in d

em

Feld

an

sich

, w

elc

he F

rag

est

ell

un

gen

man

bean

twort

en

wil

l.A

ber

dafü

r h

ab

e i

ch g

ar

kein

e Z

eit

.

34

.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

as

wäre

der

zukü

nft

ige A

bla

uf

?3

5.

Wit

lef

Ja h

off

e i

ch m

al

!3

6.

Rein

hard

Als

o s

o s

tell

t d

u e

s d

ir v

or.

Als

o s

o h

ätt

est

du

es

gern

e.

Wen

n d

er

Um

zug

ab

gesc

hlo

ssen

ist

, d

ass

du

dan

n a

uch

arb

eit

stech

nis

ch z

ukü

nft

ige S

ach

en

,exp

eri

men

tell

e..

. ab

er

au

f d

er

Basi

s vo

n d

em

vorh

an

den

en

.

37

.

Wit

lef

Un

sere

Basi

s zu

r Z

eit

ist

, re

in e

xperi

men

tell

, u

nse

r D

elu

tion

Fri

dg

e.

Wir

hab

en

halt

die

Mög

lich

keit

au

f ti

efe

Tem

pera

ture

n z

u g

eh

en

un

d d

am

it m

ech

an

isch

eS

yste

me e

ntw

ed

er

dir

ekt

in d

en

Gru

nd

zust

an

d z

u k

üh

len

. A

lso w

en

n s

ie h

alt

ein

eh

oh

e F

req

uen

z g

leic

h v

on

sic

h a

us

hab

en

. O

der

halt

zu

sätz

lich

, h

ab

en

wir

ein

en

ied

rig

e B

ad

tem

pera

tur,

un

d d

an

n z

usä

tzli

ch d

as

Seit

en

ban

d k

üh

len

um

in

den

Gru

nd

zust

an

d z

u g

eh

en

. D

.h.

das

ist

un

sere

Mög

lich

keit

die

wir

hab

en

un

d jetz

t,sa

gen

wir

so,

wart

en

wir

ein

fach

au

f d

ie r

ich

tig

en

Pro

ben

, S

am

ple

s, d

ie e

ntw

ed

er

das

ein

e m

ach

en

od

er

das

an

dere

, od

er

beid

es.

Un

d d

an

n g

eh

ts v

on

den

Exp

eri

men

ten

au

sgeh

en

d w

eit

er.

38

.

Rein

hard

Als

o,

dass

man

das

so a

ls B

asi

s od

er

Au

sgan

gse

xperi

men

t h

at

un

d d

an

n s

chli

eß

en

39

.

sich

...

Wit

lef

Gen

au

, u

nd

dan

n s

chli

eß

en

sic

h d

ie S

ach

en

die

wir

eig

en

tlic

h m

ach

en

woll

en

an

.4

0.

Rein

hard

Es

ist

ja s

o u

nd

so n

ie e

in E

xperi

men

t, d

ass

du

au

fbau

st u

nd

dan

n e

in E

rgb

nis

hast

un

d d

an

n w

ied

er

ab

reis

st.

41

.

Wit

lef

Pass

iert

au

ch,

ab

er

bei

un

s h

alt

nic

ht.

42

.

Ein

teil

un

g d

er

Exp

eri

men

te

Rein

hard

Ein

e n

äch

ste F

rag

e w

äre

dan

n w

ie d

ie G

rup

pe a

ufg

eb

au

t is

t? W

en

n d

u jetz

t, w

ieim

mer

man

das

nen

nt,

Hau

ptv

era

ntw

ort

lich

er

bis

t b

ei

dem

Exp

eri

men

t ;

den

n e

sg

ibt

ja m

eh

rere

para

llel.

Es

sin

d ja n

och

die

gep

uls

ten

Sach

en

...

43

.

Wit

lef

Fan

gen

von

den

Nan

ote

ilch

en

, u

nd

noch

Str

ah

lun

gsd

ruck

gan

z ein

fach

gib

ts n

och

,u

nd

der

Jon

as

[Sch

möle

] h

att

e,

ab

er

der

mach

t je

tzt

sozu

sag

en

bei

un

s m

it.

Er

hatt

e d

avo

r h

alt

mag

neti

sch

levi

tiert

e S

ach

en

; G

rap

hit

un

d s

ow

as.

44

.

Rein

hard

Das

sin

d a

lso d

ie T

eil

e d

ie p

ara

llel

lau

fen

?4

5.

Wit

lef

Gen

au

, als

o p

rakti

sch

das

gro

ße T

hem

a i

n d

er

Arb

eit

gru

pp

e,

an

sic

h d

er

Au

fhän

ger,

wofü

r si

ch h

alt

Mark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] i

nte

ress

iert

un

d d

am

it w

ir a

uch

,si

nd

ein

fach

makro

skop

isch

e S

yste

me.

Sys

tem

e a

lso d

ie M

ass

e h

ab

en

in

Qu

an

ten

zust

än

de z

u b

rin

gen

. U

nd

da g

ibts

jetz

t ve

rsch

ied

en

eH

era

ng

eh

en

sweis

en

. E

ntw

ed

er

so w

ie w

ir.

Wir

kü

hle

n h

alt

irg

en

dw

elc

he

Osz

illa

tore

n.

Hat

den

Nach

teil

, d

ie h

ab

en

halt

im

mer

irg

en

dw

ie e

ine V

erb

ind

un

gzu

r A

uß

en

welt

.

46

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

du

mu

sst

sch

au

en

, d

ass

du

die

Um

welt

ein

flü

sse s

ozu

sag

en

weg

kri

eg

st.

Tem

pera

tur

in d

em

Sin

n ?

47

.

Wit

lef

Tem

pera

tur,

gen

au

. O

der

Verb

ind

un

gen

. D

as

An

dere

was

halt

Nik

ola

i [K

iese

l]m

ach

t m

it d

iese

n N

an

ote

ilch

en

, d

ie h

ab

en

halt

gar

kein

e V

erb

ind

un

g m

eh

r zu

rU

mw

elt

. D

ie s

ind

halt

nu

r li

mit

iert

du

rch

Dru

ck v

on

au

ßen

, od

er

Ab

sorb

tion

. U

nd

der

Jon

as

[Sch

möle

] h

at

halt

was

an

dere

s ve

rsu

cht,

mag

neti

sch

zu

levi

tiere

n.

Das

sin

d e

infa

ch v

ers

chie

den

e H

era

ng

eh

en

sweis

en

um

irg

en

dw

ie s

o Q

uan

ten

zust

än

de

bei

die

sen

Sys

tem

en

hin

zub

ekom

men

.

48

.

Un

d s

ag

en

wir

mal

die

Str

uktu

r vo

n u

nse

rer

Gru

pp

e i

st e

igen

tlic

h,

rela

tive

lose

. In

dem

Sin

ne, d

ass

es

jetz

t n

ich

t ein

gig

an

tisc

hes

Pro

jekt

gib

t, w

ora

n a

lle d

ara

narb

eit

en

. S

on

dern

es

gib

t h

alt

die

se v

ers

chie

den

en

...

49

.

Rein

hard

Das

Pri

nzi

p,

od

er

das

Kon

zep

t d

ah

inte

r is

t eb

en

die

se o

pto

-mech

an

isch

e..

.Verk

op

plu

ng

.5

0.

Wit

lef

Gen

au

. A

ber

um

eh

rlic

h z

u s

ein

ich

gla

ub

e w

en

n m

an

jetz

t n

ur

an

makro

skop

isch

en

Qu

an

ten

zust

än

den

in

tere

ssie

rt i

st o

der

irg

en

dw

ie m

ass

ive

Ob

jekte

dah

in z

u b

rin

gen

, d

an

n i

st e

s eig

en

tlic

h e

gal

was

man

neh

men

wü

rde.

Ab

er

sozu

sag

en

die

Op

tom

ech

an

ik i

st h

alt

gera

de s

o w

eit

, d

ass

sie

ku

rz d

avo

r is

td

as

zu e

rreic

hen

.

51

.

Rein

hard


116

Das

ist

ja d

as

Sch

ön

e,

dass

die

Reali

sieru

ng

von

Qu

an

ten

zust

än

den

zie

mli

ch o

ffen

ist.

Als

o e

s is

t ja

nic

ht

ein

e B

ind

un

g a

n i

rgen

dein

Sys

tem

, so

nd

ern

es

sin

dte

chn

isch

e F

rag

en

. W

en

n i

ch m

it d

er

Min

itu

tris

ieru

ng

im

Mech

an

isch

en

, w

eil

ich

das

halb

weg

s im

Gri

ff h

ab

e,

die

meach

an

isch

en

Kom

pon

en

ten

hin

zukri

eg

en

. W

en

nd

as

halt

so f

un

kti

on

iert

kan

n m

an

das

dam

it A

nst

reb

en

.

52

.

In d

em

Sin

n g

ibt

es

ja k

ein

e A

bh

än

gig

keit

von

der

Reali

sieru

ng

. A

lso w

ie i

ch d

iese

Sach

en

vers

uch

e z

u r

eali

sere

n.

53

.

Gru

pp

e

Wit

lef

Wir

sin

d h

alt

rela

tiv

Post

-Doc

last

ig.

Un

sere

Arb

eit

sgru

pp

e i

st jetz

t n

ich

t so

typ

isch

. Ic

h w

ürd

e s

chon

eh

er

sag

en

, d

ass

es

meis

ten

s so

ist

: E

s g

ibt

ein

paar

Post

-Docs

, d

ie jew

eil

s fü

r so

ein

Exp

eri

men

t ve

ran

twort

lich

sin

d.

Un

d d

an

n g

ibts

zwei

bis

dre

i D

okto

ran

den

pro

Exp

eri

men

t. U

nd

bei

un

s is

t es

halt

nic

ht

so.

Wir

hab

en

meh

r Post

-Docs

, od

er

gen

au

sovi

el

Post

-Docs

wie

Dokto

ran

den

od

er

kn

ap

pw

en

iger

Dokto

ran

den

un

d w

en

ig M

ast

ers

tud

en

ten

. A

lso s

chon

nic

ht

so t

ypis

ch.

Ab

er

das

kom

mt

viell

eic

ht

au

ch e

infa

ch d

ah

er

das

Mark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] e

ben

noch

nic

ht

sola

ng

e h

ier

ist.

Un

d d

as

es

sich

hie

r ers

t ru

msp

rech

en

mu

ss,

dass

es

die

Exp

eri

men

te g

ibt

un

d d

en

Nach

wu

chs

an

zule

rnen

.

54

.

Rein

hard

Ja d

as

dau

ert

bis

du

die

Leu

te r

ein

kri

eg

st.

Weil

beg

inn

en

wir

st d

u s

o u

nd

so m

iterf

ah

ren

ere

n L

eu

ten

. A

lso f

än

gst

du

mit

Post

-Docs

an

, d

am

it d

as

ein

mal

läu

ft.

Üb

erh

au

pt

wen

n e

s n

eu

ist

, d

an

n w

irst

du

dir

nic

ht

noch

am

An

fan

gE

inarb

eit

un

gsz

eit

[au

fhals

en

].

55

.

Fasz

inati

on

an

der

Qu

an

tem

mech

an

ik

Rein

hard

Ein

e F

rag

e i

m t

heore

tisc

hen

Bere

ich

. O

der

wir

hab

en

darü

ber

eh

sch

on

mal

gesp

roch

en

.Was

wü

rdest

du

als

fasz

inie

ren

stes

Featu

re s

eh

en

, vo

n d

er

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik.

Eig

en

tlic

h b

is d

u ja e

h i

n d

em

Bere

ich

der

dic

h i

nte

ress

iert

.

56

.

Wit

lef

Zu

r Z

eit

ja.

Wech

selt

. A

lso i

ch fi

nd

e s

eh

r sp

an

nen

d w

irkli

ch w

as

wir

mach

en

, als

od

as

Zie

l vo

n u

ns.

Das

man

wir

kli

ch v

ers

uch

t m

it S

yste

men

, d

ie h

alt

vie

l M

ass

eh

ab

en

, als

o i

m V

erg

leic

h h

alt

zu

Ato

men

, Io

nen

, od

er

Ato

mw

olk

en

,Q

uan

ten

zust

än

de z

u e

rzeu

gen

. U

nd

dan

n h

alt

au

ch a

m I

deals

ten

natü

rlic

h z

wei

mass

ive S

ach

en

mit

ein

an

der

zu v

ers

chrä

nken

. F

ind

e i

ch s

chon

tota

l sp

an

nen

d.

Un

d i

mm

er

meh

r kom

mt

dazu

, ab

er

da k

en

ne i

ch m

ich

leid

er

noch

zu

wen

ig a

us,

inw

iew

eit

Gra

vita

tion

ein

e R

oll

e s

pie

lt.

Als

o d

ie v

ers

chie

den

en

Dekoh

äre

nzm

od

ell

e.

Ken

ne i

ch m

ich

leid

er

zuw

en

ig a

us,

ab

er

es

wir

d e

in S

em

inar

geb

en

. U

nd

da b

in i

ch z

iem

lich

fro

h d

rüb

er,

dass

wir

das

mach

en

. D

en

n i

stn

och

ein

mal

ein

gan

z an

dere

r A

spekt

mit

dem

ich

halt

nie

in

Berü

hru

ng

gekom

men

bin

.

57

.

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

an

sic

h i

st a

uch

sp

an

nen

d.

Als

o,

man

kan

n s

ich

halt

im

mer

wie

der

Fra

gen

, w

ie i

nte

rpre

tiert

man

die

s n

un

; m

it u

nse

rer

kla

ssic

hen

Welt

.Ich

fin

de n

ur

ein

bis

sch

en

wir

d e

s zu

vie

l b

eto

nt.

Ich

fan

d e

s ein

bis

sch

en

so w

ie d

u e

sg

esc

hri

eb

en

hast

in

dein

er

Ein

leit

un

g,

dass

man

vie

lleic

ht

ein

bis

sch

en

üb

ers

trap

azi

ert

um

halt

irg

en

dw

ie d

as

Beso

nd

ere

im

mer

wie

der

hera

usz

ukeh

ren

58

.

Rein

hard

Das

ist

eb

en

die

Fra

ge o

b m

an

das

jetz

t n

ur.

..5

9.

Wit

lef

Ist

An

sich

tssa

che,

ist

ein

pers

ön

lich

er

Gesc

hm

ack

. Je

der

wü

rde d

a s

ich

er

etw

as

an

dere

s sa

gen

, ab

er

nic

hts

dest

otr

otz

ist

es

halt

wir

kli

ch e

ine P

rob

lem

. W

eil

man

halt

best

imm

te A

nn

ah

men

mach

t w

ie L

okali

tät,

Reali

smu

s u

nd

das

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik e

ine k

om

ple

tte T

heori

e i

st,

dan

n s

ieh

t m

an

zu

r Z

eit

ist

es

ein

fach

nic

ht

so u

nd

dan

n h

at

man

wir

kli

ch e

in P

rob

lem

. W

as

ich

halt

ein

bis

sch

en

Sch

ad

e fi

nd

e,

dass

es

vers

chie

den

e M

ein

un

gen

gib

t, d

as

ist

ja o

k,

gib

ts ja i

mm

er,

ab

er,

dass

dan

n m

it d

en

Leu

ten

nic

ht

meh

r d

isku

tiere

n k

an

n.

Es

gib

t h

alt

so

Sch

ule

n,

die

sin

d h

alt

so,

die

an

dere

n s

o u

nd

das

wars

. E

ine D

isku

ssio

n k

an

n m

an

dan

n v

erg

ess

en

. D

as

ist

halt

Sch

ad

e,

dan

n w

ird

halt

etw

as

au

fged

rück

t, i

st m

an

pass

iver

Zu

höre

r u

nd

es

ist

die

Fra

ge o

b m

an

da w

as

lern

t.

60

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

die

Fra

ge i

st v

on

wo s

ozu

sag

en

die

In

terp

reta

tion

herk

om

men

. F

ür

mic

hsc

hein

t es

von

der

Th

eori

e h

er

zu k

om

men

; d

ie s

teh

en

am

Sch

eid

ew

eg

. D

ie F

rag

eis

t w

ie d

ies

exp

eri

men

tell

rele

van

t is

t. W

en

n m

an

es

gan

z ru

nte

rbri

cht

au

f g

an

zein

fach

e A

rbeit

en

im

Lab

or

ist

ja d

as

all

es

irre

leva

nt.

61

.

Wit

lef

Völl

ig k

lar.

Da i

st e

s ers

tmal

Wu

rst.

Es

ist

halt

In

spir

ati

on

.6

2.

Rein

hard

Ja,

Ja.

Es

geh

t d

an

n e

her

in R

ich

tun

g d

er

Sach

en

, d

ie d

as

Exp

eri

men

t m

oti

viere

n.

Waru

m w

ill

ich

eig

en

tlic

h e

ine V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

mit

mass

ivere

n T

eil

en

?6

3.

Wit

lef

Ich

gla

ub

e d

as

ist

eb

en

, fi

nd

e i

ch,

zum

ers

ten

mal

wir

kli

ch f

ür

mic

h a

uch

ein

eri

chti

ge M

oti

vati

on

an

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

weit

erz

uarb

eit

en

, w

eil

man

sic

h h

alt

wir

kli

ch e

ine k

on

kre

te F

rag

est

ell

un

g s

tell

en

kan

n,

in d

em

Sin

ne,

welc

he R

oll

esp

ielt

Gra

vita

tion

. A

lso g

eh

ts b

ei

mass

iven

Ob

jekte

n o

der

kan

n m

an

wir

kli

ch s

oD

ekoh

äre

nzm

od

ell

e s

eh

en

. U

nd

das

fin

de i

ch w

ied

er

gu

t, w

eil

es

hat

für

mic

h w

as

kon

kre

tere

s als

zu

sag

en

....

Ich

mein

e,

dass

weiß

ich

jetz

t sc

hon

, d

ass

ist

halt

wie

mit

Lokali

tät

- R

eali

smu

s, d

as

geh

t h

alt

nic

h z

usa

mm

en

. A

ber

da g

ibts

halt

zu

r Z

eit

kein

e A

ntw

ort

dra

uf.

Da k

an

n m

an

die

Bell

Un

gle

ich

un

g z

eh

nta

use

nd

mal

verl

etz

en

. D

ie w

urd

e e

infa

ch v

erl

etz

t, d

as

reic

ht.

64

.

Rein

hard

Es

sch

ein

t so

, m

uss

t d

u s

ag

en

ob

du

au

ch s

o d

en

kst

, d

ass

du

von

der

Seit

e [

hie

r is

tT

heori

e g

em

ein

t] k

au

m e

ine A

ntw

ort

od

er

Neu

es

erw

art

en

kan

nst

. D

ie B

ell

Un

gle

ich

un

gen

sin

d t

heore

tisc

h a

ufg

est

ell

t, d

ie E

xperi

men

te d

azu

gib

ts u

nd

man

wir

d n

och

seh

r vi

ele

mach

en

kön

nen

, ab

er

im E

nd

eff

ekt.

..

65

.

Wit

lef

Man

bra

uch

t h

alt

irg

en

dw

ie e

ine n

eu

e T

heori

e,

die

ein

em

das

halt

erk

lärt

od

er

man

test

et

mal

in e

ine a

nd

ere

Ric

htu

ng

.6

6.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

selb

st s

o e

twas

wie

ein

e n

eu

e T

heori

e w

urd

e a

uch

wie

der

etw

as

exp

eri

mete

lles

viell

eic

ht

nach

sich

zieh

en

. S

o w

äre

es

so w

ie d

u s

chon

gesa

gt

hast

neb

en

bei

wie

der

ein

e n

eu

e M

ein

un

g o

der

Inte

rpre

tati

on

.

67

.

Wit

lef

Ich

mein

e e

s g

ibt

halt

vie

le V

erf

ein

eru

ng

en

zu

r B

ell

'sch

en

Un

gle

ich

un

g.

Eb

en

das

Leg

gett

-Mod

ell

[N

ob

elp

reis

träg

er

Sir

An

thon

y Ja

mes

Leg

gett

], d

ass

er

halt

an

nim

mt,

ein

en

Teil

Nic

ht-

Lokali

tät

rein

bri

ng

t, d

ass

das

wie

der

au

sgesc

hlo

ssen

werd

en

kan

n.

Das

ist

halt

fü

r m

ich

nu

r ein

kle

iner

neu

er

Asp

ekt.

Das

löst

fü

r m

ich

au

ch n

ich

t d

as

Pro

ble

m.

Od

er

das

man

halt

fra

gt

wie

viel

Lokali

tät

mu

ss s

o e

ine

Th

eori

e h

ab

en

un

d d

as

kan

n m

an

halt

fast

au

f N

ull

red

uzi

ere

n.

Ja,

ab

er

man

fra

gt

sich

wie

sch

nell

die

se I

nfo

rmati

on

hin

un

d h

er

flie

gt,

mit

wie

viel

Mal

Üb

erl

ich

tgesc

hw

ind

igkeit

. A

ber

mir

pers

ön

lich

gib

t d

ies

kein

e A

ntw

ort

. Is

t ab

er

halt

au

ch G

esc

hm

ack

ssach

e.

68

.

Rein

hard

117

Ja,

ab

er

imm

erh

in g

ibt

es

Grü

nd

e w

aru

m m

an

exp

eri

men

tell

vera

nla

gt

ist

od

er

waru

m m

an

in

exp

eri

men

tell

e S

ach

en

geh

t. D

a s

ieh

t m

an

halt

ein

en

Meh

rwert

im

Exp

eri

men

t. E

s g

ibt

ja e

inen

Gru

nd

waru

m m

an

als

Exp

eri

men

tato

r n

ich

tT

heore

tiker

gew

ord

en

ist

, w

eil

...

69

.

Wit

lef

Ab

er

ich

hab

e m

ich

das

noch

nie

gefr

ag

t u

m e

hrl

ich

zu

sein

. A

lso e

s m

ach

t sc

hon

Sp

ass

im

Lab

or

zu s

ein

un

d r

um

zusc

hra

ub

en

. U

nd

halt

sozu

sag

en

die

theore

tisc

hen

Sach

en

wir

kli

ch u

mzu

setz

en

, u

nd

da k

om

men

dan

n n

och

mal

an

dere

Fra

gen

au

f. W

en

n m

an

sow

as

wie

ein

e F

rom

el

hin

gesc

hri

eb

en

hat,

ein

e G

leic

hu

ng

od

er

hie

r w

ie e

ine P

uls

seq

uen

z, w

ie i

mp

lem

en

tiere

ich

das?

Ja,

ich

kan

n m

ir a

ber

au

ch v

ors

tell

en

sch

on

th

eore

tisc

h z

u A

rbeit

en

. Ic

h w

eiß

nic

ht

inw

iew

eit

ich

das

Lab

or

verm

isse

n w

ürd

e.

Ich

wü

rde e

s sc

hon

verm

isse

n, ab

er

ob

es

sow

eit

geh

t,d

ass

ich

nic

ht

theore

tisc

h a

rbeit

en

kön

nte

? Ic

h h

ab

e h

alt

ein

fach

nic

ht

die

Au

sbil

du

ng

.

70

.

Rein

hard

Ich

tu

e m

ich

im

mer

sch

wer

mit

die

ser

Tre

nn

un

g,

weil

fü

r d

ie g

an

zen

Exp

eri

men

teb

rau

chts

du

so u

nd

so e

inen

zie

mli

chen

Teil

von

Th

eori

e.

Die

gan

zen

kon

tin

uie

rlic

hen

Vari

bale

n V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

[th

eore

tisc

he V

ora

uss

etz

un

g f

ür

das

ind

er

Dip

lom

arb

eit

beh

an

delt

e o

pto

-mech

. E

xperi

men

t] u

nd

so w

eit

er.

Es

ist

ja n

ich

tso

leic

ht,

den

n e

s is

t ein

zie

mli

cher

Blo

ck d

er

vora

us[

gese

tzt

ist]

.

71

.

Wit

lef

Od

er

den

Ham

ilto

nia

n u

m d

en

Osz

illa

tor

zu b

esc

hre

iben

, D

ekoh

äre

nzm

od

ell

e u

nd

so w

eit

er.

Das

ist

all

es

Th

eori

e.

72

.

Rein

hard

Es

ist

ja n

ich

t so

, d

ass

es

vora

uss

etz

un

glo

s w

äre

. A

lso,

dass

du

nu

r in

s L

ab

or

geh

stu

nd

da h

eru

md

reh

st.

Ab

er

das

ist

für

mic

h d

as

Inte

ress

an

te,

inw

iew

eit

die

Fra

gen

üb

erh

au

pt

dan

n n

och

rele

van

t si

nd

.

73

.

Wit

lef

Als

o,

wen

n i

ch jetz

t kon

kre

t u

nte

n s

teh

e u

nd

irg

en

detw

as

op

tim

iere

, d

an

n i

st d

as

natü

rlic

h ü

berh

au

pt

nic

ht

rele

van

t. D

a i

st e

s m

ir v

öll

ig e

gal.

Ab

er

es

ist

halt

wir

kli

ch d

ie M

oti

vati

on

. W

en

n i

ch m

ich

da u

m jed

es

Pro

zen

t A

OM

[A

ku

stoop

tisc

her

Mod

ula

tor]

Effi

zien

z d

a h

infr

iem

el,

dan

n s

ag

e i

ch m

ir o

k,

dass

mu

ss i

ch jetz

tm

ach

en

. D

as

kost

et

jetz

t vi

ell

eic

ht

ein

en

Tag

, d

am

it d

an

n u

nse

r E

xperi

men

t d

an

nvi

ell

eic

ht

in e

inem

Mon

at

rich

tig

gu

t fu

nkti

on

iert

, w

eil

ich

mic

h d

an

n e

infa

chd

ara

uf

verl

ass

en

kan

n.

Un

d w

en

n d

as

Exp

eri

men

t fu

nkti

on

iert

kan

n i

ch d

as

un

dd

as

mach

en

un

d v

iell

eic

ht

die

Fra

ge b

ean

twort

en

. E

s is

t ein

fach

wir

kli

chM

oti

vati

on

un

d w

as

ein

en

eig

en

tlic

h i

nte

ress

iert

. A

lso m

ich

in

tere

ssie

rt n

ich

t, d

ass

die

AO

M E

ffizi

en

z 4

6 o

der

47

Pro

zen

t err

eic

ht.

Es

ist

halt

bess

er

wen

n e

s 4

7P

roze

nt

sin

d.

74

.

Rein

hard

Das

sin

d d

ie E

rford

ern

isse

.7

5.

Wit

lef

Als

o k

on

kre

t, w

en

n i

ch d

a u

nte

n ü

ber

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

nach

den

ken

wü

rde o

der

üb

er

Dekoh

äre

nzm

od

ell

e o

der

mir

ein

e L

ösu

ng

üb

erl

eg

en

wü

rde,

kön

nte

ich

nic

ht

just

iere

n.

Als

o i

ch n

ich

t. I

ch g

lau

be e

s w

äre

au

ch e

twas

trau

rig

, od

er?

Wen

n m

an

sich

da u

nte

n [

das

Lab

or

ist

im K

ell

er]

ein

fach

hin

stell

t, r

um

just

iert

, ru

mm

ach

tu

nd

jetz

t n

ich

t w

eiß

wofü

r od

er

waru

m.

Man

hätt

e jetz

t n

ich

t ein

Zie

l. D

a k

an

nst

du

jed

en

da u

nte

n h

inst

ell

en

. E

s w

äre

völl

ig W

urs

t. E

s is

t ja

nu

r ein

fach

Han

dw

erk

szeu

g w

as

man

halt

lern

en

mu

ss.

76

.

Rein

hard

Als

o f

ür

mic

h d

as

Sp

an

nen

de a

m E

xperi

men

tiere

n i

st,

dass

du

die

Pall

ett

e v

on

theore

tisc

hen

Notw

en

dig

keit

en

un

d..

.7

7.

Wit

lef

Das

gib

ts b

ei

Th

eore

tikern

au

ch.

Mark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] m

ein

t es

gib

t zw

ei

Sort

en

von

Th

eore

tikern

. D

ie E

inen

die

ein

en

Ham

ilto

nia

n [

Ham

ilto

nop

era

tor

: Z

eit

- u

nd

En

erg

ieen

twic

klu

ng

ein

es

Sys

tem

s] h

insc

hre

iben

, n

ich

t d

arü

ber

nach

den

ken

. U

nd

die

An

dere

n d

ie h

alt

darü

ber

nach

den

ken

. W

en

n m

al

halt

nic

ht

darü

ber

nach

den

kt,

ist

es

das

gla

ub

e i

ch n

ich

t. D

u s

chre

ibst

es

hin

un

d ü

berl

eg

st d

ir w

as

bed

eu

tet

das

jetz

t. A

lso e

ben

so w

ie V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

, w

en

n i

ch h

ier

ein

en

nic

ht

sep

era

ble

nZ

ust

an

d h

insc

hre

ibe [

all

g.

Defi

nit

ion

von

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

], a

ber

was

heiß

t d

as

jetz

t,au

f w

as

refe

ren

ziert

es.

Un

d d

as

mach

t h

alt

au

ch e

inen

gu

ten

Th

eore

tiker

au

s u

nd

wah

rsch

ein

lich

ist

es

bei

ein

em

gu

ten

Exp

eri

men

tato

r g

en

au

das

Gle

ich

e.

Wen

n e

rd

a d

rin

ste

ht

un

d h

eru

mju

stie

rt,

üb

erl

eg

t er

sich

wie

kan

n i

ch d

as

verb

ess

ern

od

er

wen

n d

as

ist

was

kan

n i

ch d

am

it m

ach

en

od

er

erg

ibt

das

was

neu

es.

78

.

Rein

hard

Im E

nd

eff

ekt

seh

e i

ch d

as

als

Vora

uss

etz

un

g f

ür

die

Ph

ysik

, w

eil

fast

bei

jed

em

math

em

ati

sch

en

An

sch

reib

en

od

er

so w

as,

du

irg

en

dw

an

n z

u e

inem

Pu

nkt

kom

men

mu

sst,

wo d

u d

an

n n

ach

Bed

eu

tun

g,

od

er

was

es

nu

n w

irkli

ch h

eiß

en

soll

frag

en

mu

sst.

Das

mu

ss m

an

nic

ht

heru

nte

rbre

chen

bis

zu

ein

em

Exp

eri

men

t.A

ber

die

Fra

ge i

st w

as

der

Ham

ilto

nia

n n

un

jetz

t w

irkli

ch m

ein

en

soll

.

79

.

En

twic

klu

ng

Rein

hard

Die

Fra

ge i

st a

uch

wie

die

Gesc

hic

hte

weit

erg

eh

t. A

lso e

s sc

hein

t kla

r zu

sein

wie

die

En

twic

klu

ng

in

[d

iese

m B

ere

ich

, op

t-m

ech

. S

yste

me]

weit

erg

eh

t?8

0.

Wit

lef

Als

o i

ch k

an

n jetz

t ers

tmal

kon

kre

t b

ei

un

s b

leib

en

. Ic

h h

off

e d

as

wir

es

ers

tmal

sch

aff

en

die

Mech

an

ik m

it L

ich

t zu

vers

chrä

nken

. A

lso i

ch d

en

ke d

as

geh

td

efi

nit

iv.

Es

wir

d h

alt

wah

rsch

ein

lich

kn

ap

p s

ein

, ein

fach

au

s te

chn

isch

en

Grü

nd

en

. U

nd

dan

n h

off

e i

ch,

dass

bei

Nik

ola

i's

[Kie

sel]

Exp

eri

men

t m

it d

en

Nan

o-S

ph

äh

ren

, d

ass

die

halt

weit

erk

om

men

als

wir

. D

ass

die

halt

sch

aff

en

so e

ine

Nan

osp

häre

in

ein

e S

up

erp

osi

tion

von

zw

ei

Ort

en

zu

bri

ng

en

un

d d

an

n w

irkli

ch s

oein

e A

rt D

op

pels

palt

exp

eri

men

t zu

mach

en

. U

nd

dan

n w

ird

es,

gla

ub

e i

ch,

ein

fach

sch

wie

rig

in

die

se R

eg

imes

zu k

om

men

, w

o m

an

halt

gen

au

solc

he

Dekoh

äre

nzm

od

ell

e t

est

en

kan

n.

Inw

iew

eit

eb

en

Gra

vita

tion

au

f S

up

erp

osi

tion

en

od

er

so e

ine K

oh

äre

nz

zwis

chen

den

vers

chie

den

en

Zu

stän

den

ein

wir

kt.

Es

ist

tota

l sc

hw

er

zu s

ag

en

. Z

ur

Zeit

kan

n m

an

es

verg

ess

en

. D

as

hat

der

Rain

er

[Kalt

en

baek]

au

sgere

chn

et.

D.h

. er

hat

sich

ein

Exp

eri

men

t ü

berl

eg

t w

as

man

im

Welt

rau

m m

ach

en

kan

n,

weil

da h

alt

das

Vaku

um

bess

er

ist,

weil

es

bess

er

isoli

ert

ist.

Un

d d

a k

om

men

Zah

len

rau

s d

ie g

eh

en

heu

tzu

tag

e n

och

nic

ht.

Un

d d

as

ist

halt

sch

ad

e,

ab

er

es

heiß

t ja

nic

ht

das

es

üb

erh

au

pt

nic

ht

geh

t.

81

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

es

gib

t zu

min

dest

die

Ric

htu

ng

vor.

82

.W

itle

fW

en

n m

an

sic

h e

ben

mit

die

sen

Sach

en

besc

häft

igt,

zu

m B

eis

pie

l m

it s

o e

iner

exp

eri

men

tell

en

Fra

gest

ell

un

g w

ie i

ch d

as

um

setz

en

kan

n,

un

d d

an

n g

eh

ts h

alt

ein

mal

nic

ht.

Dan

n k

rieg

t m

an

ab

er

ein

e a

nd

ere

Id

ee w

as

man

vie

lleic

ht

an

ders

test

en

kan

n o

der

ob

es

an

dere

s E

xperi

men

t g

ibt

in d

ie R

ich

tun

g.

Un

d i

ch d

en

ke

sch

on

, d

ass

man

irg

en

dw

ie i

n s

o e

inen

Bere

ich

kom

mt,

vie

lleic

ht

in d

en

näch

sten

zeh

n J

ah

ren

, w

o m

an

es

halt

wir

kli

ch s

chaff

t so

lch

e M

od

ell

e z

u t

est

en

. A

lso d

as

wäre

gla

ub

e i

ch w

irkli

ch e

in Z

iel.

Ich

mein

e d

as

träg

t je

tzt

au

ch n

ich

t zu

m..

. Ic

hm

ein

e V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

wir

d m

an

nie

vers

teh

en

kön

nen

, w

ürd

e i

ch m

al

sag

en

. W

ied

u s

chre

ibst

, w

en

n m

an

dam

it a

ufw

äch

st, m

it L

okali

tät

un

d R

eali

smu

s. E

in B

ab

yso

erz

ieh

t, d

ass

halt

all

es

imm

er

da i

st a

uch

wen

n i

ch n

ich

t h

ing

uck

e u

nd

ja w

en

nic

h h

alt

hie

r w

as

tun

kan

n,

dass

dort

nic

ht

sofo

rt b

eein

flu

sst

wir

d,

natü

rlic

h d

an

n

83

.


118

kan

n m

an

das

nic

ht

vers

teh

en

; n

ie.

Es

ist

halt

au

ch s

o,

wen

n m

an

irg

en

dw

an

nd

urc

h e

in S

TM

[R

ast

ert

un

nelm

ikro

skop

, sc

an

nin

g t

un

neli

ng

mic

rosc

op

e]

du

rch

sch

au

t od

er

ein

e O

berfl

äch

e a

tom

au

flöst

, d

as

kan

n m

an

au

ch n

ich

tvo

rste

llen

. D

as

sieh

t m

an

halt

un

d g

lau

bt,

dass

das

so a

uss

ieh

t.R

ein

hard

Ja,

ab

er

das

Pro

ble

m i

st.

Man

sie

ht

gera

de d

iese

Ku

gerl

n o

der

Halb

ku

geln

un

dm

an

kom

mt

nie

um

hin

die

als

eb

en

solc

he K

ug

erl

n [

soli

de S

ph

äre

n]

zu s

eh

en

.S

chau

t m

an

sic

h a

n w

ie d

iese

ST

M u

nd

die

an

dere

n S

ach

en

fu

nkti

on

iere

n,

so s

ind

es

in d

em

Sin

n n

ur

En

erg

ieau

fzeic

hn

un

gen

[M

ess

un

gen

von

En

erg

ie e

ines

best

.S

chw

ell

en

wert

es]

.

84

.

Wit

lef

Ab

er,

da w

ürd

e i

ch a

ntw

ort

en

. O

k,

das

sch

aff

t m

an

sic

herl

ich

au

ch,

in f

ün

f b

is z

eh

nJa

hre

n,

dass

man

ein

e V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

qu

ell

e b

au

t, d

ie a

us

meh

rere

n P

hoto

nen

best

eh

t, d

ass

man

halt

wir

kli

ch m

it s

ein

en

eig

en

en

Au

gen

die

Mess

un

g m

ach

t. D

as

man

sic

h,

was

weiß

ich

, Pola

risa

tion

sfilt

er

davo

r m

ach

t. H

ier

ein

Kli

ck,

da e

inK

lick

, kli

ck k

lick

kli

ck.

Das

man

es

halt

mit

sic

h s

elb

st m

ach

t so

ein

Exp

eri

men

t.U

nd

dan

n e

ine S

tric

hli

ste u

nd

sie

ht

[die

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

].

85

.

Rein

hard

Die

se V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

sexp

eri

men

te d

ie e

s g

ibt,

die

es

au

ch i

n d

er

Au

sbil

du

ng

usw

.g

ibt,

die

hab

en

sch

on

ein

e e

rsch

reck

en

de E

infa

chh

eit

un

d,

für

mic

h z

um

ind

est

,[Ü

berz

eu

gu

ng

skra

ft].

Es

ist

halt

im

mer

nu

r d

iese

r Ü

berg

an

g s

chw

er

zub

eg

rün

den

, b

zw.

sch

wer

zu b

eh

au

pte

n,

weil

er

geg

en

etw

as

spri

cht

was

man

imm

er

an

nim

mt.

[N

äm

lich

], d

ass

es

mit

lokalr

eali

stis

chen

Sach

en

eb

en

nic

ht

geh

t.A

lso,

dass

die

Korr

ela

tion

un

d V

ers

chän

ku

ng

da i

st,

das

kan

n m

an

eig

en

tlic

hzi

em

lich

üb

erz

eu

gen

d d

ars

tell

en

. A

ber,

dass

es

dam

it n

ich

t erk

lärb

ar

ist.

Un

d d

ais

t fü

r m

ich

im

mer

au

ch d

er

Sp

run

g w

o m

an

sic

h h

alt

im

mer

selb

st d

azu

bri

ng

en

mu

ss.

Das

man

sag

t ok,

ich

bin

jetz

t ü

erz

eu

gt

word

en

von

Bell

usw

., d

ass

es

lokalr

eali

stis

ch n

ich

t lä

uft

un

d a

ls r

ati

on

all

es

Kon

stru

kt,

od

er

wie

im

mer

man

sag

en

wil

l, s

eh

e d

avo

n a

b f

ür

all

e m

ein

e w

eit

ere

n D

ing

e d

ie i

ch i

n d

em

Bere

ich

mach

e,

d.h

. fü

r d

ie g

an

zen

Exp

eri

men

te u

sw.

Es

ist

ab

er

die

Fra

ge w

ie w

eit

das

"natü

rlic

h"

sein

kan

n,

od

er

selb

stve

rstä

nd

lich

.

86

.

Wit

lef

Ab

er,

das

weiß

t d

u w

ah

rsch

ein

lich

vie

l b

ess

er

was

man

natü

rlic

h u

nd

selb

stve

rstä

nd

lich

heiß

t. I

st d

as

nic

ht

ein

e F

rag

e d

er

Erz

ieh

un

g,

als

o e

ine F

rag

ed

er

Au

sbil

du

ng

. O

der

ein

e F

rag

e,

dass

es

gar

nic

ht

geh

t, w

eil

man

au

fwäch

st m

itg

reif

en

, an

fass

en

un

d s

o?

87

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

du

bis

t ja

jetz

t lä

ng

er

in d

em

Feld

wie

ich

au

f je

den

Fall

. E

s g

ibt

sch

on

ein

eg

ew

isse

Selb

stve

rstä

nd

lich

keit

im

Um

gan

g m

it d

en

Din

gen

.8

8.

Wit

lef

Ja k

lar

mit

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

, D

efi

nit

ion

en

un

d s

o.

Ein

e E

rklä

run

g h

ab

e i

ch t

rotz

dem

nic

ht.

Ich

kan

ns

au

ch n

ur

so e

rklä

ren

, d

ass

lokale

r R

eali

smu

s ein

fach

nic

ht

dam

itein

herg

eh

t.

89

.

Rein

hard

Die

se P

rob

lem

ati

k s

chie

bt

sich

dan

n e

twas

rau

s, w

eil

im

täg

lich

en

Gesc

häft

...

Od

er

wü

rdest

du

das

nic

ht.

..?

90

.

Wit

lef

Als

o i

m t

äg

lich

en

Gesc

häft

bra

uch

e i

ch e

s h

alt

nic

ht,

ab

er

die

Pro

ble

mati

k i

st ja

trotz

dem

da.

Die

geh

t n

ich

t ve

rlore

n.

Die

ist

da.

D.h

. je

tzt

nic

ht

das

ich

au

fhöre

nw

ürd

e z

u a

rbeit

en

, w

eil

ich

das

ers

tmal

löse

n w

ill.

Son

dern

sie

ist

ein

fach

da u

nd

un

gelö

st.

Wie

gesa

gt,

es

geh

t n

ur

du

rch

ein

e n

eu

e T

heori

e,

das

irg

en

dw

ieau

fzu

löse

n.[

Pau

se]

Wen

n e

s au

flösb

ar

ist.

Wen

n m

an

es

nic

ht

ein

fach

akze

pti

ere

nm

uss

.

91

.

Rein

hard

Ja d

as

ist

die

Fra

ge.

Es

gib

t g

en

ug

Leu

te,

au

ch P

hys

iker

usw

., d

ie [

Letz

tere

sm

ein

en

]. D

ie s

tell

en

au

ch d

ie F

rag

e w

ie r

ele

van

t d

an

n a

uch

solc

he D

isku

ssio

nen

sin

d.

Das

wil

l ic

h s

ow

ieso

nu

r an

stoss

en

.

92

.

Wit

lef

Es

ist

ein

bis

sch

en

sch

wie

rig

, w

eil

es

halt

ein

Th

em

a i

st,

dass

seit

jü

nfz

ig J

ah

ren

,se

it B

ell

, in

best

imm

ten

Kre

isen

dis

ku

tiert

wir

d.

Seit

zw

an

zig

Jah

ren

ist

es

wah

rsch

ein

lich

so,

da i

st a

m B

est

en

den

An

ton

[Z

eil

ing

er]

mal

zu f

rag

en

od

er

den

Mark

us

[Asp

elm

eye

r] d

er

weiß

das

sich

erl

ich

au

ch,

dass

es

au

ch w

en

n m

an

sic

hd

arü

ber

un

terh

ält

nic

ht

der

Tod

sein

er

Karr

iere

ist

. W

eil

es

nic

ht

etw

as

ist,

was

eso

teri

sch

ist

. E

s w

ird

ja a

ls P

rob

lem

erk

an

nt

un

d a

uch

als

wic

hti

g.

Un

d s

eit

zeh

nJa

hre

n,

viell

eic

ht

ein

bis

sch

en

meh

r, i

st d

urc

h d

ie Q

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

ein

völl

igan

dere

r A

spekt

noch

mal

dazu

gekom

men

. D

as

nic

ht

nu

r eso

teri

sch

ist

od

er

halt

nu

rein

Pro

ble

m d

er

Ph

ysik

, so

nd

ern

, d

ass

man

dam

it a

uch

etw

as

mach

en

kan

n.

Un

dw

ah

rsch

ein

lich

hat

es

dem

, se

it m

an

mit

der

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

was

mach

en

kan

n,

au

ch w

ah

nsi

nn

ig g

eh

olf

en

. D

ass

man

au

ch n

ich

t n

ur

jetz

t d

am

it w

as

mach

en

kan

n,

son

dern

au

ch m

al

wie

der

frag

en

vers

teh

e i

ch v

iell

eic

ht

ein

e E

rklä

run

g o

der

fin

de

ein

en

an

dere

n Z

ug

an

g.

93

.

Rein

hard

Die

Mög

lich

keit

en

, exp

eri

men

tell

, h

ab

en

sic

h s

eh

r g

ew

eit

et.

Da i

st e

s kla

r d

as

au

ch d

ie F

rag

e w

ied

er

aku

t w

erd

en

kan

n.

94

.

Wit

lef

Es

ist

halt

ein

fach

ein

un

gelö

stes

Pro

ble

m,

für

mic

h.

Man

weiß

sozu

sag

en

, d

ass

lokale

r R

eali

smu

s u

nd

voll

stän

dig

e Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ik g

eh

t n

ich

t m

itVers

chrä

nku

ng

ein

her.

Un

d e

s g

ibt

kein

e L

ösu

ng

smög

lich

keit

en

. W

as

halt

span

nen

d w

äre

irg

en

dw

ie m

al,

...

ok l

etz

ten

dli

ch s

ind

es

halt

solc

he

Un

gle

ich

un

gen

. D

ass

man

sic

h ü

berl

eg

t, d

as

un

d d

as

au

fgeb

e,

da g

ibt

es

gan

zeB

üch

er

dazu

, g

ibt

es

ein

e e

xperi

men

tell

e K

on

seq

uen

z d

ara

us

die

ich

halt

üb

erp

rüfe

n k

an

n.

Ab

er

wah

rsch

ein

lich

sin

d e

s d

ie g

an

zen

Un

gle

ich

un

gen

die

da

rum

geis

tern

. E

s w

är

mal

span

ned

irg

en

dw

ie w

as

an

dere

s zu

hab

en

als

ein

eU

ng

leic

hu

ng

im

mer

zu m

ess

en

. D

ass

man

mal

ein

e p

hys

ikali

sch

e K

on

seq

uen

z h

at.

Wen

n i

ch h

alt

Lokali

tät,

...

Das

Pro

ble

m i

st ja a

uch

, es

wäre

ja n

ich

t so

ein

eL

okali

tät

die

man

au

fgib

t, d

ass

man

au

f ein

mal

mit

Üb

erl

ich

tgesc

hw

ind

igkeit

Sig

nale

üb

ert

rag

en

kan

n.

95

.

Rein

hard

Die

s W

ürd

e d

an

n w

ied

er

ein

e L

okali

tät,

od

er

Beg

riff

bed

eu

ten

, d

er.

..9

6.

Wit

lef

Kau

sali

tät

in d

em

Sin

ne m

uss

man

nic

ht

au

fgeb

en

. S

ag

en

wir

es

mal,

dass

man

irg

en

dw

ie n

och

was

an

dere

s...

ein

en

ph

ysik

ali

sch

en

Eff

ekt

den

man

test

en

kan

n.

Ab

er

da k

en

ne i

ch m

ich

au

ch z

u s

chle

cht

au

s.

97

.

Was

ich

vorh

er

noch

sag

en

woll

te,

weil

du

gem

ein

t h

ast

von

weg

en

sp

an

ned

. W

as

au

ch n

och

tota

l sp

an

nen

d fi

nd

e,

was

au

ch b

ei

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

im

pli

zit

dri

n i

st,

ab

er

jetz

t n

ich

t u

nb

ed

ing

t so

herv

ort

ritt

. A

lso s

ag

en

wir

es

wir

d n

ich

t th

em

ati

siert

, d

ass

ein

fach

wen

n e

in F

est

körp

er,

zu

m B

eis

pie

l in

jü

ng

ster

Zeit

irg

en

dw

ie a

lles

irg

en

dw

ie v

ers

chrä

nkt.

Eb

en

gera

de d

ie E

xperi

men

te m

it o

pti

sch

en

Git

tern

, w

od

ie A

tom

e s

o e

inze

ln p

lazi

ert

sin

d.

Die

hab

en

es

gesc

haff

t ein

zele

ne A

tom

e z

uad

dre

ssie

ren

un

d d

ass

man

dam

it h

alt

Fest

körp

ers

yste

me m

ög

lich

st s

imu

liere

nkan

n.

Un

d v

iell

eic

ht

es

au

ch s

chaff

t d

ie S

up

rale

itu

ng

, H

och

tem

pera

tur-

Su

pra

leit

un

g,

zu e

rklä

ren

. O

der

ein

fach

irg

en

dw

elc

he P

hän

om

en

e,

die

man

im

Fest

körp

er

dre

ckig

hin

kri

eg

t, h

alt

wah

nsi

nn

ing

sau

ber

hin

zukri

eg

en

. D

as

fin

d i

chto

tal

span

nen

d.

Da i

st V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

im

pli

zit

ein

fach

da.

Es

wir

d e

ben

in

dem

Sin

ne n

ich

t p

hil

oso

ph

isch

th

em

ati

siert

, so

nd

ern

es

wir

d e

infa

ch a

usg

en

utz

t,u

nte

rsu

cht.

98

.

119

Rein

hard

Ab

er

das

wäre

dan

n s

ozu

sag

en

der

Üb

erg

an

g d

an

n v

on

der

qu

an

ten

mech

an

isch

en

Seit

e z

u e

iner

kla

ssic

hen

Sach

e,

od

er

zu g

röß

ere

n S

yste

men

. W

en

n d

u s

ag

stS

up

rale

itu

ng

od

er

grö

ßere

Fest

körp

er,

...

99

.

Wit

lef

Ja k

lar.

Letz

ten

dli

ch i

st S

up

rale

itu

ng

au

ch e

in m

akro

skop

isch

er

Qu

an

ten

eff

ekt.

Wo

du

halt

au

ch e

ine W

ell

en

fun

kti

on

hin

sch

reib

st d

ie v

ers

chrä

nkt

ist.

Als

o w

ill

ein

fach

nu

r sa

gen

, V

ielt

eil

chen

eff

ekte

sin

d a

uch

wah

nsi

nn

ig s

pan

nen

d.

10

0.

Rein

hard

Weil

du

dan

n d

iese

n Ü

berg

an

g b

ess

er,

der

sch

ein

t ir

gen

dw

ie t

heore

tisc

h n

ur

post

uli

ert

zu

sein

, [v

ers

teh

en

wir

st k

ön

nen

]. D

as

die

s vo

rhan

den

ist

kan

n m

an

irg

en

wie

mach

en

...

10

1.

(no s

peaker)

[ku

rze U

nte

rbre

chu

ng

du

rch

Koll

eg

en

]1

02

.

Off

en

e F

rag

en

?

Rein

hard

Im E

nd

eff

ekt

wäre

es

das

[gew

ese

n].

Die

Fra

ge i

st o

b d

u n

och

Fra

gen

hätt

est

,w

en

n d

u s

chon

vorb

ere

itet

bis

t [d

.h.

mein

Exp

ose

gele

sen

hast

]? [

Dan

ksa

gu

ng

un

dku

rzes

pers

ön

lich

es

Gesp

räch

.]

10

3.


120

Jon

as_

110622

Inte

rvie

w m

it J

on

as

Hörs

ch v

om

22

.06

.20

11

Tra

nsc

rib

ed

by

yott

a,

vers

ion

2 o

f 1

10

63

0

An

fan

g,

pers

ön

lich

e D

ate

n,

Au

sbil

du

ng

(no s

peaker)

[in

tro s

mall

talk

]1

.R

ein

hard

Am

An

fan

g w

ill

ich

eig

en

tlic

h n

ur

all

gm

ein

es

wis

sen

. W

ie a

lt b

ist

du

?2

.Jo

nas Ic

h b

in 2

5.

Ja,

gen

au

. M

uss

te e

s ab

er

nach

rech

nen

.3

.R

ein

hard

Das

mü

ssen

zie

mli

ch v

iele

Leu

te.

4.

Jon

as Ic

h m

erk

e m

ir h

alt

85

. G

en

au

.5

.R

ein

hard

Kan

nst

du

mir

sag

en

, u

ng

efä

hr

dein

e A

usb

ild

un

g,

jetz

t st

ud

en

tisc

h?

6.

Jon

as G

en

au

, ic

h b

in n

och

Stu

den

t. I

ch h

ab

e jetz

t...

An

sic

h h

ab

e i

ch n

ur

Ph

ysik

eb

en

in

Deu

tsch

lan

d s

tud

iert

. B

in jetz

t ir

gen

dw

ie b

ei

der

Dip

lom

arb

eit

sph

ase

.7

.

Rein

hard

Un

d w

o?

8.

Jon

as In

Pots

dam

. U

nd

sch

reib

jetz

t eig

en

tlic

h i

n P

ots

dam

mein

e D

iplo

marb

eit

un

d d

as

ist

ab

er

so e

ine K

oll

ab

ora

tion

zw

isch

en

Jen

s E

isert

[h

ttp

://w

ww

.jen

se.q

ipc.

org

/Main

Pag

e.h

tml]

un

d h

ier

Mark

us

Asp

elm

eye

r. U

nd

dan

n s

oll

ich

zw

isch

en

den

Beid

en

ein

bis

sch

en

sp

rin

gen

. Je

tzt

bin

ich

halt

die

ers

te H

älf

te,

hab

e i

ch jetz

tg

esa

gt,

bin

ich

grö

ßte

nte

ils

hie

r. W

eil

wir

hie

r n

och

das

Teil

bau

en

mü

ssen

, w

as

wir

dan

n i

rgew

an

n f

rüh

er

od

er

späte

r au

ch n

och

mach

en

.

9.

Rein

hard

Ah

ok.

Un

d d

u h

ast

dan

n e

igen

tlic

h n

ur

norm

ale

Sta

nd

ard

-Ph

ysik

au

sbil

du

ng

gem

ach

t?1

0.

Jon

as Ja

, g

en

au

. H

ab

nu

r ein

Dip

lom

Ph

ysik

gem

ach

t.1

1.

Rein

hard

Un

d d

ein

e D

iplo

marb

eit

ist

üb

er.

..?

12

.

Dip

lom

arb

eit

Jon

as M

ein

e D

iplo

marb

eit

ist

...

Das

blö

de i

st,

wir

hab

en

noch

kein

en

Nam

en

, d

esw

eg

en

kan

n i

ch d

as

nic

ht

irg

en

dw

ie k

urz

ben

en

nen

. A

ber

an

sic

h s

ind

es

irg

en

dw

ie s

o...

Ich

weiß

nic

ht

ob

dir

ein

e C

avi

ty i

rgen

dw

as

sag

t.

13

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

ja.

14

.Jo

nas Zw

ei

Mic

ro-C

avi

ties

die

mit

ein

er

mech

an

isch

en

Brü

cke m

itein

an

der

gekop

pelt

15

.

sin

d.

Man

kan

n b

eid

e C

avi

ties

mit

Lase

r an

spre

chen

, so

dass

dan

n w

en

n m

an

pra

kti

sch

die

Ein

e d

an

n a

nre

gt,

dan

n w

ird

sic

h ü

ber

die

se m

ech

an

isch

e K

op

plu

ng

,w

ird

sic

h d

as

eb

en

au

ch a

uf

den

An

dere

n a

usü

ben

. U

nd

wir

woll

en

jetz

t sc

hau

en

was

wir

dam

it m

ach

en

kön

nen

. B

zw.

was

man

da m

ach

en

kan

n w

en

n m

an

dre

ißig

solc

her

Teil

e h

inte

rein

an

der

hat,

ob

man

da i

rgen

welc

he T

ran

sport

eff

ekte

sie

ht.

Ich

mach

e d

en

th

eore

tisc

hen

Part

dazu

, u

nd

dan

n s

oll

dass

woh

l G

arr

ett

[C

ole

] so

bau

en

un

d ü

berp

rüfe

n,

was

dab

ei

rau

skom

mt.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

ein

Teil

ist

eh

er

der

theore

tisc

he..

.1

6.

Jon

as G

en

au

. Ic

h s

oll

s m

al

du

rch

rech

nen

.1

7.

Rein

hard

D.h

. au

ch s

imu

liere

n d

as

Teil

? O

der

ist

das

nu

r...

?1

8.

Jon

as A

lso w

ir h

ab

en

ein

bis

sch

en

was.

.. W

ir h

ab

en

die

mech

an

isch

en

Eig

en

sch

aft

en

von

so e

inem

Din

gen

.. h

ab

en

wir

sim

uli

ert

. A

ber

mit

ein

er

Sta

nd

ard

soft

ware

. D

as

sin

dd

iese

Fin

ite-E

lem

en

t-S

olv

er,

heiß

en

die

. G

en

au

, d

a h

ab

en

wir

das.

.. D

a h

ab

en

wir

die

Str

uktu

r eb

en

erz

eu

gt

un

d h

ab

en

dan

n g

esc

hau

t, w

as

rech

net

er

un

s d

en

n f

ür

Eig

en

wert

e a

us.

Das

war

was

wir

gem

ach

t h

ab

en

, ab

er

son

st s

imu

liere

n..

. K

ein

eA

hn

un

g,

ich

werd

e a

b u

nd

an

ein

e D

iffere

nti

alg

leic

hu

ng

irg

en

dw

ie n

um

eri

sch

halb

weg

s lö

sen

mü

ssen

. D

a i

st n

och

nic

ht

viel

pass

iert

.

19

.

Rein

hard

Ok.

Wo b

ist

du

da u

ng

efä

hr

jetz

t?2

0.

Jon

as Ic

h h

ab

gera

de e

rst

an

gefa

ng

en

. Vor

ein

ein

halb

Mon

ate

n o

der

zwei

Mon

ate

n.

Ich

bin

noch

in

sow

as

wie

der

Ein

lese

ph

ase

un

d h

ab

sch

on

das

ein

e o

der

an

dere

sch

on

mal

vorg

em

ach

t. A

ber

eig

en

tlic

h s

am

mle

ich

im

mer

noch

. E

igen

tlic

h h

ab

ich

bis

her

blo

ß s

tud

iert

.

21

.

Rein

hard

Au

fwen

dig

gen

ug

. D

.h.

un

gefä

hre

r Z

eit

pla

n,

wie

das

lau

fen

soll

?2

2.

Jon

as N

äch

sten

Ap

ril,

näch

sten

Mai

wü

rde i

ch g

ern

e a

bg

eb

en

.2

3.

Rein

hard

D.h

. so

ein

Jah

r g

ep

lan

t.2

4.

Jon

as G

en

au

, ein

Jah

r in

sgesa

mt

ist

gep

lan

t.2

5.

Rein

hard

Un

d h

alt

au

fgete

ilt,

wie

du

gesa

gt

hast

, ein

Teil

hie

r, e

in T

eil

in

...?

26

.Jo

nas Ja

. A

ber

es

ist

üb

erh

au

pt

nic

ht

fest

gesc

hri

eb

en

was

wo i

st.

Irg

en

dw

ie w

ar

mein

Pro

fess

or

in P

ots

dam

dan

n i

rgen

dw

an

n,

als

mit

sein

er

[???

?],

bin

jetz

t n

ach

Wie

nu

mg

ezo

gen

wie

gep

lan

t w

ar,

mein

te e

r: A

ha,

ich

hab

das

nic

ht

so g

ep

lan

t. W

irh

ab

en

das

eig

en

tlic

h n

ich

t so

gen

au

fest

gele

gt,

ab

er

ja i

st g

ut.

Na ja,

in m

ein

em

eig

en

en

erm

ess

en

so w

ie e

s au

ssie

ht,

wo i

ch g

era

de l

ieb

er

bin

od

er

so.

27

.

Rein

hard

Od

er

was

halt

fü

r d

ie A

rbeit

irg

en

dw

ie..

.?2

8.

Jon

as G

en

au

. G

era

de b

in i

ch f

ast

der

Mein

un

g,

dass

es

fast

sin

nvo

ller

wäre

in

Pots

dam

.W

eil

da k

ön

nte

ich

jetz

t m

eh

r th

eore

tisc

he F

rag

en

ste

llen

. Je

tzt

ist

irg

en

dw

ie d

er

exp

eri

men

tell

e T

eil

so h

alb

weg

s an

gest

oss

en

, od

er

sow

as.

Das

da e

in b

issc

hen

was

pass

iert

, w

o i

ch jetz

t so

wie

so g

era

de k

ein

en

Ein

flu

ß n

eh

men

kan

n f

ür

die

näch

sten

ein

ein

halb

, zw

ei

Mon

ate

. U

nd

eig

en

tlic

h w

ärs

dan

n s

inn

voll

er

in P

ots

dam

zu

sein

,

29

.

121

wo i

ch m

eh

r F

rag

en

ste

llen

kan

n,

zum

ind

est

zu

irg

en

dw

as.

Ich

hab

kein

en

Pla

n.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

as

heiß

t d

u b

ist

hie

rher

gekom

men

um

dir

ein

mal

das

Exp

eri

men

tell

ean

zusc

hau

en

? W

as

hie

r g

eh

t.3

0.

Jon

as G

en

au

, u

m m

ir d

as

an

zusc

hau

en

. U

nd

fü

r d

as

mech

an

isch

e Z

eu

gs,

wie

man

das

sim

uli

ert

. D

a k

an

nte

n s

ich

die

hie

r vi

el

bess

er

au

s, w

eil

die

das

halt

fü

r ih

reE

xperi

men

te v

orh

er

ku

rz m

ach

en

. U

nd

dan

n s

chau

en

was

pass

iert

. D

esw

eg

en

hab

e i

ch d

as

eb

en

hie

r g

em

ach

t. U

nd

eig

en

tlic

h i

st d

as

jetz

t ers

tmal

so,

dass

er

[Garr

ett

Cole

] so

die

ers

ten

Teil

e b

au

t m

it d

en

en

er

was

pro

bie

ren

wil

l. U

nd

dan

nkri

eg

ich

halt

irg

en

dw

an

n d

ie D

ate

n.

31

.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

er

Garr

ett

[C

ole

] b

au

t d

ie..

.?3

2.

Jon

as G

arr

ett

[C

ole

] m

ach

t d

as

dan

n.

Ich

hab

dam

it s

ofe

rn w

as

zutu

n,

dass

ich

die

Geom

etr

ie i

rgen

dw

ie g

esa

gt

hab

e d

as

wäre

in

tere

ssan

t. A

ber.

..3

3.

Rein

hard

Das

ist

Au

ftra

gsa

rbeit

an

den

Garr

ett

das

zu m

ach

en

.3

4.

Jon

as In

die

Ric

htu

ng

. E

s im

mer

noch

nic

ht

gan

z lo

sgest

oss

en

. A

ber

es

soll

te jetz

tir

gen

dw

an

n m

al

lan

gsa

m k

lap

pen

.3

5.

Rein

hard

Vers

teh

e.

Un

d w

ie b

ist

du

irg

en

dw

ie s

pezi

ell

au

f d

as

Th

em

a g

ekom

men

. O

der,

dass

du

üb

erh

au

pt

in d

en

Bere

ich

geh

st?

36

.

Jon

as Ä

hm

...

Als

o i

ch b

in h

alt

üb

er.

.. A

n s

ich

hab

en

wir

in

Pots

dam

gar

nic

ht

sovi

el

Au

swah

l g

eh

ab

t. U

nd

letz

ten

dli

ch w

ars

dan

n d

er

Pro

fess

or.

Es

war

dan

n h

alt

Jen

sE

isert

, d

er

sein

e Q

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

gem

ach

t h

at.

Un

d e

r h

at

bei

un

s eb

en

au

chein

...

Dre

i Vorl

esu

ng

en

hab

e i

ch i

nzw

isch

en

bei

ihm

geh

ört

. U

nd

die

Vorl

esu

ng

en

ware

n e

igen

tlic

h e

cht

gan

z to

ll,

un

d d

a h

ab

e i

ch m

ich

eb

en

halt

so S

tück

fü

rS

tück

...

Zu

näch

st h

ab

e i

ch G

un

dvo

rlesu

ng

geh

ab

t u

nd

dan

n h

ab

e i

ch m

ich

in

sein

eS

pezi

alv

orl

esu

ng

en

ein

gearb

eit

et

geh

ab

t. U

nd

dan

n b

in i

ch s

o a

uf

die

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

gekom

men

. Q

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

ist

dan

n v

iell

eic

ht

ein

bis

sch

en

zu

wen

ig a

nw

en

du

ng

sbezo

gen

, d

ach

te i

ch d

an

n i

rgen

dw

an

n.

Un

d d

an

nb

in s

o a

uf

die

Op

to-M

ech

an

ik g

ekom

men

, w

o d

an

n a

uch

vie

l Q

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

an

sic

h d

rin

steck

t, a

ber

wo m

an

das

Din

g h

alt

bau

t. O

der

irg

en

dje

man

d b

au

t.

37

.

Rein

hard

Un

d w

ie w

ar

da u

ng

efä

hr

der.

.. W

an

n t

ritt

das

ein

? Ic

h k

en

ne n

ur

hie

r vo

mS

tud

ium

, d

ass

man

da s

o i

rgen

dw

an

n i

n d

er

Mit

te d

an

n s

oQ

uan

ten

mech

an

ikth

eori

e m

ach

t. V

orh

er

nu

r so

en

bis

serl

Au

sbli

cks.

..?

38

.

Jon

as W

ir h

ab

en

im

vie

rten

Sem

est

er

halt

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik g

eh

ört

, g

lau

be i

ch..

. Ja

,vi

ert

es

Sem

est

er.

Th

eore

tisc

he.

Das

fan

d i

ch d

am

als

gan

z co

ol

eig

en

tlic

h.

Pro

f w

ar

eig

en

tlic

h n

ich

t so

gu

t. A

ber

doch

war

ein

fach

in

tere

ssan

t, w

eil

da i

rgen

dw

ie g

an

z,g

an

z sk

uri

ll,

gan

z an

ders

war.

Ja u

nd

dan

n d

ach

te i

ch,

irg

en

dw

as

in d

ie R

ich

tun

gw

äre

sch

on

in

tere

ssan

t. O

der

mal

sch

au

en

. D

an

n e

infa

ch h

alt

...

So i

m S

ech

sten

hab

e i

ch d

an

n e

ben

so n

och

neb

en

her

an

gefa

ng

en

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

zu

höre

n.

Sie

bte

s, A

chte

s d

an

n m

eh

r g

eh

ört

un

d e

igen

tlic

h a

nd

ere

Sach

en

fert

ig g

em

ach

t.U

nd

bei

dem

irg

en

dw

ie a

uch

ein

Pro

jekt

gem

ach

t, b

eim

Eis

ert

. G

en

au

, u

nd

so

irg

en

wie

. A

uch

Mit

te w

ürd

e i

ch s

ag

en

au

f d

ie Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ik g

est

oss

en

un

dd

an

n h

alt

irg

en

dw

ie g

eku

ckt

was

es

von

dem

Qu

an

ten

teil

noch

gib

t.

39

.

Rein

hard

Un

d k

an

nst

du

irg

en

dw

ie f

est

mach

en

, w

as

dic

h i

nte

ress

iert

hat?

Als

o g

era

de d

as

zu m

ach

en

? O

der

nu

r so

rein

geru

tsch

t?4

0.

Jon

as E

s is

t ein

bis

sch

en

rein

geru

tsch

t w

ürd

e i

ch s

ag

en

, ab

er

es

war

halt

au

ch e

infa

chir

gen

dw

ie w

as

gan

z an

dere

s. A

lso i

ch h

ab

ku

rz A

llg

em

ein

e R

ela

tivi

täts

theori

ean

geh

ört

, d

as

ist

wir

kli

ch s

chic

k k

on

zep

tion

ell

un

d s

o.

Ab

er

irg

en

wie

kam

's m

ir s

ovo

r w

ie w

en

n m

an

eff

ekti

v n

ich

ts m

ach

en

kan

n.

Weil

es

irg

en

dw

ie z

u k

om

pli

ziert

wir

d,

seh

r sc

hn

ell

. U

nd

irg

en

dw

ie k

an

n m

an

in

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik d

och

noch

...

Zu

min

dest

all

es

irg

en

dw

ie a

uf

harm

on

isch

e O

szil

lato

ren

zu

rück

füh

ren

un

d d

ied

an

n m

ach

en

. Ja

, p

lus

min

us.

Un

d d

an

n w

ar'

s eb

en

in

tere

ssan

t, w

eil

's a

nd

ers

war.

Un

d a

ber

halt

au

ch m

eis

ten

s n

och

irg

en

dw

ie r

ech

en

bar,

weil

's a

bst

rah

iert

gen

ug

ist.

41

.

Rein

hard

Als

o e

s lä

sst

sich

seh

r, s

eh

r m

inim

ali

stis

ch m

ach

en

. M

it d

en

Osz

illa

tore

n, m

it d

em

harm

on

isch

en

un

d s

o w

eit

er.

Das

ist

sch

on

seh

r...

42

.

Jon

as G

en

au

man

hat

halt

nu

r so

ein

paar

Pri

nzi

pie

n u

nd

wen

n m

an

die

dan

n i

rgen

dw

ieve

rin

nerl

ich

t, k

an

n m

an

eig

en

tlic

h v

iel

mach

en

. D

as

war

inte

ress

an

t.4

3.

Rein

hard

Vers

teh

e.

Un

d,

weil

du

vorh

er

gesa

gt

hast

, w

eil

es

au

ch d

ie M

ög

lich

keit

gib

t d

er

An

wen

du

ng

od

er

zum

ind

est

dam

it e

in b

isse

rl w

as

zu t

un

. W

ie s

ieh

st d

a s

ozu

sag

en

das

Verh

ält

nis

? W

eil

du

ein

ers

eit

s ja

ein

en

th

eore

tisc

hen

Teil

mach

st,

ab

er

doch

zum

ind

est

en

s ja

au

ch h

ier

bis

t u

m d

ie e

xperi

men

tell

en

Sach

en

zu

mach

en

?

44

.

Jon

as U

m d

am

it K

on

takt

zu h

ab

en

. W

ie i

ch d

as

seh

e?

Na ja,

als

o m

an

hat

halt

zu

min

dest

im O

pti

sch

en

...

In d

er

Qu

an

ten

op

tik h

at

man

eb

en

irg

en

dw

ie e

inen

rela

tiv

dir

ekte

nB

ezu

g z

u d

em

gan

zen

Qu

an

ten

zeu

g,

weil

man

sog

ar

als

ein

e P

ers

on

mit

ein

paar

Bau

teil

en

irg

en

dw

ie e

inig

e Q

uan

ten

eff

ekte

sie

ht

un

d b

eob

ach

ten

kan

n.

Un

d d

as

fan

d i

ch a

uch

in

tere

ssan

t. D

as

wär

eig

en

tlic

h d

as

Zw

eit

e g

ew

ese

n w

as

ich

son

stg

em

ach

t h

ätt

e.

Ich

wäre

wah

rsch

ein

lich

in

so e

ine G

rup

pe g

eg

an

gen

bei

un

s in

Pots

dam

, d

ie e

ben

au

ch Q

uan

ten

op

tik m

ach

t. A

lso e

xperi

men

tell

mach

t. A

ber

es

hat

dan

n e

infa

ch n

ich

t so

gu

t g

ep

ass

t. A

ber

gen

au

, d

a w

ar

ein

fach

das

Inte

ress

an

te:

"Ja,

bau

das!

" M

it d

er

rich

tig

en

Au

srü

stu

ng

kan

n d

as

irg

en

dw

ie jed

er

so e

in b

issc

hen

mach

en

. D

as

fan

d i

ch s

pan

nen

d.

Ab

er

jetz

t w

eiß

ich

nic

ht,

ob

es

die

Fra

ge b

ean

twort

et.

45

.

Verh

ält

nis

Th

eori

e -

Exp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

Die

Fra

ge i

st e

igen

tlic

h:

Waru

m w

ürd

est

du

jetz

t zu

min

dest

en

s d

iese

exp

eri

men

tell

e A

nw

en

du

ng

ben

öti

gen

? D

u k

ön

nte

st ja t

heore

tisc

h d

as

nu

r...

Als

ore

in t

heore

tisc

h m

ach

en

, au

f Pap

ier.

46

.

Jon

as N

a i

rgen

dw

ie g

eh

ört

halt

das,

fin

d i

ch s

chon

noch

, zu

r P

hys

ik d

azu

, d

ass

man

an

sich

ein

en

Verg

leic

h h

at

am

Sch

luss

zu

ein

em

Exp

eri

men

t. D

ass

man

nu

r w

en

nm

an

wir

kli

ch s

ich

au

f exp

eri

men

tell

e D

ate

n n

och

beru

fen

kan

n,

dan

n a

uch

tats

äch

lich

was

au

ssag

en

kan

n.

An

son

st i

st e

s sc

hon

wie

der

fast

nu

r M

ath

em

ati

k.

Wo m

an

irg

en

dw

elc

he K

on

zep

te a

ufs

tell

t u

nd

dan

n:

Ja,

die

Kon

zep

te s

ind

in

sic

hsc

hlü

ssig

un

d m

an

weiß

dan

n d

ie w

iders

pre

chen

sic

h n

ich

t, a

ber

man

weiß

üb

erh

au

pt

nic

ht

ob

sie

ein

en

Bezu

g z

u i

rgen

dw

as

hab

en

. U

nd

sola

ng

e d

as

Exp

eri

men

t eb

en

noch

irg

en

dw

ie d

ah

inte

rste

ht,

ist

es

eig

en

tlic

h k

lar

was

man

mach

t. M

an

gla

ub

t ein

fach

was

die

ses

Exp

eri

men

t fü

r K

on

seq

uen

zen

hat

un

d w

as

die

ses

Exp

eri

men

t all

es

zeig

en

kan

n.

Inso

fer

woll

te i

ch e

igen

tlic

h e

infa

ch

47

.


122

weit

erh

in P

hys

ik m

ach

en

un

d n

ich

t M

ath

em

ati

k.

Rein

hard

Ok,

das

ist

der

Kern

. Vers

teh

e.

Du

sie

hst

sozu

sag

en

das

Exp

eri

men

t n

och

als

...?

48

.Jo

nas E

ine R

ech

tfert

igu

ng

fü

r d

ie T

heori

e.

49

.R

ein

hard

Oh

, ein

e R

ech

tfert

igu

ng

. G

ut.

Un

d d

as

hie

r n

och

mög

lich

.5

0.

Jon

as A

lso u

m d

as

ad

ab

surd

um

zu

tre

iben

bin

ich

mir

gar

nic

ht

so s

ich

er

ob

Str

ing

theori

e w

irkli

ch jetz

t P

hys

ik i

st.

Od

er

doch

nic

ht

eh

er

Meta

ph

ysik

.5

1.

Rein

hard

Das

wäre

die

Fra

ge g

ew

ese

n,

weil

du

au

ch s

chon

vorh

er

bei

der

All

gem

ein

en

[Rela

tivi

täts

theori

e]

gesa

gt

hast

: O

k,

das

geh

t sc

hon

ein

bis

sch

en

in

die

Ric

htu

ng

...

52

.

Jon

as D

ie A

llg

em

ein

e [

Rela

tivi

täts

theori

e]

kan

n m

an

noch

an

han

d v

on

Mess

un

gen

veri

fizi

ere

n.

Inso

fern

ist

es

da n

och

nic

ht

so a

bg

efa

hre

n w

ie b

ei

der

Str

ing

theori

e.

Ab

er

die

All

gem

ein

e [

Rela

tivi

täts

theori

e]

ist

ein

fach

nu

r w

eil

's e

inm

al

seh

rsc

hw

ieri

ge G

leic

hu

ng

en

sin

d.

Da k

an

n m

an

eig

en

tlic

h f

ast

nic

hts

an

aly

tisc

hm

ach

en

, so

nd

ern

mu

ss f

ast

all

es

nu

meri

sch

mach

en

. U

nd

das

hat

mic

h i

rgen

dw

ieein

bis

sch

en

ab

gesc

hre

ckt.

Das

ist

eig

en

tlic

h m

eh

r w

as

ich

mein

te.

Es

ist

ein

fach

zu s

chw

ieri

g u

m s

chn

ell

irg

en

dw

elc

he A

uss

ag

en

zu

mach

en

.

53

.

Rein

hard

Das

ist

hie

r ir

gen

dw

ie d

er

Vort

eil

, w

eil

er

Ap

para

t, a

lso d

er

theore

tisc

he A

pp

ara

tse

hr

gre

ifb

ar

ist.

54

.

Jon

as G

en

au

. A

lso a

n s

ich

fan

d i

ch Q

uan

ten

ein

fach

ein

fach

er.

55

.R

ein

hard

Sie

hst

du

neb

en

die

sem

Best

äti

gu

ng

swert

den

das

Exp

eri

men

t, w

ie d

u g

esa

gt

hast

, h

at,

noch

irg

en

dw

ie e

inen

an

dere

n Z

ug

an

g..

.? D

ass

es

irg

en

dw

ie b

eim

Vers

tän

dn

is h

ilft

. N

ich

t n

ur

in d

er

Th

eori

e z

u v

erw

eil

en

, so

nd

ern

das

Din

g a

uch

am

Arb

eit

en

, im

Exp

eri

men

t zu

bau

en

od

er

zu s

eh

en

.

56

.

Jon

as A

lso jetz

t w

irkli

ch d

iese

In

stru

men

te z

u s

eh

en

un

d i

rgen

dw

elc

he A

uss

chlä

ge a

nM

ess

ap

para

ten

hat

mir

bis

her

nic

hts

geb

rach

t. W

eil

ich

da n

ich

t g

en

ug

vers

teh

e.

Ab

er

wen

n m

an

sic

h e

ben

mit

den

exp

eri

men

tale

n P

hys

ikern

un

terh

ält

, d

an

nm

erk

t m

an

, d

ass

die

irg

en

dw

ie e

inen

an

dere

n B

ezu

g h

ab

en

. W

eil

bei

den

en

ist

halt

jetz

t d

iese

s K

on

zep

t, i

st jetz

t n

ich

t ein

e F

orm

el,

son

dern

es

ist

der

Au

ssch

lag

an

dem

In

stru

men

t, d

er

da u

nd

da p

ass

iert

. U

nd

das

ist

irg

en

dw

ie..

. D

as

ist

kom

isch

.A

m A

nfa

ng

red

et

man

an

ein

an

der

vorb

ei,

ab

er

es

ist

an

sic

h i

nte

ress

an

t. A

lso i

chg

lau

b,

dass

man

's d

ad

urc

h e

in b

issc

hen

bess

er

ken

nen

lern

t. W

ob

ei

bis

her

ärg

ere

ich

mic

h e

igen

tlic

h m

eh

r d

arü

ber.

57

.

Rein

hard

Dass

das

so u

nte

rsch

ied

lich

e K

on

zep

te s

ind

vom

Vers

teh

en

?5

8.

Jon

as D

as

sie n

ich

t ü

ber

irg

en

dw

elc

he G

leic

hu

ng

en

red

en

kön

nen

. W

eil

son

st k

an

n i

ch e

sn

ich

t ü

berp

rüfe

n.

Da m

uss

ich

dan

n s

ag

en

ja v

iell

eic

ht.

Kan

n s

ein

, d

ass

das

dam

itzu

tun

hat.

Ab

er

eig

en

tlic

h i

st e

s d

och

das

hie

r [k

lop

ft a

uf

den

Tis

ch].

Als

o m

an

vers

teh

t zu

min

dest

noch

ein

e a

nd

ere

Seit

e.

Lern

t si

e k

en

nen

, ic

h w

eiß

nic

ht

ob

man

sie

vers

teh

t. W

ah

rsch

ein

lich

sch

on

un

d s

om

it w

ah

rsch

ein

lich

bess

er.

59

.

Rein

hard

Dan

n i

st ja d

ie F

rag

e,

wie

sie

ht'

s b

eim

Vers

tän

dn

is a

us?

Od

er,

wen

n d

u d

ir d

iese

Din

ge a

nsc

hau

st,

jetz

t Q

uan

ten

info

rmati

on

usw

., d

ie P

hän

om

en

e o

der

Eff

ekte

, w

ie6

0.

imm

er

man

das

nen

nen

soll

, w

ie i

st d

a d

ein

Vers

tän

dn

is?

Es

gib

t ja

die

Au

ssag

e,

dass

das

irg

en

dw

ie k

on

train

tuit

iv i

st u

nd

dass

das

nic

ht

mit

ein

er

täg

lich

en

ph

ysik

ali

sch

en

Beob

ach

tun

g v

ere

inb

ar

ist.

Un

d d

ass

das

irg

en

dw

ie p

rob

lem

ati

sch

ist

un

d b

efr

ied

igt

werd

en

soll

te.

Das

es

bess

er

pass

t.Jo

nas O

k.

Äh

mm

m.

Als

o ja.

Ich

mein

e m

an

sie

ht.

.. M

an

ist

ein

fach

gew

oh

nt

irg

en

dw

ieau

s d

er

Intu

itio

n,

dass

wen

n i

rgen

dein

ein

Körp

er

irg

en

dein

e E

igen

sch

aft

hat,

dass

dan

n d

ie E

igen

sch

aft

tats

äch

lich

da i

st.

Od

er,

dass

das

irg

en

dw

ie t

ats

äch

lich

reali

siert

ist

. In

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik m

uss

man

sic

h d

a v

oll

kom

men

von

vera

bsc

hie

den

. S

on

dern

, d

ass

sic

h v

iele

Eig

en

sch

aft

en

sic

h w

irkli

ch e

rst

fest

leg

en

,so

bald

man

eb

en

da e

ine M

ess

un

g m

ach

t. U

nd

sie

vorh

er

au

ch t

ats

äch

lich

nic

ht

fest

lieg

en

. U

nd

dass

es

irg

en

dw

ie s

ow

as

wie

Sta

nd

pu

nkts

ab

hän

gig

keit

gib

t. F

ür

ein

en

kan

n's

an

dere

s se

in,

als

fü

r ein

en

an

dere

n.

Als

o e

s si

nd

Ph

än

om

en

e d

iekon

teri

ntu

itiv

sin

d.

Die

man

sic

h i

rgen

dw

ie,

na ja,

vors

tell

en

kan

n?

Man

kan

n s

ich

maxi

mal

dara

n g

ew

öh

nen

.

61

.

Rein

hard

Die

Fra

ge i

st,

ob

man

sag

t, d

ass

... Je

tzt

hab

e i

ch m

ein

e q

uan

ten

mech

an

isch

eT

heori

e,

da r

ech

ne i

ch,

un

d d

a g

elt

en

sozu

sag

en

die

se D

ing

e..

.6

2.

Jon

as Ja

. A

n s

ich

ist

das

das

Op

tim

um

; d

as

stim

mt.

Ab

er

man

en

twic

kelt

sch

on

au

tom

ati

sch

, all

ein

e a

us

den

Gle

ich

un

gen

rau

s, i

rgen

dw

ie s

o e

in G

efü

hl.

Das

Gefü

hl

pass

t n

ich

t zu

dem

, w

as

man

vie

lleic

ht,

als

jetz

t ein

er

der

sich

dam

it n

ich

tb

esc

häft

igt

hat,

erw

art

en

wü

rde.

Ab

er

es

ist

trotz

dem

...

Irg

en

diw

e e

in G

efü

hl

ist

dan

n s

chon

da.

Als

o w

ah

rsch

ein

lich

ist

das

am

eh

est

en

was

dan

n a

ls I

ntu

itio

nb

eze

ich

net

werd

en

kan

n.

63

.

Rein

hard

Als

o w

en

n m

an

so e

inen

Um

gan

g h

at

mit

den

Din

gen

, d

ass

man

dan

n e

ine g

ew

isse

Selb

stve

rstä

nd

lich

keit

bekom

mt.

Wah

rsch

ein

lich

merk

t m

an

das

beim

Sp

rech

en

,w

en

n m

an

ein

fach

Vokab

eln

un

d g

ew

isse

Sätz

e s

ag

t, d

ie f

ür

an

dere

rech

tkon

train

tuit

iv w

äre

n.

Od

er

rech

t m

erk

wü

rdig

kli

ng

en

wü

rden

, w

en

n m

an

die

in

an

dere

n Z

usa

mm

en

hän

gen

sag

t.

64

.

Jon

as D

as

Pro

ble

m i

rgen

dw

ie,

wen

n m

an

...

Ne,

ich

weiß

jetz

t n

ich

t w

ie i

ch d

as

zusa

mm

en

fass

en

kan

n.

Ste

ll e

infa

ch n

och

mal

gan

z ku

rz d

ie F

rag

e.

Sorr

y.6

5.

Rein

hard

Äh

m.

Wir

ware

n g

era

de e

igen

tlic

h b

ei

der

Fra

ge,

ob

man

sic

h s

ozu

sag

en

an

die

seD

ing

e g

ew

öh

nen

kan

n.

Die

ses

Kon

train

tuit

ive d

as

man

sag

t, d

ass

es

viell

eic

ht

mög

lich

erw

eis

e v

ers

chw

ind

et

in d

em

man

sic

h m

it d

en

Din

gen

besc

häft

igt.

66

.

Jon

as Ja

. D

as

wü

rde i

ch a

uf

jed

en

Fall

sag

en

, d

ass

das

pass

iert

. Ic

h m

ein

e jetz

t is

t es

für

mic

h r

ela

tiv

selb

stve

rstä

nd

lich

, d

ass

wen

n i

ch ü

ber

ein

Beis

pie

l re

de,

dass

ich

dan

n w

eiß

: W

en

n jetz

t d

er

Beob

ach

ter

das

un

d d

as

mach

t, v

erä

nd

ert

sic

h d

as

Sys

tem

so u

nd

so,

un

d f

ür

an

dere

so.

67

.

Rein

hard

Als

o e

s is

t n

ich

t m

eh

r so

ein

e A

rt h

ypoth

eti

sch

e A

nn

ah

me,

die

man

im

mer

so i

mH

inte

rkop

f h

at

-- u

nte

r d

er

An

nah

me,

dass

dem

wir

kli

ch s

o i

st -

-, s

on

dern

es

ist

ein

fach

so.

68

.

Jon

as D

ie Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ik,

bzw

. d

as

Kon

zep

t, w

as

man

sic

h d

a a

ufg

eb

au

t h

at,

das

üb

ern

imm

t m

an

dan

n s

chon

. E

s is

t ein

fach

die

best

e B

esc

hre

ibu

ng

der

Welt

die

wir

bis

her

hab

en

un

d i

nso

fern

wen

det

man

das

dan

n w

irkli

ch a

uf

bre

itere

n E

ben

en

an

, als

es

viell

eic

ht

ged

ach

t is

t.

69

.

123

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

/ T

heori

e /

Exp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

Un

d d

ie F

rag

e,

wen

n m

an

das

jetz

t so

sag

en

wil

l, w

eil

es

ja I

nte

rpre

tati

on

en

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik g

ibt,

die

vers

uch

en

das

Vers

tän

dn

is i

rgen

dw

ie a

ufz

ulö

sen

. O

der

die

s zu

min

dest

irg

en

dw

ie m

it e

iner

Gesc

hic

hte

zu

verb

ind

en

, so

dass

es

irg

en

dw

ieb

ess

er

vers

tän

dli

ch i

st.

Un

d d

ie s

teh

en

ja s

ozu

sag

en

neb

en

ein

an

der.

In

wie

weit

sin

d d

ie f

ür

dic

h i

rgen

dw

ie r

ele

van

t, h

elf

en

dein

em

Vers

tän

dn

is,

od

er

sin

d d

ie..

.h

ab

en

kein

e A

uss

ag

ekra

ft s

ozu

sag

en

.

70

.

Jon

as N

a ja.

Es

ist

halt

was

worü

ber

man

nach

den

kt

bei

irg

en

dw

ie e

iner

Fla

sch

e W

ein

am

Ab

en

d o

der

so w

as.

In

sofe

r d

rau

e i

ch i

hn

en

mal

nic

ht

sovi

el

Au

ssag

ekra

ft z

u,

weil

es

sin

d e

infa

ch..

. N

a ja,

es

gib

t ein

fach

die

Besc

hre

ibu

ng

en

. U

m e

s kon

kre

ter

zu m

ach

en

: M

an

kön

nte

sag

en

, ja

un

ser

gesa

mte

s W

elt

all

befi

nd

et

sich

in

ein

em

fest

em

Zu

stan

d.

In e

inem

Zeig

er

oh

ne..

. L

etz

en

dli

ch g

ibt

es

dam

it d

och

wie

der

Dete

rmin

ism

us.

71

.

Rein

hard

Ein

en

voll

stän

dig

en

.7

2.

Jon

as E

ben

ein

voll

stän

dig

er.

Sob

ald

ich

all

erd

ing

s n

ur

ein

Teil

syst

em

betr

ach

te v

erl

iere

ich

eb

en

wie

der

die

sen

Dete

rmin

ism

us

un

d m

uss

mic

h d

an

n m

it p

rob

ab

ilis

tisc

hen

Au

ssag

en

zu

frie

den

geb

en

. Ja

, d

as

gib

t es

zum

Beis

pie

l. M

an

kan

n ü

berl

eg

en

jetz

t,w

äre

es

sch

lüss

ig m

it d

em

was

wir

bis

her

wis

sen

. S

o w

eit

ich

weiß

gib

t's

da a

uch

nie

man

den

der

irg

en

dw

as

dag

eg

en

gesa

gt

hat.

Un

d..

. ja

...

ab

er.

.. L

etz

ten

dli

chsa

gen

kan

n m

an

's n

ich

t. E

s g

ibt

gen

au

so d

an

n d

iese

, d

iese

...

Ne d

as

mü

sste

...

Jad

as

mü

sste

eig

en

tlic

h d

an

n..

. Is

t es

dan

n d

ie..

. N

e d

as

ist

nic

ht

die

Vie

le-W

elt

en

.Ic

h m

ein

e e

s g

ibt

gen

au

so d

iese

Vie

le-W

elt

en

In

terp

reta

tion

. D

as

sich

bei

jed

er

En

tsch

eid

un

g e

ben

irg

en

wie

was

Neu

es

ab

-bra

nch

ed

. Ja

, g

en

au

au

f d

em

gle

ich

en

Gra

d.

73

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

zum

ind

est

....

74

.Jo

nas Sie

sin

d e

ben

da,

man

üb

erl

eg

t's

sich

. M

an

sp

ielt

dam

it r

um

: W

ürd

e d

as

den

ng

eh

en

? O

der

was

kön

nte

das

den

n b

ed

eu

ten

? A

ber

letz

ten

dli

ch,

wen

n m

an

dan

nin

s L

ab

or

geh

t od

er

so w

as,

dan

n n

imm

t m

an

doch

wie

der

irg

en

dw

ie n

ur

ein

fach

den

Form

ali

smu

s, d

en

man

hat

oh

ne jetz

t d

a e

ine I

nte

rpre

tati

on

dem

un

bed

ing

tg

eb

en

zu

mü

ssen

.

75

.

Rein

hard

Vers

teh

e.

Ab

er

sozu

sag

en

die

Dis

ku

ssio

n b

est

eh

t n

och

.7

6.

Jon

as E

s is

t in

tere

ssan

t. I

nte

ress

an

t si

ch z

u ü

berl

eg

en

ob

da..

. w

irkli

ch o

b's

dan

n t

ote

Katz

e u

nd

ein

e l

eb

en

dig

e K

atz

e g

ibt.

Od

er

ob

es

jetz

t vo

n A

nfa

ng

an

kla

r is

t, jetz

tis

t d

ie K

atz

e t

ot

od

er

so.

77

.

Rein

hard

Wü

rdest

du

seh

en

, d

ass

gera

de d

ie A

rbeit

die

gem

ach

t w

ird

eig

en

tlic

h f

ast

dara

uf

ab

zielt

da z

u s

ag

en

...

die

Fra

ge z

u b

ean

twort

en

. A

lso w

en

n z

u s

ag

st,

Sch

röd

ing

ers

Katz

e,

dass

zu

m B

eis

pie

l je

tzt

wen

n i

ch d

ie o

pto

-mech

an

isch

en

Din

ger

hern

eh

me,

die

sch

on

ein

bis

serl

makro

skop

isch

er

sin

d,

sch

on

in

die

Ric

htu

ng

geh

en

wü

rden

.

78

.

Jon

as Ic

h g

lau

be n

ich

t, d

ass

man

es

voll

stän

dig

besc

hre

iben

kan

n. A

lso,

dass

man

dah

inkom

mt.

79

.

Rein

hard

Als

o,

dass

es

sozu

sag

en

ein

Test

kri

teri

um

gib

t, w

o m

an

dan

n s

ag

t: O

k,

das

ist

nu

rm

it d

iese

r ein

en

In

terp

reta

tion

kom

pati

bel

un

d d

esw

eg

en

ist

die

die

Ric

hti

ge.

80

.

Jon

as K

an

n i

ch m

ir n

ich

t vo

rste

llen

. A

lso i

ch g

lau

be,

dass

man

all

e I

nte

rpre

tati

on

en

irg

en

dw

ie d

an

n n

och

zu

rech

t fl

icken

kan

n u

m d

an

n d

as

noch

zu

erk

läre

n.

Wah

rsch

ein

lich

sch

eid

en

ein

paar

au

s, a

ber

ich

gla

ub

e n

ich

t, d

ass

man

sic

hw

irkli

ch e

nts

cheid

en

kan

n a

m S

chlu

ß.

Ah

, [l

ach

t] 1

90

0 w

are

n w

ir w

eit

er,

[Lach

en

]w

as

das

an

geh

t.

81

.

Rein

hard

Als

o i

n d

em

Sin

ne i

st e

s kein

Pro

ble

m,

dass

es

da s

o e

ine V

ielf

alt

an

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

gib

t, d

ie i

m H

inte

rgru

nd

...

82

.

Jon

as Ic

h g

lau

be m

an

hat

sich

irg

en

dw

ie s

o e

in b

issc

hen

davo

n v

era

bsc

hie

det,

dass

man

...

Als

o z

um

ind

est

ich

hab

e m

ich

fü

r m

ich

davo

n v

era

bsc

hie

det,

dass

ich

wir

kli

ch e

xakt

besc

hre

iben

kan

n w

ie d

ie W

elt

fu

nkti

on

iert

. Ic

h k

an

n n

ur

ein

fach

das

Mod

ell

neh

men

un

d i

n d

em

Mod

ell

kan

n i

ch's

besc

hre

iben

, u

nd

dan

n m

uss

ich

mic

h d

am

it...

Mu

ss i

ch i

mm

er

im H

inte

rkop

f eig

en

tlic

h h

ab

en

: D

as

kan

n a

uch

all

es

fals

ch s

ein

, ir

gen

dw

ie.

Ab

er

bis

her

hab

en

...

sag

en

all

e T

est

s d

ie w

ir g

em

ach

th

ab

en

, es

pass

t w

ah

rsch

ein

lich

.

83

.

Rein

hard

Das

wü

rde a

uch

den

Bezu

g z

um

Exp

eri

men

t erk

läre

n.

Dass

man

das

Mod

ell

im

mer

noch

ab

gle

ich

en

mu

ss g

eg

en

das

[Exp

eri

men

t],

dam

it m

an

halb

weg

s ein

e r

ich

tig

eA

uss

ag

e t

riff

t.

84

.

Jon

as G

en

au

. Ja

.8

5.

Tech

nis

ch

er

Fort

sch

ritt

Rein

hard

Vers

teh

e.

Wie

wü

rdest

du

eig

en

tlic

h jetz

t d

en

tech

nis

chen

Wan

del.

.. D

ieM

ög

lich

keit

en

die

geg

eb

en

sin

d a

uf

tech

nis

cher

Seit

e,.

..8

6.

Jon

as W

ie s

ich

der

en

twic

kelt

hat,

od

er?

87

.R

ein

hard

Ja,

das

es

sich

en

twic

kelt

hat.

Als

o d

as

die

se D

ing

e s

ozu

sag

en

jetz

t m

ög

lich

sin

d.

Die

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik i

st a

lt.

88

.

Jon

as Ä

h,

ist

sie s

chon

?[la

cht]

Was

wü

rde i

ch d

azu

sag

en

? A

lso d

ie M

ög

lich

keit

en

sin

d d

aau

f je

den

Fall

deu

tlic

h b

ess

er

gew

ord

en

. W

en

n m

an

sic

h a

llein

e..

. Ic

h w

eiß

nic

ht

ob

das

so g

an

z in

den

An

fän

gen

war,

ab

er

wen

n m

an

sic

h d

en

Ste

rn-G

erl

ach

Vers

uch

[1

92

2,

Beob

ach

tun

g d

er

Ric

htu

ng

squ

an

telu

ng

von

Dre

him

pu

lsen

(=

Sp

in)

von

Ato

men

] an

sch

au

t, d

en

Ste

rn u

nd

Gerl

ach

gem

ach

t h

ab

en

. D

a h

ab

en

die

so

ein

e g

roß

en

Au

fwan

d b

etr

eib

en

mü

ssen

, u

m e

ine A

ufw

eit

un

g v

on

so e

iner

Ell

ipse

zu s

eh

en

, w

o m

an

am

Sch

luß

dan

n n

ich

t m

al

sag

en

kon

nte

: Ja

, d

as

hat

sich

wir

kli

ch g

esp

alt

en

. S

on

dern

da i

st b

loß

da e

in b

issc

hen

meh

r, d

a e

in b

issc

hen

meh

r u

nd

da e

in b

issc

hen

meh

r, u

nd

in

der

Mit

te h

alt

ein

bis

sch

en

wen

iger.

Un

dd

ara

us

hab

en

sie

dan

n w

as

gesc

hlu

ßfo

lgert

.

89

.

Wen

n m

an

jetz

t h

eu

te d

as.

.. A

lso g

ut,

wir

hab

en

das

im F

ort

gesc

hri

tten

en

-P

rakti

ku

m i

n s

o e

in,

zwei,

dre

i S

tun

den

noch

mal

nach

gem

ach

t, d

iese

n V

ers

uch

.U

nd

wir

seh

en

ein

fach

ein

e..

. ein

fach

zw

ei

Lin

ien

un

d v

iell

eic

ht

noch

so e

inb

issc

hen

Rau

sch

en

in

der

Mit

te.

Da i

st e

s au

f je

den

Fall

deu

tlic

h e

infa

cher

gew

ord

en

dan

n z

u s

ag

en

, ja

die

Th

eori

e s

tim

mt.

Bei

den

en

mu

sste

man

sic

h d

an

n

90

.


124

sch

on

rech

tfert

igen

: ja

es

ist

seh

r w

ah

rsch

ein

lich

, d

ass

es

rich

tig

ist

, so

nst

kön

nte

n w

ir u

ns

jetz

t d

iese

kom

isch

en

Ab

weic

hu

ng

en

nic

ht

wir

kli

ch e

rklä

ren

. E

sis

t au

f je

den

Fall

ein

fach

er

gew

ord

en

, d

a s

o A

uss

ag

en

zu

tre

ffen

un

d a

uch

irg

en

dw

ie d

eu

tlic

h f

ein

ere

Üb

erp

rüfu

ng

en

pra

kti

sch

zu

hab

en

, vo

n d

er

Th

eori

e.

Od

er

die

se g

an

zen

Fü

r u

nd

Wid

er

für

das

Mic

hels

on

s-In

terf

ero

mete

r[U

nte

rsu

chu

ng

des

Lic

htä

thers

als

Med

ium

fü

r d

ie A

usb

reit

un

g d

es

Lic

hts

]. W

om

an

che a

m A

nfa

ng

gesa

gt

hab

en

, d

ass

: Ja

, oh

. Je

tzt

dre

hen

wir

das

in e

ine a

nd

ere

Ric

htu

ng

un

d w

ir k

rieg

en

gen

au

das

Gle

ich

e r

au

s. U

nd

dan

n k

om

mt

späte

r w

ied

er

ein

er:

Ja i

hr

hab

t d

as

üb

erh

au

pt

nic

ht

gekon

nt.

Ih

r h

ab

t vi

el

zu v

iele

Ab

weic

hu

ng

en

um

wir

kli

ch s

ag

en

zu

kön

nen

, d

ass

ih

r d

as

tats

äch

lich

jetz

tg

em

ess

en

hab

t. V

iell

eic

ht

gib

t's

ja d

och

noch

den

Äth

er.

Das

ist

üb

erh

au

pt

nic

ht

kla

r. U

nd

dan

n m

ach

t m

an

das

halt

wie

der

gen

au

er

mit

neu

en

In

stru

men

ten

, u

nd

wie

der

gen

au

er

mit

neu

en

In

stru

men

ten

un

d i

rgen

dw

an

n k

an

n d

an

n a

uch

kein

er

meh

r w

as

dag

eg

en

sag

en

.

91

.

Rein

hard

Als

o e

s is

t sc

hon

kein

sch

lech

tes

Ind

iz,

dass

es

da S

tud

en

ten

- od

er

Sch

üle

rexp

eri

men

te g

ibt,

die

das

nach

weis

en

...

92

.

Jon

as G

en

au

. D

ie e

infa

ch d

as

ab

deck

en

kön

nen

, w

as

in d

en

zw

an

zig

er

Jah

ren

od

er

au

chso

gar

sch

on

vie

rzig

er

Jah

ren

irg

en

dw

elc

he L

eu

te m

it s

eh

r, s

eh

r vi

el

Au

fwan

d..

. D

iew

irkli

ch d

a M

illi

on

en

rein

gest

eck

t h

ab

en

, od

er

was

weiß

ich

wie

viel

Geld

man

da

jew

eil

s za

hle

n m

uss

te,

dan

n jetz

t fü

r so

Stu

den

ten

nach

gem

ach

t w

erd

en

kan

n.

Das

zeig

t au

f je

den

Fall

au

f, d

ass

es

sich

an

sch

ein

en

d v

erb

ess

ert

hat.

Das

man

jetz

tir

gen

dw

elc

he M

illi

on

en

rein

steck

t, d

ass

man

dan

n g

an

z sc

hön

vie

l b

ess

ere

Erg

eb

nis

se r

au

skri

eg

t, o

der

fein

ere

Erg

eb

nis

se.

93

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

bzw

. es

sch

ein

t au

ch..

. M

an

sch

ein

t d

ie A

nw

en

du

ng

smög

lich

keit

en

en

tdeck

t zu

hab

en

un

d d

esw

eg

en

sch

ein

t so

zusa

gen

meh

r D

ruck

dah

inte

r zu

sein

. D

as

ist

die

Fra

ge?

Ab

er

sch

ein

t zu

min

dest

en

s so

.

94

.

Jon

as Ic

h d

en

ke m

al

die

Gese

llsc

haft

hat

inzw

isch

en

ein

fach

fest

gest

ell

t, d

ass

da d

och

wie

der

imm

er

irg

en

dw

as,

was

ab

fäll

t, w

as

man

verw

ert

en

kan

n.

Wen

n m

an

sic

hsc

hon

sovi

el

au

f d

ie E

ntw

icklu

ng

beru

ft,

das

mach

t n

atü

rlic

h s

chon

ein

bis

sch

en

meh

r D

ruck

. E

s si

nd

au

ch jetz

t ein

fach

deu

tlic

h m

eh

r L

eu

te,

die

sic

h u

m s

ow

as

wie

ein

en

Fort

sch

ritt

kü

mm

ern

; als

es

dam

als

war.

95

.

Rein

hard

[leis

e]

Das

hab

e i

ch s

chon

gefr

ag

t.9

6.

Pers

pekti

ve

Rein

hard

Wie

sie

ht

es

eig

en

tlic

h P

lan

-mäß

ig b

ei

dir

au

s?9

7.

Jon

as D

an

ach

?9

8.

Rein

hard

Ja,

dan

ach

.9

9.

Jon

as Ja

, ic

h w

ürd

e g

ern

e e

inen

Dokto

r m

ach

en

. W

o w

eiß

ich

nic

ht.

Wah

rsch

ein

lich

gan

zg

ern

e w

eit

er

Qu

an

ten

op

tik,

od

er

Op

to-M

ech

an

ik,

od

er

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

.Ir

gen

dw

ie s

o i

n d

em

bre

iten

Feld

. Ja

, m

al

sch

au

en

. W

as

da g

en

au

weiß

ich

ab

er

noch

nic

ht.

Als

o i

ch h

ab

nic

hts

wir

kli

ch i

n A

uss

ich

t.

10

0.

Rein

hard

Die

Dip

lom

arb

eit

ein

mal

als

Nah

ziel?

10

1.

Jon

as D

ie D

iplo

marb

eit

ein

mal

nach

Hau

se f

ah

ren

. B

ish

er

kam

's m

ir a

uch

so v

or

wie

wen

n e

igen

tlic

h s

ich

die

Pro

fs,

Jen

s E

isert

od

er

so w

as

zum

Beis

pie

l, s

ich

da s

chon

irg

en

dw

ie d

aru

m k

üm

mert

un

d m

ir d

an

n s

ag

en

: B

ew

erb

dic

h m

al

bei

dem

un

dd

em

, d

as

wü

rde e

igen

tlic

h r

ela

tiv

gu

t p

ass

en

. D

a k

an

nst

du

das

un

d d

as

mach

en

.

10

2.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

ie t

reib

en

das

sch

on

in

ein

e R

ich

tun

g,

dass

da L

eu

te e

nts

teh

en

die

das

mach

en

.1

03

.

Jon

as D

ie h

ab

en

da i

rgen

dw

ie s

chon

ein

bis

sch

en

ein

en

Üb

erb

lick

, sc

hein

t es

mir

.1

04

.R

ein

hard

Es

sch

ein

t d

a s

ozu

sag

en

, zu

min

dest

en

s h

ier

im A

ufb

au

beg

riff

en

zu

sein

. D

azu

min

dest

en

s D

ing

e i

n d

ie R

ich

tun

g v

ora

nzu

bri

ng

en

.1

05

.

Jon

as G

en

au

, es

irg

en

dw

ie i

mm

er

noch

so,

dass

irg

en

dw

ie a

lles

wo "

Qu

" d

rin

ste

ckt,

ist

ein

fach

gera

de i

n.

Da h

at

man

au

ch g

ute

Mög

lich

keit

en

selb

st n

och

was

zum

ach

en

[la

cht]

.

10

6.

Rein

hard

Vers

teh

e.

10

7.

Jon

as Je

meh

r "Q

u"s

dest

o b

ess

er.

10

8.

Vers

ch

rän

ku

ng

Rein

hard

Im P

rin

zip

wäre

n d

as

mein

e F

rag

en

gew

ese

n.

Wen

n d

u n

ich

ts..

.1

09

.Jo

nas Je

tzt

hab

en

wir

nic

ht

viel

zur

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

gem

ach

t? I

ch w

eiß

nic

ht,

jetz

t d

air

gen

dw

as

au

s d

em

Näh

kast

en

was

darü

ber

zu s

ag

en

ist

natü

rlic

h a

uch

nic

ht

un

bed

ing

t ein

fach

. A

n s

ich

was

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

ist

, d

efi

nie

rt s

ich

bei

mir

hau

pts

äch

lich

eig

en

tlic

h d

am

it w

as

man

halt

mach

en

kan

n.

Weil

irg

en

wie

was

es

ist,

gla

ub

e i

ch w

eiß

kein

er

so r

ich

tig

. M

an

weiß

in

zwis

chen

so e

in b

issc

hen

wie

man

es

qu

an

tifi

ziert

. W

ie m

an

sag

en

kan

n i

ch h

ab

e v

iel,

ich

hab

e w

en

igVers

chrä

nku

ng

. U

nd

man

...

Na ja,

was

man

dan

n e

ben

fü

r E

ffekte

seh

en

wü

rde.

Irg

en

dw

ie T

ele

port

ati

on

od

er

Info

rmati

on

süb

ert

rag

un

g.

Gen

au

. E

infa

ch n

ur

irg

en

dw

ie a

ls e

ine R

ess

ou

rce.

11

0.

Rein

hard

Un

d w

ürd

est

du

seh

en

, d

ass

man

dara

us

meh

r E

rken

ntn

is g

ew

inn

t. W

en

n jetz

tein

mal

die

Fra

ge..

.1

11

.

Jon

as A

lso A

nw

en

du

ng

au

f je

den

Fall

. A

lso i

ch m

ein

e d

ie A

nw

en

du

ng

en

die

bis

her

au

sd

en

Qu

an

ten

rau

sgekom

men

sin

d,

beru

fen

sic

h f

ast

--

nein

das

kan

n i

ch jetz

t n

ich

tsa

gen

--.

.. A

ber

es

gib

t au

f je

den

Fall

An

wen

du

ng

en

wie

in

der

Kry

pto

gra

ph

ie,

eb

en

zum

Beis

pie

l, o

der

jetz

t eb

en

in

der

Kon

troll

e v

on

irg

en

dw

elc

hen

kle

inen

Sys

tem

en

. U

nd

da s

pie

lt d

an

n s

chon

die

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

eb

en

ein

e p

rin

zip

iell

eR

oll

e.

Als

o z

um

al

wir

jetz

t au

ch..

. Z

um

al

irg

en

dw

ie i

nzw

isch

en

mein

Vers

tän

dn

isis

t, d

ass

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

eig

en

tlic

h d

as

ist,

was

die

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

...

Od

er

was

die

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

üb

erh

au

pt

erm

ög

lich

t, d

ass

die

irg

en

dw

ie b

ess

er

wü

rde

als

die

Kla

ssic

he.

Dass

man

dam

it S

ach

en

mach

en

kan

n,

die

die

Kla

ssis

che n

ich

tkan

n.

Das

ist

au

f je

den

Fall

au

f d

ie V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

zu

rück

zufü

hre

n.

Inso

fern

, ja

.A

ber

was

es

ist,

weiß

man

au

ch n

ich

t so

ric

hti

g,

wü

rde i

ch jetz

t b

eh

au

pte

n.

Als

o

11

2.

125

man

che h

ab

en

wah

rsch

ein

lich

ein

bess

ere

s G

efü

hl,

man

che e

in s

chle

chte

res

Gefü

hl.

Ich

hab

e n

och

kein

so r

ich

tig

es.

Rein

hard

Als

o d

u b

len

dest

...

Eig

en

tlic

h n

ich

t ein

mal

au

sble

nd

en

wah

rsch

ein

lich

, so

nd

ern

es

ist

halt

nic

ht

rele

van

t.1

13

.

Jon

as Ic

h e

infa

ch w

irkli

ch n

och

kein

Gefü

hl

dafü

r. D

azu

hab

e i

ch w

ah

rsch

ein

lich

zu

wen

ig m

itg

em

ach

t. I

ch w

eiß

wie

so e

ine T

ele

port

ati

on

mit

so V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

fun

kti

on

iert

. U

nd

ich

weiß

wie

ich

dam

it m

eh

r In

form

ati

on

üb

ert

rag

en

kan

n.

Un

dic

h w

eiß

au

ch w

ie i

ch V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

eb

en

mess

en

kan

n,

od

er

qu

an

tifi

ziere

n k

an

n.

Un

d a

n s

ich

ist

das

für

mic

h d

an

n V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

. D

iese

r op

era

tion

ell

e K

om

ple

x.D

am

it k

an

n i

ch a

ber

au

ch n

ich

t w

irkli

ch s

ag

en

, w

as

es

jetz

t...

11

4.

Rein

hard

Wie

wü

rdest

du

den

An

wen

du

ng

sbere

ich

der

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

seh

en

? E

s sc

hein

t ja

nic

ht

an

die

Grö

ßen

skala

geb

un

den

zu

sein

od

er

an

das

Sys

tem

. E

s sc

hein

t ja

meh

rso

, w

en

n m

an

das

sag

en

wil

l, p

rin

zip

iell

en

Ch

ara

kte

r zu

hab

en

. S

ob

ald

ich

ein

Sys

tem

en

tsp

rech

en

d p

räp

ari

ere

n k

an

n,

en

tsp

rech

en

d v

on

der

Um

welt

iso

liere

nkan

n,

hab

e i

ch d

ie M

ög

lich

keit

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

herz

ust

ell

en

.

11

5.

Jon

as G

en

au

. W

ob

ei

das

Isoli

ere

n e

ben

dan

n,

gera

de w

an

n e

s an

die

Grö

ße g

eh

t, d

er

zen

trale

Pu

nkt

des

Pro

ble

ms

ist.

Un

d s

o,

wori

n m

an

dan

n g

en

au

die

An

wen

du

ng

sieh

t?

11

6.

Rein

hard

Na ja,

die

Fra

ge i

st w

ie d

u s

ozu

sag

en

den

Sta

tus

sieh

st.

Weil

das

sch

ein

t ja

au

chein

e g

ew

isse

Merk

wü

rdig

keit

au

szu

mach

en

, d

as

es

syst

em

un

ab

hän

gig

ist

. O

der,

das

es

eh

er

ein

en

pri

nzi

pie

llen

Ch

ara

kte

r h

at.

11

7.

Jon

as A

lso w

ir h

ab

en

wir

kli

ch m

it d

em

Iso

liere

n i

st e

s d

as

grö

ßte

Pro

ble

m.

Un

dd

esw

eg

en

geh

t es

eb

en

mit

kle

inen

Sys

tem

en

wie

irg

en

dw

elc

hen

Ato

men

, od

er

hau

pts

äch

lich

natü

rlic

h L

ich

t, v

erd

am

mt

gu

t u

nd

all

es

darü

ber

hin

au

s w

ird

im

mer

ved

am

mt

sch

wie

rig

. U

nd

wen

n,

nu

r m

it g

roß

em

Au

fwan

d.

Da g

eh

t n

och

nic

ht

seh

rvi

el

An

wen

du

ng

wü

rde i

ch s

ag

en

. E

s is

t all

es

noch

pri

nzi

pie

ll u

nd

pro

of

of

con

cep

t.

11

8.

Rein

hard

Sola

ng

e k

ein

e A

nw

en

du

ng

da i

st,

od

er

nic

ht

so A

rt d

ie M

ög

lich

keit

da i

st,

das

irg

en

dw

ie w

irkli

ch s

o a

uch

in

grö

ßere

n S

kale

n z

u f

ass

en

, w

ürd

est

du

sag

en

, d

as

ist

nic

ht

gan

z si

cher,

dass

es

au

ch d

ort

rele

van

t se

in k

ön

nte

. Vers

teh

st d

u w

as

ich

mein

e?

Weil

die

Th

eori

e g

ibt

ja n

ich

t vo

r, d

ie G

röß

en

skala

, od

er

wo d

as

sein

eG

ren

zen

hat,

od

er

sein

e L

imit

ieru

ng

. A

lso d

ie V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

.

11

9.

Jon

as A

lso i

ch b

in s

chon

der

Mein

un

g,

dass

die

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

wir

kli

ch ü

bera

llp

rin

zip

iell

au

ftre

ten

kan

n.

Un

d a

uft

rete

n w

ird

. D

ass

ich

ab

er

nic

ht

weiß

ob

man

jem

als

irg

en

dein

e A

nw

en

du

ng

mit

gro

ßen

Sys

tem

en

mach

en

kan

n,

weil

es

ein

fach

vom

Au

fwan

d h

er

viel

zu k

om

pli

ziert

ist

. D

as

mein

te i

ch.

Ab

er

es

wir

d ü

bera

ll..

. B

inm

ir w

irkli

ch s

ich

er,

dass

das

Pri

nzi

p w

irkli

ch ü

bera

ll a

nzu

wen

den

ist

. V

iell

eic

ht

kön

nte

man

sog

ar

irg

en

dw

elc

he P

lan

ete

n m

itein

an

der

vers

chrä

nken

.[la

cht]

12

0.

Rein

hard

Vers

teh

e.

12

1.

Jon

as A

lso z

um

ind

est

...

Sow

eit

seh

e i

ch d

as

jetz

t, d

ass

es

in d

er

Th

eori

e,

sob

ald

ich

die

so b

esc

hre

iben

kan

n:

Als

irg

en

dw

ie z

wei

Sys

tem

e m

it i

rgen

dw

elc

hen

Zu

stän

den

,d

ass

ich

dan

n d

iese

Zu

stän

de a

uch

vers

chrä

nken

kan

n.

12

2.

Rein

hard

Als

o s

ola

ng

e d

as

Exp

eri

men

t n

ich

ts g

eg

en

teil

iges

beh

au

pte

t. W

en

n n

ich

tir

gen

dw

an

n a

uf

ein

mal

au

ftau

chen

wü

rde..

.1

23

.

Jon

as W

en

n d

as

dan

n w

irkli

ch a

uft

au

chen

wü

rde,

dan

n w

ürd

e d

as

wir

kli

ch h

eiß

en

: D

an

nis

t u

nse

re Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ik i

rgen

dw

ie f

als

ch.

Un

d d

avo

n g

eh

e i

ch jetz

t g

era

de

nic

ht

au

s.[l

ach

t] I

nso

fern

bin

ich

der

Mein

un

g:

Das

mü

sste

au

f all

en

...

Das

geh

t au

fall

en

Skale

n.

12

4.

Rein

hard

Ok.

12

5.

Jon

as A

ber

ja d

as

kan

n w

irkli

ch..

. S

ow

as

kan

n z

u e

inem

Test

fü

r Q

uan

ten

mech

an

ikau

sart

en

, ir

gen

dw

ie a

m S

chlu

ß.

Od

er

Qu

an

ten

gen

ere

ll.

12

6.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

eh

er

ers

t w

en

n P

rob

lem

e a

uft

au

chen

. E

s w

ürd

e e

s n

ich

t b

est

äti

gen

wen

nn

ich

ts p

ass

iert

, so

nd

ern

eh

er

wen

n P

rob

lem

e a

uft

rete

n u

nd

das

nic

ht

meh

rfu

nkti

on

iere

n w

ürd

e..

.

12

7.

Jon

as A

lso w

en

n m

an

das

irg

en

dw

an

n r

ich

tig

gu

t u

nte

r K

on

troll

e h

at

so e

in S

yste

m z

uis

oli

ere

n,

sod

ass

es

nic

ht

meh

r se

ine V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

in

die

Um

geb

un

g a

bg

ibt,

pra

kti

sch

. A

lso d

ekoh

eri

ert

. W

en

n m

an

da i

rgen

dw

ie m

al

was

pri

nzi

pie

ll g

efu

nd

en

hat,

dass

man

das

exa

kt

od

er

voll

stän

dig

irg

en

dw

ie i

soli

ere

n k

an

n u

nd

man

dan

nkein

e V

ers

chrä

nku

ng

hers

tell

en

kan

n,

dan

n i

st w

as

seh

r kap

utt

. D

a m

uss

man

wah

rsch

ein

lich

fast

neu

an

fan

gen

. A

ber

davo

n g

eh

e i

ch n

ich

t au

s. A

ber

kan

nn

atü

rlic

h p

ass

iere

n.

12

8.

En

de

Rein

hard

Gu

t. D

an

ke f

ür

das

Inte

rvie

w.

12

9.

Jon

as Ja

, kein

Pro

ble

m.

13

0.

(no s

peaker)

[sm

all

talk

]1

31

.


126

Flo

rian

_110525

Inte

rvie

w m

it M

ag

. F

lori

an

Bla

ser

vom

25

.05

.20

11

Tra

nsc

rib

ed

by

yott

a,

vers

ion

1 o

f 1

10

52

7

An

fan

g,

pers

ön

lich

e D

ate

n,

Au

sbil

du

ng

Rein

hard

In t

he b

eg

inn

ing

it'

s ju

st s

om

e g

en

era

l q

uest

ion

s. H

ow

old

are

you

?1

.F

lori

an

I am

30

.2

.R

ein

hard

Th

at

took y

ou

a w

hil

e.

3.

Flo

rian

I st

op

ped

cou

nti

ng

five

years

ag

o.

4.

Rein

hard

Wh

at

is y

ou

r ed

uca

tion

al

back

gro

un

d?

I m

ean

wh

ere

did

you

stu

dy?

5.

Flo

rian

I st

ud

ied

ph

ysic

s in

Sw

itze

rlan

d,

in N

eu

chate

l. I

t w

as

a v

ery

sm

all

un

ivers

ity

that

was

not

reall

y sp

eci

ali

zed

in

qu

an

tum

in

form

ati

on

stu

ff.

Most

of

the q

uan

tum

stu

ffI

learn

ed

...

So I

did

have

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics

in m

y co

urs

es,

bu

t q

uan

tum

info

rmati

on

was

not

very

str

on

g.

An

d w

e n

eve

r ta

lked

ab

ou

t en

tan

gle

men

t th

ere

.A

s yo

u s

tud

ied

in

Vie

nn

a,

I g

uess

it

is q

uit

e t

he o

pp

osi

te.

6.

Rein

hard

An

d w

hen

did

you

com

e h

ere

?7

.F

lori

an

I ca

me h

ere

to d

o m

y d

iplo

ma t

hesi

s. I

sta

rted

in

th

e g

rou

p o

f Z

eil

ing

er

[An

ton

Zeil

ing

er]

. A

nd

basi

call

y I

start

ed

to w

ork

on

th

e o

pto

-mech

an

ics

exp

eri

men

ts i

nth

e v

ery

beg

inn

ing

.

8.

Rein

hard

So t

his

was

two y

ears

ag

o?

9.

Flo

rian

20

05

, 2

00

6.

An

d t

hen

aft

er

my

dip

lom

a t

hesi

s I

wen

t on

work

ing

in

th

e i

nd

ust

ry.

An

d t

hen

cam

e b

ack

for

a P

hD

.1

0.

Rein

hard

Wh

at

was

you

r d

iplo

ma t

hesi

s ab

ou

t?1

1.

Flo

rian

I d

id s

imu

lati

on

s of

the m

ech

an

ical

syst

em

s w

e h

ave

. A

nd

als

o w

ork

ed

on

th

eexp

eri

men

ts t

hat

pro

du

ced

th

e fi

rst

cooli

ng

of

the m

oti

on

of

the c

an

tile

ver.

12

.

Rein

hard

Wh

at

did

you

do i

n t

he i

nd

ust

ry?

13

.F

lori

an

In t

he i

nd

ust

ry I

did

com

pu

ter

stu

ff.

So n

o p

hys

ics.

14

.R

ein

hard

Wh

en

did

you

get

to e

nta

ng

lem

en

t? W

as

it ju

st h

ere

in

Vie

nn

a,

or

som

ew

here

befo

re?

15

.

Flo

rian

I th

ink t

hat

was

the r

easo

n t

o c

om

e t

o V

ien

na.

Du

rin

g m

y st

ud

ies

I st

art

ed

, so

Ile

arn

ed

a b

it a

bou

t en

tan

gle

men

t, a

nd

sta

rted

to r

ead

on

my

ow

n t

wo b

ooks.

Books

ab

ou

t q

uan

tum

in

form

ati

on

. I

start

ed

read

ing

th

e N

iels

en

an

d C

hu

an

g b

ook

16

.

[com

pre

hen

sive

in

trod

uct

ion

to q

uan

tum

com

pu

tati

on

an

d i

nfo

rmati

on

]. I

got

qu

ite

inte

rest

ed

. A

nd

I s

tart

ed

to r

ead

th

e p

ap

ers

th

at

were

goin

g i

n t

his

dir

ect

ion

. S

o i

tw

as

the t

ime o

f th

e c

lust

er

com

pu

tin

g w

ith

th

e m

ult

i-p

hoto

n e

xperi

men

ts.

An

d I

read

ab

ou

t th

is a

nd

so o

k t

here

is

this

gro

up

in

Vie

nn

a.

Th

ey

seem

ed

to b

e g

ood

at

that

an

d I

tri

ed

to a

pp

ly t

here

.R

ein

hard

An

d i

t w

ork

ed

.1

7.

Flo

rian

An

d i

t w

ork

ed

. T

hey

were

cra

zy e

nou

gh

.1

8.

Rein

hard

So t

hat

was

the r

easo

n t

o c

om

e h

ere

an

d join

th

e g

rou

p. B

eco

me i

nvo

lved

in

th

is.

An

d w

hat

are

you

r am

bit

ion

s to

get

don

e h

ere

. I

mean

you

r P

hD

pro

bab

ly?

19

.

Flo

rian

Yeah

, so

I a

m P

hD

. I

am

work

ing

on

a p

roje

ct t

o d

o a

lso t

he k

ind

of

exp

eri

men

tsth

at

we d

id w

ith

th

e m

irro

rs,

wh

ich

are

sti

ll c

on

tin

uin

g,

bu

t w

ith

tra

pp

ed

nan

op

art

icle

s in

stead

.

20

.

Rein

hard

So y

ou

an

d N

ikola

i [N

ikola

i K

iese

l] a

re w

ork

ing

on

th

e s

am

e e

xperi

men

t?2

1.

Flo

rian

Exa

ctly

.2

2.

Rein

hard

So i

t is

ju

st y

ou

tw

o,

or?

23

.F

lori

an

Th

ere

is

thir

d g

uy

nam

ed

Uro

s [U

ros

Deli

c].

24

.S

o a

gain

. A

s in

my

dip

lom

a t

hesi

s, i

t is

most

ly c

lass

ical

ph

ysic

s. W

ith

som

e c

han

cew

e w

ill

reach

th

e g

rou

nd

sta

te.

Th

at

wil

l b

e m

y P

hD

th

en

.2

5.

Rein

hard

Ok.

So t

hat

is y

ou

r P

hD

top

ic t

o g

et

there

?2

6.

Flo

rian

To g

et

there

is

qu

ite a

ch

all

en

gin

g g

oal.

It

mig

ht

stil

l h

ap

pen

.2

7.

Rein

hard

At

wh

at

tim

e s

cale

? H

ow

lon

g w

ill

it t

ake y

ou

, yo

u t

hin

k?

28

.F

lori

an

So I

a P

hD

usu

all

y th

ree y

ears

. B

ut

thre

e p

lus

inte

rnall

y. A

nd

I d

id o

ne a

nd

a h

alf

year

up

to n

ow

.2

9.

Rein

hard

So y

ou

got

an

oth

er

on

e a

nd

a h

alf

to g

et

it d

on

e.

30

.

Au

fgab

e i

m E

xp

eri

men

t /

Roll

e i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e

Rein

hard

As

alr

ead

y sa

id y

ou

are

work

ing

wit

h N

ikola

i [N

ikola

i K

iese

l] a

nd

Uro

s [U

ros

Deli

c].

I ta

lked

wit

h N

ikola

i an

yway

how

far

you

got

in t

he e

xperi

men

t. A

nd

at

wh

ich

sta

te y

ou

are

.

31

.

Flo

rian

So w

e r

eall

y w

an

t to

see t

he p

roof

of

pri

nci

ple

rig

ht

now

.3

2.

Rein

hard

Is t

here

an

y st

ress

fro

m o

ther

gro

up

s? D

o y

ou

kn

ow

of

oth

er

gro

up

s th

at

are

...?

33

.F

lori

an

Defi

nit

ely

. W

e k

now

a f

ew

gro

up

s w

ho a

re f

or

sure

work

ing

in

th

e s

am

e d

irect

ion

.[?

?? a

sen

ten

ce I

cou

ld n

ot

get

???]

34

.

127

Rein

hard

So t

hey

are

on

th

e s

am

e l

eve

l?3

5.

Flo

rian

It d

ep

en

ds.

On

e g

rou

p i

s m

ore

ad

van

ced

. W

e d

on

't k

now

a l

ot

of

the o

ther

gro

up

s,b

eca

use

nob

od

y h

as

pu

bli

shed

an

yth

ing

. E

xcep

t on

e g

rou

p h

as

pu

bli

shed

alr

ead

yso

me p

ap

er,

wh

ere

th

ey

don

't r

eall

y w

ere

in

tere

sted

in

cooli

ng

. B

ut

they

had

atr

ap

pin

g a

nd

measu

red

th

e B

row

nia

n m

oti

on

[st

och

ast

ic r

an

dom

move

men

t of

part

icle

s su

spen

ded

in

a fl

uid

] of

the p

art

icle

. A

nd

wit

h t

his

th

ey

then

sh

ow

ed

feed

back

cooli

ng

. O

ur

gu

ess

is

that

they

con

tin

ue i

n t

he s

am

e d

irect

ion

.

36

.

Rein

hard

Wou

ld b

e l

og

ical

to g

o o

n f

rom

th

ere

.3

7.

Cou

ld y

ou

desc

rib

e w

hat

you

r h

an

ds

on

job

is

at

the e

xperi

men

t? I

mean

, N

ikola

ito

ld m

e t

hat

you

did

at

the m

om

en

t L

ab

Vie

w [

gra

ph

ical

pro

gra

mm

ing

en

viro

nm

en

tto

deve

lop

measu

rem

en

t, t

est

, an

d c

on

trol

syst

em

s].

38

.

Flo

rian

Yeah

, cu

rren

tly

I am

doin

g L

ab

Vie

w.

We b

asi

call

y n

eed

to p

lan

an

d d

iscu

ss h

ow

we

wan

t to

do i

t. T

hat

is s

om

eth

ing

we d

o q

uit

e a

lot

wit

h N

ikola

i. W

e t

ry t

o g

et

the

ideas

to g

et

rid

of

the n

ois

e.

An

d h

ave

th

e b

est

measu

rem

en

t p

oss

ible

. T

hen

th

ere

is t

he r

eall

y h

an

d o

n w

ork

of

ali

gn

ing

th

e o

pti

cs.

Sett

ing

up

th

e e

lect

ron

ics

for

makin

g t

he s

etu

p w

ork

. A

nd

ad

just

ing

ele

ctro

nic

s, o

pti

cs a

nd

...

Wh

en

it'

s in

th

eexp

eri

men

t an

d i

f w

e s

ee t

he s

ign

al.

Late

ly w

e h

ave

seen

th

e s

ign

al

in t

he w

ay

we

wan

ted

it

to a

pp

ear.

An

oth

er

part

of

the job

is

act

uall

y to

make b

ets

wit

h N

ikola

i.W

heth

er

this

wil

l w

ork

or

not.

Th

at

ad

ds

som

e f

un

to i

t.

39

.

Rein

hard

Th

at

dep

en

ds

on

how

oft

en

you

win

. O

r lo

se.

40

.F

lori

an

We a

nyw

ay

go f

or

a b

eer.

Th

e b

et

is a

way

to r

an

dom

ize w

ho p

ays

.4

1.

Rein

hard

If t

he r

esu

lt i

s ok,

it's

fin

e.

42

.F

lori

an

So c

urr

en

tly

we g

et

the s

ign

al.

We r

ou

gh

ly k

now

how

to d

o t

he m

easu

rem

en

t. W

eare

sti

ll p

roce

ssin

g t

he d

ata

to s

ee i

f w

e h

ave

th

e e

ffect

th

at

we w

an

t. A

nd

th

e n

ext

step

, w

hat

we d

o i

n p

ara

llel,

is

just

to p

rog

ram

. To h

ave

an

au

tom

ati

zati

on

of

the

exp

eri

men

t. N

ow

th

at

we k

now

th

at

it s

om

eh

ow

sh

ou

ld w

ork

.

43

.

Inte

rpre

tati

on

/ T

heori

e /

Exp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

So h

ow

wou

ld y

ou

see t

he c

on

nect

ion

betw

een

th

e t

heory

an

d t

he e

xperi

men

tal

part

of

this

exp

eri

men

t?4

4.

Flo

rian

Here

I t

hin

k t

he t

heory

is

pre

tty

clear.

In

th

e s

en

se t

hat.

.. S

o i

t is

a d

iffere

nt

syst

em

to w

hic

h w

e a

pp

ly t

he t

heory

th

at

is a

lread

y kn

ow

n.

So t

here

is

stil

l a l

ot

of

back

an

d f

ort

h.

Th

e i

nte

rest

ing

th

eory

part

is

the l

imit

ati

on

s of

the s

yste

m a

nd

how

we c

an

im

pro

ve t

hat.

So h

ere

in

th

eory

we h

ave

a c

oll

ab

ora

te o

f th

is p

roje

ct.

We h

ave

a c

oll

ab

ora

tion

wit

h t

he p

ers

on

s w

ho a

ctu

all

y p

rop

ose

d t

he e

xperi

men

t.S

o w

e d

on

't d

o m

ost

of

the t

heory

. B

ut

to p

red

ict

som

eth

ing

, w

e h

ave

to d

o t

he l

ast

bit

of

theory

in

ap

ply

ing

th

e c

alc

ula

tion

s.

45

.

Rein

hard

So a

t le

ast

to c

om

pare

th

e r

esu

lts

wit

h s

om

e t

heory

. W

hat

you

exp

ect

ed

.4

6.

Flo

rian

Exa

ctly

.4

7.

Fasz

inati

on

an

der

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik

Rein

hard

Wh

at

in y

ou

r eye

s is

it

that

fasc

inate

s yo

u a

bou

t q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics?

Or

wh

y yo

ud

o t

his

?4

8.

Flo

rian

So t

he e

asy

an

swer

is e

nta

ng

lem

en

t, r

igh

t. T

he m

ost

pro

fou

nd

moti

vati

on

is

the

fact

th

at

we h

ave

a t

heory

th

at

is h

ard

to g

rasp

in

norm

al

term

s, o

r co

mm

on

day

exp

eri

en

ce.

It i

s h

ard

to b

rin

g t

hat

kn

ow

led

ges

to t

he q

uan

tum

worl

d.

Or

to m

ake

an

an

alo

gy

of

the q

uan

tum

worl

d u

sin

g d

ay-

to-d

ay

exp

eri

en

ce.

I th

ink t

hat'

s q

uit

e a

revo

luti

on

in

sci

en

ce.

It d

idn

't s

tart

rece

ntl

y. A

cen

tury

ag

o i

t st

art

ed

an

d I

th

ink

it's

very

in

tere

stin

g t

o s

ee h

ow

th

is a

ffect

s ou

r p

erc

ep

tion

an

d o

ur

view

of

the

worl

d..

. p

hys

icall

y.

49

.

Rein

hard

So d

o y

ou

see t

his

rath

er

as

a p

rob

lem

or

som

e m

oti

vati

on

to g

o a

head

an

d d

oso

me t

hin

gs?

50

.

Flo

rian

It i

s ra

ther

a m

oti

vati

on

to u

nd

ers

tan

d.

Th

is b

att

le b

etw

een

reali

sts

an

d l

oca

ln

on

-reali

sts

is q

uit

e f

asc

inati

ng

. B

eca

use

rig

ht

now

it

is b

eco

min

g h

ard

to fi

nd

ag

uy

wh

o b

eli

eve

s in

loca

l h

idd

en

vari

ab

le t

heori

es

[th

e E

PR

pap

er

arg

ues

for

those

], o

r eve

n n

on

-loca

l h

idd

en

vari

ab

le t

heori

es

[Boh

m's

th

eory

is

on

e o

f th

ose

].To m

e p

ers

on

all

y th

is l

ooks

like p

eop

le t

ryin

g t

o k

eep

th

e o

ld w

ay

of

lookin

g a

tth

ing

s. N

ot

makin

g t

he s

tep

nece

ssary

to u

nd

ers

tan

d q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

51

.

Rein

hard

Th

e q

uest

ion

is

how

far

it r

eall

y m

att

ers

? A

s yo

u s

aid

befo

re a

t th

e e

xperi

men

t,ri

gh

t n

ow

, it

is

qu

ite c

lass

ical.

52

.

Flo

rian

For

me t

hat

was

the m

oti

vati

on

to c

om

e h

ere

. I

kn

ow

th

at

I'm

not

rese

arc

hin

g i

nth

is d

irect

ion

. S

o I

'm d

oin

g c

lass

ical

ph

ysic

s [s

arc

asm

]. T

he h

op

e o

f th

eexp

eri

men

t is

to g

o r

eall

y in

th

e q

uan

tum

reg

ime.

Bu

t it

is

a l

on

g w

ay.

An

d i

t's

act

uall

y a c

hall

en

ge.

I d

on

't t

hin

k a

nyb

od

y w

ou

ld d

ou

bt

that

it w

ill

not

work

, b

ut

it's

an

are

a o

f p

hys

ics

that

has

not

been

test

ed

.

53

.

Rein

hard

At

least

you

have

to d

o t

he t

hin

gs.

Pro

posi

ng

is

qu

ite o

k,

bu

t at

som

eti

me y

ou

'dli

ke t

o,

at

least

, sh

ow

or

see t

hat

there

is

som

eth

ing

.5

4.

An

d d

o y

ou

th

ink t

hat

exp

eri

men

ts h

elp

? If

you

th

ink o

f it

pers

on

all

y th

at

you

get

ab

ett

er

idea a

bou

t th

e s

itu

ati

on

?5

5.

Flo

rian

You

mean

rela

tive

to q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics?

56

.R

ein

hard

Yeah

. Yo

u g

et

more

acc

ust

om

ed

to i

t?5

7.

Flo

rian

So w

ith

th

is c

urr

en

t exp

eri

men

t, n

o.

Defi

nit

ely

not.

Fro

m t

he t

heory

I r

ead

, th

eth

eory

pap

ers

I r

ead

, I

get

a b

it.

I g

uess

I s

till

in

crease

my

un

ders

tan

din

g o

f th

eth

ing

s th

rou

gh

in

tera

ctio

ns

wit

h o

ther

peop

le f

rom

th

e q

uan

tum

gro

up

.

58

.

Rein

hard

So i

t is

more

lik

e t

he e

xch

an

ge o

f th

e v

iew

s th

at

are

cir

cula

tin

g a

rou

nd

here

th

at.

..5

9.

Flo

rian

An

d I

th

ink e

ven

th

ou

gh

we a

re n

ot.

.. I

th

ink t

he c

om

mon

dete

rmin

itor

of

eve

ryb

od

y in

th

e q

uan

tum

gro

up

is

an

in

tere

st f

or

this

kin

d o

f th

ing

s. E

ven

if

the

syst

em

s w

e a

re d

eali

ng

wit

h a

re n

ot

the s

am

e,

we c

an

alw

ays

fin

d a

gro

un

d f

or

dis

cuss

ion

s.

60

.


128

Rein

hard

Do y

ou

have

an

y id

ea o

r...

Wh

at

wou

ld y

ou

th

ink w

ou

ld m

ake i

t easi

er

tou

nd

ers

tan

d q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics?

Do y

ou

see a

kin

d o

f h

op

e t

hat

there

wil

l b

e s

om

ech

an

ges

so t

hat

you

get

som

e e

asy

acc

ess

?

61

.

Flo

rian

Th

e o

nly

way

I th

ink i

t ca

n..

. U

nle

ss t

here

is

a b

ig c

han

ge t

o q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics

an

d t

here

is

a b

ig c

han

ge i

n t

he t

heory

, b

eca

use

we f

ou

nd

som

e w

ay

to e

xpla

in i

t.O

r to

get

the s

am

e r

esu

lts

wit

hou

t re

sort

ing

to t

he w

ave

fu

nct

ion

. I

thin

k t

he

chan

ge t

hat

mig

ht

hap

pen

is

on

ly a

t th

e p

ed

ag

og

ical

leve

l. P

eop

le l

earn

ing

it

diff

ere

ntl

y. H

avi

ng

acc

ess

to m

ore

exa

mp

les.

I t

hin

k t

he e

xperi

men

ts t

hat

have

hap

pen

ed

in

In

nsb

ruck

an

d V

ien

na i

n t

he l

ast

tw

en

ty y

ears

are

good

exa

mp

les

that

can

be u

sed

to l

earn

more

ab

ou

t q

uan

tum

...

To g

et

a b

igg

er

gra

sp o

f q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

62

.

Rein

hard

So i

t is

more

lik

e a

tech

nolo

gic

al

pro

gre

ss?

63

.F

lori

an

I w

as

not

speakin

g o

f th

e t

ech

nolo

gic

al

pro

gre

ss.

I w

as

just

th

inkin

g o

f b

asi

call

yth

e r

eali

sati

on

of

Ged

an

ken

exp

eri

men

ts.

Th

at

this

reall

y w

ork

s. A

nd

you

have

man

y d

iffere

nt

ways

of

makin

g t

he e

xperi

men

t w

ork

. Yo

u h

ave

man

y d

iffere

nt

syst

em

s. A

nd

th

ey

all

ag

ree w

ith

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics.

Fro

m a

ll o

f th

ose

diff

ere

nt

syst

em

s, y

ou

can

som

eh

ow

make a

bett

er

pic

ture

in

you

r h

ead

.

64

.

Rein

hard

As

you

alr

ead

y sa

id.

Fro

m y

ou

r ty

pe o

f ed

uca

tion

you

had

, d

id y

ou

fin

d s

om

eth

ing

lack

ing

? B

eca

use

you

said

th

at

more

pri

vate

ly y

ou

got

inte

rest

ed

in

th

ese

kin

d o

fth

ing

s, o

uts

ide o

f st

ud

yin

g p

hys

ics.

65

.

Flo

rian

I h

ave

to s

ay

it i

s m

ore

a p

ers

on

al

thin

g.

Bu

t I

thin

k i

t w

as

lack

ing

, b

eca

use

I'm

inte

rest

ed

in

it.

We a

lso d

idn

't h

ave

an

y co

urs

es

on

pla

sma p

hys

ics.

I'm

less

inte

rest

ed

in

th

at,

so..

. I

had

th

e b

asi

s to

go o

n a

nd

seek q

uan

tum

in

form

ati

on

.W

hat

was

mis

sin

g f

rom

th

e c

ou

rses

was

just

th

e d

efi

nit

ion

of

qu

an

tum

en

tan

gle

men

t ri

gh

t aw

ay.

We k

new

[??

? a w

ord

I c

ou

ld n

ot

get

???]

, w

e k

new

den

sity

matr

ices,

we k

new

eve

ryth

ing

th

at

lead

s u

p t

o t

hat

poin

t. W

e n

eve

r h

ad

ab

ipart

ite s

yste

m [

syst

em

of

two p

art

s; c

an

sp

ort

en

tan

gle

men

t or

not]

desc

rib

ed

an

d t

hen

sh

ow

you

th

at

you

can

have

sta

tes

that

are

not

sep

ara

ble

[i.

e.

that

the a

reen

tan

gle

d].

66

.

Rein

hard

Th

is i

s a v

ery

basi

c le

vel

of

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics.

67

.F

lori

an

Yeah

, of

qu

an

tum

in

form

ati

on

.6

8.

Rein

hard

Oh

yeah

, q

uan

tum

in

form

ati

on

.6

9.

Flo

rian

So i

n q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics

we w

en

t m

ore

in

th

e d

irect

ion

of

qu

an

tum

field

th

eory

[th

eory

ab

ou

t q

uan

tum

sys

tem

s cl

ass

icall

y re

pre

sen

ted

by

an

in

fin

ite n

um

ber

of

dyn

am

ical

deg

rees

of

freed

om

(fi

eld

s)],

or

part

icle

ph

ysic

s. T

hat

is w

hy

I le

arn

ed

alo

t ab

ou

t p

ath

in

teg

rals

an

d t

hin

gs

like t

hat.

Wh

ich

is

als

o a

dva

nce

d s

tuff

. I

thin

kth

e q

uan

tum

in

form

ati

on

stu

ff i

s m

ore

easy

to g

rasp

, b

eca

use

it

has

less

math

em

ati

cs b

eh

ind

it.

On

ce y

ou

have

th

e b

asi

s of

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics.

.. S

o y

ou

can

act

uall

y u

nd

ers

tan

d q

uit

e e

asi

ly o

pen

pro

ble

ms.

You

can

easi

ly g

o t

o o

pen

pro

ble

ms

from

a b

asi

c...

Th

at

does

not

mean

you

can

solv

e t

hem

.

70

.

Rein

hard

Bu

t yo

u a

re g

ett

ing

th

ere

qu

ite q

uic

k i

n r

esp

ect

to o

ther

field

s of

scie

nce

, w

here

71

.

you

have

to g

o t

hro

ug

h a

lot

of

theore

tica

l co

nce

pts

. Ju

st t

o g

et

near

som

eth

ing

wh

ere

you

can

make s

om

eth

ing

new

or

have

id

eas

ab

ou

t h

ow

exp

eri

men

ts c

ou

ldlo

ok l

ike.

Flo

rian

I th

ink t

hat'

s als

o q

uit

e a

ttra

ctiv

e i

n t

his

field

. W

hen

you

look a

t th

e f

ou

nd

ati

on

s,th

en

you

wil

l n

eve

r lo

ok a

t a v

ery

com

pli

cate

d s

yste

m.

We a

lways

try

to m

ake i

t as

sim

ple

as

poss

ible

. A

nd

as

cou

nte

r-in

tuit

ive a

s p

oss

ible

, in

th

e c

ase

of

the

fou

nd

ati

on

s of

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics.

72

.

tech

nis

ch

er

Fort

sch

ritt

Rein

hard

How

do y

ou

see t

he t

ech

nic

al

pro

gre

ss;

how

far

you

r in

sig

ht

goes?

73

.F

lori

an

For

exp

eri

men

ts t

he t

ech

nic

al

pro

gre

sses

are

sim

ple

wh

at

all

ow

s u

s to

make b

ett

er

exp

eri

men

ts.

In a

sen

se i

t is

reall

y im

port

an

t. W

e d

on

't d

o a

lot

of

ap

pli

ed

rese

arc

h,

bu

t w

e d

efi

nit

ely

need

oth

er

peop

le t

o d

o i

t. T

o g

et

bett

er

dete

ctors

,b

ett

er

ele

ctro

nic

s, b

ett

er

op

tica

l co

mp

on

en

ts.

We a

re o

nly

try

ing

to u

se a

ll t

he

new

est

an

d b

est

toys

th

at

we c

an

bu

y.

74

.

Inte

rpre

tati

on

/ T

heori

e /

Exp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

In r

esp

ect

to i

nte

rpre

tati

on

s of

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics,

do t

hey

mean

an

yth

ing

to

you

? T

hey

mig

ht

not

matt

er

in t

he e

xperi

men

t. O

f co

urs

e n

ot.

Wh

en

you

are

in

th

ela

b a

nd

doin

g t

hin

gs.

.. B

ut

at

wh

at

stag

e,

if a

t all

, d

o y

ou

min

d a

bou

t th

em

?

75

.

Flo

rian

So I

don

't m

ind

ab

ou

t th

em

. I

thin

k i

t is

act

uall

y g

ood

to l

ook f

or

new

on

es.

Act

uall

y I'

m a

bit

relu

ctan

t to

look a

t in

terp

reta

tion

s. A

ll o

f th

em

are

fall

ing

in

toth

is c

ate

gory

: T

hey

are

not

reall

y p

red

icti

ve.

To m

e t

hey

are

in

tere

stin

g o

nly

as

aw

ay

to t

hin

k a

bou

t th

eori

es

that

cou

ld h

ave

a d

iffere

nt

pre

dic

tion

th

an

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics.

I t

hin

k t

hey

are

use

ful.

Ju

st a

s a t

ool

to t

hin

k a

bou

t w

hat

cou

ld c

han

ge

in q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

Wh

at

mod

ifica

tion

s co

uld

be m

ad

e t

o q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics

an

d t

hen

how

to t

est

th

em

. B

ut

pers

on

all

y I

don

't h

ave

str

on

g f

eeli

ng

s ab

ou

t an

y of

them

. I'

m b

asi

call

y m

ore

pra

gm

ati

st.

76

.

Rein

hard

If t

hey

are

not

pre

dic

tin

g a

nyt

hin

g,

how

cou

ld t

hey

pla

y a b

ig r

ole

?7

7.

Flo

rian

I m

ean

th

ey

cou

ld p

lay

a b

ig r

ole

in

th

e w

ay

we s

ee o

r te

ach

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics.

Bu

t I

thin

k t

hey

are

all

a b

it m

ore

...

It i

s an

ext

ra l

aye

r of

info

rmati

on

on

top

of

the

stu

ff t

hat

you

reall

y n

eed

to k

now

to d

o q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

I'm

alw

ays

tem

pte

dto

learn

more

ab

ou

t th

em

, ju

st t

o fi

nd

th

e d

iffere

nce

s. I

th

ink t

hey

reall

y h

ave

an

imp

act

on

th

e w

ay

we p

op

ula

rize

sci

en

ce o

r q

uan

tum

mech

an

ics.

If

you

take t

he

man

y-w

orl

ds

theory

, th

at

is a

very

str

on

g w

ay

to i

nsi

st o

n t

he p

ecu

liari

ties

of

qu

an

tum

mech

an

ics.

Bu

t, i

t is

als

o a

nic

e w

ay

to p

inp

oin

t th

e m

easu

rem

en

tp

rob

lem

.

78

.

Rein

hard

So i

t is

a q

uest

ion

of.

.. I

f yo

u e

xag

gera

te t

he p

oin

t th

at

there

is

the m

easu

rem

en

tp

rob

lem

or

you

don

't?

79

.

Flo

rian

Th

at

is a

ctu

all

y a g

ood

poin

t. I

t is

a w

ay

to e

xag

gera

te i

t.8

0.

Rein

hard

129

Cou

ld I

th

ink o

f so

meth

ing

els

e?

Let

me s

ee.

Pro

bab

ly n

ot.

So i

f yo

u w

an

t to

ad

dso

meth

ing

? S

om

eth

ing

I d

idn

't m

en

tion

?8

1.

Flo

rian

Sorr

y th

at

I d

on

't h

ave

a l

ot

of

han

ds-

on

exp

eri

men

ts w

ith

en

tan

gle

men

t ri

gh

t n

ow

.If

you

have

qu

est

ion

s la

ter

you

can

alw

ays

sen

d a

n e

mail

or.

..8

2.

Rein

hard

So,

than

k y

ou

very

mu

ch f

or

the i

nte

rvie

w.

83

.(n

o s

peaker)

small

talk

84

.


130

Mark

us_

110706

Inte

rvie

w m

it M

ark

us

Asp

elm

eye

r vo

m 0

6.0

7.2

01

1T

ran

scri

bed

by

yott

a,

vers

ion

2 o

f 1

10

70

8

An

fan

g,

pers

ön

lich

e D

ate

n,

Au

sbil

du

ng

(no s

peaker)

[sm

all

talk

]1

.R

ein

hard

Ich

werd

e v

ers

uch

en

es

wie

bei

all

en

an

dere

n z

u m

ach

en

; all

en

an

dere

nIn

terv

iew

s. A

llg

em

ein

e F

rag

en

: W

ie a

lt b

ist

du

?2

.

Mark

us

[lach

t] D

a m

uss

ich

selb

er

imm

er

nach

den

ken

. 3

7.

Wart

e.

Ja.

Irg

en

dw

an

n h

ört

man

zu z

äh

len

au

f.3

.

Rein

hard

Ja,

ja.

Das

hab

e i

ch s

chon

öft

ers

geh

ört

.4

.M

ark

us

Dan

n s

chätz

t m

an

ein

fach

.5

.R

ein

hard

Reic

ht

ja.

6.

Wie

war

dein

e A

usb

ild

un

g?

Od

er

sag

en

wir

so,

wo h

ast

du

stu

die

rt?

Wie

ist

es

dan

n e

in b

isse

rl w

eit

erg

eg

an

gen

? S

pezi

ell

er

dan

n i

n R

ich

tun

g:

Wie

bis

t d

u z

ur

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik g

ekom

men

, od

er

dem

Feld

, sa

gen

wir

so?

7.

Mark

us

Als

o s

tud

iert

hab

e i

ch i

n M

ün

chen

, an

der

LM

U,

Ph

ysik

. U

nd

an

der

Hoch

sch

ule

für

Ph

iloso

ph

ie,

Ph

iloso

ph

ie.

Als

o z

uers

t n

ur

Ph

ysik

un

d d

an

n a

b d

em

sech

sten

,si

eb

ten

Sem

est

er

in d

er

Ph

ysik

hab

e i

ch d

an

n P

hil

oso

ph

ie a

ng

efa

ng

en

. H

ab

e d

an

nir

gen

dw

an

n m

ein

Dip

lom

in

der

Ph

ysik

gem

ach

t u

nd

mein

Bakkala

ure

at

in d

er

Ph

iloso

ph

ie.

Bei

Balz

er

[Wolf

gan

g B

alz

er]

mein

e W

isse

nsc

haft

theori

e i

mN

eb

en

fach

gem

ach

t. D

as

war

gan

z lu

stig

. U

nd

bin

...

Hab

e d

an

ach

dan

n m

ein

eP

rom

oti

on

in

der

Ph

ysik

an

gefa

ng

en

. D

as

war

in d

er

Fest

körp

erp

hys

ik.

Ich

hab

eein

Dip

lom

sch

on

in

der

Fest

körp

erp

hys

ik g

em

ach

t u

nd

zw

ar

war

ich

da i

nH

ou

ston

fü

r ein

ein

halb

Jah

re;

mit

Sim

on

Moss

. H

ab

e d

a m

ein

e D

iplo

marb

eit

gem

ach

t, e

xperi

men

tell

. U

nd

hab

e d

a a

m s

elb

en

Th

em

a w

eit

erg

earb

eit

et;

als

oü

ber

stru

ktu

rell

e P

hase

nü

berg

än

ge i

n K

rist

all

en

. M

art

en

siti

sch

e P

hase

nü

berg

än

ge

un

d f

err

oele

ktr

isch

e P

hase

nü

berg

än

ge.

8.

Hab

e d

an

n a

lso m

ein

e D

okto

rarb

eit

gem

ach

t in

Mü

nch

en

an

der

LM

U b

eim

Peis

l[J

oh

an

n P

eis

l] u

nd

war

als

o o

ft d

a i

n H

ou

ston

. U

nd

an

Syn

chro

tron

s[T

eil

chen

besc

hle

un

iger]

au

f d

er

gan

zen

Welt

, w

eil

das

hau

pts

äch

lich

Un

ters

uch

un

g v

on

die

sen

Kri

stall

eig

en

sch

aft

en

, vo

n d

iese

n P

hase

nü

berg

än

gen

...

Den

n e

s g

ing

um

Ph

ase

nü

berg

än

ge b

ei

den

en

sic

h d

ie G

itte

kon

stan

te [

Para

mete

r(L

än

gen

an

gab

e,

Win

kel)

zu

r B

esc

hre

ibu

ng

ein

es

Git

ters

, in

sbeso

nd

ere

der

kle

inst

en

Ein

heit

des

Git

ters

, d

er

Ele

men

tarz

ell

e]

än

dert

.

9.

Rein

hard

Ah

ok.

D.h

. d

ie z

u m

ess

en

.1

0.

Mark

us

Gen

au

, d

ie z

u v

erm

ess

en

mit

vers

chie

den

en

Meth

od

en

un

d z

u v

ers

teh

en

. U

nd

hab

e d

an

n 2

00

2 a

bg

esc

hlo

ssen

; d

ie D

iss.

Hab

e n

eb

en

bei

dan

n a

ng

efa

ng

en

...

Hab

ed

ie Z

ula

ssu

ng

mir

geh

olt

fü

r ein

e D

iss

in d

er

Ph

iloso

ph

ie.

War

offi

ziell

dan

n s

chon

ein

gesc

hri

eb

en

als

Dokto

ran

d b

ei

den

Ph

iloso

ph

en

. W

ar

gera

de s

o a

uf

11

.

Th

em

en

such

e.

Hab

e m

it B

luth

rup

p [

???]

un

d s

o w

eit

er

verh

an

delt

, w

as

man

dan

nd

a m

ach

en

kön

nte

. U

nd

hab

e a

ber

neb

en

bei

dan

n a

uch

gesc

hau

t, w

as

sin

d s

ow

eit

ere

Mög

lich

keit

en

in

der

Ph

ysik

. U

nd

da g

ab

s vi

ele

Mög

lich

keit

en

in

der

Fest

körp

erp

hys

ik w

eit

erz

um

ach

en

.U

nd

all

erd

ing

s h

ab

e i

ch m

ich

au

ch g

efr

ag

t: W

äre

es

jetz

t n

ich

t ein

e g

ute

Gele

gen

heit

ein

mal

was

an

dere

s zu

mach

en

? U

nd

die

rati

o w

ar

gan

z ein

fach

. Ic

hh

ab

e m

ich

gefr

ag

t, w

as

ist

das

was

mic

h a

m m

eis

ten

in

tere

ssie

rt u

nd

worü

ber

ich

am

wen

igst

en

weiß

. U

nd

die

Üb

erl

eg

un

g w

ar

ein

fach

. W

en

n m

an

sic

h n

ich

tau

sken

nt

mit

etw

as,

dan

n m

uss

man

ein

fach

an

fan

gen

au

f d

em

Geb

iet

zu a

rbeit

en

.Ja

, als

o d

ie Q

uan

ten

ph

ysik

war

seit

jeh

er

mein

Ste

cken

pfe

rd,

au

ch w

äh

ren

d d

es

Stu

diu

ms.

Ich

gla

ub

e d

as

geh

t ein

em

jed

en

so d

er

irg

en

dw

ie a

n G

run

dla

gen

inte

ress

iert

ist

, d

ass

er

an

die

sen

Fra

gen

stell

un

gen

hän

gen

ble

ibt.

12

.

Un

d d

am

it w

ar

die

ers

te F

rag

e b

ean

twort

et.

Un

d d

ie z

weit

e F

rag

e w

ar

dan

nn

atü

rlic

h,

wie

ste

llt

man

es

an

. Ic

h h

att

e d

an

n d

as

Glü

ck,

dass

der

Zeil

ing

er

[An

ton

Zeil

ing

er]

dan

n m

ich

gen

om

men

hat

als

Post

-Doc,

ob

woh

l ic

h ü

berh

au

pt

kein

eVorb

ild

un

g i

n d

er

Qu

an

ten

op

tik,

wh

ats

oeve

r, h

att

e. D

as

war

rein

es

Glü

ck.

Un

dd

an

n,

ja d

am

it g

ing

's l

os

mit

der

Qu

an

ten

ph

ysik

. S

eit

dem

bin

ich

in

Wie

n u

nd

so

weit

er.

13

.

Rein

hard

Seit

dem

läu

ft d

as.

Un

d s

eit

wan

n h

ast

du

sozu

sag

en

die

Gru

pp

e?

14

.M

ark

us

Als

o w

ir h

ab

en

...

Ich

hab

e d

an

n s

eh

r vi

el

gele

rnt

vom

An

ton

[A

nto

n Z

eil

ing

er]

un

din

An

ton

's G

rup

pe s

eh

r vi

el

Ph

oto

nen

exp

eri

men

te g

em

ach

t. U

nd

bin

dan

n m

it i

hm

an

das

Akad

em

ie I

nst

itu

t, d

as

Inst

itu

t fü

r Q

uan

ten

op

tik u

nd

Qu

an

ten

info

rmati

on

[ÖA

W,

IQO

QI]

, g

eg

an

gen

. 2

00

4 w

ar

das,

20

05

. U

nd

das

war

dan

n a

uch

die

Zeit

als

wir

an

gefa

ng

en

hab

en

ers

tmals

üb

er

die

se m

ech

an

isch

en

Sys

tem

e n

ach

zud

en

ken

. U

nd

ob

man

da n

ich

t m

it d

er

Qu

an

ten

op

tik s

ow

as

wie

Vers

chrä

nku

ng

un

d s

o w

eit

er

err

eic

hen

kan

n.

15

.

Un

d d

a h

ab

e i

ch d

an

n a

ng

efa

ng

en

die

Exp

eri

men

te h

och

zuzi

eh

en

. A

lso d

er

An

ton

[An

ton

Zeil

ing

er]

hat

die

urs

prü

ng

lich

mit

fin

an

ziert

un

d h

at

natü

rlic

h a

uch

mit

dis

ku

tiert

am

An

fan

g.

Hat

mir

ab

er

im P

rin

zip

völl

ig f

reie

Han

d g

ela

ssen

, als

oin

der

Au

swah

l d

er

Leu

te u

nd

in

der

Art

un

d W

eis

e w

ie w

ir d

as

Exp

eri

men

th

och

zieh

en

. Ja

, u

nd

so i

st e

s d

an

n p

ass

iert

. W

ir h

ab

en

dan

n 2

00

6 d

ie e

rste

nA

rbeit

en

pu

bli

ziert

. F

ür'

s ers

te L

ase

rkü

hlu

ng

zu

r M

ech

an

ik g

em

ach

t. D

as

gin

gw

eit

er

un

d i

m P

rin

zip

...

Da k

am

en

au

ch d

ie e

rste

n D

ritt

mit

tel

un

d i

ch h

ab

e d

an

nd

am

it i

m P

rin

zip

die

gan

ze F

ors

chu

ng

selb

st fi

nan

ziert

, au

s eig

en

en

Mit

teln

. D

as

war

so a

b 2

00

6.

Un

d d

an

n 2

00

9 g

ab

es

dan

n e

in p

aar

Ru

fe a

n U

niv

ers

itäte

n,

un

ter

an

dere

m W

ien

. O

xford

un

d C

alg

ary

hab

e i

ch d

an

n a

bg

ele

hn

t. W

ien

hab

e i

chan

gen

om

men

. S

eit

dem

bin

ich

au

f d

er

Un

i.

16

.

Rein

hard

Üb

er

die

Brü

cke g

eg

an

gen

un

d..

. [I

QO

QI

un

d d

as

Ph

ysik

inst

itu

t si

nd

in

zw

ei

Geb

äu

den

gle

ich

neb

en

ein

an

der,

verb

un

den

du

rch

ein

e F

uß

gän

gerb

rück

e].

17

.

Mark

us

Seit

Ap

ril

20

11

offi

ziell

hab

en

wir

säm

tlic

he L

ab

ors

um

gezo

gen

un

d s

ind

voll

stän

dig

au

f d

er

Un

ivers

ität.

[lach

t]1

8.

Rein

hard

Voll

stän

dig

das

Geb

äu

de g

ew

ech

selt

.1

9.

Mark

us

Ein

ein

halb

Jah

re g

ed

au

ert

, ab

er

imm

erh

in.

Ok,

sovi

el

zur

ku

rzen

vit

a.

20

.

Au

fgab

e i

m E

xp

eri

men

t /

Roll

e i

n d

er

Gru

pp

e

Rein

hard

131

Gen

au

. K

urz

e F

rag

e,

weil

ich

das

au

ch d

ie a

nd

ere

n g

efr

ag

t h

ab

e.

Was

ist

dein

Job

,so

zusa

gen

? D

ein

han

ds-

on

...?

[la

cht]

21

.

Mark

us

Ja,

gu

te F

rag

e.

Ich

vers

uch

e m

ein

e Z

eit

an

der

Un

i zu

nu

tzen

um

mög

lich

st v

iel

mit

den

Leu

ten

in

mein

er

Gru

pp

e z

u i

nte

rag

iere

n.

Ich

vers

uch

e i

ns

Lab

or

zu g

eh

en

un

d d

ort

zu

helf

en

wo g

eh

t. I

ch v

ers

uch

e d

ie F

inan

zieru

ng

all

er

Exp

eri

men

te a

mL

eb

en

zu

erh

alt

en

. Ic

h v

ers

uch

e n

eu

e I

mp

uls

e z

u g

eb

en

. E

infa

ch n

eu

e R

ich

tun

gen

zu d

efi

nie

ren

. Ja

, u

nd

dam

it i

st d

er

Tag

dan

n s

chon

au

sgefü

llt.

Ich

vers

uch

eh

au

pts

äch

lich

blö

d d

ah

er

zu r

ed

en

.[la

cht]

22

.

Rein

hard

Als

o f

un

kti

on

iert

das

noch

, d

ass

du

in

s L

ab

or

kom

mst

un

d..

.?2

3.

Mark

us

Ja,

was

sich

zeit

lich

nim

mer

au

sgeh

t, l

eid

er

Gott

es,

ist

, d

ass

man

so v

ier,

fü

nf

Stu

nd

en

am

Stü

ck,

ein

fach

mal

zur

Just

ag

e v

erw

en

det.

Das

fun

kti

on

iert

desw

eg

en

nic

ht,

weil

es

nic

ht

dam

it g

eta

n i

st,

dass

man

ein

mal

vier,

fü

nf

Stu

nd

en

am

Stü

cksi

ch h

inst

ell

t, s

on

dern

das

mu

ss m

an

kon

stan

t m

ach

en

. U

nd

das

ist

die

se K

on

stan

zd

ie f

eh

lt.

Als

o,

ich

kan

n m

ir d

urc

hau

s d

iese

Zeit

neh

men

. U

nd

das

mach

en

, ein

mal.

Ja,

ab

er

dan

n i

st a

m n

äch

sten

Tag

sch

on

wie

der

was

an

ders

. B

zw.

die

näch

sten

vier,

fü

nf

Stu

nd

en

, w

o m

an

dan

n K

on

tin

uit

ät

hab

en

mü

sste

. A

lso d

iese

Art

von

Kon

tin

uit

ät

im L

ab

or

ist

ein

bis

serl

verl

ore

n g

eg

an

gen

. A

ber

die

erk

äm

pft

man

sic

hso

Sch

ritt

fü

r S

chri

tt w

ied

er.

.. o

der

vers

uch

t si

e s

ich

wie

der

zurü

ck z

u k

äm

pfe

n.

24

.

Als

o d

e f

act

o b

in i

ch i

m P

rin

zip

im

Lab

or

um

dort

halt

mit

den

Leu

ten

zu

dis

ku

tiere

n u

nd

zu

seh

en

wo i

ch h

elf

en

kan

n.

Ab

er

ich

kan

n n

ich

t d

ad

urc

h..

. A

lso

derz

eit

jetz

t n

imm

er

kon

kre

t d

ad

urc

h h

elf

en

, d

ass

ich

dan

n m

itju

stie

re.

Leid

er.

Ab

er

das

ist

ein

rein

es

Zeit

pro

ble

m.

25

.

Rein

hard

Ja.

Un

d w

ie s

chau

t d

as

so d

ie A

uss

ich

t au

s?2

6.

Mark

us

Wora

uf?

27

.R

ein

hard

Wie

das

läu

ft?

Morg

en

hat

man

dan

n d

as

fert

ige E

rgeb

nis

...

28

.M

ark

us

Das

ist

imm

er

so.[

lach

t] D

as

ist

mein

e A

ufg

ab

e d

iese

Erw

art

un

gh

alt

un

g s

tän

dig

zu

pro

jizi

ere

n.

29

.

Nein

, ic

h w

ürd

e jetz

t ein

fach

...

Ja d

as

ist

halt

Exp

eri

men

talp

hys

ik.

Das

dau

ert

halt

ein

fach

. D

a g

lau

bst

du

hast

näch

ste W

och

e d

as

Erg

eb

nis

un

d d

an

n d

au

ert

's z

wei

Jah

re.

Ab

er,

mein

Gott

, so

ist

es.

Desw

eg

en

ist

es

wic

hti

g,

dass

die

Zie

le d

ie m

an

sich

ste

ckt

un

d d

ie E

xperi

men

te d

ie m

an

mach

t, e

infa

ch s

pan

nen

de F

rag

en

ad

dre

ssie

rt. D

ass

man

au

ch s

elb

er

nic

ht

die

Moti

vati

on

dara

n v

erl

iert

.

30

.

Rein

hard

Un

d e

rreic

hb

ar

in e

inem

gew

isse

n A

usm

aß

...?

31

.M

ark

us

Zu

min

dest

mu

ss m

an

gla

ub

en

, d

ass

sie

err

eic

hb

ar

sin

d.

Man

chm

al

sch

ad

et

ein

eg

ew

isse

Naiv

ität

üb

erh

au

pt

nic

ht.

Wen

n i

ch d

ara

n d

en

ke w

ie w

ir d

ie E

xperi

men

tean

gefa

ng

en

hab

en

20

05

zu

r M

ech

an

ik.

Wie

naiv

wir

ware

n.

Was

wir

ged

ach

th

ab

en

wie

sch

nell

das

all

es

geh

t u

nd

was

wir

all

es

mach

en

kön

nen

. H

ätt

en

wir

dam

als

das

Gan

ze r

eali

stis

cher

ein

gesc

hätz

t, h

ätt

en

wir

es

viell

eic

ht

nie

mals

an

gefa

ng

en

. W

eil

wir

dan

n s

ovi

el

An

gst

davo

r g

eh

ab

t h

ätt

en

, w

as

da a

lles

au

f u

ns

zukom

mt,

dass

wir

es

gela

ssen

hätt

en

. U

nd

so i

st e

s je

tzt

stän

dig

moti

viert

, w

as

jetz

t als

näch

stes

kom

mt,

die

näch

ste H

ürd

e z

u ü

bers

pri

ng

en

. M

an

kom

mt

zwar

lan

gsa

mer

vora

n,

ab

er

man

hat

toll

e E

rfolg

e.

32

.

Th

eori

e -

Exp

eri

men

t

Rein

hard

Als

o,

dass

ist

dan

n s

ou

nd

so a

uch

die

Fra

ge:

Wie

wü

rdest

du

dan

n d

ie B

ezi

eh

un

gzu

m E

xperi

men

t se

hen

? T

heori

e -

Exp

eri

men

t. W

eil

im

En

deff

ekt

ja i

rgen

dw

an

nd

er

Sch

ritt

ist

, w

o m

an

sag

t: O

k,

jetz

t m

uss

man

es,

wen

n's

au

ch n

aiv

ist

, m

ach

en

,an

statt

es

nu

r p

ap

ierm

äß

ig z

u e

ntw

ickeln

. S

o s

oll

te e

s eig

en

tlic

h t

heore

tisc

hau

ssch

au

en

, ab

er.

..

33

.

Mark

us

Ich

gla

ub

e m

an

kan

n k

ein

e g

en

ere

lle R

eg

el

au

fste

llen

. E

s is

t oft

mals

so,

dass

die

Th

eori

e e

in g

ute

r Id

een

geb

er

ist.

Ja,

dort

wo E

xperi

men

te t

ats

äch

lich

Vorh

ers

ag

en

fals

ifizi

ere

n k

ön

nen

, m

ög

lich

erw

eis

e,

sin

d T

heori

en

natü

rlic

h i

mm

er

seh

r g

efr

ag

t.G

leic

hze

itig

ist

es

ab

er

au

ch s

o,

dass

ein

fach

neu

e e

xperi

men

tell

e M

ög

lich

keit

en

--

die

jetz

t vö

llig

un

ab

hän

gig

sin

d v

on

der

Th

eori

e -

-, e

infa

ch d

ir e

rmög

lich

en

neu

eD

ing

e z

u m

ess

en

, n

eu

e G

röß

en

zu

mess

en

od

er

mit

un

geah

nte

r A

ufl

ösu

ng

zu

mess

en

. W

o a

uf

ein

mal

ein

e e

xperi

men

tell

e E

ntw

icklu

ng

dic

h i

n e

inen

völl

ig n

eu

en

Para

mete

rbere

ich

bri

ng

t. D

a k

an

n e

s d

urc

hau

s se

in,

dass

als

o t

heori

efr

eie

sE

xperi

men

tiere

n..

. d

ich

au

f ein

mal

das

Exp

eri

men

t so

weit

nach

vorn

e b

rin

gt,

dass

dan

n w

ied

er

au

f ein

mal

ers

tmals

th

eore

tisc

he V

orh

ers

ag

en

die

exi

stie

ren

, d

an

nü

berp

rüfb

ar

werd

en

.

34

.

Rein

hard

Wäre

das

in d

em

Feld

sozu

sag

en

der

Fall

? O

der,

wü

rdest

du

seh

en

, d

ass

das

hie

r,je

tzt

kon

kre

t b

ei

der

Op

to-M

ech

an

ik,

zutr

eff

en

wü

rde?

35

.

Mark

us

Ja,

au

f je

den

Fall

.3

6.

Rein

hard

Als

o,

dass

du

so w

as

wie

'fr

ei' e

xperi

men

tiere

n k

an

nst

? B

zw.

halt

...

37

.M

ark

us

Na ja,

es

ist

im A

ug

en

bli

ck w

irkli

ch e

in s

tän

dig

es

Neh

men

un

d G

eb

en

. A

lso w

irh

ab

en

, als

Beis

pie

l...

Die

gan

ze M

eth

od

ik d

er

Seit

en

ban

dkü

hlu

ng

die

fü

r Io

nen

,zu

m B

eis

pie

l, v

erw

en

det

wu

rde,

die

kan

n m

an

jetz

t ein

fach

an

wen

den

. A

lso d

ah

ilft

's n

atü

rlic

h d

ie T

heori

e z

u v

ers

teh

en

, w

eil

man

dam

it d

ie E

xperi

men

teop

tim

iere

n k

an

n.

Gle

ich

zeit

ig k

an

n m

an

all

erd

ing

s d

iese

s K

üh

len

an

un

d f

ür

sich

zun

äch

st m

al

völl

ig u

nab

hän

gig

davo

n e

ntd

eck

en

. W

ir h

ab

en

das

ein

fach

, d

iese

sK

üh

len

, g

em

ach

t u

nd

sin

d i

m P

rin

zip

ers

t ein

Jah

r sp

äte

r d

rau

fgekom

men

, d

ass

das

eig

en

tlic

h v

öll

ig ä

qu

ivale

nt

ist

zu d

em

was

man

in

der

Ion

en

ph

ysik

sch

on

seit

zwan

zig

Jah

ren

ken

nt.

Es

zeig

t so

ein

bis

serl

die

Naiv

ität

mit

der

man

an

man

che

Sach

en

ran

geh

t u

nd

die

dan

n a

uch

notw

en

dig

ist

.

38

.

An

dere

rseit

s h

ab

en

wir

jetz

t d

urc

h E

ntw

icklu

ng

en

, w

as

jetz

t zu

m B

eis

pie

l d

er

Mic

hael

[Mic

hael

Van

ner]

gem

ach

t h

at

mit

die

sen

Id

een

, d

ass

man

du

rch

gep

uls

tes.

.. d

as

gep

uls

te B

etr

eib

en

der

op

tom

ech

an

isch

en

Cavi

ty,

die

seZ

ust

an

dst

om

og

rap

hie

[(z

ers

töru

ng

sfre

ies)

Au

slese

n d

es

Qu

an

ten

zust

an

des

ein

es

Sys

tem

s] m

ach

en

kan

n,

gib

t's

jetz

t g

an

z to

lle n

eu

e M

ög

lich

keit

en

Eff

ekte

zu

beob

ach

ten

, d

ie m

an

mit

Vorh

ers

ag

en

au

s d

er

Qu

an

ten

gra

vita

tion

verg

leic

hen

kan

n.

Das

war

vor

zwei

Woch

en

noch

nic

ht

ab

seh

bar.

Das

sin

d a

uch

völl

ig n

eu

eE

ntw

icklu

ng

en

. Im

Pri

nzi

p g

eh

t d

as

ers

t...

ist

un

d d

as

ers

t au

fgefa

llen

, als

dan

neb

en

die

ses

neu

e e

xperi

men

tell

e K

on

zep

t d

a w

ar.

Das

theore

tisc

he K

on

zep

t zu

mA

usl

ese

n,

dass

man

jetz

t exp

eri

men

tell

um

setz

en

woll

en

. A

lso jed

en

Tag

ein

en

neu

e Ü

berr

asc

hu

ng

.

39

.

Rein

hard

Ist

ja n

ich

t sc

hle

cht.

Ja?

40

.M

ark

us


132

Als

o i

ch g

lau

be e

s g

ibt

kein

e e

inh

eit

lich

e,

kein

e u

niv

ers

ell

e A

ntw

ort

au

f d

as

Wech

sels

pie

l zw

isch

en

Th

eori

e u

nd

Exp

eri

men

t. O

ftm

als

ist

es

so, w

en

n d

u d

ieT

heori

e b

ess

er

vers

teh

st,

dass

du

Exp

eri

men

te e

infa

ch i

n e

ine n

eu

e R

ich

tun

gle

nken

kan

nst

, w

eil

du

man

ches

mit

dein

em

Sys

tem

mach

en

kan

nst

au

f d

as

du

vorh

er

gar

nic

ht

gekom

men

wärs

t.

41

.

Rein

hard

Man

hän

gt

dan

n v

iell

eic

ht

nic

ht

zu s

eh

r am

Tech

nis

chen

. A

n d

en

tech

nis

chen

Hü

rden

un

d h

än

gt

dort

fest

, so

nd

ern

kan

n s

ich

au

ch w

ied

er

löse

n u

nd

th

eore

tisc

hR

ich

tun

g m

ach

en

.

42

.

Mark

us

Gen

au

. D

ie T

heori

e h

ilft

du

rch

au

s ein

fach

... Ja

das

Exp

eri

men

t vo

n e

iner

Meta

-Eb

en

e z

u b

etr

ach

ten

.4

3.

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

Rein

hard

Un

d w

ie w

ürd

e i

n d

iese

s Verh

ält

nis

dan

n s

ow

as

rein

kom

men

wie

, n

och

etw

as

meta

-eb

en

eri

ges

wie

In

terp

reta

tion

en

? [l

an

ge P

au

se]

Weil

es

ist

ja s

chon

irg

en

dw

as

was

man

zu

gru

nd

e l

eg

t, d

en

Th

eori

en

, in

dem

Vers

tän

dn

is u

nd

das

wir

kt

sich

in

gew

isse

r W

eis

e a

uch

au

fs e

xperi

men

tal

Vers

tän

dn

is a

us.

Od

er

nic

ht?

44

.

Mark

us

Na ja,

mein

Zu

gan

g z

u I

nte

rpre

tati

on

en

ist

, d

ass

das

ideale

Exp

eri

men

t ein

solc

hes

ist.

.. s

ag

en

wir

ein

sch

ön

es

Exp

eri

men

t, e

in s

olc

hes

ist,

dass

es

dir

gera

de e

rlau

bt

dein

e z

ug

run

deli

eg

en

den

An

nah

men

, d

ie a

lso h

inte

r je

der

Inte

rpre

tati

on

ste

hen

,au

f d

en

Prü

fsta

nd

zu

ste

llen

. D

esw

eg

en

gla

ub

e i

ch s

ind

die

sch

ön

sten

Exp

eri

men

teü

berh

au

pt,

sin

d b

eis

pie

lsw

eis

e B

ell

-Exp

eri

men

te.

Ja,

weil

du

in

die

sen

Exp

eri

men

ten

tats

äch

lich

Au

ssag

en

üb

er

gan

z b

asa

le A

nn

ah

men

üb

er

ph

ysik

ali

sch

e T

heori

en

erh

ält

st.

Du

test

et

nic

ht

ein

fach

die

Vorh

ers

ag

e,.

.. b

zw.

das

stim

mt

nic

ht

gan

z. D

u t

est

et

natü

rlic

h d

ie V

orh

ers

ag

e d

er

Qu

an

ten

theori

e,

die

sag

t, d

ass

die

Korr

ela

tion

sfu

nkti

on

, w

en

n d

u d

a d

iese

n W

inkel

in e

inem

vers

chrä

nkte

n Z

ust

an

d m

isst

, ein

fach

zw

ei

Wu

rzel

zwei

ist.

Als

o i

m P

rin

zip

kan

nm

an

sag

en

, n

a ja d

u t

est

est

ein

fach

die

Qu

an

ten

theori

e.

45

.

Ab

er

der

Pu

ntk

ist

, d

ass

gera

de d

iese

r Test

, d

iese

Best

äti

gu

ng

in

dem

Fall

der

Vorh

esa

ge d

er

Qu

an

ten

theori

e,

ein

e g

an

z kla

re F

als

ifizi

eru

ng

von

basa

len

Au

ssag

en

üb

er

die

zu

gru

nd

eli

eg

en

de N

atu

r d

er

Vorg

än

ge d

ir l

iefe

rt.

Ja u

nd

das

ist

ab

solu

t, d

as

ist

ab

solu

t fa

szin

iere

nd

. Ic

h p

ers

ön

lich

fin

de jed

er

soll

te s

olc

he

Exp

eri

men

te m

ach

en

. E

xperi

men

te m

üss

en

so g

est

rick

t se

in,

dass

sie

dir

erl

au

ben

gru

nd

sätz

lich

e..

. g

run

dsä

tzli

ch d

ein

Vers

tän

dn

is ü

ber

die

basa

len

An

nah

men

üb

er

die

Natu

r zu

lie

fern

. S

o s

oll

te jed

es.

.. jed

es

Gru

nd

lag

en

exp

eri

men

t so

llte

so

au

fgeb

au

t se

in.

46

.

Rein

hard

Als

o,

dass

du

dan

n w

ied

er

un

ab

hän

gig

wir

st v

on

dem

[m

ein

te h

ier

Inte

rpre

tati

on

]u

nd

vie

lleic

ht

dan

n s

päte

r, w

en

n d

u E

rgeb

nis

se v

om

Exp

eri

men

t h

ast

, n

och

ein

mal

dir

an

sch

au

en

kan

nst

: D

ie A

nn

ah

men

die

du

getr

off

en

hast

, b

zw.

die

dan

n m

itan

dere

n Ü

berl

eg

un

gen

in

Ein

kla

ng

vers

uch

st z

u b

rin

gen

.

47

.

Mark

us

Gen

au

.4

8.

Rein

hard

Von

mir

au

s d

an

n d

ie I

nte

rpre

tati

on

au

szu

tau

sch

en

un

d s

chau

en

ob

das

noch

imm

er

irg

en

dw

ie l

eb

t.4

9.

Zie

l: k

on

sist

en

te W

elt

an

sch

au

ng

Mark

us

Weil

was

ist

das

ult

imati

ve Z

iel?

--

ist

natü

rlic

h e

ine k

on

sist

en

te W

elt

an

sch

au

un

gzu

en

twic

keln

. W

om

it k

on

sist

en

t? N

a m

it d

em

Satz

der

Beob

ach

tun

gen

die

du

mach

st.

Un

d d

am

it m

uss

t d

u d

ein

e B

eob

ach

tun

gen

geg

en

üb

er

irg

en

detw

as

ab

gle

ich

en

. D

as

heiß

t im

Pri

nzi

p w

as

du

da m

ach

st..

. Ic

h g

lau

be d

as

Bell

'sch

eT

heore

m i

st d

a e

in g

ute

s B

eis

pie

l. D

u s

chau

st e

ben

was

wäre

n d

ie K

on

seq

uen

zen

,w

en

n d

ein

Welt

bil

d d

as

ein

es

lokale

n R

eali

sten

wäre

. U

nd

au

f ein

mal

merk

st d

u,

dass

dan

n d

ein

e E

rwart

un

gen

in

kon

sist

en

t si

nd

mit

dein

en

Beob

ach

tun

gen

. Ic

hg

lau

be d

as

ist.

.. A

lso w

en

n m

an

es

sch

aff

t, g

lau

be i

ch,

die

se O

ffen

heit

geg

en

üb

er

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

zu

hab

en

, d

an

n h

at

man

es

gesc

haff

t. D

am

it i

st m

an

off

en

gen

ug

,d

ass

man

sein

e e

igen

e P

osi

tion

im

mer

wie

der

ab

klo

pfe

n k

an

n.

50

.

Rein

hard

Gib

t es

dan

n s

ow

as,

dass

man

tro

tzd

em

sch

au

en

wil

l, d

ass

es

sozu

sag

en

nu

r ein

ekon

sist

en

te,

erk

lärb

are

An

sich

t g

ibt?

Un

d n

ich

t ein

e m

ult

iple

, d

ie i

ch d

an

nzi

em

lich

gle

ich

wert

ig a

ust

au

sch

en

kan

n?

51

.

Mark

us

Un

bed

ing

t. I

ch g

lau

be d

as

ist

wah

rsch

ein

lich

ein

e g

an

z fu

nd

am

en

tale

Moti

vati

on

für

Gru

nd

lag

en

fors

chu

ng

, d

ass

man

gla

ub

t, d

ass

...

Na,

na w

ob

ei.

Neh

me i

chw

ied

er

zurü

ck.[

Pau

se]

Als

o i

ch d

en

ke s

chon

das

die

Hoff

nu

ng

ist

, d

ass

es

ein

eri

chti

ge W

elt

an

sch

au

un

g g

ibt.

Ja,

wob

ei

das

jetz

t n

ich

t im

Sin

ne e

ines

naiv

en

Reali

smu

s g

em

ein

t is

t, s

on

dern

die

Welt

an

sch

au

un

g s

elb

st k

an

n a

uch

wie

der

ein

ese

in d

ie O

ffen

heit

zu

läss

t. D

ie z

um

Beis

pie

l zu

läss

t, d

ass

es

vers

chie

den

eW

elt

an

sch

au

un

gen

gib

t. W

ob

ei

jed

er

Jesu

it d

ich

jetz

t w

ied

er

kn

üp

peln

wü

rde,

weil

das

sch

on

wie

der

ein

Wid

ers

pru

ch i

n s

ich

ist

.

52

.

Ja,

das

ist

ein

e g

ute

Fra

ge.

Als

o i

ch d

en

ke,

dass

zu

min

dest

ein

e i

mp

lizi

te A

nn

ah

me

hin

ter,

zu

min

dest

in

der

em

pir

isch

en

Wis

sen

sch

aft

, d

ie i

st,

dass

es

ein

Welt

bil

dg

ibt,

dass

man

letz

tlic

h h

era

uss

chäle

n k

an

n.

Wob

ei

ich

beto

nen

möch

te,

es

mu

ssvi

ell

eic

ht

gar

nic

ht

der

Fall

sein

. A

lso v

iell

eic

ht

ist

Kom

ple

men

tari

tät

du

rch

au

setw

as,

was

sich

bis

in

die

Ep

iste

molo

gie

zie

ht.

Kom

ple

men

tari

tät

au

ch i

m P

rin

zip

das

sich

au

f W

elt

an

sch

au

un

gen

an

wen

den

läss

t. D

ass

es

vers

chie

den

eg

leic

hw

ert

ige B

esc

hre

ibu

ng

en

gib

t d

er

Welt

, d

ie s

ich

geg

en

seit

ig a

uss

chli

eß

en

,w

eil

sie

kom

ple

men

täre

Beg

riff

e v

erw

en

den

, ab

er

sich

au

f ein

un

d d

ie s

elb

e N

atu

rb

ezi

eh

en

, ein

un

d d

as

selb

e S

ein

bezi

eh

en

. D

as

mag

sein

.

53

.

Gan

z n

aiv

es

Beis

pie

l all

ein

au

s d

er

Ph

ysik

. E

s g

ibt

dre

i, v

ier

vers

chie

den

e A

rten

letz

tlic

h Q

uan

ten

ele

ktr

od

ynam

ik z

u v

ers

teh

en

. P

fad

inte

gra

le i

st e

infa

ch e

in v

öll

igan

dere

r Z

ug

an

g a

ls a

van

ciert

e u

nd

reta

rtie

rte M

om

en

te,

un

d s

o w

eit

er.

54

.

Rein

hard

Ab

er

das

wäre

dan

n e

twas

das

man

nic

ht

du

rch

die

Betr

ach

tun

g v

on

Th

eori

en

un

dIn

terp

reta

tion

en

irg

en

dw

ie d

irekt

hera

usl

ese

n k

ön

nte

? D

ie F

rag

e i

st w

elc

he R

oll

ed

as

Exp

eri

men

t sp

ielt

? W

as

ich

mic

h f

rag

e i

st,

waru

m e

s in

letz

ter

Zeit

od

er

in d

en

letz

ten

zeh

n,

zwan

zig

Jah

ren

ein

en

gew

isse

n Z

ug

gib

t h

in i

n R

ich

tun

g,

ers

ten

s d

es

Exp

eri

men

ts u

nd

dan

n a

uch

in

Ric

htu

ng

ein

er

An

wen

du

ng

, od

er

ein

es

Um

geh

en

sso

zusa

gen

mit

den

Din

gen

? W

eil

, ic

h s

ag

e m

al,

erl

äu

tert

un

d b

esp

roch

en

sin

d s

ieau

f In

terp

reta

tion

seb

en

e s

chon

seh

r la

ng

e.

55

.

Mark

us

Was?

56

.R

ein

hard

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik.

57

.M

ark

us

Na ja.

Besp

roch

en

, ab

er

nic

ht

vers

tan

den

.5

8.

Kan

n E

xp

eri

men

t h

elf

en

?

133

Rein

hard

Ja,

das

ist

eb

en

die

Fra

gen

ob

jetz

t d

as

Exp

eri

men

t h

ier

helf

en

kan

n?

59

.M

ark

us

Ich

den

ke d

as

Bell

Th

eore

m i

st ja..

. D

ie B

ell

Exp

eri

men

te s

ind

ja e

in e

ind

eu

tig

er

Bele

g d

afü

r, d

ass

es

kan

n.

Wen

n d

u g

an

z kon

kre

t ein

e g

roß

e K

lass

e v

on

mög

lich

en

Welt

an

sch

au

un

gen

au

ssch

ließ

t, n

äm

lich

die

Kla

sse d

er

lokal-

reali

stis

chen

An

sch

au

un

gen

.

60

.

Rein

hard

Ja.

Als

o d

a w

äre

n w

ir s

ozu

sag

en

wie

der

bei

der

Hoff

nu

ng

hie

r im

Au

ssch

luß

sic

han

zun

äh

ern

.6

1.

Mark

us

Gen

au

. W

ob

ei

natü

rlic

h m

an

kla

r sa

gen

mu

ss,

jed

es

Exp

eri

men

t, jed

er

exp

eri

men

tell

e A

ufb

au

defi

nie

rt d

ie S

pra

che i

n d

em

ich

jetz

t m

ein

e B

esc

hre

ibu

ng

der

Natu

r fa

sse.

Als

o e

s kan

n d

urc

hau

s se

in,

dass

ich

ein

fach

...

Als

o d

ass

die

seR

ed

e v

on

Kom

ple

men

tari

tät,

das

ist

ja d

urc

hau

s etw

as

das

kom

ple

men

täre

Beob

ach

tun

gsz

ug

än

ge m

ir..

. m

ir u

nte

rsch

ied

lich

e B

esc

hre

ibu

ng

en

ein

un

d d

er

selb

en

Reali

tät

liefe

rn.

Das

kan

n d

urc

hau

s se

in.

Ab

er

wen

n i

ch m

ein

eig

en

es

wäh

le, w

ie jetz

t zu

m B

eis

pie

l d

ie Q

uan

ten

theori

e,

bzw

. je

tzt

die

se A

rt v

on

Ap

para

ten

die

ich

verw

en

de i

n d

er

Qu

an

ten

op

tik z

um

Beis

pie

l, d

an

n,

gla

ub

e i

ch,

gib

t es

nu

r ein

e k

on

sist

en

te B

esc

hre

ibu

ng

am

En

de d

es

Tag

es.

62

.

Rein

hard

Ja.

Un

d d

ie s

ozu

sag

en

du

rch

das

Exp

eri

men

t...

63

.M

ark

us

Au

f je

den

Fall

. Ja

, ja

. W

ob

ei

man

dan

n n

atü

rlic

h..

. d

an

n w

ied

er

den

Zir

kel

gem

ach

th

ab

en

un

d z

urü

ck s

ind

beim

log

isch

en

Posi

tivi

smu

s. D

an

n i

st d

as

em

pir

isti

sch

eS

inn

kri

teri

um

vie

lleic

ht

du

rch

au

s etw

as

was

selb

st f

ür

die

Meta

ph

ysik

beg

inn

tB

ed

eu

tun

g z

u h

ab

en

. A

lso d

iese

r B

eg

riff

'exp

eri

men

tell

e M

eta

ph

ysik

', d

er

ja v

on

Ab

ner

Sh

imon

y g

ep

räg

t w

ord

en

ist

, is

t au

s d

er

Sic

ht

des

Wie

ner

Kre

ises

ja s

o e

ing

ew

isse

r [P

au

se]

Wid

ers

pru

ch.

Ein

e Q

uad

ratu

r d

es

Kre

ises,

sozu

sag

en

. A

ber

gle

ich

zeit

ig k

ön

nte

das

au

ch d

ie A

ufl

ösu

ng

sein

zu

dem

Gan

zen

. E

s w

äre

inte

ress

an

t m

al

so d

en

Beg

riff

exp

eri

men

tell

e M

eta

ph

ysik

der

Qu

ine's

chen

An

aly

seg

eg

en

üb

er

zu s

tell

en

.

64

.

Rein

hard

Mm

h.

Ja.

[nach

den

kli

ches

Sch

weig

en

]6

5.

Mark

us

Ich

gla

ub

e d

as

ist

die

gro

ße L

eis

tun

g.

Es

gib

t ja

Leu

te d

ie d

urc

hau

s vo

n d

er

Kop

ern

ikan

isch

en

Wen

de,

von

der

zweit

en

Kop

ern

ikan

isch

en

Wen

de s

pre

chen

,w

en

n s

ie ü

ber

das

Bell

Th

eore

m r

ed

en

. Z

um

Beis

pie

l d

er

Bern

ard

d'E

spag

nat.

Weil

hie

r ta

tsäch

lich

in

ein

em

seh

r ein

fach

en

Exp

eri

men

t ein

e g

an

ze K

lass

e v

on

Welt

an

sch

au

un

gen

eli

min

iert

wir

d.

Un

d d

er

Wit

z is

t eb

en

, d

ass

selb

st w

en

n d

ieQ

uan

ten

theori

e z

usa

mm

en

bre

chen

wir

d u

nd

das

wir

d s

ie i

rgen

dw

an

n..

. S

elb

st i

nein

er

Nach

folg

eth

eori

e d

er

Qu

an

ten

theori

e k

an

n d

iese

Welt

an

sch

au

un

g n

ich

tw

ied

er

au

ftau

chen

, w

eil

sie

ein

fach

in

kon

sist

en

t is

t m

it d

iese

r K

lass

e v

on

Beob

ach

tun

gen

. U

nab

hän

gig

welc

he T

heori

e d

em

Gan

zen

zu

gru

nd

eli

eg

t. D

as

ist

das

eig

en

tlic

h f

asz

inie

ren

de.

66

.

Rein

hard

Das

heiß

t m

an

wü

rde e

igen

tlic

h a

uf

was

Neu

es

hoff

en

um

ein

e g

röß

ere

Kon

sist

en

zzu

hab

en

? O

der.

..6

7.

Mark

us

Na ja,

sag

en

wir

, u

m d

ie jetz

tig

en

In

terp

reta

tion

ssch

wie

rig

keit

en

mit

der

Qu

an

ten

theori

e a

us

dem

Weg

zu

räu

men

. G

en

au

.6

8.

Rein

hard

Das

sch

ein

t n

ich

t m

it b

est

eh

en

den

Den

kw

eis

en

un

d M

itte

ln m

ög

lich

?6

9.

Mark

us

Sola

ng

e w

ir n

och

so v

iele

, w

ie s

oll

ich

sag

en

, p

hän

om

en

olo

gis

ch ä

qu

ivale

nte

Inte

rpre

tati

on

en

hab

en

, u

nd

dam

it m

ein

e i

ch s

olc

he d

ie k

ein

en

off

en

sich

tlic

hen

Wid

ers

pru

ch m

it B

eob

ach

tun

gen

gen

eri

ere

n.

Sola

ng

e w

ir n

och

so v

iele

ph

än

om

en

olo

gis

ch ä

qu

ivale

nte

Welt

an

sch

au

un

gen

hab

en

, g

lau

be i

ch,

den

ken

wir

ein

fach

noch

fu

nd

am

en

tal

fals

ch.

Ich

den

ke s

chon

das

es

hie

r n

ur

ein

e g

eb

en

kan

n.

Das

heiß

t je

tzt

ist

die

Fra

ge k

ön

nen

wir

üb

er

Exp

eri

men

te h

ier

neu

es

lern

en

.W

er

weiß

.

70

.

Rein

hard

Ok,

ja.

Dass

man

das

zum

ind

est

en

s au

ch a

ls M

itte

l au

ssch

öp

fen

kan

n u

m i

n d

iese

Ric

htu

ng

zu

geh

en

.7

1.

Inkom

pati

bil

itäts

theore

me

Mark

us

Au

f je

den

Fall

. N

a,

na,

au

f je

den

Fall

. Ic

h d

en

ke d

as.

.. I

ch f

ass

e d

as

imm

er

so u

nte

rd

em

Sti

chw

ort

'In

kom

pati

bil

itäts

theore

me' zu

sam

men

. F

ür

mic

h i

st d

as

Bell

'sch

eT

heore

m e

in I

nkom

pati

bil

itäts

theore

m.

Es

ist

ein

Th

eore

m d

as

letz

tlic

h m

eh

r als

zwei

Au

ssag

en

, als

o i

n d

em

Fall

sin

d e

s als

o d

rei

Au

ssag

en

. A

uss

ag

e 1

: D

ieVorh

ers

ag

en

der

Qu

an

ten

theori

e s

ind

korr

ekt.

Au

ssag

e 2

: L

okali

täts

an

nah

me.

Au

ssag

e 3

: R

eali

smu

san

nah

me.

Un

d g

eg

eb

en

das

die

ers

te A

uss

ag

e k

orr

ekt

ist,

ist

min

dest

en

s ein

e d

er

beid

en

an

dere

n f

als

ch.

Die

se I

nkom

pati

bil

ität

ein

es

Satz

es

von

Au

ssag

en

, w

ob

ei

min

dest

en

s ein

e d

er

Au

ssag

en

exp

eri

men

tell

üb

erp

rüfb

ar

ist,

das

sin

d f

ür

mic

h I

nkom

pati

bil

itäts

theore

me.

Da g

eh

ört

das

Bell

Th

eore

m d

azu

,d

as

GH

Z-T

heore

m,

was

Leg

ett

gem

ach

t h

at

zu d

iese

r K

lass

e v

on

Nic

ht-

lokal-

reali

stis

chen

Th

eori

en

. U

nd

ste

hen

wir

noch

am

An

fan

g.

72

.

Als

o i

ch b

in m

ir s

ich

er

wir

werd

en

In

kom

pati

bil

itäts

theore

me a

uch

in

an

dere

nB

ere

ich

en

au

fste

llen

kön

nen

. A

lso i

ch d

en

ke e

ine g

an

z g

roß

e H

era

usf

ord

eru

ng

fü

rd

ie n

äch

sten

Jah

re w

ird

jetz

t se

in,

wie

sie

ht

es

mit

dem

Verh

ält

nis

...

un

ser

Vest

än

dn

is v

on

Qu

an

ten

ph

ysik

un

d G

ravi

tati

on

au

s. I

ch b

in m

ir g

an

z si

cher,

dass

hie

r d

ie G

run

dan

nah

men

, d

ie d

a jew

eil

s ein

flie

ßen

au

ch i

nkom

pati

bel

zuein

an

der

sin

d.

Un

d d

ie w

ird

man

in

In

kom

pati

bil

itäts

theore

men

letz

tlic

h a

ufs

pü

ren

.

73

.

Rein

hard

Die

dan

n w

ied

er

Exp

eri

men

te b

rau

chen

.7

4.

Mark

us

Gan

z g

en

au

. G

an

z g

en

au

. Ja

, u

nd

da w

ird

man

Fu

nd

am

en

tale

s ü

ber

en

twed

er

Qu

an

ten

ph

ysik

od

er

Gra

vita

tion

, od

er

beid

es

lern

en

. D

a b

in i

ch g

an

z fe

st d

avo

nü

berz

eu

gt.

75

.

pers

ön

lich

e M

oti

vati

on

/ F

asz

inati

on

Rein

hard

Un

d k

an

n m

an

das

au

ch a

uf

das

Pers

ön

lich

e r

un

ter

bre

chen

?7

6.

Mark

us

Mein

pers

ön

lich

es

Inkom

pati

bil

itäts

theore

m?

[lach

t]7

7.

Rein

hard

Nein

. D

as

man

au

ch p

ers

ön

lich

am

Exp

eri

men

t le

rnt

od

er

an

den

Din

gen

?7

8.

Mark

us

Au

f je

den

Fall

. Ic

h m

ein

e d

as

ist

die

Au

fgab

e d

es.

.. I

ch m

ein

e d

as

ist

jetz

t...

Ich

den

ke G

run

dla

gen

fors

chu

ng

rü

hrt

an

ein

em

zu

tiefs

t m

en

sch

lich

en

un

d e

inem

gan

zb

asa

len

men

sch

lich

en

Bed

ürf

nis

. N

äm

lich

ein

e w

iders

pru

chfr

eie

Au

ffass

un

g d

er

79

.


134

all

täg

lich

en

Wah

rneh

mu

ng

en

zu

gen

eri

ere

n.

Als

o m

an

möch

te e

in..

. A

lso

men

sch

lich

e N

eu

gie

r d

ien

t d

azu

, d

ass

man

Din

ge,

die

man

erf

äh

rt w

en

n m

an

beob

ach

tet,

ein

bett

et

in e

in W

elt

bil

d.

Un

d m

an

lern

t N

eu

es

um

sein

Welt

bil

d d

an

nan

zup

ass

en

. B

zw.

Neu

es

ist

norm

ale

rweis

e g

en

au

etw

as

was

dan

n w

ied

er

leic

hte

An

pass

un

gen

an

sein

eig

en

es

Welt

bil

d i

mp

lizi

ert

. Ir

gen

dw

ie w

as

Neu

es

ist

üb

err

asc

hen

d f

ür

mic

h,

als

o w

ar

es

vorh

er

nic

ht

in m

ein

em

Welt

bil

d d

rin

. D

as

heiß

t ic

h w

erd

e d

as

en

tsp

rech

en

d a

np

ass

en

.U

nd

ich

gla

ub

e e

s is

t ein

fu

nd

am

en

tale

s m

en

sch

lich

es

Bed

ürf

nis

, b

zw.

eig

en

tlic

hso

llte

es

ein

e f

un

dam

en

tale

...

es

ist

ein

e k

on

stan

te H

era

usf

ord

eru

ng

eig

en

tlic

h a

nd

en

Men

sch

en

, d

ass

er

es

sch

aff

t all

e s

ein

e E

rfah

run

gen

in

ein

wid

ers

pru

chsf

reie

sB

ild

zu

bri

ng

en

. Ic

h fi

nd

e d

as

ist

ein

e i

nte

llektu

ell

e H

era

usf

ord

eru

ng

, ein

eem

oti

on

ale

Hera

usf

ord

eru

ng

. Ic

h h

ab

e d

as

Glü

ck,

dass

Teil

davo

n m

ein

Beru

f is

t.A

ber

ich

den

ke d

as

ist

ein

e z

uti

efs

t p

ers

ön

lich

e A

ng

ele

gen

heit

dara

n z

u a

rbeit

en

.W

eil

es

gib

t n

ich

ts p

ers

ön

lich

ere

s als

ein

wid

ers

pru

chsf

reie

s, z

um

ind

est

ein

wid

ers

pru

chsa

rmes,

Bil

d ü

ber

die

Welt

zu

gen

eri

ere

n.

80

.

Rein

hard

Un

d w

äre

das

dan

n s

ozu

sag

en

au

ch d

ein

e p

ers

ön

lich

e M

oti

vati

on

sp

ezi

ell

Qu

an

ten

mech

an

ik z

u m

ach

en

? W

eil

ja h

ier

sozu

sag

en

die

'H

era

usf

ord

eru

ng

' re

lati

vg

roß

ist

; so

zusa

gen

was

sich

dem

en

tgeg

en

stell

t kon

sist

en

t zu

sein

.

81

.

Mark

us

Gu

t, d

a s

pie

lt jetz

t n

atü

rlic

h p

ers

ön

lich

e F

asz

inati

on

mit

ein

e R

oll

e.

Jed

er

hat

sein

eeig

en

en

Vorl

ieb

en

un

d i

ch w

ar

sch

on

im

mer

von

die

sen

Fra

gest

ell

un

gen

fasz

inie

rt.

Jem

an

d a

nd

ers

der

au

f ein

em

an

dere

n G

eb

iet

fors

cht,

ist

von

an

dere

nF

rag

est

ell

un

gen

fasz

inie

rt.

Als

o f

ür

mic

h m

uss

ich

sag

en

, is

t es

ein

fach

ein

, w

iesa

gt

man

so s

chön

, a p

erf

ect

matc

h.

Un

d d

esw

eg

en

pass

t es.

Ab

er

ich

gla

ub

e m

an

soll

te n

ur

wir

kli

ch s

ich

mit

die

sen

Sach

en

, m

it s

olc

hen

Din

gen

besc

häft

igen

, d

ieein

en

wir

kli

ch b

erü

hre

n.

Weil

nu

r d

an

n h

at

man

den

Path

os

um

wir

kli

ch w

as

neu

es

zu l

ern

en

.

82

.

En

de

Rein

hard

Mm

h.

83

.M

uss

ich

fast

noch

nach

sch

au

en

.[sc

hau

e a

uf

Zett

el,

ob

ich

noch

ein

e F

rag

e h

ab

e]

Nein

.8

4.

Mark

us

War'

s d

as

sch

on

?8

5.

Rein

hard

Ja.

Von

mein

er

Seit

e a

us

wäre

ich

mit

mein

en

Fra

gen

fert

ig.

86

.M

ark

us

Su

per.

87

.R

ein

hard

Dan

ke f

ür

die

Zeit

.8

8.

Mark

us

Gern

e,

gern

e.

89

.(n

o s

peaker)

[sm

all

talk

]9

0.

135

DI(FH) Reinhard StanzlDate of Birth September 18, 1977

Nationality AustriaB [email protected]

Education09/1987 – 05/1995 Secondary School (Bundesrealgymnasium), Bruck an der Leitha.

Degree: Matriculation

Studies09/1995 – 06/1999 University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien - Electronic Engineering

[Fachhochschul-Studiengang Elektronik], Vienna.

Thesis: “Implementierung eines Koppelfeldalgorithmus mit einer VLIW-DSP-Architektur”Degree: Graduate Engineer for Electronics [Diplom-Ingenieur für Elektronik (FH)]

03/2005 – University of Vienna, Vienna.{ Philosophy (Diploma Programme)Thesis: “On the Counter-Intuitiveness of Quantum Entanglement”{ Physics (Diploma Programme)

Professional Experience05/2000 – 03/2005 Frequentis Nachrichtentechnik GmbH, Vienna.

Systems Engineer in the Business Segment ‘TETRA’ (TErrestrial Trunked RAdio)

LanguagesGerman Native LanguageEnglish ProficientFrench Basic Knowledge

D Resume

137

E Abstract

E.1 Abstract (English)

There is a rather common dictum that quantum entanglement, a key feature of quantummechanics, is counterintuitive. This assertion can be assigned not only to laypeople, but alsoto scientists engaged in quantum mechanics. How can we make sense of this?

I elaborate the issue based on four intertwined aspects: First, on a theoretical level by intro-ducing the fundamental differences between classical physics and quantum mechanics. Thisis mainly carried out along the lines of the EPR thought experiment and the correspondingperspectives of Einstein et al. and Schrödinger. Second, on an experimental level by illus-trating the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement in the context of a specific fieldof research. Namely quantum opto-mechanics, and more particularly the experimental set-up of the research group Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information on the Nano- and

Microscale at the University of Vienna. Third, on a personal level by utilizing my interviewsconducted with members of this very research group. Fourth, on a philosophical level byexploiting key concepts of Gaston Bachelard’s epistemology, such as epistemological profileor scientific reason being instructed by fabricated experience.

All of these four aspects are brought into contact to accomplish two tasks: On the one hand toflesh out the specifics and characteristics of counter-intuitiveness in the context of quantumentanglement. On the other hand to consider the question whether and how experimentingwith quantum entanglement could assist in coping with its counter-intuitiveness, for exampleby familiarization. Overall, this thesis does not provide an in-depth analysis of these twomain issues, but a plausible approach to and depiction of the subject matter.

139

E Abstract

E.2 Abstract (German)

Es gibt die verbreitete Aussage, dass Quantenverschränkung, ein Schlüsselkonzept in derQuantenmechanik, kontraintuitiv sei. Diese Behauptung kann aber nicht nur Laien zuge-schrieben werden, sondern findet sich auch bei Wissenschaftlern der Quantenmechanik wie-der. Wie können wir uns das verständlich machen?

Ich bearbeite dieses Thema auf Basis von vier miteinander verwobenen Gesichtspunkten:Erstens, auf einer theoretischen Ebene lege ich die hier relevanten Unterschiede zwischender klassischen Physik und der Quantenmechanik vor. Dies geschieht hauptsächlich anhanddes EPR Gedankenexperiments und den entsprechenden Standpunkten von Einstein et al.und Schrödinger. Zweitens, auf einer experimentellen Ebene veranschauliche ich die Kon-traintuitivität der Quantenverschränkung im Zusammenhang mit einem spezifischen For-schungsfeld. Im Konkreten erfolgt dies anhand der Quanten-Optomechanik, genauer derExperimente der Forschungsgruppe Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information on the

Nano- and Microscale der Universität Wien. Drittens, auf einer persönlichen Ebene werteich meine Interviews mit den Mitgliedern ebendieser Forschungsgruppe aus. Viertens, aufeiner philosophischen Ebene mache ich mir Schlüsselkonzepte von Gaston Bachelards Epis-temologie zunutze, wie zum Beispiel das epistemologische Profil oder einer durch Erfahrungbelehrten Vernunft.

Alle diese vier Aspekte werden zusammengenommen um zwei Aufgaben zu erfüllen: Ei-nerseits die Konkretisierung der Besonderheiten und Merkmale der Kontraintuitivität imKontext der Quantenverschränkung. Andererseits die Betrachtung der Frage ob und wie dasExperimentieren mit Quantenverschränkung den Umgang mit dessen Kontraintuitivität er-leichtert, zum Beispiel durch Gewöhnung. Im Großen und Ganzen stellt die Diplomarbeitkeine tiefgreifende Analyse dieser beiden Themen zur Verfügung, sondern liefert eine plau-sible Annäherung an das Problem.

140

Documents

On the counter-intuitiveness of quantum entanglement · means of this example. ... Age, education and motivation for engaging this area of research The hands-on assignment within