The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?  (Read 10676 times)

Offline CorneliusDalvert

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Quantum mechanics is a great way of modelling the interactions of subatomic particles but I don't think it is an accurate description of subatomic reality . In the same way that the Newtonian theory of gravity could be used to land a man on the moon or was instrumental in the realisation that light had speed .  While  Einsteins theories of gravity demonstrated that gravity was due the effect caused by time-space being curved , which allowed the prediction of blackholes .Newton models the effect while Einstein understands the underlying structure ...
« Last Edit: 01/10/2015 18:16:28 by chris »


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
Quantum mechanics is a great way of modelling the interactions of subatomic particles but I don't think it is an accurate description of subatomic reality.
That's quite wrong. Quantum mechanics, along with relativity, are the most precisely tested theories that there is in physics, specifically quantum electro-dynamics (QED). For more on this please see:

http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
In the same way that the Newtonian theory of gravity could be used to land a man on the moon or was instrumental in the realisation that light had speed.
Relativity, both special and general, are even more precise than Newtonian mechanics and gravity. The later cannot be used to correctly describe the amount that rays of light are deflected by the Sun.

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
While  Einsteins theories of gravity demonstrated that gravity was due the effect caused by time-space being curved , which allowed the prediction of blackholes .
That isn't quite accurate. All that Einstein's general relativity (GR) is able to do is to describe the phenomena of gravity much better than Newtonian gravity and predicts even more phenomena light gravitational red/blue shift etc. To Einstein, inertial and gravitational forces are identical. That means that if there's an inertial force present on a particle then the particle is subject to a real gravitational force.

The region of spacetime of interest need not be curved for there to be a gravitational field present. The uniform g-field has no spacetime curvature. In fact the definition of a uniform gravitational field has no spacetime curvature. See my website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/uniform_field.htm 

Fritz Rohrlich, a prominent physicist, derived the metric (i.e. a set of 10 independent "gravitational potentials")
Principle of Equivalence, F. Rohrlich, Ann. Phys. 22, 169-191, (1963), page 173/

The weak equivalence principle states
Quote
A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerated frame of reference
This means that in a uniform gravitational field there is a gravitational field present but the spacetime is curved. A spacetime which is curved will always have a gravitational field present everywhere except at the least the origin of the coordinate system. The reason people hold on to the gravity = curvature definition is that such a field is "permanent" and can't fully be transformed away like a uniform gravitational field can. However Einstein stuck to the interpretation that gravity = inertial acceleration definition. To learn more please read my paper on the subject at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044

For proof see the calculation I did for the gravitational field of a uniform gravitational field. See my results at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/uniform_force.htm
 

Offline CorneliusDalvert

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Hi PmbPhy thanks for your reply I think you may have slightly missed the point of my post I think current understanding of the subatomic scale is still missing some essential element . Just as Newtonian understanding of gravity was , as I pointed out you could still land a man on the moon to within a few meters of your chosen target using a Newtonian model of gravity that's not bad at a range of 384400 km so it too is a very accurate model but still missing an essential level of understanding . I realise quantum mechanics is a very well tested and accurate model but it has flaws which show that it too is missing some fundamental understanding of the structures it describes . I don't claim to have an answer but I think it's something science shouldn't loose sight of , I could list half a dozen examples where the model fails but this isn't meant as an attack on the standard model only as suggestion that we all remember it's just a model and it's far from complete :) The biggest problem is the scale which places true observation of quantum interactions beyond our current ability to view , thanks for the links I'm always curious to learn more.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4116
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
I think current understanding of the subatomic scale is still missing some essential element..
This is correct. The known "missing element" is gravity.

Many physicists are searching for a "Theory of Everything", which will include everything we know from the Standard Model of quantum theory, and everything we know from Einstein's General Relativity. But we don't have any experimental evidence that points out one of them as being "right", as yet.

Many physicists are also trying identify the nature of Dark Matter, which appears as if it might be something outside the Standard Model - this is an unknown "missing element".

It is known that quantum theory analysis of particle interactions display many symmetries which are not currently explained by quantum theory, and this points to the possibility of more detailed underlying structure.

"String Theory" is one of the candidates for this Theory of Everything. But rather than a single theory, it is more a hypothesis that generates a myriad of alternate theories - but so far, all still unproven.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
Hi PmbPhy thanks for your reply
You're quite welcome my friend. :)

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
I think you may have slightly missed the point of my post I think current understanding of the subatomic scale is still missing some essential element .
I was addressing the subject title Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality? and the answer to that is yes.

It appears that you're talking about the fact that quantum mechanics is not perfect. Nobody ever said it was perfect. I surely don't. No theory is perfect. In fact I'm certain that all physicists worth their salt would agree that all theories are wrong. The theories we have now are simply the best description of nature that we have at this moment.

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
...but it has flaws which show that it too is missing some fundamental understanding of the structures it describes .
Please give me some examples of the flaws that you're thinking about so that I can get a solid grasp of the kinds of things that you have in mind.

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
I don't claim to have an answer but I think it's something science shouldn't loose sight of , ..
That's something that you'll never have to worry about because its almost always at the top of every physicists mind. We are all aware of that fact so you have nothing to worry about. :)

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
I could list half a dozen examples where the model fails ...
Wonderful. Please list six examples where the model fails. Make sure that you're not using quantum mechanics where you should be using relativistic quantum mechanics.

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
but this isn't meant as an attack on the standard model ...

Contrary to popular belief, quantum mechanics is not the standard model. The standard model is the theory of elementary particles.  See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
Quote
The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, as well as classifying all the subatomic particles known.
See also: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
..only as suggestion that we all remember it's just a model and it's far from complete :)
What did you mean when you said it's just a model? The standard-model isn't really a model, it's a theory. There's a large difference.

See also: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model
Quote
Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.
Quote
That means that it's a theory, not a model.

A model is described in the following
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/

For example; to make things easy to calculate we often ignore a lot of complications where reality is too complicated and a simple "model" is easier to use. For example: if you want to determine the time it takes a satellite to orbit the earth in geosynchronous orbit then you model it as a sphere rather than what it really is, i.e. an ellipsoid of revolution with mountains, canyons, varying mass density, etc.

Quote from: CorneliusDalvert
The biggest problem is the scale which places true observation of quantum interactions beyond our current ability to view , thanks for the links I'm always curious to learn more.
You're most welcome. If you like you can use my private website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/

I'm in the process of building a website called New England Physics at http://www.newenglandphysics.org/

As you can see there's a forum under it for people interested in physics. Membership is exclusive, by invitation only. You seem like the pleasant, open minded sort. If that's true and you'd like to join then I herein offer you membership. If you want to take it then send me a PM here and I'll tell you what to do in order to join. But first you must read the forum rules and follow them to the letter. They're listed at http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/forum_rules.htm
 

Offline CorneliusDalvert

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Hi PmbPhy I've removed my last post as it was a steaming pile of ignorance fueled by lager RQM is bombproof I wikied it till my head hurt after rereading the drivel I posted last and I guess I must try harder :) However I'm still uneasy about extra dimensions but that as they say is another story :)
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1818
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Cornelius
I've removed my last post as it was a steaming pile of ignorance

Whatever you may, or may not, post here or anywhere, you have my respect.  I would take my hat off to you, if I could find it.  :)
 

Online Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1916
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Cornelius
I've removed my last post as it was a steaming pile of ignorance

....you have my respect....
Mine too.
If you mean extra dimensions in QM, don't worry, I don't believe they are extra physical dimensions. They are the total number of parameters or coordinates needed to describe a system.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1818
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Colin
If you mean extra dimensions in QM, don't worry, I don't believe they are extra physical dimensions. They are the total number of parameters or coordinates needed to describe a system.

Do you apply that to extra dimensions in string theory as well?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Hi PmbPhy I've removed my last post as it was a steaming pile of ignorance fueled by lager RQM is bombproof I wikied it till my head hurt after rereading the drivel I posted last and I guess I must try harder :) However I'm still uneasy about extra dimensions but that as they say is another story :)
I don't know about extra dimensions myself, either.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I'm currently studying quantum mechanics and from what I have learned so far it is the best set of tools for the job. I need a better understanding of the subject before I can comment further so I may post more to this thread. On dimensions, they can be spatial as well as representing parameters of the system. The amplituhedron is an example of using extra dimensions. It is worth looking into.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron

 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Quantum mechanics is a great way of modelling the interactions of subatomic particles but I don't think it is an accurate description of subatomic reality . In the same way that the Newtonian theory of gravity could be used to land a man on the moon or was instrumental in the realisation that light had speed .  While  Einsteins theories of gravity demonstrated that gravity was due the effect caused by time-space being curved , which allowed the prediction of blackholes .Newton models the effect while Einstein understands the underlying structure ...
It does not support logic of continuity of motion... Thus not able to model physical motion of atoms, electrons, photons and EM waves...
Most if not all Molecular Dynamics Simulators use classical mechanics...
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: mathew_orman
It does not support logic of continuity of motion... Thus not able to model physical motion of atoms, electrons, photons and EM waves...
Most if not all Molecular Dynamics Simulators use classical mechanics...
That is mostly incorrect. Physical motion can easily be described by quantum mechanics for atoms and molecules. The results are in terms of "probability waves" rather than classical trajectories. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics
and search on the term "quantum".
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Quote from: mathew_orman
It does not support logic of continuity of motion... Thus not able to model physical motion of atoms, electrons, photons and EM waves...
Most if not all Molecular Dynamics Simulators use classical mechanics...
That is mostly incorrect. Physical motion can easily be described by quantum mechanics for atoms and molecules. The results are in terms of "probability waves" rather than classical trajectories. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics
and search on the term "quantum".
There are only real trajectories of continuous motion and can be modeled using Cartesian coordinates...
QM fails here...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Delude yourself, by all means, but humility before the facts is the essence of understanding science.

The "logic of continuity of motion" has no validity in the face of facts.  Quantum mechanics, far from failing, describes the observed discontinuities in atomic physics.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If you don't believe that the wavelike nature of matter and probability is crucial then you need to study the subject of quantum mechanics a little more in depth. It will give you insights that you may have missed altogether.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Delude yourself, by all means, but humility before the facts is the essence of understanding science.

The "logic of continuity of motion" has no validity in the face of facts.  Quantum mechanics, far from failing, describes the observed discontinuities in atomic physics.
Useful only in its own domain and "Logic"...
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
If you don't believe that the wavelike nature of matter and probability is crucial then you need to study the subject of quantum mechanics a little more in depth. It will give you insights that you may have missed altogether.
Why study theories which reject logical reasoning and continuity of motion?
 
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
...because motion ISN'T continuous and logical reasoning is usually based on flawed assumptions. Science that starts with observations and works for a theory is usually better than science that starts with theory and then looks for verification (Einstein is a notable exception to this rule of thumb)
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Please, give an example of such motion...
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

A particle can move from one position to another without being anywhere in between by "tunneling" This phenomenon is very well established both experimentally and theoretically. Your computer and cell phone wouldn't work if it didn't happen.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Useful only in its own domain and "Logic"...

It's a pretty big domain, stretching from astronomy to particle physics. I use QM most days to optimise the imaging, treatment and protection of humans and animals, and in the development of all sorts of electronic gadgets. It's also pretty handy for satellite and inertial navigation, although the plane flies well enough on newtonian mechanics.

Quote
Why study theories which reject logical reasoning and continuity of motion?
 

Because they explain what we see and predict the next observation.
 

Offline CorneliusDalvert

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Hi Bill S I'm afraid to say I have a problem with extra dimension in every context apart from sci fi :( I realise this sounds harsh but my objection is a gut reaction based on a historical example , the ancients added orbits within orbits to explain the motion of the planets , not a scientific reason but nobody's perfect :) I guess we should understand 3 dimensions before adding more to make the models work ' As you can see I'm not always humble :)
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4116
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: ChiralSPO
Science that starts with observations and works for a theory is usually better than science that starts with theory and then looks for verification (Einstein is a notable exception to this rule of thumb)

Einstein was a theoretician, not an experimentalist (or at least, he mostly did his own experiments in his head).

However, his work was driven by unexplained experiments:
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The trouble with most 'theories' that amateurs propose is that they are NOT based on what has been established through experimentation. They also usually develop from a scant knowledge of physics. Derived usually from reading books aimed at the layman. Try reading up on algebra, calculus and classical mechanics BEFORE trying to challenge years of hard earned knowledge. It may also be wise to read up on the history and philosophy of science. Just look around at the world we live in. All our technology came from these efforts AND they work!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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