中文版

（The English edition is in the later part of this essay.）

       我作为一个研究自然语言的，能够和量子力学有什么关联？且听我道来——

话说十六年前，《科学》登载了我国一位物理学家的论文，发现了爱因斯坦在量子力学的一个错误观点。那时候，能在《科学》发表论文的中国人很少，轰动之下，一时沸沸扬扬。大家仔细品味他的文章，有人提出不同观点，我读了一位与《科学》上那一篇论文持不同观点的文章，仔细分析一下，十分有趣，两种物理观点的争执，竟然和我这个领域有关。

那位《科学》论文作者说“后文爱因斯坦说 It is therefore impossible-at least for ultramicroscopic particles... 注意"at least" 这个短语, 可见爱因斯坦是认为不仅仅超微观粒子, 即使比较大的布朗粒子的瞬时速度也是无法测量的。”

持不同观点者则说，爱因斯坦并未声称即使大一些的布朗粒子的瞬时速度也是无法测量的，是我们在误解爱因斯坦。

到底怎么回事？我看了一下——

“It is therefore impossible-at least for ultramicroscopic particles...”这句英文的翻译是“因此我认为是不可能的——至少...是不可能的”，可是这个句子可以有两种理解：

一种理解是：因此爱因斯坦认为是不可测量的，至少对于超微观粒子是不可测量的。言下之意，至少对于超微观粒子来说，“瞬时速度不可测量（It is therefore impossible）”是成立的。换句话来说，at least for ultramicroscopic particles修饰的是It is therefore impossible。既然at least是前面全句的修饰，那么该句主要指明的是前面部分，即：爱因斯坦认为粒子的瞬时速度都不可测。at least部分属于附带说明。这就是《科学》论文作者所理解的。

另一种理解是：因此爱因斯坦认为是不可测量的，至少爱因斯坦认为在超微观粒子的情况下是不可测量的。这时这个at least for ultramicroscopic particles修饰的是impossible，指明的是：这种“不可能性”在超微观粒子情况下保证它成立，至于非超微观粒子情况，则没说。这就是持不同观点者的理解。

两种不同的理解，导致对于粒子的瞬时速度是否可测，有两种观点。前者觉得爱因斯坦认为凡是粒子便都不可测；后者觉得爱因斯坦认为只对超微观粒子不可测。

语言有歧义是常见现象。在我看来，爱因斯坦碰巧用了一个有歧义的表达，这种歧义，不仅是我们，母语是英语的人也会各持已见。

作为一名做学问者，以我的经验，我猜测，《科学》能够发表那一篇论文，应该不是仅仅在这一句话上赞同前一种“语言理解”这么简单，一定是出于他们对于爱因斯坦的全面了解，才支持前一种观点。

我这样猜测，是因为，

一是我们不必质疑《科学》的权威性；

二是本着“不轻易否定一个观点”“如非必要，不否定别人观点”和“言必有据”的原则，我仔细地读了持不同观点者的大文章，并与他进行过长时间的沟通，一、一排除其它不可靠证据之后，看来看去，他所依据的，主要是此文开头提到、爱因斯坦的那么一句话，而这一句话是有问题的。

单只分析爱因斯坦的一句话，我发现了争执的一个关键点，同时还是双方都没有意识到的一个关键点。我指出这一个关键点。解决一个争论，算是我为科学尽的一份力罢，是我成此文的一个原因。

我对持不同观点者建议道：

“你拿来作为批驳的这一句话，不能支持你的观点”，歧义句不能作为证据，他还得继续找证据。

持不同观点者敢于质疑，值得赞一下。我希望将来我的成果发表时，也有人踊跃地前来质疑。当然，质疑之前，先下足功夫，不然随便发出反对声，听者无睱做调查，便容易造成不必要的伤害。创新不易，需要扶持。

我们每个人都应该小心，不要用歧义句。不过，作为研究自然语言的一个学者，我知道，歧义句在自然语言中，占比太大，写一篇文章，完全避免是不可能的。所以，虽然爱因斯坦不小心犯了我们每一个人都常犯的错，采用了歧义句，引来了争议，虽然如此，但是睱不掩玉，我仍然认为他是一个天才。我尊重他。

English editon.

Dr. Wang analyzes the quantum mechanism: Does Einstein be wrong?

I research on the natural language. Why a researcher like me, would analyze the quantum mechanism? Listen to me:

16 years ago, a Chinese paper, was published on the journal ‘Science’. The paper found out a wrong viewpoint of Einstein in the Quantum Mechanism. At that time, almost no Chinese succeeded in publishing a paper on the famous journal ‘Science’. Every people were excited. The published paper was on the focus. Some people gave out some different viewpoint. I read one opposite essay. I found out that, it is interesting, the two viewpoints in physics, are about my field of research.

The author of the paper that was published on the Science, said as follows: Einstein said that it is therefore impossible-at least for ultramicroscopic particles... Please pay attention to the phrase ‘at least’. This phrase means that Einstein thought as follows: The instant velocity of, not only the ultramicroscopic particles, but also even the bigger particles such as the Brown particles, is immeasurable.

The opposite said as follows: Einstein does not declaim that the instant velocity of even the bigger particles such as the Brown particles is immeasurable. We are misunderstanding Einstein.

What happened?

I analyzed as follows:

There are two understanding of the sentence of that ‘it is therefore impossible-at least for ultramicroscopic particles...’.

One understanding by the author of ‘Science’, takes the ‘at least for ultramicroscopic particles’ as an adverbial modifier which modifying field is the whole sentence ‘it is therefore impossible’. Thus, the sentence that is said by Einstein, is understood that, Einstein thought that the instant velocity of each particle, including in both the ultramicroscopic particle and the Brown particle, is immeasurable.

The other understanding by the opposite, takes the ‘at least for ultramicroscopic particles’ as an adverbial modifier which modifying field is the word ‘impossible’. Thus, the sentence that is said by Einstein, is understood as that, Einstein thought that the instant velocity of ultramicroscopic particle, is immeasurable. Einstein does not declaim that the instant velocity of non-ultramicroscopic particle such as the Brown particle, is immeasurable.

Two different understand above, cause two viewpoints of whether or not the instant velocity of particle, is immeasurable. The first viewpoint takes that Einstein thinks that all particles are immeasurable. The second viewpoint takes that Einstein thinks that only the ultramicroscopic particles are immeasurable.

The ambiguity is everywhere in the natural language. From my view, Einstein happened to pick up an ambiguous expression of natural language. The ambiguity above would make not only the Chinese but also the people whose mother language is English, get different understand, too.

However, by my researcher instinct, I guess that the journal Science published the paper not only because that the editors agreed with the first understanding above, which is only an affair about the language; but also because that they know Einstein completely. They knew all Einstein viewpoint by Einstein’s other papers or books published, or Einstein’s saying in the science circle.

I guess so, because, firstly, the authority of the journal Science, is reliable.

And secondly, I have two principles. One principle is that I should seldom deny any viewpoint. I deny only when it is very necessary. Another principle is that all that I say, must be based on something. This means, I should take lot of investigation before my any negative saying. So, I read the long essay that is written by the opposite. I discussed with the opposite by chat software, which takes me lot of precious time. After I denied all the other unreliable proof, a sentence that is said by Einstein, seemed to be the only proof for the opposite. I noticed that, this sentence by Einstein, is questionable.

I found out the key to settle the argument between the author and the opposite, which is a viewpoint not recognized by either the author and the opposite. I think that my settling down an argument in science, would be one of my works for science. This is why I write this essay.

I said to the opposite:

‘The sentence that you take as a proof, has no quality to be a proof’. Ambiguous sentence is not suitable for being a proof.

‘You must find out another proof’.

I appreciate the spirit of the opposite. I hope that when my paper were published in the future, people will give out a lot of question to discuss. Of course, before asking a question, please do enough research on the published paper beforehand. Otherwise, an easy question may cause huge unnecessary damage. It is not easy to get a new point to publish. A new science needs to be protected.

       Every one of us, need to try our best to avoid the ambiguous sentences, although the ambiguity is so common to the natural language. There are so much ambiguous sentences in the natural language that we almost are not able to avoid the ambiguity thoroughly. Thus, although Einstein made a mistake that is so often happened in our daily life, I mean, although Einstein picked up an ambiguous sentence uncarefully and caused controversy, I still think that he is a great genius. I respect him.

支持单位：