The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is Quantum Mechanics a form of quackery ?  (Read 282 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Is Quantum Mechanics a form of quackery ?
« on: 09/08/2016 02:34:58 »
In 1796 a person by the name of Samuel Hahneman created a system of medicine called Homeopathy. He believed that  a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. He claimed that "Like cures like", dilution increases potency and that disease is caused by miasmas. Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain.
                                                   
Homeopathy is not a plausible system of treatment, as its dogmas about how drugs, illness, the human body, liquids and solutions operate are contradicted by a wide range of discoveries across biology, psychology, physics and chemistry made in the two centuries since its invention. Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments. The continued practice of homeopathy, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy,  has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense, quackery, and a sham.
    In the field of medicine, the lines are clear cut, either it works or it doesn't, if it doesn't work  it is termed quackery.  In modern day physics , unfortunately such clear cut assumptions no longer apply. Take as a typical example the De Broglie relation, the cornerstone on which practically the whole of modern day physics is founded.  On the basis of the De Broglie relation are founded 'Special Relativity' , 'General Relativity' and most important of all the concept of wave/particle duality.    Without the De Broglie relation much of what is considered valid in physics would no longer enjoy recognition.
   Every novice physicist is aware of the fact that in physics the most fundamental and fatal mistake that can be made is to mix basic units.  Any answers that are deduced from such calculations are either faulty or nonsensical.  Yet the De Broglie relation does just that, it is the classic example of comparing apples and oranges. In the world in which we live,  waves and solids are about as diverse materials as it is possible to find, yet the De Broglie relation attempts to meld these two dissimilar entities using the most basic and elementary of mathematical formulas.  The answers that are derived from this simple mathematical relation are not only nonsensical they are absolutely fantastical. The amazing fact is that physicists of the day were perfectly willing to overlook these anomalies and to accept at face value De Broglie's fantastic assertion that all matter has corresponding 'matter' waves  whose presence is only manifested when very small dimensions are involved such as those involved in sub-atomic particles.
                                                         
       In 1924, Prince Louis De Broglie  postulated in his Doctoral thesis  the wave nature of electrons and suggested that all matter has wave properties. This concept is known as the de Broglie hypothesis, an example of wave–particle duality, and forms a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics.  Yet, it is highly unlikely that his theory would  have gained wide-spread recognition if it had not been for the fact that Einstein, one of the most respected physicists of the age, had enthusiastically endorsed the hypotheses of wave/particle duality. Thus the original seemingly foolhardy suggestion that electrons had wave like properties seemed to be borne out by theory and later by experiment:
   It is apparent that the De Broglie relation has exactly the same kind of credibility as Homeopathic medicine has to allopathic medicine.  The solution of the De Broglie wave shows that it results in fantastic  velocities for the De Broglie wave 10 14m ( a million times  the speed of light ) and when applied to the electron in the hydrogen atom in its ground state the electron has a velocity of  2.2 x 106 m/sec. yields a speed for the De Broglie wave of approx 45 billion m/sec. Although the tendency might be to write these discrepancies off with the explanation that the De Broglie wave is after all a phase wave or using Louis De Broglie's own explanation that it is a wave of probability, it makes equal if not more sense to place the De Broglie wave in the same category as Homeopathic medicine where the dosage is diluted to a billionth part or even to the point where no trace remains.   Further it lacks wave like properties in the sense that its velocity varies not with changes in the medium through which it is travelling but with the particle with which it is associated. Thus if the particle travels at greater velocity the velocity of the Be Broglie wave will also increase.   Therefore,  the De Broglie wave seems to bear little or no relation in its behaviour to true waves, regardless of whether it is a phase wave or not.  It should if the same rationale were practised in physics as is used in medicine, be categorised as 'nonsense, quackery and a sham.'
   Elaborating on the fact that a wave travelling in a medium will not change its velocity provided the medium itself remains unchanged.  If a stone is thrown with a certain velocity in space, it will continue to travel with that velocity , until it meets an object that will slow it down or stop it. If that stone is again impelled forward in the same direction by a greater force, it will experience a corresponding acceleration and a change in velocity.
   But this property  does not apply to waves. The speed with which a wave moves is solely determined by the medium through which it moves. Once a wave is created, the only reason its speed will change is if it enters a different medium or if the properties of the medium change. Water waves travel more quickly over deeper water, so a wave will slow down as it passes over an underwater ridge, but speed up again as it emerges into deeper water.  The wave's speed depends only on the medium. Adding energy to the wave doesn't speed it up, it just increases its amplitude. Therefore the fact that the De Broglie wave of a particle  changes its velocity in proportion to the particle's velocity does not make sense. If it is a wave, even a phase wave, this should not happen if the De Broglie wave were indeed truly wave like.
      This brings us to Maxwell and his theory on the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

                                               

   In keeping with the desire to eliminate the need for an aether,  physicists claimed that  Maxwell's theory for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation eliminated the need for any kind of medium whatsoever.  The self sustaining electric and magnetic fields postulated by Maxwell, seemed to indicate that once generated such fields would travel for ever, the one waxing while the other waned and vice versa. Yet consider that Maxwell's original theory that an oscillating electron produces self sustaining electric and magnetic fields has been proven to be false in the sense that it is OK to imagine such a phenomena oscillating along a narrow line it becomes less compelling when one thinks in terms of the inverse square law, suppose an electromagnetic wave travels a 100 kilometres, it will spread over an area of ten billion square metres. Even though it might be possible ( by some legerdemain unknown to me) to believe that a single oscillating pulse from an electron can result in such a wide-spread of energy, it is not exactly the kind of phenomena  encountered in quotidian experiences of the world we live in. The alternative is a medium for the wave to travel through.  Ans this is the solution that was adopted.



   In direct contradiction to what is taught about the existence of a medium such as the aether being unnecessary and useless, in actual fact the presence of an aether would explain many fundamental phenomena to which we at present lack answers. For instance take one of the most vital aspects, the speed of light as constant This phenomena has no explanation in modern day physics the speed of light as constant (in a vacuum)  has simply been accepted as one of  the  fundamental principles of modern day physics. Yet if an aether did exist the fact that its speed was constant would become commonplace and easily explained. The speed with which a wave moves is solely determined by the medium through which it moves. Once a wave is created, the only reason its speed will change is if it enters a different medium or if the properties of the medium change. This is the first reason that an aether would be useful. The second reason the aether would be indispensable would be in the dispersion of the wave. In Quantum Mechanics and in modern day physics, all kinds of weird and esoteric theories are put forward to explain how electromagnetic radiation travelling through space follows the inverse square law.  It is thought that a particle , the photon, disassociates itself (i.e., takes on wave like properties) and is present everywhere between the point of its origin and the point of its detection. In other words the particle disassociates itself and is present everywhere. At the moment it is detected the wave collapses and the particle is only present at the point of detection.  Quantum Mechanics also says that a particle can be in two places at once !  Or that it can have precognisance of an event before it occurs, or that it can communicate instantly.

                                 

   By contrast see how simply and naturally dispersion is explained using the aether model. Waves spread out naturally in the same manner as when a stone is dropped into a still pool of water.
   Thinking about the idea of a medium and what properties such a medium might possess, it immediately becomes apparent that 'fields' as in 'electric field' and 'magnetic field' will not fit in with observed phenomena.  Why ?
    A wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium from one location to another location.  When a wave is present in a medium, the individual particles of the medium are only temporarily displaced from their rest position.  As a disturbance moves through a medium from one particle to its adjacent particle, energy is being transported from one end of the medium to the other. In a water wave energy is transported through the medium, yet the water molecules are not transported.  The same holds true with sound waves travelling through air. 
    The first difference that is apparent between 'fields' and a medium such as the aether is that (a) contrary to the manner in which energy is transported in known media such as water or air, fields need to interact in order to transport energy, further   a combination of fields is required for energy transport, and most telling of all the actual charge has to be transported in order to propagate. This is contrary to the observed manner in which energy is transported through a medium. Multiple fields are not necessary.  Perhaps there was too much of a hurry and confusion prevalent when so completely dismissing the aether concept.


 

Offline stacyjones

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Quantum Mechanics a form of quackery ?
« Reply #1 on: 09/08/2016 05:11:13 »
In de Broglie's wave-mechanics there are two waves. There is the statistical, non-physical wave-function wave and the physical wave in a "subquantic medium" which guides the particle.

Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND its associated wave.

The "subquantic medium" is a strongly interacting dark matter that fills 'empty' space.

In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: Is Quantum Mechanics a form of quackery ?
« Reply #2 on: 09/08/2016 08:44:37 »
Quote
stacyjones wrote:
In de Broglie's wave-mechanics there are two waves. There is the statistical, non-physical wave-function wave and the physical wave in a "subquantic medium" which guides the particle.
Wave-particle duality is a moving particle AND its associated wave.

The main gist of the OP was De Broglie's hypotheses made in 1924 a full 26 years before Bohm introduced the notion of a 'subquantic medium' which seems to be a chaotic interpretation of a kind of aether, that would serve as a wave guide for matter waves. Thus De Broglie would have had no notion of a subquantic medium or of dark matter.  The notion of Galaxies could not have even been a dim spark on the horizon. Given the completely nonsensical results of the De Broglie relation, is it quackery or not ?
Here is Bohm's interpretation of a subquantic medium.
Quote
Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is Quantum Mechanics a form of quackery ?
« Reply #2 on: 09/08/2016 08:44:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length