The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics  (Read 5788 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« on: 18/08/2004 10:17:39 »
There exist several inconsistencies in the present  quantum mechanics theory on subjects dealing with  electromagnetic phenomenon , electric currents and the propagation of electromagnetic waves and above all the theory of wave-particle duality.
                   These inconsistencies may be enumerated as follows:
(1)   When dealing with electromagnetic radiation QM holds that it is the oscillation or jiggling of electrons and ions within the crystal lattice of a conductor that causes electromagnetic radiation. This has been specifically disproved by the photoelectric effect wherein it is found that the photoelectric effect is not caused by the orbit of electrons around an atom giving off an electromagnetic wave in a continuous manner which causes electrons to escape the metal surface as is found in the photoelectric effect but rather that light of different energies causes electrons to give off photons of a specific energy which when  absorbed by the electrons on the light sensitive plate , impart enough energy to these electrons to enable them to escape from the surface of the light sensitive plate. Thus electromagnetic radiation is not caused by the oscillatory motion of electrons but rather by the emission of photons. So although Maxwell’s theory works well in giving a description of the manner in which large numbers of photons behave ,it is intrinsically wrong because it attributes EM to causes other than the observed causative factors of EM.
(2)   Similarly QM holds that electrical energy is conveyed by electrons. The generally accepted and wrongly held view , is that an electrical conductor resembles a tube filled with ping pong balls , when more ping balls are added at one end they are pushed out at the other end.  This is false , electrons in a conductor are separated by a distance of more than one hundred thousand times their diameter. Which in real life terms is like a billiard ball trying to hit another billiard ball 6Kms away . To sum up the chances of this happening are slight. Again while observations show that  electrical energy in a conductor is established at the speed of light , the observed velocities of electrons in a conductor carrying a current under a difference of potential is on the order of hundredths of a millimetre per sec. Compare this with the speed of light , at 300,000 Km/sec !! In nature all types of energy are mediated or conveyed by photons , this ranges from heat , light , electromagnetic radiation , you name it , are all carried by photons . What makes electrical energy any different ?
(3)   QM maintains that  the photon is both a particle and a wave depending upon the way in which it is viewed. This is a totally false view of the photon and will be discussed later.
(4)   Because of the QM wave –particle duality  view of the electron , the QM theory of electromagnetic radiation is weird. It states that a photon can follow an infinite number of paths and that its position and energy “crystallize” only at the point where it is detected or absorbed. Surely better alternatives exist than this ?
That’s all for the moment but I will be following this up !



 

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #1 on: 18/08/2004 11:34:53 »
Well, i'll give a go at defending quantum mechanics, although its only a hobby for me and may be a career for you, so the odds are you know more about this than I. But here goes anyway!

quote:
Originally posted by McQueen

(2)   Similarly QM holds that electrical energy is conveyed by electrons. The generally accepted and wrongly held view , is that an electrical conductor resembles a tube filled with ping pong balls , when more ping balls are added at one end they are pushed out at the other end.  This is false , electrons in a conductor are separated by a distance of more than one hundred thousand times their diameter. Which in real life terms is like a billiard ball trying to hit another billiard ball 6Kms away . To sum up the chances of this happening are slight. Again while observations show that  electrical energy in a conductor is established at the speed of light , the observed velocities of electrons in a conductor carrying a current under a difference of potential is on the order of hundredths of a millimetre per sec. Compare this with the speed of light , at 300,000 Km/sec !! In nature all types of energy are mediated or conveyed by photons , this ranges from heat , light , electromagnetic radiation , you name it , are all carried by photons . What makes electrical energy any different ?



The difference is that electrons are charged, so while they are separated in space, they are still under the influence of EM forces. Their paths are scattered by the various ions in the conductor and are also subject to repulsive forces from other electrons. The speed of light is 300 000 km/sec in a VACUUM. In nature, light can travel far slower depending on the optical medium. A recent experiment has even stopped light dead.

Also, you are mistaken that all forms of energy are transmitted by photons. All the examples you gave are forms of EM radiation, so you'd expect all of them to be transmitted by photons (as that is one of the definitions of EM radiation).
Energy not transmitted by photons:
sound, thermal energy (conducted not radiated), radioactivity (alpha and beta particles) and some others. In fact, any energy transfer involving KE.
Therefore, i don't think that your point is valid in the first place.

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
« Last Edit: 18/08/2004 11:37:24 by qpan »
 

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #2 on: 18/08/2004 11:35:59 »
quote:
Originally posted by McQueen

(3)   QM maintains that  the photon is both a particle and a wave depending upon the way in which it is viewed. This is a totally false view of the photon and will be discussed later.




QM does not maintain that the photon is both a particle and a wave. QM merely states that light can be modelled using macroscopic models of either waves or particles. Neither describes the behaviour of light completely, but each may be more accurate in certain scenarios than others.

This is because it it physically impossible to accurately model light using a single macroscopic model.

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
 

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #3 on: 18/08/2004 11:44:15 »
quote:
Originally posted by McQueen

(4) Because of the QM wave –particle duality view of the electron , the QM theory of electromagnetic radiation is weird. It states that a photon can follow an infinite number of paths and that its position and energy “crystallize” only at the point where it is detected or absorbed. Surely better alternatives exist than this ?
That’s all for the moment but I will be following this up !


Ok, now having read this point, (not to be disrespectful but) I'm starting to doubt that you understand QM all that clearly.

This point is only weird if you consider light in terms of macroscopic models. Light does not behave like any large scale object we see. Why should it?

Experiments (many of them) have shown that light travels in all possible paths. Take Youngs Double Slit experiment. The results cannot be comprehended in any other way. How else could a single photon interfere with itself other than by travelling through both slots? If it doesn't travel through both slits, then why does the interference not occur when using a single slit?

I think that this point is flawed also.

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
 

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #4 on: 18/08/2004 12:03:07 »
quote:
Originally posted by McQueen

There exist several inconsistencies in the present  quantum mechanics theory on subjects dealing with  electromagnetic phenomenon , electric currents and the propagation of electromagnetic waves and above all the theory of wave-particle duality.
                   These inconsistencies may be enumerated as follows:
(1)   When dealing with electromagnetic radiation QM holds that it is the oscillation or jiggling of electrons and ions within the crystal lattice of a conductor that causes electromagnetic radiation. This has been specifically disproved by the photoelectric effect wherein it is found that the photoelectric effect is not caused by the orbit of electrons around an atom giving off an electromagnetic wave in a continuous manner which causes electrons to escape the metal surface as is found in the photoelectric effect but rather that light of different energies causes electrons to give off photons of a specific energy which when  absorbed by the electrons on the light sensitive plate , impart enough energy to these electrons to enable them to escape from the surface of the light sensitive plate. Thus electromagnetic radiation is not caused by the oscillatory motion of electrons but rather by the emission of photons. So although Maxwell’s theory works well in giving a description of the manner in which large numbers of photons behave ,it is intrinsically wrong because it attributes EM to causes other than the observed causative factors of EM.



Firstly, nowhere in Quantum mechanics does it say that electrons orbit nuclei.

Secondly, these are two very different phenomena. If you whack a piece of quartz, you can generate EM radiation in the form of light as well as an electric current. This is very different to firing photons at a metal. Just as there are many ways in which you can boil water (e.g. use gas, electric or solar heaters) doing it by one way does not prove that the other method is false.

The photoelectric effect only works in metals (or as far as i know anyway) and the effect is caused by photons with specific energies corresponding to the energy required to promote an electron to an excited state being absorbed by the electron. If the energy is greater than the minimal amount of energy to excite the electron, then the electron also has k.e. and travels away from the metal's surface. This indeed is different to the "oscillation and jiggling of electrons and ions within a crystal lattice" as you stated, but QM was actually used to explain the results from the photoelectric effect (by Einstein in fact). The two effects you are comparing are entirely different phenomena and so do not contradict each other at all.

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #5 on: 18/08/2004 13:07:19 »
quote:
Energy not transmitted by photons:
sound, thermal energy (conducted not radiated), radioactivity (alpha and beta particles) and some others. In fact, any energy transfer involving KE.
Therefore, i don't think that your point is valid in the first place.


Good point qpan , I will readily admit the validity of what you have said , still I don't think you can dismiss my claim that electrical energy is probably conducted by photons , if not photons , then what ? If it is as you claim electromagnetic radiation see point 1 in my post
« Last Edit: 18/08/2004 13:17:37 by McQueen »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #6 on: 18/08/2004 13:13:41 »
quote:
Experiments (many of them) have shown that light travels in all possible paths. Take Youngs Double Slit experiment. The results cannot be comprehended in any other way. How else could a single photon interfere with itself other than by travelling through both slots? If it doesn't travel through both slits, then why does the interference not occur when using a single slit?

qpan , I freely admit that my claims may sound off the track when taken with QM as a background , however , wave-particle duality was only introduced into QM to explain the fact that the electron did not spiral into the nucleus. This was later superseded by the knowledge that electrons are constantly emitting virtual photons. So in actual fact wave-particle duality and all the complications that go with it have no basis in fact. Visit my site at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex

« Last Edit: 18/08/2004 13:15:40 by McQueen »
 

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #7 on: 18/08/2004 13:39:52 »
Nice site by the way. I think i understand a bit more of what you're saying now. But i'm still a little confused about the distinction of the sentence below:

quote:
Thus electromagnetic radiation is not caused by the oscillatory motion of electrons but rather by the emission of photons.


Ok- so you are saying that the electron emits a photon to cause electromagnetic radiation. But as all electromagnetic radiation consists of photons, surely the oscillating electron also emits a photon to cause the electromagnetic radiation?

What is the difference in the model that you are theorising?

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
« Last Edit: 18/08/2004 13:40:26 by qpan »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #8 on: 18/08/2004 14:36:21 »
quote:
Ok- so you are saying that the electron emits a photon to cause electromagnetic radiation. But as all electromagnetic radiation consists of photons, surely the oscillating electron also emits a photon to cause the electromagnetic radiation?

What is the difference in the model that you are theorising?


Right , the electron in its orbit , (always for the moment ignoring Schrodinger who is no longer essential ) emits photons , most of these photons are necessarily virtual photons. This is known as self interaction of the electron as exemplified by the Lamb Shift observed in the Hydrogen atom. Thus there is an experimental basis for the existence of virtual photons. Basically what this means is if virtual photons exist then the wave-particle duality so beloved by QM does not exist !  If wave particle duality no longer exists ( and the wave-particle duality by De Broglie was based on the presumption that the photon was both a particle and a wave , as observed (a) by Thomas Young and (b) by Einstein) much of QM is obsolete.  The main point here is that if EM consists of photons , then Maxwell ‘s theory is no longer extant , it is a defunct theory.
P.S See my model of the photon at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pg3.html
« Last Edit: 18/08/2004 14:39:24 by McQueen »
 

Offline qpan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #9 on: 18/08/2004 16:04:11 »
quote:
Originally posted by McQueen

quote:
Ok- so you are saying that the electron emits a photon to cause electromagnetic radiation. But as all electromagnetic radiation consists of photons, surely the oscillating electron also emits a photon to cause the electromagnetic radiation?

What is the difference in the model that you are theorising?


Right , the electron in its orbit , (always for the moment ignoring Schrodinger who is no longer essential ) emits photons , most of these photons are necessarily virtual photons. This is known as self interaction of the electron as exemplified by the Lamb Shift observed in the Hydrogen atom. Thus there is an experimental basis for the existence of virtual photons. Basically what this means is if virtual photons exist then the wave-particle duality so beloved by QM does not exist !  If wave particle duality no longer exists ( and the wave-particle duality by De Broglie was based on the presumption that the photon was both a particle and a wave , as observed (a) by Thomas Young and (b) by Einstein) much of QM is obsolete.  The main point here is that if EM consists of photons , then Maxwell ‘s theory is no longer extant , it is a defunct theory.
P.S See my model of the photon at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pg3.html




But the point surely is that if wave-particle duality was observed by Young and Einstein, QM can't be obsolete?

What about all the other branches of Quantum mechanics such as QED and QCD? They've been pretty good at predicting things for a possibly obsolete theory!

"I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it."
-Edgar Allan Poe
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #10 on: 18/08/2004 21:38:15 »
What about all the other branches of Quantum mechanics such as QED and QCD ? They've been pretty good at predicting things for an obsolete theory !
If the basic premise on which a theory has been built turns out to be wrong , then there is a probability that the theory itself will also be wrong. I am going to make a few hypotheses here and support them by mathematical proofs , experiments and observations. So any claims which I amy make will be either easily refutable or open to scrutiny and comment. Thanks for your comments.
« Last Edit: 18/08/2004 21:41:28 by McQueen »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Inconsistencies in Quantum Mechanics
« Reply #10 on: 18/08/2004 21:38:15 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums