Post by: McQueen on 18/03/2024 04:40:12
If one examines the properties of light it is apparent that light when it interacts with matter, follows the laws of reflection, when the term reflection is used it is not referring solely to light reflecting off a mirror but stating that light follows the property of reflection in general, as for instance if one is sitting in the garden and admiring the flowers, the incoming sunlight is reflected off the flowers in keeping with the classical laws of reflection : angle of incidence = angle of reflection. The same goes for refraction.
Following this line of thought, quantum mechanics does not see electrons as little ball bearings orbiting around the nucleus but as an electron cloud that has no definite location or velocity, in stead it is described as a spread out or smeared out wave function: So, Schr?dinger's equation provides the mathematical framework for understanding the electron cloud as a probabilistic distribution of electrons in an atom. It describes the behavior of electrons around an atomic nucleus as probabilistic wave-functions.
The convention following from the use of Schrodinger?s wave-function to describe the electron cloud means that no scope for the reflection or refraction process is possible. 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. The emission of a photon from an excited state is generally isotropic or governed by other factors like the quantum mechanical properties of the atom and its environment.
In the context of our modern world with the immense strides that have been made in technology, is this aetiology good enough? Look at the smart phone in your hand. It is processing data at the rate of several gigabits per second. Which means that it is taking input data, processing that data and outputting the answer. Consider that the electron which is miniscule in size by comparison and the infinitesimal sub-atomic distances it has to traverse, should surely be able to oscillate at the rate of several hundreds of trillions of times per second. 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. However, it should be noted that the oscillation of the fine structure electron in the Caesium atom does not result in the emission of photons of that frequency and rate, there is not enough energy in these photons to allow for emission, therefore the energy is transferred to the atom which enters a super metastable state. Therefore, one of the age-old axioms of quantum mechanics that a single photon cannot possess a frequency but that the term frequency is only applied to the photon as a mathematical artifice to calculate its energy, is challenged and the contention is made that single photon frequency is real. 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???..
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2024 08:49:31
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.Don't bother. If you start with an illogical premise, you will only confuse yourself further.
To be continued with your permission???..
Post by: McQueen on 18/03/2024 09:16:52
Don't bother. If you start with an illogical premise, you will only confuse yourself further.
I presume you are referring to Feynman, and concluding that since Feynman has already given an explanation for reflection there is no need to go further: ″It′s a waste of time.″ in your words. Fine I have no problem with that. A look at Feynman′s explanation for the reflection of light might be illuminating. Pardon the pun:
Richard Feynman's ″arrow″ representation of reflection involves imagining an arrow representing the amplitude for a particle to go from one point to another. When considering reflection, Feynman proposed reversing the direction of time for the particle, effectively reversing the arrow. So, in Feynman's representation, reflection is visualized as reversing the direction of the arrow representing the particle's path.
Fine, so Feynman′s explanation that you no doubt rightly, value so highly, involves light travelling backward through time in order for reflection to take place. No problem with that. But to brazenly state, that this (or other equally bizarre) theory is right and cannot be questioned, might be questionable. Even though I have pointed out to you that these theories are old and dated and do not account for events happening really fast like absorption and emission of photons by electrons within the atom at rates of hundreds of trillions of absorptions and emissions per second. Further that the electron emits and absorbs at these rates is supported by empirical evidence in the form of the working of atomic clocks. Please, take a second to consider what I am saying, there is no point in being overly hasty. There is a possibility that you might discern some justice in what I am saying.
Post by: paul cotter on 18/03/2024 09:27:20
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2024 10:56:27
I presume you are referring to Feynman,No, just to the nonsense you put forward in the sentence I quoted.
Post by: McQueen on 18/03/2024 11:58:39
"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.
Thank you, for a meaningful answer! I agree with you when you say that both quantum mechanics and relativity are such well-established and entrenched theories that it seems futile to criticise them even at a distance.
If one could suspend belief for a moment and look at the theory that is proposed in this post, it might begin to make sense. Firstly, when one sees the brilliant manner in which mobile phones work, it is worthy of note that this performance is due to the terrific rate at which these phones are processing data, it is possible to watch movies seamlessly, to use GPS, to connect to practically any location in the world and so on. Speeds of up to 2.5 GHz are the norm, which nominally means that the phone can handle 2.5 billion instructions per second. Given that this is so, how can we be satisfied with the slow, lethargic, hit or miss, randomly directed absorption and emission process in place in quantum-mechanics? 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? This new theory I am proposing has the answer, photon to electron interaction, not the photon, to entire surface area of receptive substance, interaction.
Now that the problem has been identified, how can it be remedied? What steps need to be taken to get on the right track and be in line with our burgeoning technology? Here is what is suggested:
1) Get rid of wave particle duality and replace it with virtual interactions which would in any case work much better than wave-particle duality.
2) Get rid of the concept of the electron cloud within the atom and replace it with electron as tiny solid particles orbiting the nucleus.
3) Get rid of the concept that the electron cannot approach the nucleus, it can. Look at this scenario, The electron is a charged particle with a charge of 1.6 x 10-19 C. So, suppose you have the scenario of a hydrogen atom with an electron at the n = 3 energy level and a photon of 700 nm wave length approaches. It is absorbed by the electron, the extra momentum sends the electron towards the nucleus, it reaches the nucleus, the two exactly equal and opposite charges of the electron and proton cancel out, what is left is the extra energy and momentum acquired by the electron when it absorbed the photon. Here, it should be remembered that the electron is 2000 times smaller than the proton, the proton thus resembles a perfectly flat, perfectly smooth, perfectly solid surface of which it recoils according to classical laws of reflection or recoil. So the electron reflects of the nucleus at an angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. , when the electron reaches its new position at n = 3, it emits a 700 nm photon, the forces of recoil make it retrace it steps to its original position at n = 3, where it absorbs another identical photon to the one it had originally absorbed and repeats the process at the rate of hundreds of trillions of times per second. (1014 Hz).
4) This would explain why the propagation of light is rectilinear.
There is more, a lot more to this theory.
Post by: Origin on 18/03/2024 12:22:32
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.This is just a strawman argument since the absorption and emission of photons from electrons is not how refraction or reflection are explained.
Post by: Origin on 18/03/2024 12:37:02
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?
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... :D
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/03/2024 13:02:36
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 atomCaesium 130 barely exists.
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? TI have a portable radio which is able to receive long wave broadcasts with a wavelength of 1500 metres or so.
What's the basis for your view that the size of the receiver is important?
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.We are not.
A 500 THz photon carries about 3X 10^-22 J of energy.
If you delivered 5 X 10^ 14 of them per second that would be a power of 0.15 microwatts.
So, even a small number of electrons (say a million) doing that would represent a significant amount of power.
That's impossible.
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.
Post by: Origin on 18/03/2024 13:33:48
There is more, a lot more to this theory.And apparently you don't understand a bit of it.
Addressing the question in the title of the thread I think the answer is no. The reason the answer is no is because quantum theory accurately predicts the outcome of various experiments. It very well could be that there can be a better or more accurate theory that will replace quantum theory, but that does not mean quantum theory is wrong. Newtonian gravitational theory is not wrong, it just does not cover all areas as well as General relativity. Newtonian gravity will do just fine in trajectories of cannon balls or sending a space ship to land on the moon but it is not so good at determining the deflection of light due to a massive body for instance.
Post by: Zer0 on 18/03/2024 18:16:22
Nobody Understands it...
Nobody!
Still, Thanks for trying.
It's what Matters.
: )
Someday, We shall have the CheatCodes to this UnIverse!
ps - Nothing right or wrong about a Crescent Moon.
It's profound Beauty lies in it's Incompleteness.
Post by: McQueen on 19/03/2024 01:44:45
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...
Look a bit closer, I had mentioned a frequency of 500 THz not a wavelength of 500 nm,
Post by: McQueen on 19/03/2024 01:47:19
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.
I will leave it to others to explain to you the meaning of simplistic!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2024 11:11:56
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.You might like to watch this video. Laypersons might not be aware of the problems discussed there.
Quantum Electrodynamics is rotten at the core
Quote
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.I'd also like to read the other's comments or counter points on it.
00:00 Introduction
01:54 Manhattan Project
03:46 Dirac's equation
04:38 Quantum Field Theory and Ignoring Infinities
05:57 Shelter Island Conference
07:43 Bethe's Lamb Shift
08:19 Schwinger factor
09:50 2nd Conference
12:08 Dyson's Unification
13:55 3rd Conference
15:40 Dyson points out divergence after normalisation
16:31 Doctoring theoretical value to match experiment
18:04 Coefficient rabbit hole
24:12 Muon's g-factor problem
25:14 Fudging the electron g-factor
26:24 Final remarks
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2024 11:16:48
Quantum Mechanics: A Theory in Search of an Interpretation
Quote
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 Introduction
00:31 Origin of the Quantum World
05:37 Copenhagen Interpration
08:07 Copenhagen High Principles
09:55 Problems with the Interpretation
3 Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
Quote
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 Introduction
00:52 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen padadox
02:56 Bohm's variation of the paradox
05:06 Bell's Theorem
06:40 Many Worlds Interpretation
10:50 Stochastic Mechanics
11:59 Pilot-wave Theory
16:34 Fluid Experiments showing Pilot-wave
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2024 11:20:31
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.
https://physicsdetective.com/something-is-rotten-in-the-state-of-qed/
Quote
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.Leading scientists often disagree with each other, but they are rarely mentioned in textbooks.
Post by: Origin on 19/03/2024 11:32:29
Look a bit closer, I had mentioned a frequency of 500 THz not a wavelength of 500 nm,Really? It seems that you don't remember what you wrote, let me refresh your memory:
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.If you look closely I think you will agree that you did in fact mention a 500 nm wave length....
Post by: McQueen on 19/03/2024 12:00:36
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.
I remember reading about this the first time and thinking how remarkable it was that this problem of infinities could be so successfully dealt with, a precision of 1011 or something like that was quoted. When I investigated a little further I found that it had nothing to do with dealing with infinities and everything to do with the anomalous magnetic movement of the electron.
Post by: McQueen on 19/03/2024 12:04:27
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? 500 nm means a frequency of 600THz and 600 Thz means a wave-length of 500 nm, both of which are well within acceptable levels for atomic spectra from excite atoms. I don't see what you are getting at.
Post by: Origin on 19/03/2024 12:31:32
What difference does it make?It is hard to have an honest discussion with someone who makes a statement and then denies they made that statement.
I don't see what you are getting at.Here is what I am getting at. You said:
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?You seemed to be saying a 500 nm photon is 'to big' to be absorbed by an electron, which is wrong and silly. Perhaps I was mistaken about what you meant. So is there some other reason you said, "How is this possible?"
Post by: alancalverd on 19/03/2024 14:56:00
Post by: McQueen on 19/03/2024 15:56:09
You seemed to be saying a 500 nm photon is 'to big' to be absorbed by an electron, which is wrong and silly. Perhaps I was mistaken about what you meant. So is there some other reason you said, "How is this possible?"
Yes, 500 nm photon is nowhere near 5.6 billion times bigger, more like 168 million times bigger.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2024 16:21:08
"Absorbed by an electron" is one root of his many misconceptions.
How does it supposed to be interpreted?
Post by: Origin on 19/03/2024 17:51:23
Yes, 500 nm photon is nowhere near 5.6 billion times bigger, more like 168 million times bigger.There is no such thing as a photon having a size of 500 nm. A photon with a wave length of 500 nm is not 500 nm long. I'm not sure where you got that idea but you should discard it as soon as possible
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2024 01:57:02
A photon with a wave length of 500 nm is not 500 nm long.How does it supposed to be interpreted?
Post by: Origin on 20/03/2024 13:54:29
How does it supposed to be interpreted?Photons have a frequency. That frequency is the rate at which the magnetic and electric field of the photon oscillate from a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum. The higher the frequency the higher the energy carried by the photon. A photon with a wave length of 500nm means the photon has a frequency of about 6 x 10^14 cycles per second.
Therefore this means when when a photon has traveled the distance of 500nm the magnetic and electric fields will have completed one cycle (such as a maximum to maximum). So the wave length has absolutely nothing to do with the size or length of the photon, it only addresses the rate of the oscillating fields.
Post by: McQueen on 21/03/2024 02:09:52
Yes, 500 nm photon is nowhere near 5.6 billion times bigger, more like 168 million times bigger.There is no such thing as a photon having a size of 500 nm. A photon with a wave length of 500 nm is not 500 nm long. I'm not sure where you got that idea but you should discard it as soon as possible
Wavelength does seem to matter in certain situations, take the Faraday cage, but of course in Faraday's cage the currents just circulate on the skin of the metal, (i.e., they are offered an alternative pathway.). But in microwaves making the grid approximate the microwave size seems to work well. So I was just assuming that maybe there was some correlation. Again, if wave-length of a photon means the peak to peak measurement of the wave-form, couldn't it also be taken to mean the wave-length of the photon. Just asking?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2024 04:20:41
That frequency is the rate at which the magnetic and electric field of the photon oscillate from a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum.FYI, circularly polarized light has a constant amplitude of electric field when propagating as a plane wave. Only the orientation rotates.
Post by: Origin on 21/03/2024 11:08:08
Wavelength does seem to matter in certain situationsSure wave length / frequency matters, it just has nothing to do with the size of a photon. The wave length is about the oscillating magnetic and electric fields of the photon it has nothing to do with the size or length of a photon.
Post by: Origin on 21/03/2024 11:10:11
FYI, circularly polarized light has a constant amplitude of electric field when propagating as a plane wave. Only the orientation rotates.Which has nothing to do with this discussion, please don't bring in unrelated topics just to confuse yourself.
Post by: Origin on 21/03/2024 12:01:33
This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.I get it, you don't like Quantum physics it's too weird.
Actually, you are in good company, most of the physicist who developed quantum mechanics didn't like it! They kept scratcher their heads and saying this can't be right after each new discovery. But if the theory matches the observations and makes accurate predictions then it must be explaining the phenomena correctly.
I think it is safe to say most physicist were 'kicking and screaming' as they were forced to accept the reality of quantum physics.
Post by: Origin on 21/03/2024 13:57:32
How does it supposed to be interpreted?You asked this question and I answered it. As typical you then jumped to a new subject without acknowledging the answer provided. So I'm just curious did you accept the answer or reject it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/03/2024 13:04:29
Light only travels at c through vacuum. In other media, it travels slower, and the wavelength reduced accordingly, with the same frequency. It does have something to do with length, as the name correctly suggests.How does it supposed to be interpreted?Photons have a frequency. That frequency is the rate at which the magnetic and electric field of the photon oscillate from a maximum to a minimum and back to a maximum. The higher the frequency the higher the energy carried by the photon. A photon with a wave length of 500nm means the photon has a frequency of about 6 x 10^14 cycles per second.
Therefore this means when when a photon has traveled the distance of 500nm the magnetic and electric fields will have completed one cycle (such as a maximum to maximum). So the wave length has absolutely nothing to do with the size or length of the photon, it only addresses the rate of the oscillating fields.
Post by: Origin on 24/03/2024 16:05:57
Light only travels at c through vacuum. In other media, it travels slower, and the wavelength reduced accordingly, with the same frequency. It does have something to do with length, as the name correctly suggests.I contend that you are 100% wrong.
Please supply any reputable source (not a youtube) that says the size of a photon has anything to do with the wave length of the photon.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2024 09:21:59
You can do the experiment yourself. Don't depend too much on the authority.Light only travels at c through vacuum. In other media, it travels slower, and the wavelength reduced accordingly, with the same frequency. It does have something to do with length, as the name correctly suggests.I contend that you are 100% wrong.
Please supply any reputable source (not a youtube) that says the size of a photon has anything to do with the wave length of the photon.
Post by: Origin on 25/03/2024 12:59:30
You can do the experiment yourself.So you couldn't find any citations that support your idea that the frequency of a photon's magnetic and electric fields somehow dictate it's size. Imagine my surprise.
Don't depend too much on the authority.Don't worry yourself, I don't. I suppose you don't go to the doctor when your sick because that would be appealing to authority? ;D ::)
Why do you enjoy being complete confused about everything scientific?
What I wrote about the nonexistent relationship between a photon size and it's wavelength is correct. I realize that if you accepted that it would decrease your confusion and I guess that would make you unhappy or something. Odd.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2024 15:50:24
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2024 13:05:24
You can learn about metamaterials, and you'll find that their unit sizes depend on the wavelength of the light or electromagnetic wave.You can do the experiment yourself.So you couldn't find any citations that support your idea that the frequency of a photon's magnetic and electric fields somehow dictate it's size. Imagine my surprise.Don't depend too much on the authority.Don't worry yourself, I don't. I suppose you don't go to the doctor when your sick because that would be appealing to authority? ;D ::)
Why do you enjoy being complete confused about everything scientific?
What I wrote about the nonexistent relationship between a photon size and it's wavelength is correct. I realize that if you accepted that it would decrease your confusion and I guess that would make you unhappy or something. Odd.
If you imagine a photon of radio wave as a giant sized ball, then you will be confused by its implications. But experiments clearly show that wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space. The difference is that you don't accept that size of influence to be called photon size.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2024 13:06:44
A photon doesn't have a size. It is a mathematical concept: an infinitesimal massless blob travelling at speed c with no other properties than energy and momentum.How does it interact with Faraday cages and metamaterials?
Post by: Origin on 27/03/2024 17:22:26
But experiments clearly show that wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.Great. Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?
Post by: McQueen on 28/03/2024 07:02:02
Great. Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?
No problem, just look at the door on any microwave oven, a fine grating or mesh is provided. Usually the mesh is much smaller than the microwave radiation that is being shielded or about 1mm in size is normal as compared to the 12 cm size microwave. The holes are made deliberately small to cover a wide range of side frequencies that might arise. The point is, while a pure metal plate will provide effective shielding and act as a Faraday Cage, it would be completely opaque and it would not be possible to look into the microwave oven to see what was cooking.
Now look at Tesla's cage, it has comparatively huge spacing at least six inches or so:
https://images.app.goo.gl/NDAutVfakFiS7Wf58 (https://images.app.goo.gl/NDAutVfakFiS7Wf58)
This must be due to the fact that the electric currents that are being shielded have huge wave-lengths and a 6 inch square (roughly) grating, is more than sufficient to shield form any possible significant combinations of frequencies and wave-lengths that might arise. Size matters.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2024 10:17:01
wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.No. Astronomers measure pretty much the entire spectrum from ULF (10 Hz or so) to GeV gamma radiation, all coming from umpteen billion light years away.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 10:32:16
You should understand that I referred to transversal size, not length. Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.No. Astronomers measure pretty much the entire spectrum from ULF (10 Hz or so) to GeV gamma radiation, all coming from umpteen billion light years away.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 10:37:37
But experiments clearly show that wavelength of EM waves determines their size of influence in space.Great. Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?
in video#7 we try to determine the size of photon, which is thought to be the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, including microwave. We use two metal plates to create a single slit with adjustable width.
Determination of "photon size" is continued in video#8, using multiple slitSpoiler: show
I have uploaded a new video trying to show the blocking mechanism of microwave by various arrangements of conducting material. Those arrangements are modified versions of microwave polarizer used in previous videos.Spoiler: show
And my explanation for the result we get in previous video is shown hereSpoiler: show
Here is the supporting evidence for the explanation given in previous video about microwave blocking mechanism using a model of antenna as receiver and transmitter at once, and followed by superposition principle.
Post by: Origin on 28/03/2024 12:01:51
No problem, just look at the door on any microwave oven, a fine grating or mesh is provided. Usually the mesh is much smaller than the microwave radiation that is being shielded or about 1mm in size is normal as compared to the 12 cm size microwave.
You should understand that I referred to transversal size, not length. Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?These guys have no idea what they are talking about, that is, there ideas are made up in there own minds without evidence. I just want anyone reading this to understand that these 2 posters are doing pseudoscience.
So that being said, let's see what you guys came up with. The average wavelength of the EM radiation in a microwave is about 12 cm, so that would mean you guys think a photon is that long.
You then conclude (correct me if I misinterpreted your statement) that the microwave photon is about 1 mm in diameter.
So then you guys think the size of the photon in this case is a cylinder 12cm x 1mm. Correct?
When I asked, "Could you please provide a link to one of these experiments?", I was asking for real formal evidence, like a peer reviewed paper detailing the experiment, not some cheesy amateur Youtube videos, sorry for the confusion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 12:06:55
Quote
Photons, unlike most objects, don't have a well-defined size in the way a marble or a car does. They behave differently depending on the situation. Here's how we think about it:
Point-like: In some interactions, photons seem to act like point-like particles. They can be absorbed or emitted entirely by tiny targets, even smaller than an atom's nucleus.
Wavelength-related size: From a wave perspective, a photon's "size" is related to its wavelength. The wavelength is the distance between peaks in the wave. We can talk about a photon's "effective size" based on its wavelength, but it's not a physical size in the same way a marble is big.
It's important to note that photons are force carriers, not little balls of light. They carry energy and momentum, but their existence is more about the electromagnetic field than a physical object.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 12:12:42
Quote
Here are a couple of research papers you can look into regarding the size and shape of a photon:Searching further in the journal, I found this.
Electromagnetic fields, size, and copy of a single photon arXiv: arxiv.org:1604.03869 explores the concept of a photon's shape depending on its energy. It delves into how a photon might resemble a thin stick or a plate based on specific conditions.
The Size and Shape of a Single Photon Scientific Research Publishing: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=10928 discusses the concept of effective size based on wavelength and the limitations of assigning a strict size to a photon.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=109230
Quote
When we talk about a photon, we specify a frequency/wavelength and direction and position, but its physical size is typically not mentioned. It is the atom or molecule that sets the cross-section for a photon interaction not the photon itself. Given this gap in the physics of photons, we have explored here the question of the size/width of a photon perpendicular to its direction of propagation?defined as the size of a hole that will pass the photon with at least 90% probability.
Post by: Origin on 28/03/2024 12:26:00
When asked about the size of photons, Gemini answered:I have no idea who Gemini is, I was wondering what you think.
Post by: McQueen on 28/03/2024 12:32:15
Here are a couple of research papers you can look into regarding the size and shape of a photon:
Electromagnetic fields, size, and copy of a single photon arXiv: arxiv.org:1604.03869 explores the concept of a photon's shape depending on its energy. It delves into how a photon might resemble a thin stick or a plate based on specific conditions.
The Size and Shape of a Single Photon Scientific Research Publishing: www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=10928 discusses the concept of effective size based on wavelength and the limitations of assigning a strict size to a photon.
Thank you, it is always nice to have new credible sources to look at. That having been said, ham radio enthusiasts and of course TV enthusiasts with their Yag antennas are very familiar with the concept of radio wave-length to antenna ratios.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 13:43:46
Electromagnetic fields, size, and copy of a single photon arXiv: arxiv.org:1604.03869 explores the concept of a photon's shape depending on its energy. It delves into how a photon might resemble a thin stick or a plate based on specific conditions.Here's the abstraction.
Quote
Photons are almost involved in each field of science and daily life of everyone. However, there are still some fundamental and puzzling questions such as what a photon is.The expressions of electromagnetic fields of a photon are here proposed. On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy. The results show that the present expressions properly describe the particle characteristics of a photon; the length of a photon is half of the wavelength, and the radius is proportional to square root of the wavelength; a photon can ionize a hydrogen atom at the ground state only if its radius is less than the Bohr radius; a photon and its copy have the phase difference of {\pi} and constitute a phase-entangled photon pair; the phase-entangled n-photon train results from the sequential stimulated emissions and belongs to the Fock state. A laser beam is an ensemble of the n-photon trains and belongs to the coherent state. The threshold power of a laser is equal to the power of the n-photon train. These provide a bridge between the wave theory of light and quantum optics and will further advance research and application of the related fields.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03869
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 14:14:25
Quote
This video is actually not about photon size but about coherence length. In this video I discuss the behavior of electromagnetic radiation, especially the aspect of interference. The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation. The photon only exists as an energy exchange between radiation and matter.
0:00 General Intro
0:47 What do others say?
1:21 About wavelength and size
2:10 Interference in light
3:08 Electromagnetic waves and detection
5:25 Things that make you go Hmmm...
7:36 New experiment and setup
10:23 Calculation of single photon level (boring)
11:59 Result of the new experiment
12:41 Discussion of the result
16:29 About "shot noise"
17:16 EM field strength and probability of detection
19:18 So how big is it then?
20:02 Deleted scene
At 3:08 the Electric and Magnetic field components have been swapped accidentally.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2024 15:15:16
The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation.And yet we can count them!
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2024 15:20:48
Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?Wavelength.
I am sure some idiot will point out that mice can escape through the bars of an elephant's cage because they are smaller, but mammals cannot self-propagate in a vacuum because they are not electromagnetic radiation. Beware of false analogies. If it stinks, it is probably philosophy, not science.
Post by: McQueen on 28/03/2024 15:46:18
On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy.
On the basis of the present expressions, we calculate the energy, momentum, and spin angular momentum of a photon, derive the relations between the photon size and wavelength, and reveal the differences between a photon and its copy.
As far as relativity is concerned, from the photon′s point of view, travelling at the speed of light, it is not even moving. From the perspective of the photon itself, traveling at the speed of light, time dilation effects occur such that, from its frame of reference, it experiences no passage of time and no change in its own length. This means that, in a sense, it doesn't ″experience″ its own motion.
But for observers in other frames of reference, it is traveling at c. From their viewpoint, the photon is indeed traveling at the speed of light (denoted by 'c' in physics), as it propagates through space. This is consistent with the principle that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers, regardless of their relative motion.
the length of a photon is half of the wavelength, and the radius is proportional to square root of the wavelength; a photon can ionize a hydrogen atom at the ground state only if its radius is less than the Bohr radius; a photon and its copy have the phase difference of {\pi} and constitute a phase-entangled photon pair;
This passage shows how, far into the ivory tower scenario mainstream quantum mechanics is. They seem to have no conception of what they are saying or how it will resolve. Take a photon that is 0.12 m. that is the result of a microwave that possesses a frequency of 2.5GHz. How on earth is an atom or an electron supposed to accommodate this huge length? Further, if it is claimed that it is not the electron that accommodates this 12 cm wave-length, what does? The answer I am sure according to some learned members would be to just run away from the problem and say that this is where, Maxwell′s equations take over and to be perfectly satisfied with this explanation. When I raised the issue of first quantization, second quantization, normalization, re-normalisation, Fock States etc., I was told in no uncertain terms that there was absolutely no need for it and that Maxwell′s equations explained everything in a conclusive manner. Obviously, Maxwell′s equations do not explain everything in a conclusive manner, for if they did there would be no need for quantum mechanics to introduce all these stages. One has to wonder given the apathy in using such methods, why bother with first quantization, second quantization, normalisation, re-normalisation, fock states, annihilator operators, creator operators and so on, if they have no significance at all and don′t even enter into the picture. What is the reason they are introduced in the first place? Isn′t the answer, as I had suggested, to impose a particle theory on Maxwell′s equations?
It is an accepted practice of quantum mechanics, that rather than trying to start a new theory from scratch, to adopt a classical theme and impose quantum notions upon it by imitating some of its concepts. This is what has happened to a very large extent with electromagnetism. The question that has to be asked is, why deny it? A question arising out of this one, is, does it work? Does it provide an alternative? If the answer to both these questions is negative, why insist on having these theories? Is it to prove that the theory works or that it doesn't or to state as has happened here that there are two theories one that works and one that doesn′t.
Post by: Origin on 28/03/2024 20:48:26
The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation.Well I guess Einstein's estate will have to return his Nobel prize then. I mean who should we believe, every university that has a physics department or a random Youtube, wait!! I know we can ask a chatbot... ::)
I swear, I actually do think that you get some sort of enjoyment out of living in a state of perpetual confusion...
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 13:01:09
How do you count them?The experiment shows that there is no such thing as individual photons in EM radiation.And yet we can count them!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 13:03:00
Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?Why microwave is trapped inside microwave oven, while visible light can escape through the metal mesh?Wavelength.
I am sure some idiot will point out that mice can escape through the bars of an elephant's cage because they are smaller, but mammals cannot self-propagate in a vacuum because they are not electromagnetic radiation. Beware of false analogies. If it stinks, it is probably philosophy, not science.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 13:05:15
This means that, in a sense, it doesn't ″experience″ its own motion.Do you mean it has no beginning nor end?
Does it start to have experience when it's propagating through glass?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 13:18:51
Obviously, Maxwell′s equations do not explain everything in a conclusive manner, for if they did there would be no need for quantum mechanics to introduce all these stages.Agreed. If Maxwell equations in Heavyside's notation are examined, they don't seem to accommodate quantization of electric charge and mass. They don't even mention mass in the first place. These clearly show that they are incomplete as description of physical reality. Something needs to be added.
Post by: Origin on 29/03/2024 13:25:17
How do you count them?With a Photomultiplier.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2024 13:39:17
Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?Beware of false analogies, like I said.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 13:41:39
The question that has to be asked is, why deny it? A question arising out of this one, is, does it work? Does it provide an alternative? If the answer to both these questions is negative, why insist on having these theories? Is it to prove that the theory works or that it doesn't or to state as has happened here that there are two theories one that works and one that doesn′t.Theories are still kept as long as it's useful in making predictions. Even when we know it's not an accurate model of reality. Gemini explains.
Quote
Aristotle divided the universe into two distinct realms based on their material composition and movement:
Terrestrial Realm: This is our world, the Earth and everything on it. According to Aristotle, terrestrial objects are composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. These elements have intrinsic properties that cause their natural movements. For example, earth and water tend to fall downwards, while air and fire rise upwards. These objects are also subject to change and decay.
Celestial Realm: This is the realm beyond the Earth, encompassing the stars, planets, and the moon. In contrast to the terrestrial realm, celestial objects are made of a fifth element, aether. Aether is an unchangeable and perfect substance, unlike the four elements. This difference in material explains why celestial objects move in a fundamentally different way. They move in perfect circles at constant speeds, unlike the rectilinear (straight line) movements of terrestrial objects. These motions are also considered eternal and unchanging.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 13:43:13
Is the effective size independent from wavelength?Do you mean longer wavelength means larger effective size?Beware of false analogies, like I said.
In what context or situations that the answer has to change?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 17:29:01
Well I guess Einstein's estate will have to return his Nobel prize then.Do you think that Nobel committee is infallible?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 17:34:24
I mean who should we believe, every university that has a physics department or a random Youtube, wait!! I know we can ask a chatbot...It should depend on the evidence.
Quote
The simple version of the statement ''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'', is that ?It simply states that ignoring may not harm you as much as partial or incomplete knowledge may do?
Post by: Origin on 29/03/2024 18:28:28
It should depend on the evidenceWhy do you think every university teaches that?? It's because of the evidence supports it.
All you seem to do is criticize theories and concepts that you don't understand. It's too bad you came into this thread disrupted it, I guess this goes on ignore like your other threads...
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 20:35:27
New evidence keep coming. What became a consensus in the past may change in the future, when new evidence against it get harder to ignore.It should depend on the evidenceWhy do you think every university teaches that?? It's because of the evidence supports it.
All you seem to do is criticize theories and concepts that you don't understand. It's too bad you came into this thread disrupted it, I guess this goes on ignore like your other threads...
Perhaps they think that currently used explanations are good enough for known evidence, so they don't spend enough resources in basic research to look for new evidence that would need a better explanation.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2024 23:21:37
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2024 23:31:02
If Maxwell equations in Heavyside's notation are examined, they don't seem to accommodate quantization of electric charge and mass. They don't even mention mass in the first place.Probably because electromagnetic radiation has neither charge nor mass.
Quote
These clearly show that they are incomplete as description of physical reality.Nor do they explain or describe an elephant. So what?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/03/2024 06:41:21
How much is enough? You could direct all the money, material and intellect of the entire world to search for a flaw in the hypothesis that the hydrogen atom consists of one proton and one electron, but what benefit would accrue from doing so?Something larger than zero.
What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/03/2024 10:01:55
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/04/2024 13:34:02
It's pretty well explained in most chemistry textbooks, and sufficiently understood for the purposes of chemical engineering.Do you have an example?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/04/2024 15:58:09
Barrow: Physical Chemistry, McGraw Hill 1961
Heslop & Robinson: Inorganic Chemistry, Elsevier, 1962
Parkes & Mellor: Modern Inorganic Chemistry, Longmans, 1946
but then I'm very old!
Post by: paul cotter on 02/04/2024 21:10:24
Post by: Kryptid on 02/04/2024 21:57:28
What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.
There's no mystery to that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2024 15:41:07
It seems like the mystery is in people's minds. How they think that there's no mystery in how invisible hydrogen atoms and molecules behave, while at the same time think that macroscopic double slit experiment contains the deepest mystery of physical reality.What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.
There's no mystery to that.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2024 17:32:17
Perhaps you are confusing philosophers with intelligent beings.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2024 17:41:36
Which people? We know how atoms and molecules behave - it's called chemistry. And we know how light behaves - physics. Sensible folk use mathematical models to predict the outcome of new experiments - science. And when the prediction turns out wrong, we modify the model.Many modern physicists like Feynman.
Perhaps you are confusing philosophers with intelligent beings.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/04/2024 19:00:54
It seems like the mystery is in people's minds. How they think that there's no mystery in how invisible hydrogen atoms and molecules behave, while at the same time think that macroscopic double slit experiment contains the deepest mystery of physical reality.
We may not understand everything about the behavior of atoms and molecules, but we do understand those specific points I was responding to. We know why protons and electrons arrange themselves into diatomic molecules instead of single atoms or larger molecules given particular circumstances. For one, a pair of protons isn't going to randomly join together to form a single nucleus because the Coulomb barrier is too strong to overcome at common temperatures and pressures. So they remain separate. The number of nuclei dictates the total number of atoms. The electrons then arrange themselves in the lowest energy configuration around those nuclei.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2024 13:17:00
We know why protons and electrons arrange themselves into diatomic molecules instead of single atoms or larger molecules given particular circumstances.Can it be described in a single paragraph?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2024 13:26:43
Quote
No, there isn't a single equation in classical chemistry that predicts exactly how many atoms will bond together to form a molecule like H2. However, there are fundamental principles and calculations in quantum mechanics that can explain why hydrogen forms a diatomic molecule (H2) and why some elements form single atoms or larger molecules.
Here's why a simple equation isn't enough:
Quantum mechanics rules the game: The behavior of electrons at the atomic level is governed by the principles of quantum mechanics. These principles describe the probabilistic nature of electrons occupying orbitals around the nucleus.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/04/2024 16:38:22
Can it be described in a single paragraph?
I did here:
For one, a pair of protons isn't going to randomly join together to form a single nucleus because the Coulomb barrier is too strong to overcome at common temperatures and pressures. So they remain separate. The number of nuclei dictates the total number of atoms. The electrons then arrange themselves in the lowest energy configuration around those nuclei.
The Pauli exclusion principle goes a long way towards telling you how those electrons will be arranged, as you can't have more than two electrons per orbital (electrons are fermions, so no two of them can have identical quantum numbers).
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2024 19:25:34
I asked Gemini, Is there any equation predicting that hydrogen will produce diatomic molecules?Why not try asking a textbook, or a scientist?
Post by: paul cotter on 08/04/2024 21:53:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/04/2024 16:42:33
Gemini has read various publicly available online sources, and can make conclusions accordingly. It answers specific questions almost immediately, including the follow up.I asked Gemini, Is there any equation predicting that hydrogen will produce diatomic molecules?Why not try asking a textbook, or a scientist?
Textbooks typically don't answer specific questions.
Scientists typically don't answer specific questions from strangers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/04/2024 16:48:27
Your first answer hasn't involved Pauli's principle, which means it hasn't correctly explain why hydrogen atoms automatically form diatomic molecules.Can it be described in a single paragraph?
I did here:For one, a pair of protons isn't going to randomly join together to form a single nucleus because the Coulomb barrier is too strong to overcome at common temperatures and pressures. So they remain separate. The number of nuclei dictates the total number of atoms. The electrons then arrange themselves in the lowest energy configuration around those nuclei.
The Pauli exclusion principle goes a long way towards telling you how those electrons will be arranged, as you can't have more than two electrons per orbital (electrons are fermions, so no two of them can have identical quantum numbers).
Post by: alancalverd on 12/04/2024 20:50:50
Gemini has read various publicly available online sources, and can make conclusions accordingly. It answers specific questions almost immediatelyimmediately, including the follow up.and has given you a couple of paragraphs of bullshit.
Quote
Textbooks typically don't answer specific questions.Those we quoted answer the question you posed.
Quote
Scientists typically don't answer specific questions from strangers.But that's how I make my living! Every new client begins as a stranger with a question, and in the fulness of time becomes a friend with an answer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/04/2024 05:21:47
Quote
What is molecular orbital theory and how does it work? Are you confused about frontier orbitals, HOMO and LUMOs? These concepts and more are explained with examples and animations.Textbooks have limitations related to its static and 2 dimensional properties. They also tend to oversimplify things.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/04/2024 13:47:36
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2024 09:23:50
Not the textbooks I read as an undergraduate. I acquired a usefully explanatory and predictive knowledge of molecular orbitals and some of my contemporaries went on to design and synthesise useful molecules for a living. You can write an n-dimensional equation on a piece of paper with no problem.Which textbooks did you read?
How good are they compared to modern AI's design and synthesis?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/04/2024 13:19:11
I listed some classic inorganic chemistry textbooks in reply #72. I also have in front of me Evans: Crystal Chemistry, Acheson: Heterocyclic Compounds, and Jaffe: Symmetry in Chemistry, all of which do exactly what your chatbot said was impossible. Sadly I can't find my first-year organic chemistry textbook but it certainly hinted at the quantum nature of stereochemistry in the hope that we'd learn enough physics to cope with the second year!
Post by: paul cotter on 16/04/2024 14:57:30
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2024 11:30:26
So far, the only relevant AI output you have quoted in this thread was wrong.Is this statement by Gemini wrong?
Quote
No, there isn't a single equation in classical chemistry that predicts exactly how many atoms will bond together to form a molecule like H2.What's the correct equation?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2024 15:21:05
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2024 01:01:48
"Could quantum mechanics be wrong?"
https://xkcd.com/675/
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/04/2024 02:13:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/04/2024 02:32:03
Schroedinger, with a dash of Pauli.How do they tell you that monoatomic and triatomic hydrogen are unstable?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/04/2024 10:26:36
Monatomic hydrogen is stable (it doesn't collapse or decompose) but extremely reactive, forming H2 if there's nothing more interesting to combine with.
Having a complete (Schroedinger) and fully populated (Pauli) σ orbital, H2 is not inclined to bond with another H atom to form H3.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/04/2024 03:50:59
The best way to overturn an established theory is to come up with a better theory. Either by being more generally applicable, or by being simpler by using less assumptions.
We haven't been able to do that with quantum mechanics yet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/04/2024 14:46:19
Schroedinger and Pauli.I think stable means do not easily change into something else.
Monatomic hydrogen is stable (it doesn't collapse or decompose) but extremely reactive, forming H2 if there's nothing more interesting to combine with.
Having a complete (Schroedinger) and fully populated (Pauli) σ orbital, H2 is not inclined to bond with another H atom to form H3.
Even H2 can change into something else quite easily.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/04/2024 17:26:21
Post by: Kryptid on 30/04/2024 22:00:40
Even H2 can change into something else quite easily.
Such as?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/05/2024 16:36:32
H2O. The reaction only needs a small spark.Even H2 can change into something else quite easily.
Such as?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/05/2024 20:01:00
H2O. The reaction only needs a small spark.
Yes, but that requires the presence of oxygen. H2 is exceedingly stable by itself.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/05/2024 07:37:53
Post by: alancalverd on 03/05/2024 09:10:46
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/05/2024 12:38:56
There is no evidence of H2 spontaneously decomposing. There is a big difference between stability and reactivity.Why is Helium less reactive than H2?
Post by: paul cotter on 03/05/2024 13:28:54
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/05/2024 00:11:21
Fully populated 1s shell.Do you think that electrons shared by H2 don't fully populated 1s shell?
Post by: paul cotter on 04/05/2024 10:19:15
Post by: Kryptid on 05/05/2024 04:20:05
Fully populated 1s shell.Do you think that electrons shared by H2 don't fully populated 1s shell?
Technically, it's a sigma orbital.
There's also the issue of product stability. A bond between a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom (bond order 1.0) is far stronger than one between a helium atom and an oxygen atom (bond order 0.5). It's easy enough to know the reason for this if you look into the literature. So I now have to ask: are you actually trying to educate yourself, or are you trying to find fault?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/05/2024 07:42:46
So I now have to ask: are you actually trying to educate yourself, or are you trying to find fault?I'm trying to find research gaps. That's the first step of any scientific research. Without any research gap, there will be no job for researchers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/05/2024 10:59:34
There's also the issue of product stability. A bond between a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom (bond order 1.0) is far stronger than one between a helium atom and an oxygen atom (bond order 0.5). It's easy enough to know the reason for this if you look into the literature.
I asked Gemini about bond order.
Quote
The concept of bond order specifically applies to covalent bonds between two atoms of the same element. In the case of a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom, they form a polar covalent bond.
Here's a breakdown:
Bond Order: This refers to the average number of bonding electron pairs shared between two atoms. It typically applies to multiple covalent bonds between similar atoms, like in O2 (oxygen molecule) or N2 (nitrogen molecule).
Polar Covalent Bond: This type of bond arises due to unequal sharing of electrons between atoms with different electronegativity values. Oxygen is more electronegative than hydrogen, so it attracts the shared electrons more towards itself, resulting in a partial negative charge on oxygen and a partial positive charge on hydrogen.
Therefore, instead of a specific bond order, the bond between hydrogen and oxygen is described as a polar covalent bond.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2024 12:31:24
That's the first step of any scientific research. Without any research gap, there will be no job for researchers.Research is the penultimate tactic for solving a problem, prayer being the last. Career researchers are not parasites like priests, but scavengers among the debris of ignorance.
Almost all worthwhile science derives from an unexpected observation. Have you made one?
Post by: paul cotter on 09/05/2024 14:21:04
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/05/2024 13:23:20
This video shortly mentions about HeH+ at 20:10 timestamp.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/05/2024 13:25:25
Almost all worthwhile science derives from an unexpected observation. Have you made one?That depends on how you put the threshold for "worthwhile", as well as whose perspective the observation is thought as "unexpected".
Post by: alancalverd on 13/05/2024 17:18:52
Let's begin with your perspective. What unexpected observation have you made?
If nobody else expected it, we can deduce that the subsequent understanding is globally worthwhile.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/05/2024 08:55:31
What IS activation energy, really?Without wasting time looking at the video, I guess it is the energy you need to supply to a system in equilibrium to trigger it into another state.
Suppose you live in a valley at 1000 ft above sea level, and there's a nicer valley at 500 ft on the other side of a 1500 foot hill. Then the activation energy required to move house is 500 ft x g per unit mass.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/05/2024 16:47:52
Let's begin with your perspective. What unexpected observation have you made?There's no way I can guarantee that nobody else has expected my observations. But at least I know they deviate from some mainstream textbooks.
I've made many experiments using laser and microwave transceiver, and some results that I think are unexpected by most people are as follows.
Non-diffractive edge and non-diffractive slit using total internal reflection.
Polarized diffraction by the edge of abortive polarizers.
Blocking mechanism of microwave by partial polarizers.
Conjoined twin polarizers.
Polarization twister of microwave.
Electrodynamic balance.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/05/2024 08:59:51
Post by: paul cotter on 22/05/2024 19:39:29
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/05/2024 17:00:32
Most people are ignorant about almost everything, and there's a lot of rubbish on the internet. Thanks to AI, there's an infinite amount of recycled rubbish too. But there's a lot of knowledge and understanding in good science textbooks.Shallow AI can't distinguish between good and bad data. Just like little children can't do the same.
How do you distinguish between good and bad science textbooks?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/05/2024 17:21:24
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2024 02:04:01
Good textbooks give you equations that predict what you actually observe.Have you found a good textbook that correctly predicted non-diffractive edge?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/05/2024 10:43:29
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/05/2024 17:07:52
I have textbooks that explain why the concept is an oxymoron. I think we discussed it at least a year ago.How is it an oxymoron?
Which textbooks?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/05/2024 23:51:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/05/2024 04:06:01
Edges diffract. The diffracted intensity downstream of a "permeable edge" is likely to be weak and probably swamped by refraction.You are demonstrating a common misconception in logic: confusing observation with universal truth, similar to stating that all swans are white. I'll let Gemini explain it.
Quote
This concept falls under the umbrella of the problem of induction. Here's why:
We might see many white swans and conclude "all swans are white." This is based on observing multiple instances.
But logic doesn't allow us to guarantee a universal truth from specific examples. There could always be a black swan we haven't encountered yet.
The discovery of black swans in Australia in the 17th century famously disproved the idea that all swans are white. This highlights the importance of considering the possibility of exceptions when making generalizations.
There isn't a single, universally agreed-upon name for this specific fallacy, but some terms that might be relevant include:
Affirming the consequent: This fallacy occurs when you assume because something follows from a hypothesis, the hypothesis must be true. In this case, seeing only white swans might lead you to believe all swans are white, which isn't necessarily true.
False dichotomy: This fallacy presents a situation as having only two options, when there might be more. In this case, it might lead someone to think swans are either white or not swans (black), excluding the possibility of swans having other colors.
So, while the statement itself isn't a fallacy, it demonstrates an important concept in logic: don't mistake limited observations for absolute truths.
The edge of surface on dielectric material undergoing total internal reflection shows non-diffractive behavior in visible light. But the edge of a simple aluminum plate also shows non-diffractive behavior in microwave transmission.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/05/2024 17:42:08
You need to distinguish between an edge and a planar interface.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/06/2024 15:41:33
Typical bunkum from a chatbot.How can you explain this observation?
You need to distinguish between an edge and a planar interface.
the edge of a simple aluminum plate also shows non-diffractive behavior in microwave transmission.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/06/2024 18:49:54
https://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/4_5_05.pdf suggests otherwise
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2024 16:49:55
I have uploaded new video showing diffraction in microwave frequency.
Basically, the experiment result leads us to conclude that diffraction comes from the material blocking the microwave path. When the obstruction is opaque enough, we find no diffraction. It's similar to my experiment using laser showing non-diffractive obstruction.
This result is not widely known yet.
Please remind me of the original experimental videoInstead of diffraction, it shows more about interference.
https://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/4_5_05.pdf suggests otherwise
Post by: alancalverd on 04/06/2024 21:52:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2024 16:29:42
What do you think was happening at 1:24?IMO, it's deflection, or reflection at a grazing angle.
Post by: mxplxxx on 02/07/2024 11:32:31
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 07:55:17
Doesn't matter. It has been replaced by Quantum Computing.What does quantum computing say?
Is it different from what quantum mechanics has said?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 08:20:04
You need to distinguish between an edge and a planar interface.What's the difference? Is it relevant to the subjects of discussion?
Half of the laser beam falls on the reflective surface of the glass slab, while the other half falls on the transparent surface of the glass slab.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 12:16:09
Quote
Chemistry text books say molecules like glucose store energy in bonds. Are they wrong? What even is chemical energy anyway? And what ARE chemical bonds? And are they JUST abstract concepts? Are Derek Muller and Nick Lucid correct when they say bonds don?t store energy? We look at the science and chemistry of molecular energy and answer the question: Where do molecules store their energy?IMO, this video provides intuitive explanation to answer the question.
What IS activation energy, really?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2024 12:20:19
Post by: alancalverd on 07/07/2024 09:58:03
IMO, this video provides intuitive explanation to answer the question.It is the energy you need to add to a system to displace it permanently from a local equilibrium.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 13/05/2024 13:23:20
What IS activation energy, really?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/07/2024 14:01:20
The video explains how it can be manifested in the form of chemical bonds.IMO, this video provides intuitive explanation to answer the question.It is the energy you need to add to a system to displace it permanently from a local equilibrium.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 13/05/2024 13:23:20
What IS activation energy, really?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/07/2024 08:00:06
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/07/2024 11:24:26
Surely not? The activation energy is what you need to input to a mixture to break chemical bonds and initiate a reaction.Have you watched the video?
Post by: mxplxxx on 10/07/2024 14:30:36
Post by: paul cotter on 10/07/2024 21:55:47
Post by: alancalverd on 11/07/2024 09:22:55
Easily. It is over a century old and people are still struggling to both understand it and make it useful.Which "it" are you talking about?
Post by: mxplxxx on 11/07/2024 12:31:17
Which "it" are you talking about?Have a guess.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/07/2024 16:21:52
Post by: mxplxxx on 11/07/2024 17:36:55
Since none of my colleagues, students or clients struggles to understand either quantum mechanics or activation energy, and they all use both every day, I cannot possibly guess what you are talking about.Good luck to you. I guess you and your super-intelligent coterie would have no trouble understanding the following description of Quantum Parallelism:
"Central to the power of quantum computing is the concept of quantum parallelism: quantum systems can explore and process multiple computational paths simultaneously. In this paper, we discuss the elusive nature of quantum parallelism, drawing parallels with classical parallel computing models to elucidate its fundamental characteristics and implications for algorithmic performance. We begin by defining quantum parallelism as arising from the superposition of quantum states, allowing for the exploration of multiple computational paths in parallel. To quantify and visualize quantum parallelism, we introduce the concept of quantum dataflow diagrams, which provide a graphical representation of quantum algorithms and their parallel execution paths. We demonstrate how quantum parallelism can be measured and assessed by analyzing quantum algorithms such as the Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) and Amplitude Amplification (AA) iterations using quantum dataflow diagrams. Furthermore, we examine the interplay between quantum parallelism and classical parallelism laws, including Amdahl's and Gustafson's laws. While these laws were originally formulated for classical parallel computing systems, we reconsider their applicability in the quantum computing domain. We argue that while classical parallelism laws offer valuable insights, their direct application to quantum computing is limited due to the unique characteristics of quantum parallelism, including the role of destructive interference and the inherent limitations of classical-quantum I/O. Our analysis highlights the need for an increased understanding of quantum parallelism and its implications for algorithm design and performance."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2024 17:43:22
description of Quantum Parallelism:What's the source of the paragraph that you quoted? Who are "we" there?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2024 17:44:44
Some reactions need very little in terms of activation and others need a lot.What makes the difference?
Post by: mxplxxx on 12/07/2024 17:49:47
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07222description of Quantum Parallelism:What's the source of the paragraph that you quoted? Who are "we" there?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2024 14:59:23
Activation energy is a basic principle and one does not need a video to understand it.The video is a response to other videos trying to explain about activation energy and chemical bonds.
Chemistry text books say molecules like glucose store energy in bonds. Are they wrong? What even is chemical energy anyway? And what ARE chemical bonds? And are they JUST abstract concepts? Are Derek Muller and Nick Lucid correct when they say bonds don?t store energy? We look at the science and chemistry of molecular energy and answer the question: Where do molecules store their energy?The author of the video saw the need to clear up some potential widespread confusion regarding this topic.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/07/2024 23:39:26
What makes the difference?The nature of the chemical bonds in the reagents.
Post by: mxplxxx on 17/07/2024 07:22:25
imho, quantum theory is classical physics meeting computing. All of the weirdness of quantum physics disappears when physics is done via computer simulations. Entanglement is standard computing via references. Superposition is concurrent states. Quantum Theory screams out that the Universe is a computer. If so, we should be looking at using this computer to our advantage. I guess Quantum Computing is doing just that.
It is likely current computers are quantum computers. They can implement all (?) of current quantum theory.
Post by: varsigma on 17/07/2024 08:52:56
If you claim something is wrong with a theory, you're sort of obliged to point out what it is.
And pages later, you haven't. still. Nor has the team at the LHC, incidentally.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/08/2024 14:13:19
Quote
A comment : "Well, title is a little bit misguiding, if I got it somewhat right from the talk, he actually meant not to look too much for the meaning or interpretation of qm cause it is probably not the full picture yet."
GUEST BIO:
Tony Leggett is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Don't Spend Too Much Studying Quantum Mechanics | Tony Leggett at The UIUC Talkshow
DO NOT Study Quantum Mechanics | Nobel Physics Laurate Tony Leggett
Post by: alancalverd on 06/08/2024 21:49:37
The problem will persist for as long as there are philosophers who tell you that it is complicated and mysterious, and we stick to teaching classical mechanics and trying to tack QM onto classical concepts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/08/2024 15:01:48
Quote
From Schr?dinger's cat to General Relativity, Professor of Philosopher at NYU, Tim Maudlin, explains the problem with quantum theory today.
Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at New York University with interests primarily focused in the foundations of physics, metaphysics, and logic. His books include Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Truth and Paradox and The Metaphysics Within Physics.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/08/2024 16:15:42
(after 3 minutes of the video) I was right. It stinks.
As with every philosopher I have ever encountered, he is telling me that I don't understand something that he doesn't understand.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/08/2024 16:13:17
It exposes a weakness in quantum mechanics as it's currently understood.FYI, circularly polarized light has a constant amplitude of electric field when propagating as a plane wave. Only the orientation rotates.Which has nothing to do with this discussion, please don't bring in unrelated topics just to confuse yourself.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/08/2024 16:49:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/08/2024 17:04:46
Really? Wave propagation has nothing to do with QM - it's purely continuum mathematics.Gemini claims that wave propagation is a crucial aspect of quantum mechanics.
Your claim just confirmed my statement.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/08/2024 22:09:10
Post by: Kryptid on 09/08/2024 17:07:29
Gemini claims that wave propagation is a crucial aspect of quantum mechanics.
Your claim just confirmed my statement.
Please don't rely on AI to teach you things...
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2024 07:25:18
We can ask them to tell their information source, so we can verify their answers.Gemini claims that wave propagation is a crucial aspect of quantum mechanics.
Your claim just confirmed my statement.
Please don't rely on AI to teach you things...
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2024 17:41:24
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2024 22:32:38
Why bother with the stupid intermediary? Wave propagation is by its very definition a continuum phenomenon, not a quantum phenomenon.What makes it stupid?
Quantum theory was started by explaining distribution of black body radiation, which was thought to be a continuum phenomenon.
Quantum mechanics has explanation about double slit interference, which was thought to be a continuum phenomenon.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2024 22:34:26
Quote
Quantum Mechanics and Wave Propagation
Quantum mechanics provides a fundamentally different framework for understanding wave propagation compared to classical physics.
Key Differences:
* Wave-Particle Duality: Unlike classical physics, where waves and particles are distinct entities, quantum mechanics posits that particles can exhibit wave-like properties and vice versa. This duality is essential for understanding quantum wave propagation.
* Probability Waves: In quantum mechanics, waves are described by wave functions, which represent the probability amplitude of finding a particle at a particular position. This probabilistic interpretation is a departure from the deterministic nature of classical waves.
* Schr?dinger Equation: This equation is the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics, governing the evolution of the wave function over time. It's analogous to the wave equation in classical physics but with a probabilistic interpretation.
* Quantization: Energy levels associated with wave propagation are often quantized in quantum mechanics, meaning they can only take on specific discrete values. This is in contrast to classical physics where energy can vary continuously.
How does it work?
* Wave Function Collapse: When a measurement is made on a quantum system, the wave function collapses to a specific state, corresponding to a particular outcome. This process is probabilistic, determined by the wave function before the measurement.
* Interference and Diffraction: Quantum particles can exhibit interference and diffraction patterns, just like classical waves. However, the interpretation of these phenomena is probabilistic in quantum mechanics.
* Quantum Tunneling: A purely quantum mechanical phenomenon, tunneling allows particles to pass through potential energy barriers even when they classically lack the energy to do so. This is explained by the wave-like nature of particles and the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function.
In essence, quantum mechanics provides a probabilistic and wave-like description of particle behavior, which is fundamentally different from the deterministic and particle-like view of classical physics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2024 22:40:18
Quote
Quantum Mechanics and Electromagnetic WavesIt also told its source when I asked about QFT.
Quantum mechanics provides a fundamentally different perspective on electromagnetic wave propagation compared to classical electrodynamics.
The Photon: The Quantum of Light
* Particle-like behavior: Electromagnetic waves are quantized into discrete packets of energy called photons. These photons exhibit particle-like properties in certain situations, such as the photoelectric effect.
* Wave-particle duality: Photons also demonstrate wave-like properties, such as interference and diffraction. This duality is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics.
Quantum Field Theory
* Electromagnetic field as a quantum field: To fully describe electromagnetic waves, we use quantum field theory. This theory treats the electromagnetic field as a quantum field, which is a collection of harmonic oscillators.
* Photon creation and annihilation: Photons are excitations of this quantum field. The emission and absorption of photons correspond to the creation and annihilation of these excitations.
Quantization of Energy
* Discrete energy levels: The energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized, meaning it can only take on specific values. This is directly related to the energy of the photons associated with the wave.
* Planck's constant: The energy of a photon is given by E = hf, where E is the energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is the frequency of the wave.
Probabilistic Nature
* Wave function: The propagation of electromagnetic waves can be described by a wave function, which represents the probability amplitude of finding a photon at a particular location.
* Uncertainty principle: The position and momentum of a photon cannot be simultaneously determined with absolute precision due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
In summary, quantum mechanics provides a more complete and accurate description of electromagnetic wave propagation by incorporating the particle-like nature of light (photons), the quantization of energy, and the probabilistic nature of quantum systems. This approach is essential for understanding phenomena like the photoelectric effect, spontaneous emission, and quantum optics.
Quote
Quantum Field Theory (QFT).
A Brief Overview
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines quantum mechanics and special relativity to describe the behavior of subatomic particles and their interactions. It's a cornerstone of modern physics, underpinning our understanding of the universe at its most fundamental level.
Key Concepts
* Fields: Unlike classical physics where particles are point-like objects, QFT introduces fields that permeate all of spacetime. These fields can be thought of as continuous distributions of quantities, like the electromagnetic field.
* Particles as Excitations: Particles are seen as excitations of these underlying fields. When a field is disturbed (e.g., by energy input), it can create particles. Conversely, particles can disappear, returning energy to the field.
* Quantization: Just like in quantum mechanics, quantities in QFT are quantized. This means they can only take on specific, discrete values. The energy levels of the field are quantized, leading to the concept of particles.
* Interactions: Particles interact by exchanging other particles, known as force carriers. For example, electrons interact through the exchange of photons.
Importance and Applications
* Particle Physics: QFT is the foundation of the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes the fundamental particles and forces of the universe.
* Condensed Matter Physics: QFT is used to study phenomena in condensed matter, like superconductivity and phase transitions.
* Cosmology: QFT plays a role in understanding the early universe and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.
Challenges and Future Directions
Despite its successes, QFT still faces challenges. One major issue is the difficulty in combining gravity with quantum mechanics. This is a central problem in theoretical physics and is actively being researched.
QFT continues to be a rich area of study, with new discoveries and applications being made all the time
https://github.com/JohnTelford/GPT
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2024 22:45:00
How does it describe polarization of light?
Quote
Quantum Field Theory and Polarization of Light
In quantum field theory, light is described as a quantum field, and its quanta are photons. Polarization, in this context, becomes a property of the photon.
Photons and Polarization
* Spin: Photons, as massless particles, have spin 1. This spin quantizes the polarization states.
* Helicity: The projection of the photon's spin onto its direction of motion is called helicity. For photons, helicity can only be +1 or -1, corresponding to right-circular and left-circular polarization, respectively.
* Linear Polarization: Linear polarization is a superposition of right and left circular polarization states.
Mathematical Description
* Photon Polarization State: A photon's polarization state can be represented as a quantum state vector.
* Quantum Operators: Operators corresponding to different polarization measurements (e.g., linear, circular) can be defined and applied to the photon state vector to obtain probabilities of different polarization outcomes.
Key Points
* Quantization: Polarization is quantized in terms of the photon's spin.
* Superposition: Polarization states can be superpositions of different basis states (e.g., circular, linear).
* Probabilistic Interpretation: Quantum mechanics introduces a probabilistic nature to polarization measurements.
Connection to Classical Electrodynamics
While QFT provides a fundamental description, the classical picture of polarization as the orientation of the electric field vector is still a useful approximation in many cases. The connection between the two is through the correspondence principle, which states that quantum mechanics should reduce to classical physics in the appropriate limit.
In summary, quantum field theory offers a more fundamental and comprehensive understanding of polarization, describing it as a quantum property of photons. It provides a framework for calculating probabilities of different polarization states and for understanding the interactions of polarized light with matter at the quantum level.
Would you like to delve deeper into a specific aspect of photon polarization or its applications?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/08/2024 10:28:58
In quantum field theory, light is described as a quantum field, and its quanta are photons. Polarization, in this context, becomes a property of the photon.This model has a problem to describe elliptical polarization.
Photons and Polarization
* Spin: Photons, as massless particles, have spin 1. This spin quantizes the polarization states.
* Helicity: The projection of the photon's spin onto its direction of motion is called helicity. For photons, helicity can only be +1 or -1, corresponding to right-circular and left-circular polarization, respectively.
* Linear Polarization: Linear polarization is a superposition of right and left circular polarization states.
Also how to determine the orientation of linear polarization? How it can be changed by reflection?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/08/2024 17:57:47
Yes, but it seems to work pretty well so far. Unlike Gemini.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/08/2024 11:33:50
Just to return to the original questionBut you said it doesn't explain wave propagation.
Yes, but it seems to work pretty well so far. Unlike Gemini.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/08/2024 12:04:35
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/08/2024 15:55:48
It isn't intended to.What is it intended to?
Is it a complementary of Maxwell's theory? Is there overlap between them?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/08/2024 12:05:26
Maxwell describes the propagation of electromagnetic radiation and is consistent with geometrical optics, radio navigation, etc.
Quantum mechanics describes, among other things, the production of electromagnetic radiation at high (e.g. visible, x-ray) energies and its molecular and atomic interactions.
I do not know of any phenomena that are not described by one or other mechanism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/09/2024 16:36:32
For the nth time:Can quantum mechanics explain the generation, propagation, and reception of radio waves?
Maxwell describes the propagation of electromagnetic radiation and is consistent with geometrical optics, radio navigation, etc.
Quantum mechanics describes, among other things, the production of electromagnetic radiation at high (e.g. visible, x-ray) energies and its molecular and atomic interactions.
I do not know of any phenomena that are not described by one or other mechanism.
Post by: Eternal Student on 08/09/2024 02:49:37
Can quantum mechanics explain the generation, propagation, and reception of radio waves?
Short Answer:
Probably not in an easy way for human beings to understand.
It probably is possible to use QM and apply a suitable interpretation of probabilities or the frequency of detection of photons to re-create the usual gross-scale classical radio wave propagation results - but this would be complicated.
At the fundamental level, in most QM models there aren't any "radio waves". So the problem starts with the way the question was phrased.
Medium detail / further discussion:
The name "radio wave" that you are using in the question describes a phenomena that we (human beings) have come to ascribe some meaning to. This thing, "a radio wave", is an essentially classical physical phenomena.
We imagine a radio wave as a ... (you know) ..... spread out and continuous wave thing. We expect to be able to measure an Electric and a Magnetic field and a radio wave will be a suitable oscillation in these fields. There are many versions of Quantum Mechanics but most of them don't have that sort of thing as their subjects or objects of interest. The simplest QM models consider all objects as if they are particles. For example, we might consider a particle of light, a photon, as a suitable QM object but we do not consider an e-m wave as a suitable QM object. QM objects just happen to have a wave function associated to them BUT they are essentially discrete particles and would always be detected as a discrete particle.
More advanced QM theories, such as the mainstream versions of QFT, will consider the most fundamental objects to be fields. For example, there will be a photon field that exists everywhere in space. The thing we call a photon would not be treated as a fundamental QM object, it is just how we may interpret a certain oscillation in that underlying photon field at some place. So, in QFT, there is a photon field but there is NOT any fundamental Electric field or Magnetic field. These things, the electric and magnetic fields are just gross-scale fields that can emerge from the more fundamental fields of the particles in the standard model of particle physics. QFT doesn't aim to deal with oscillations in the Electric and Magnetic fields, it only deals with the fundamental particle fields. You need to add a layer of interpretation on to the top to translate what happens in these fundamental particle fields into something that can be observed in the gross-scale Electric and Magnetic fields. That can be done in many versions of QFT but is rarely simple.
When you are asking about "a radio wave", you have moved attention to something in terms of the ordinary (or gross-scale) Electric and Magnetic fields and not on any fundamental object (a photon in simple QM, or the photon field in QFT). So the question cannot be answered without translating the results of QM back into something classical involving the Electric and Magnetic fields. One of the simplest or most naive ways of making this translation is to just analyse the probablities or frequencies with which a QM object would be found at some place and time. So, we might imagine that an e-m wave is a collection of many photons or that an experiment involving one photon has been done many times and the e-m wave we observe is the combined average of all of these.
Example: If you could fire just one photon through the usual double-slit experiment apparatus, then you probably won't get an interference pattern on the screen at the end. Instead we think you'll get just one spot to glow on the screen. However, if we repeat the experiment many, many times then we expect to see that the places where the screen glows and how often that bit of the screen glows will correspond to the usual interference pattern for a classical wave being put through that apparatus. So, one individual photon does NOT behave like an e-m wave - but a thousand or a million of them would seem to reproduce classical radio wave-like patterns and behaviour.
NOTE: I'm really not convinced anyone has actually done a genuine version of Young's double slit experiment where only a single photon is fired with a clear interval of time before the next is fired. However, this demonstration gets close and claims to be using such a thin and dim stream of light that only "a few" photons per second will be produced.
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/single-photon-interference
So, the important point is simply that "a radio wave" isn't the normal subject for any QM model. It demands some form of interpretation to put the results predicted by any QM model back into terms which would make sense when you consider "a radio wave".
If we wished to be controversial we would say "there are NO radio waves... just QM objects that get detected at certain times and places. On a gross scale, that looks like a radio wave is there". ... However... I'm not that controversial or convinced that a simple QM model is some ultimate truth.... there are many versions of QM, all have some use and classical e-m theory is also extremely useful.
Another minor note: Your (Hamdani) extracts produced by Gemini seem to be blending many different versions of Quantum Mechanics. For example, QFT is a specialised theory and there are still about 3 versions or flavours of QFT that are in current use. I don't think Geminii is reliably identifying where things can and cannot be combined. For example, the simplest QM models are not like QFT. They will involve the original Schrodinger equation, which is shown here:
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/83d11efa47cdd8f0f74fa65e2f105cf82fa49bf6)
That has a mass term, m, in the Hamiltonian for the QM object under consideration (it's in the square bracket, h squared over 2 m). This means it's actually useless for photons which should have 0 rest mass. None the less, we (physicists) do generalise a lot of results from such a QM theory for massive particles to massless particles like photons. For example, the Youngs double slit experiment can be modelled for electrons or even bigger particles like carbon bucky-balls. We can (and have) then done experiments with these things and obtained a good match with the predictions from the simple QM model. It is natural to assume a similar thing for photons, even though the zero mass term would technically make the simple QM model invalid. If you read what I've said (above) about firing single photons then you'll hopefully notice that I've got phrases like "we think".
I believe that how you reconcile a classical radio wave with a suitable QM object ("a photon") is subject to a lot of interpretation.
[Disclaimer: I'M NOT AN EXPERT. ]
Best Wishes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 07:26:30
So the problem starts with the way the question was phrased.Can you suggest a better way?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 07:30:52
So, in QFT, there is a photon field but there is NOT any fundamental Electric field or Magnetic field.
So, we might imagine that an e-m wave is a collection of many photons or that an experiment involving one photon has been done many times and the e-m wave we observe is the combined average of all of these.
How does it explain electrostatic and magnetostatic fields?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 07:51:22
If you could fire just one photon through the usual double-slit experiment apparatus, then you probably won't get an interference pattern on the screen at the end. Instead we think you'll get just one spot to glow on the screen.You seem to interpret one glowing spot on the screen as an event of a single photon being detected. Have you considered some alternative interpretations or explanations?
Have you considered that a single slit experiment, when the width of the slit is equal to the distance between the slits in double slit experiment, will also produce interference pattern on the screen with comparable size?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 08:04:15
However, this demonstration gets close and claims to be using such a thin and dim stream of light that only "a few" photons per second will be produced.Here's a comment by the author of the article.
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/single-photon-interference
Quote
In our previous paper1 we pointed out that, strictly speak-
ing, we are not detecting single photons of light but rather
single photoelectrons liberated by the light impinging on the
detector; this is still true in the present experiment.
Furthermore, the detection of a photoelectron does not neces-
sarily imply that a single photon arrived.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 08:38:33
many different versions of Quantum Mechanics.By the name only, we already get quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, quantum field theory.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2024 09:33:27
Can quantum mechanics explain the generation, propagation, and reception of radio waves?It doesn't need to. Continuum physics does the job adequately below the terahertz region.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 14:01:12
Can we use quantum mechanics to explain it?Can quantum mechanics explain the generation, propagation, and reception of radio waves?It doesn't need to. Continuum physics does the job adequately below the terahertz region.
Post by: Eternal Student on 08/09/2024 20:13:46
Quote
[ES said] So the problem starts with the way the question was phrased.
[Hamdani replied] Can you suggest a better way?
Obviously it's up to you to create your own question. You can ask whatever you want.
However, Gemini will be lead by the question you asked. It rarely considers that the user has some faults or misconceptions (other than just spelling errors) in the question they ask.
I am also going to be lead by the question but I am able to recognise that the question involves a classical phenomena while you seek an explanation involving quantum or discrete phenomena.
So the question is a special case of a more general question:
Can Quantum Mechanics recreate or explain ALL classical phenomena?
---> I don't know and possibly we (physicists) haven't tested them all and nobody knows BUT it seems that it does recreate a great many of them very sucessfully. Since the early development of QM one standard "test" or criteria for establishing the reasonableness of any new piece of quantum theory has been that it will reduce to a well established classical theory under suitable conditions (for example, in the limit ħ --> 0 ).
[Reference: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle for some more discussion ]. It (Quantum Mechanics) also models or predicts some things which classical physics would not adequately model or explain.
How does it explain electrostatic and magnetostatic fields?With various pieces of mathematics which I would struggle to explain here in a short amount of time. Typically you build (or propose) a Lagrangian that you believe describes the system. There are some commonly used models that fit with observations well, so you don't just have to dream up a new Lagrangian every time. It is then common to apply what is often called "Propagator Theory" and identify a suitable "propagator".
- - - - - - - -
An extract of some notes from the Physics module "Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics" by Nottingham University, United Kingdom.
Propagator theory.jpg (118.58 kB . 868x539 - viewed 305 times)- - - - - - - - -
It is possible to construct Feynman rules and suitable Feynman diagrams from these expressions. With these sorts of diagrams, it is common to imagine that a pair of interacting particles (say two electrons with the usual negative charge) would be seen to move along for a short while and then exchange a virtual photon and end up moving slightly differently. That is understood as the electrostatic repulsion between the electrons. However, these Feynman diagrams are really just for convenience and provide a simple way to "visualise" and describe what is happening. It is just the mathematics, the evolution of the wave function(s) we would obtain as an approximate solution using propagator theory that is really being shown in those diagrams. The "virtual particles" are not something concrete that we could actually find or detect.
Let's paraphrase or summarise this again: So how does this QM theory explain electrostatic interactions? Well, it doesn't even attempt to "explain" these interactions. It just provides an abiltiy to calculate the results. It (the theory) just shows how the wave functions should evolve. We (human beings) add a layer of interpretation on the top of this, we use terminology like "virtual particles" and build a useable and more intuitive way of thinking about or "explaining" the interaction to our satisfaction.
Concerning the double slit experiment with a single photon, Hamdani said: You seem to interpret one glowing spot on the screen as an event of a single photon being detected. Have you considered some alternative interpretations or explanations?
Yes and it is very much as you described in a later post.
In our previous paper1 we pointed out that, strictly speak-
ing, we are not detecting single photons of light but rather
single photoelectrons liberated by the light impinging on the
detector; this is still true in the present experiment.
Furthermore, the detection of a photoelectron does not neces-
sarily imply that a single photon arrived.
I don't know if we can ever be sure that we will detect a single photon in the sense of a small packet of light hitting only one spot. No matter how much we think that only a single particle of light has been created and sent into the apparatus, it could still be a spread out wave of stuff that actually arrives at the detector screen. Due to some properties of the screen all the energy is collected and deposited into just one small bit of the screen so that only that bit of that screen will glow.
It's interesting. Is there a particle of light to be found and detected or is that just an object of convenience? I don't know. It's not necessarily important. Simple Quantum Mechanics would quite like to have a particle of light, a photon, but provided the end result is an interaction that looks like a single particle interaction then "a photon" could just be an object of mathematical convenience. With just a minor change in semantics, the popular phrase about light would still apply and the same Mechanics can be used to predict results: "it travels as a wave and interacts as a particle".
...By the name only,...I didn't really understand what you meant here. QED , QCD, QFT and what I have tended to call simple QM differ by more than just their names. For example, Simple QM is based on the original Schrodinger Equation which is non-relativistic in nature. QFT is a relativistic quantum theory and was motivated by alternatives to the Schrodinger equation such as the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations.
Best Wishes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 22:03:07
I didn't really understand what you meant here. QED , QCD, QFT and what I have tended to call simple QM differ by more than just their names. For example, Simple QM is based on the original Schrodinger Equation which is non-relativistic in nature. QFT is a relativistic quantum theory and was motivated by alternatives to the Schrodinger equation such as the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations.I meant that even if we only consider the names, we get many versions of quantum theories. If we also consider the different interpretation, we get even more.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 22:13:45
Quote
Maxwell's equations, which describe classical electromagnetism, are not directly derived from quantum mechanics. Instead, they emerge as a limit or approximation in the classical regime of quantum field theory, specifically quantum electrodynamics (QED).
Here?s an overview of how the two are related:
### 1. **Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Gauge Symmetry**:
- In QED, the electromagnetic field is described by the photon, which is a quantum particle associated with the electromagnetic field. The interactions between charged particles, such as electrons, and photons are governed by the principles of QED.
- QED is based on the principle of gauge symmetry, specifically U(1) gauge symmetry. This gauge symmetry is directly related to the structure of Maxwell's equations. Imposing U(1) gauge invariance leads to the field equations that resemble Maxwell's equations in the classical limit.
### 2. **Classical Limit of Quantum Field Theory**:
- When the quantum aspects (like particle-wave duality and uncertainty) of the electromagnetic field are ignored, or when considering the behavior of large numbers of photons, the quantum fields reduce to classical fields. In this classical limit, Maxwell's equations naturally emerge.
- For example, the classical electric and magnetic fields are interpreted as the expectation values of the quantum field operators in certain states (such as coherent states).
### 3. **Relation to Quantum Mechanics**:
- Although Maxwell's equations arise from QED, they cannot be directly derived from non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, the interaction of charged particles with an electromagnetic field is incorporated via the minimal coupling of the electromagnetic potential A_\mu to the particle's wavefunction. However, this coupling is taken as a given, and the dynamics of the electromagnetic field itself is still described classically by Maxwell's equations.
- The full quantum treatment of the electromagnetic field requires quantum field theory, not just quantum mechanics.
In summary, while Maxwell's equations emerge from the more fundamental framework of quantum electrodynamics, they are not directly derivable from quantum mechanics itself. Instead, they correspond to the classical limit of the quantum field describing electromagnetism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2024 22:30:37
Have you considered that a single slit experiment, when the width of the slit is equal to the distance between the slits in double slit experiment, will also produce interference pattern on the screen with comparable size?Interpretation of the double slit experiment with dim light source and polarizers as a result of observer effect on which way detection has created more confusions than the explanation it had to offer. It lead to the introduction of quantum eraser, and subsequently, delayed choice quantum eraser paradox.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
They don't seem to have considered that a double slit apparatus has 4 edges, nor that a single slit experiment with comparable slit width as the distance between the double slits would produce a similar result of diffraction-interference pattern, although with different positions of bright and dark fringes.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2024 23:11:55
I don't know if we can ever be sure that we will detect a single photon in the sense of a small packet of light hitting only one spot.Consider a gamma ray emitted from the nucleus of an atom.
We know that nuclei are "quantised" - atoms are individual and the nuclei in any state of matter are very small and a long way apart compared with the constituents of the electron cloud.
We know that nuclear disintegrations are quantised - each gamma ray has a unique energy and the residual nucleus cannot emit another of the same energy because it is transformed by the first emission.
We know how many nuclei there are in a gamma source, and knowing the half life of the material we can calculate the probability of two photons arriving at the same point in space within any time interval.
Now set up a weak gamma source at such a distance from a small detector that the probability of more than one photon arriving within the time resolution of the detector is negligible. Every gamma event that we detect is the result of a single photon interaction with the detector.
Post by: paul cotter on 09/09/2024 08:47:31
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2024 11:04:04
Consider a source of radius 1 mm and activity 1MBq, i.e. 1,000,000 disintegrations/second
The probability of two disintegrations occurring within Δt of each other is 0.5 x 1,000,000 x Δt
Use a small (1 cm2) detector with resolution Δt = 1 μs at 1 m from the source.
The photons will be emitted in random directions but symmetrically from the source so the number reaching the detector at 1 m will be about 8 per second.
And the probability of two photons emitted within 1 μs of each other and both striking the detector is 4 x 10-6
I think you will agree that the probability of any recorded event being the product of more than one photon is negligible, and if you record several events with the same energy transfer (the pedantic bit), I think you can reasonably conclude that you are recording single photon events.
I'm not sure what the modern equivalent of a GeLi detector is, but we used to do this sort of thing with buckets of liquid nitrogen and a rack of single-transistor electronics.
So to return to the question, yes, quantum mechanics could be wrong, but in my humble experience it has been a damn good approximation!
Post by: paul cotter on 09/09/2024 11:35:32
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2024 10:57:57
Post by: paul cotter on 10/09/2024 11:57:42
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2024 14:16:33
Post by: paul cotter on 10/09/2024 19:40:43
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2024 05:16:54
So, instead of closing one of the slit, you can just simply remove the middle part of opaque material in the double slit apparatus, and see the changes in the diffraction-interference pattern on the screen. There's now only one path, but it still produces diffraction-interference pattern on the screen.Have you considered that a single slit experiment, when the width of the slit is equal to the distance between the slits in double slit experiment, will also produce interference pattern on the screen with comparable size?Interpretation of the double slit experiment with dim light source and polarizers as a result of observer effect on which way detection has created more confusions than the explanation it had to offer. It lead to the introduction of quantum eraser, and subsequently, delayed choice quantum eraser paradox.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
They don't seem to have considered that a double slit apparatus has 4 edges, nor that a single slit experiment with comparable slit width as the distance between the double slits would produce a similar result of diffraction-interference pattern, although with different positions of bright and dark fringes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2024 05:18:12
Quote
A lot of people have asked me to talk about the video ?Did Einstein Crack the Biggest Problem in Physics?and didn?t know it?? It?s a discussion between Brian Greene and the scientists who supposedly used a quantum computer to open a wormhole. But what does this have to do with Einstein?
It seems to show a big problem in science communication.