0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Most people and this includes physicists, are not aware that a sharp schism or divide exists in quantum mechanics, that clearly defines the difference between information and data that were attained empirically through experiment and observation and theories that were put forward through inference and with no empirical or experimental substantiation.
Take for instance Neils Bohr's model of the atom. This is a model of the atom that, although outdated, is still relevant today. The significant thing about the Neils Bohr model of the atom is that it is based almost totally on empirical observation and experimental analysis. Bohr collated information on the spectrum of irradiated atoms to build his model of the atom, closely correlating experimentally obtained results with observed phenomena. This seminal work underlies most of the positive developments in quantum mechanics till today; from an improved understanding of the structure of the atom and the nucleus, to the phenomena of light spectra and the structure and properties of materials such as semi-conductors that have so revolutionised our lives. In truth it is not too much of an exaggeration to state that every experimentally verifiable fact available through the study of quantum mechanics has its origins in this type of empirically based verifiable study.
In contrast to this very positive contribution, the part of quantum mechanics based on conjecture and inference has made no significant input at all, except to perhaps add an aura of mystery and mysticism to the study of physics. Yet supporters of quantum mechanics are quick to defend the more esoteric elements of their science by quoting the many successes that are a result of empirical thinking, observation and analysis. What are these esoteric theories ? Wave-particle duality for a start and by association complementarity. Wave-particle duality is based almost completely on De Broglie's absurd theory that all matter has associated 'matter waves'. Why absurd ? Absurd because in many instances the associated matter wave is moving at a million times the speed of light. Take note even one instance of such an occurrence should cast serious doubt on the theory, when there are multiple instances there should no longer exist any doubt that the theory does not hold up. It might be argued that a certain chirality exists which makes the speed of matter waves inconsequential, but this is not correct. The very fact that electrons do not orbit the nucleus at relativistic speeds is more or less the defining characteristic of atoms, to have something travelling at a million times the speed of light whether it is carrying information or not, is highly suspect to say the least of it. Similarly complementarity, which states that light (photons) can possess particle like properties or wave like properties but never exhibit both properties simultaneously is also false. Complementarity has been raised to the position of an immutable principle of physics as has wave-particle duality. How can this be so, when wave-particles in the form of ultrasonic sound waves used in lithotripsy have a physical existence?
Take another one of the underlying foundations of quantum mechanics; Schrodinger's equation. Can an equation which to give a complete description requires 276 dimensions, be given credence. I think not, but this kind of objectivity is severely criticised. On exactly what grounds is moot but presumably the belief exists that such inferences might intuitively lead to some kind of truth. Lastly take Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The objection here is to it being raised to the position of a principle of physics, it is perfectly acceptable as a relation but not as a principle. Einstein had exactly the same objection to it. Thus while the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle might very well be a good description of the sub-atomic world it can by no means considered to be an absolute description of the sub-atomic world. As an explanation of this take the fact that we are now in a position to measure intervals of time measured in atto seconds and to make images based on these measurements that actually depict electron orbits.
Another casualty of applying a stricter common sense to the laws of physics is relativity, both general and special relativity. Both special relativity and general relativity are conditional to an aether not existing, the existence of a stationary aether would automatically abrogate both forms of relativity.It would be interesting to return to the exact point where the schism or divide between the 'real' and the 'imagined' in quantum mechanics takes place, namely the introduction of the wave/particle duality, and to question, with the wisdom of hindsight, whether any alternative exists to wave/particle duality. (This is exactly what Neo-Classical physics also known as Gestalt Aether Theory attempts to do.)
Wave/particle duality took on such importance because calculations had demonstrated that the electron, which is a charged particle, should radiate away all of its energy as it accelerated around the nucleus in a matter of Pico seconds and fall into the nucleus. This meant that atoms should not exist. One way around this problem was to attribute wave properties to the electron.
In the years since then, and supported by both empirical and experimental proof, have emerged the gauge interactions, wherein elementary particles in the nucleus exchange virtual particles in order to maintain equilibrium. The fact that electrons within the atom orbiting the nucleus were constantly emitting and absorbing virtual photons was the clue needed to investigate the strong force within the nucleus which is mediated by virtual particles. This is obviously a very acceptable solution as to how the electron is able to maintain its equilibrium in its orbit around the nucleus. No need for wave/particle duality. Starting from this point Neo-Classical Physics is able to explain the whole of physics in completely new paradigms wherein the strange and the esoteric are non-existent. For this reason alone it is worthy of notice.
GoC: The entire Copenhagen meeting was a decision to give up on understanding sub atomic particles.
Nothing moves faster than light. Spooky at a distance is a trick in the spectrum when light is produced. Particles do not travel through space at c. Period.
Does E=mc2 clarify or confuse. Are both sides of the equation actually about the same stuff, that is, wave energy but in two different forms.
Chaswell:Ball waves should not be thought of as being limited in size, that is, they can be universe big or particle small. The main point is that once a wave becomes a ball it becomes an entity. Once it is an entity it has a finite amount of enegy. Increasing the complexity of the wave by adding a second wave would increase the energy content and probably by more than the sum of each wave alone. The interference point at the center would also be much strengthened. Hopefully, this better explains my point that energy is is common but it comes in two forms.