The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did Bohr shout physics into the dark ages for over eighty years?  (Read 4628 times)

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile


 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I agreed with everything Mead said, until he said, "[An electron] is its own medium." How is that supposed to square with real-world experience? It's no different than the mainstream idea that e/m waves need no medium, or that mathematical insubstantial space is their medium. To satisfy me, a model model must provide a medium for every sort of wave.

I haven't finished reading the interview, yet. More comments later, perhaps.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3810
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Very interesting but near the end it starts to go on about 'Dick heads' !!!
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I've moved this post, since it isn't really a question, nor is it mainstream physics.  Please also review the policy on evangelism: namely, that posts shouldn't consist nearly entirely of links.
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
I apologize for my relative ignorance.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
A particle is its own medium because it generates its own spacetime. Its own spacetime is modified by the interactions with other particles own created spacetime.

Bohr, obviously, went too far by saying that the Uncertainty Principle imply that the ultimate Physics model must be probabilistic. All particles have a minimum angular momentum of h/4π (spin of 1/2, particles with 0 spin have +1/2 -1/2 and they are not elementary). It imposes a minimum error for any experimentation because we are limited to interactions of particles.

Theoretically, if a particle has a very short life duration, taking account of its energy (ΔE*Δt < h/4π), it is a virtual particle, meaning it is impossible to be measured. Virtual particles are essential for the Strong Interaction and Nuclear Force. Even if the Strong Interaction has an electromagnetic or a gravitational nature.

The mediation of the Strong Force by virtual particles between quarks in a proton or in a neutron, produces variations in quarks sizes... This is the key...
« Last Edit: 25/03/2011 23:05:21 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
The theory of virtual particles in Quantum Mechanics is in contradiction with it. The basic interpretation of the Heisenberg principle is that the real world is what can be measured. If there is an uncertainty, there is a probability. So we live in a probabilistic world. Virtual particles are non existent according to this interpretation!!!

The worst thing about this is that Bohr and Compton were on the right track toward a Unified Theory before this interpretation. They wrote most equations relating particles to photon's origin.

What could be measured at that time about particles was mostly of an electromagnetic nature. So, after the interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, electrons were seen as a probability of point charges...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/#BohVieUncRel
« Last Edit: 07/04/2011 22:01:15 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
The theory of virtual particles in Quantum Mechanics is in contradiction with it. The basic interpretation of the Heisenberg principle is that the real world is what can be measured. If there is an uncertainty, there is a probability. So we live in a probabilistic world. Virtual particles are non existent according to this interpretation!!!

The uncertainty principle doesn't say that at all.  It relates the uncertainties in position and momentum of a particle's state.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
This is the basic scientific experimental point of view, not the fundamental interpretation integrated in QM as the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is clear that it means that there is no possible deterministic solution. The fact is, many Physicists take it as cash, many others disagree in silence. QM is prisoner of itself because of that. The sentence is infinite raise of complexity over time.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
This is the basic scientific experimental point of view, not the fundamental interpretation integrated in QM as the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is clear that it means that there is no possible deterministic solution. The fact is, many Physicists take it as cash, many others disagree in silence. QM is prisoner of itself because of that. The sentence is infinite raise of complexity over time.

Ok, assuming all that is true, what does this have to do with virtual particles?  That's what I was responding to above.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
By saying that there is no deterministic solution beyond QM, they just applied the Uncertainty to the letter, it is the limit to Reality, not just experimental limit. There is many articles about that as i am sure you know. I remember that virtual particles were once controversial about this. But there is no other standard modeled alternative explaining the effects theorized by them.

I know most Physicists don't take it too seriously but it is a fact that QM is largely based on that assumption.

One day, not so far i hope, i am sure you will change your mind (and i don't talk about my theory).  [:o)]

I would add that Quantum Mechanics is still a very good approach in the absence of a good model. It is an experimental approach that can lead to new concrete developments, but it is doomed to neverending increase in complexity.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 05:11:43 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
By saying that there is no deterministic solution beyond QM, they just applied the Uncertainty to the letter, it is the limit to Reality, not just experimental limit. There is many articles about that as i am sure you know. I remember that virtual particles were once controversial about this. But there is no other standard modeled alternative explaining the effects theorized by them.

I'm still confused about what you're saying.  Are you saying that you disagree with the quantum mechanical claim that you can't know the exact position and momentum of a particle at once?  I'm still not sure what this has to do with virtual particles, since that quantum mechanical claim applies to any particles...
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
No, i agree with it but i say that it is an experimental limit only. The virtual particles are way under the uncertainty principle due to their extremely short lives. According to the standard interpretation, they are not real. They never changed the standard interpretation. Einstein and Schrodinger never believed in that interpretation (the cat in a box).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat


The way i understand it, it is more Heisenberg's fault than Bohr's. Maybe, he was unconsciously searching for more fame.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 05:31:17 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I think I'm confused because you're linking together a bunch of topics that really have nothing to do with each other, aside from being part of quantum mechanics.   But let's deal with these points one at a time.

No, i agree with it but i say that it is an experimental limit only.
Physics is an experimental science.  If it's an experimental limit, it's a limit.  Period.  In this case, it happens we have a theoretical explanation of that limit called the uncertainty principle.

Quote
The virtual particles are way under the uncertainty principle due to their extremely short lives.
Virtual particles are in no way under the uncertainty principle.  Their short lives just means there's uncertainty in their energy, due to time-energy uncertainty.  So they don't violate uncertainty at all.

Quote
According to the standard interpretation, they are not real. They never changed the standard interpretation.
By definition they aren't real.  It's hard to really describe them in detail without some level of mathematics, but they're basically a tool to explain some parts of the equations of quantum mechanics.  They aren't physical particles, though.  They have to do with parts of the equations that describe how physical particles interact.  So by definition, they aren't real particles.

Quote
Einstein and Schrodinger never believed in that interpretation (the cat in a box).
Schrodinger's cat doesn't have to do with any of this.  It was meant to show the oddness of another feature of quantum mechanics: collapse of a wave function, as well as problems with quantum mechanics being applied to large scale objects.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
i knew you would say that. You cannot denied that QM is taught as a probabilistic reality. It simply denies the possibility of a deterministic model better than itself. It is at least the way it is presented in most QM books and in most universities, if not all of them... And the link with the "cat in a box" is simply that it is another implication of the same interpretation of the uncertainty principle : any good model should be probabilistic. Where does it come from? Why electrons around a nucleus are represented by probability clouds that we must see as the ultimate reality? Where does it come from? Bohr's answer to the cat in a box never changed that, but it should have...
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Errr, CPT, I'm sorry, but if you can raise one objection at a time, it might give JP some opportunity to respond.

If you are so down on QM that you are really not interested in hearing any arguments in its defense, why do you think anyone would spend their time trying to persuade you otherwise?

You can certainly post your theories here, but I don't think you should be surprised if you have to defend them. I'm pretty sure Einstein had to spend a lot of time defending his theories too.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
I am sorry, i am not angry at all, but my arguments are very logical. Just take time to read it carefully. Any comments from any people are welcome, obviously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 10:13:22 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
i knew you would say that. You cannot denied that QM is taught as a probabilistic reality. It simply denies the possibility of a deterministic model better than itself. It is at least the way it is presented in most QM books and in most universities, if not all of them... And the link with the "cat in a box" is simply that it is another implication of the same interpretation of the uncertainty principle : any good model should be probabilistic. Where does it come from? Why electrons around a nucleus are represented by probability clouds that we must see as the ultimate reality? Where does it come from? Bohr's answer to the cat in a box never changed that, but it should have...

So in the end your argument seems to boil down to to "I don't like a non-deterministic theory."  That's fine.  It doesn't help your case though, when, as above, you keep bringing up points that are wrong and/or have nothing to do with your argument.
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 582
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
I never said that i prefer a deterministic theory, i just said QM denies new deterministic theories. I should have said it denies all new theories not coming from QM itself...

You seems not to make any difference between the Uncertainty Principle and its official interpretation about Reality that had profound theoretical implications over the years.

For the rest, i let people make their own judgement.

You probably see the good results of QM and i see its problems and no possible solution inside QM, except exponential increase in complexity.
« Last Edit: 08/04/2011 16:56:16 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
I never said that i prefer a deterministic theory, i just said QM denies new deterministic theories. I should have said it denies all new theories not coming from QM itself...

You seems not to make any difference between the Uncertainty Principle and its official interpretation about Reality that had profound theoretical implications over the years.

You're just plain wrong again.  You're making it sound like there's an official handbook that states how to interpret the uncertainty principle and which forbids any other explanation.  There isn't.  Again, it's something that's been experimentally observed, and we know how the mathematics work to model it very accurately.  There are several possible interpretations of what it means.  Bohr's is just one.  Also, QM doesn't forbid other theories.  Experiments forbid other theories.  There's no alternative theory out yet that explains experiments on tiny particles as well as QM does.  You're attacking a straw man here.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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