The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Copenhagen Interpretation  (Read 2729 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Copenhagen Interpretation
« on: 24/09/2005 14:51:53 »
I disagree with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics because:

I disagree that a sub-atomic particle such as an electron can be a particle outside the atom and a wave inside the atom. Such an interpretation is totally misleading and therefore false. Look for  instance closely at your computer monitors , you should see a number of points each of which consists of three dots a few microns across , one dot for each colour RGB. Now the electron beam when it is emitted hits each of the approx: 820,000 of one of these ( i.e., R , G or B ) of these dots on each scan of the screen. infallibly In one second it hits approx: 50,000,000 of these dots . infallibly . But this is all beside the point . What is important is that ( using weak electromagnetic fields ) it is possible to trace the path of  these electrons through every point, therefore , they are to all purposes , particles , in a very definite sense. Yet Quantum mechanics holds that these same particles are wave formations within the atom ! Is this acceptable. The electron , according to QM is a particle outside the atom and a wave within the atom. I would really , really , like some views on this.


 

Offline David Sparkman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
Re: Copenhagen Interpretation
« Reply #1 on: 24/09/2005 15:32:18 »
I think people instinctively reach for the term wave whenever a group of things find someway to bind together. Rather than look for what causes this binding, they forget all that has been established and call it wave behavior. To account for the wave behavior of electrons in an atom, you simply have to find what forces would cause an electron to synchronize itself with other electrons. To explain the wave behavior of photons (light and other energy levels), you only need to find what forces would cause a photon to synchronize itself with other photons. Most people deny there is any such force, but the way partials do act in harmony is proof enough to me that there must be such a force, and such a force would be the simpler explanation of the phenomena. I do distrust things that seem magical and the electron wave/partial transformation has all the hallmarks of magic..

I think you know my viewpoint, that the electron in orbit around the atom has a harmonic frequency equal to the circumference of its orbit. This reinforces the magnetic field the electron produces. If the electron is paired, then its partner is following the same frequency but half a vibration out of sync like a sine wave superimposed on a cosine wave. This would account for the stability of the electron obits, the quantum nature of orbits (no fraction of a harmonic allowed), magnetism of unpaired electrons and no magnetism of paired electrons (spin is opposite and cancels), and a host of other things.

That being said, there is one thing I am not sure of, and that is what is frequency? We say photons and often mass have frequency. But that is a measurement between events. Do photons actually move up and down like a string in their mad flight, or do they pulse? Polarization of light suggest they have a height that is much larger than their width. Anyone have an answer? I understand how you vibrate a string, how do you vibrate a particle if it isnít a pulse?


David
 

Offline Solvay_1927

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
Re: Copenhagen Interpretation
« Reply #2 on: 24/09/2005 18:36:19 »
I'm confused about something - why do you say that quantum theory says an electron is a wave inside an atom but a particle outside it?

Electrons exhibit diffraction when passed through crystalline structures, etc. - a classic wave property. (Experiments showing the wave-like behaviour of FREE electrons were first carried out c. 1927.  You've heard the saying that JJ Thompson won a Nobel prize for proving that an electron was a particle - c.1897 - while his son G Thompson won a Nobel prize for proving that an electron is a wave.  I wonder if they had a good father-son relationship!)

Also, electrons can be sent singly through a double-slit experiment set-up and still exhibit interference patterns (just like photons - as, indeed, whole molecules can).

The Copenhagen Interpretation itself may indeed be wrong, but not the concept of wave-particle duality.  (As I understand it, other non-Copenhagen interpretations of quantum theory still accept the wave-particle duality of matter.  But none of them can give a complete explanation of exactly how to explain this phenomenon.)

But I'm not sure I understand quantum theory deeply enough to really challenge what you're saying.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Copenhagen Interpretation
« Reply #3 on: 25/09/2005 03:55:31 »
David


What you say about electrons synchronizing their movement with other electrons is another way of stating Schrodingerís standing wave theory , and therefore has wide acceptance. The question is not why we have to find a theory to account for this electron movement but why waves are brought into the argument at all. If the electron were a simple particle there would be no problem , look at the Solar system , we have the planets going around the sun , and there is no question of whether we are dealing with particles or waves , we know , if not why, at least  how , this is all happening. The electron however is not just an ordinary particle , it is a charged particle , and this is where Classical physics breaks down and Quantum Mechanics comes in. A charged particle in motion radiates energy , this has been proved by numerous experiments , since an electron in orbit is a charged particle in motion , it should be radiating energy and if we perform the mathematics it shows that the electron should radiate away all its energy and spiral into the nucleus in about 10 ^^ - 10 secs. Thus according to Classical Physics , atoms cannot exist ! This is where the wave theory comes in , if the electron behaved within the atom like a wave rather than a particle , it would in effect be dissociated (i.e., spread over a wide area ) and the question of radiating its energy away would not arise. So my post as to how an electron behaves like a particle outside the atom and a wave inside the atom has some validity. Does the electron in fact change into a wave inside the atom ? It seems highly unlikely , and this point of view is supported by the discovery of virtual particles and the self interaction of electrons. Why then is wave Ė particle duality so widely accepted and in fact as Solvay 1927 put it viewed as one of the infallible tenets of QM.
Also I have to say that the same experiment , namely Compton scattering has been used to prove both arguments , that the electron is a wave and that it is a particle.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Copenhagen Interpretation
« Reply #3 on: 25/09/2005 03:55:31 »

 

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