The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?  (Read 10672 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Here is a plain example where QM fails to explain the phenomena:
Experiment:Silver mirror is mounted on a stage inside vacuum chamber and coherent laser beam of 650nm intersects the mirror at 45 deg.
Using QM explain why reflected beam has also 45 deg.


You cannot conduct the experiment. Lasers use quantum mechanics and therefore do not work on your planet. Please give an example of something you have actually done or seen.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Again:
Here is a plain example where QM fails to explain the phenomena:
Experiment:Silver mirror is mounted on a stage inside vacuum chamber and collimated Sunlight beam of 650nm intersects the mirror at 45 deg.
Using QM explain why reflected beam has also 45 deg.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: mathew
Using QM explain why reflected beam has also 45 deg.

In the equation that gives Snell's law, v1 = v2 in this scenario because the light is in the same medium before and after reflection.

How would using QM make this different?
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Again:
Here is a plain example where QM fails to explain the phenomena:
Experiment:Silver mirror is mounted on a stage inside vacuum chamber and collimated Sunlight beam of 650nm intersects the mirror at 45 deg.
Using QM explain why reflected beam has also 45 deg.

http://qed.wikina.org/reflection/
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Sorry, Matthew, you can't use sunlight because it is generated by a nuclear reaction, which cannot be modelled by classical mechanics. Nor can its spectrum.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
It is classical electromagnetism which explains it...
And QM and QED fails...
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Alas, no. Where did the helium absorption lines come from, in your classical electromagnetism? Please show the failure of QM, and the power of Maxwell's equations, to describe their narrow bandwidth.

And your classical model of H -> He fusion is....?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2015 11:33:59 by alancalverd »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
An interesting question to ask oneself is, why do we have a quantum universe? For one thing, a quantum universe makes the universe less random compared to a continuous universe. For example, the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom are very limited compared to a universe where the hydrogen spectra would be continuous. Quantum loads the dice, so fewer sides can ever come up, compared to a continuous universe. If we had a six sided dice in a continuous universe, quantum will load this dice so only 3 or 4 can ever come up.

What the loading of the dice, via a quantum universe also does, is save time. If A and B need to happen before C can appear, loaded dice make A and B appear much quicker compared to a regulation dice, due to better odds. Quantum saves time so there is more time left over to take creation further with any given potential.

The irony for science is before the quantum universe was discovered, science assumed the universe was defined by continuous functions. This universe was assumed to be deterministic and governed by logic. When quantum appeared, although this observation has made the odds better, by loading the dice of the universe, science assumed non-deterministic. This never made sense to me. I may have come about because nobody ever asked the question, what does quantum bring to the table compared to continuous.

This contrast between quantum and continuous may be relevant to the question at hand, since others may sense the paradox of loaded dice being more random.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Alas, no. Where did the helium absorption lines come from, in your classical electromagnetism? Please show the failure of QM, and the power of Maxwell's equations, to describe their narrow bandwidth.

And your classical model of H -> He fusion is....?

Maxwell created model of EM wave he had no idea how the waves are generated and why the speed of EM waves is constant...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Alas, no. Where did the helium absorption lines come from, in your classical electromagnetism? Please show the failure of QM, and the power of Maxwell's equations, to describe their narrow bandwidth.

And your classical model of H -> He fusion is....?

Maxwell created model of EM wave he had no idea how the waves are generated and why the speed of EM waves is constant...

Compression waves,



Quantum mechanics is highly accurate and unarguable to a degree, like Pete stated the only answer really missing is gravity mechanism, which I personally think we already  have the answer , science considers this negative energy,

 definition - ''Negative energy is a concept used in physics to explain the nature of certain fields, including the gravitational field and a number of quantum field effects. In more speculative theories, negative energy is involved in wormholes which allow time travel and warp drives for faster-than-light space travel.''


I was guided to this yesterday by a mod and it was something I thought about before I knew about it already exists, so if science says so and I thought about it on my  own                        accord, I am confident science already has the quantum answer and negative being the exact cause of gravity by direct attraction to a positive which science already knows about with how electrodynamics work.
I use to argue there was no curvature of space etc, now I would not be so hasty to argue there was no curve or would I be so hasty to about space itself expanding, I even consider space pushes back, the quantum world is great, Einstein rocks.



 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Alas, no. Where did the helium absorption lines come from, in your classical electromagnetism? Please show the failure of QM, and the power of Maxwell's equations, to describe their narrow bandwidth.

And your classical model of H -> He fusion is....?

Maxwell created model of EM wave he had no idea how the waves are generated and why the speed of EM waves is constant...

Please answer the questions. Or not - I really don't care, and I doubt whether anyone else does.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
If you want one you need to provide the details scientific experiment where assumed fusion takes place...
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Please answer the questions. Or not - I really don't care, and I doubt whether anyone else does.
You're not going to get one. He's avoiding engaging in meaningful, logical discussion and like you I've lost interest as well.
These threads are going nowhere, so I'm out.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
If you want one you need to provide the details scientific experiment where assumed fusion takes place...


Just look at the sun and ask yourself why it shines. Don't bother to tell me - I know, as does practically everyone else in this forum. Then answer the questions. Or not. Please yourself - intellectual masturbation won't harm anyone else.
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
That is the worst example you could come up with...
Try again something I could put together in a lab...
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
Here is a plain example where QM fails to explain the phenomena:
Experiment:Silver mirror is mounted on a stage inside vacuum chamber and coherent laser beam of 650nm intersects the mirror at 45 deg.
Using QM explain why reflected beam has also 45 deg.


You cannot conduct the experiment. Lasers use quantum mechanics and therefore do not work on your planet. Please give an example of something you have actually done or seen.
Nothing 'Quantum' about Laser invention:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
n 1949 Gould went to Columbia University to work on a doctorate in optical and microwave spectroscopy.[4] His doctoral supervisor was Nobel laureate Polykarp Kusch, who guided Gould to develop expertise in the then-new technique of optical pumping.[5] In 1956, Gould proposed using optical pumping to excite a maser, and discussed this idea with the maser's inventor Charles Townes, who was also a professor at Columbia and later won the 1964 Nobel prize for his work on the maser and the laser.[6] Townes gave Gould advice on how to obtain a patent on his innovation, and agreed to act as a witness.

I have highlighted the essential quantum phenomena, which cannot be modelled by continuum physics. Your non-quantum explanation of stimulated emission is now eagerly awaited, along with answers to all the other questions I have posed. 

You get one point for looking up lasers in Wikipedia, but 100 penalty points for not attempting to understand what it says. 
« Last Edit: 12/10/2015 10:54:53 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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