0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.To be continued with your permission???..

Don't bother. If you start with an illogical premise, you will only confuse yourself further.

I presume you are referring to Feynman,

"Could quantum theory be wrong?", yes of course it could be wrong, as could any theory. However quantum theory has been stunningly successful in explaining observations and making predictions and to debunk it would require a better theory and I see nothing on the horizon. Quantum theory is counterintuitive and baffling but that in itself does not make it wrong.

When the electron cloud absorbs a photon, the subsequent emission of a photon doesn't necessarily obey the law of reflection (angle of incidence = angle of reflection.) The same applies to refraction because the process of absorption and emission involves transitions between quantum energy levels within the atom, which can occur in any direction.

Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible?

That this is indeed the case can be seen in the working of atomic clocks that depend on the oscillation of the fine structure valence electrons in the Caesium 130 atom

Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible? T

It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.

There is more, a lot more to this theory.

So are you saying that you think a photon with the wavelength of 500 nm is 500 nm long or something?I guess in your world that means that a photon in the radio wavelength region can be a meter in length or more??Those would be some mighty big photons...

It gets even more absurd if you do the same simplistic maths with visible light.So it's clear that you do not understand what's going on.

There seems to be a consensus, in the scientific community that regardless of the complexities involved in Standard Theory, that the mathematics used is so brilliant that, the theory cannot possibly, ever be wrong. This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.

Quantum electrodynamics is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. This precision is all based on a single experimental value - the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron called the g-factor. In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.00:00 Introduction01:54 Manhattan Project03:46 Dirac's equation04:38 Quantum Field Theory and Ignoring Infinities05:57 Shelter Island Conference07:43 Bethe's Lamb Shift08:19 Schwinger factor09:50 2nd Conference12:08 Dyson's Unification13:55 3rd Conference15:40 Dyson points out divergence after normalisation16:31 Doctoring theoretical value to match experiment18:04 Coefficient rabbit hole24:12 Muon's g-factor problem25:14 Fudging the electron g-factor26:24 Final remarks

Quantum theory consists of a mathematical formalism together with a vast amount of information concerning how to apply that formalism to electrons, atoms, radiation, field, etc. As an instrument for predicting the results of experiments, it is enormously successful. However, despite this, it says little if anything about the electrons, and such that produce the results. From its inception, it has been a theory in search of an interpretation. In this episode, we will explore the origins of the quantum world as well as understand what the Copenhagen Interpretation is.00:00 Introduction00:31 Origin of the Quantum World05:37 Copenhagen Interpration08:07 Copenhagen High Principles09:55 Problems with the Interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics embraces the idea that there are no deterministic hidden variables that give rise to the probabilities of the quantum world. This means that it is not generally possible to predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty and the there is no deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics which could predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty. But there are other theories that embrace determinism and that seek out these hidden variables.00:00 Introduction00:52 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen padadox02:56 Bohm's variation of the paradox05:06 Bell's Theorem06:40 Many Worlds Interpretation10:50 Stochastic Mechanics11:59 Pilot-wave Theory16:34 Fluid Experiments showing Pilot-wave

QuoteIn this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.

In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.

Consa tells us that Dyson said that the Heisenberg S-matrix could be used to calculate the electron?s g-factor, transforming it into the Dyson series. It was an infinite series of powers of alpha, where each coefficient could be calculated by solving a certain number of Feynman diagrams. Consa also tells us that enthusiasm returned to the American scientific community, but that some were critical. Like Paul Dirac, who said ?How then do they manage with these incorrect equations? These equations lead to infinities when one tries to solve them; these infinities ought not to be there?. And Robert Oppenheimer, who thought ?that this quantum electrodynamics of Schwinger and Feynman was just another misguided attempt to patch up old ideas with fancy mathematics?. Another critic was Enrico Fermi who said this: ?There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics. One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither?. Well said Enrico.

Look a bit closer, I had mentioned a frequency of 500 THz not a wavelength of 500 nm,

Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself.

Quantum electrodynamics is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. This precision is all based on a single experimental value - the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron called the g-factor. In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.

If you look closely I think you will agree that you did in fact mention a 500 nm wave length....

What difference does it make?

I don't see what you are getting at.