[Phractality]

You are wrong sir, observation is limited to the eyes, I think you are referring to detection which is distinguishable from observation.

Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity. Observations can be qualitative, that is, only the absence or presence of a property is noted, or quantitative if a numerical value is attached to the observed phenomenon by counting or measuring.

[McQueen (OP)]

Just an addition to my last post; You do see the difference between a hundred years ago and today, right. But for Quantum Mechanics apparently not. Theories, some of them pretty flaky, thought up a hundred years ago, when classical physics had nothing better to offer are still strictly followed today, even though alternative theories are available. In fact today's Quantum Mechanics is as close to an aether theory as it is possible to get without actually saying it. In giving explanations like :

The electron is present as a cloud. Averaged over the cloud, the positive kinetic energy is half as big as the negative potential energy.
More importantly, the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity.  In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate.
The world at a small scale cannot be put together out of anything like the pictures we're used to at a large scale.

Quantum Mechanics seems to completely ignore the fact that an electron has mass, yet often tries to justify this view point on the grounds that the electron is a charged particle.  So according to Quantum Mechanics a particle possessing mass can possess a diffused form and exist as a wave or cloud AND a mass less photon can be a particle. There is in reality no justification for eithjer statement except that at the time there seemed to be a need for this to be true.


 

[agyejy]

Here again you talk about fields rather than photon absorption and emission, so according to  you, [The two fields interfere and the result is that the incoming photon is altered.]  scattering is where the incoming light (electromagnetic field) behaves like a wave and interacts with the electron; is altered by the interaction and scattered.  Yet this is not what experiment shows occurs. The very definition of a  field(s) is that its energies are diffuse and spread out , experiment has shown that every electron reaction with incoming light is with a definite quanta of energy that reacts (or not)  with the electron.  You go onto say that if the material of the substance on which the light is impinging is smooth ( relative to the size of the atom) reflection results, if the surface is rough (relative to the size of the atom) a more diffuse form of reflection results. The point is (AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT FIELDS CANNOT DO ) is that every photon/electron reaction requires a definite quanta of energy. How then can you put forward a wave theory as an explanation? OR is that the whole point of your post namely that reflection and scattering involve wave phenomena while absorption and emission require particle phenomena ?

The first thing you have to keep in mind is that nothing is ever completely particle like or completely wave like in quantum mechanics. Sometimes you get more of one than the other but there is always some properties we associate with waves and always some properties we normally associate with particles. Quantum mechanics and more specifically the radically successful relativistic quantum field theories like quantum electrodynamics are specifically about the existence of quantized excitations of fields and how those excitations behave. The notion that excitations of fields cannot have a definite quanta of energy is a classical one that is very wrong. Quantum mechanics is in general a wave theory but the waves aren't exactly classical waves.

How does sight work, is it the wave or particle nature or light that transmits the information. How do the various frequencies of light prior to being reflected effect what we see? Since the perception of color depends on the firing of these three types of nerve cells, do you suppose that it is fair to assume that sight actually involves the absorption of photons and the resultant (very specific) energy and not mere interaction with a wave, since it has to result in the firing of nerve receptors, a wave would be diffuse, how would it convey the exact energy needed. If you disagree with this supposition please give your reasons. If on the other hand you agree with that statement, just look around, try and calculate how many things you are seeing and how many photons those objects might represent and explain why sight works with emission and absorption but that a different mechanism is needed ( electromagnetic fields) when talking about reflection and scattering.

You are making a rigid distinction that doesn't exist anywhere in quantum mechanics. Nothing ever behaves completely as a classical wave or completely as a classical particle. The true behavior always has elements of both. Sometimes when writing scientists take shortcuts with their explanations and say things behaved like a particle or like a wave when they really mean the behavior was more like a particle than a wave or more like a wave than a particle. The rigid distinction you are trying to make between particle and wave does not exists in quantum mechanics and it doesn't exist in nature.

But for Quantum Mechanics apparently not. Theories, some of them pretty flaky, thought up a hundred years ago, when classical physics had nothing better to offer are still strictly followed today, even though alternative theories are available. In fact today's Quantum Mechanics is as close to an aether theory as it is possible to get without actually saying it.

Yeah that isn't remotely true. Any decent historical account of quantum mechanics will give a pretty good account of how it has evolved over time.

[agyejy]

In giving explanations like :

The electron is present as a cloud. Averaged over the cloud, the positive kinetic energy is half as big as the negative potential energy.
More importantly, the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity.  In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate.
The world at a small scale cannot be put together out of anything like the pictures we're used to at a large scale.

Quantum Mechanics seems to completely ignore the fact that an electron has mass, yet often tries to justify this view point on the grounds that the electron is a charged particle.  So according to Quantum Mechanics a particle possessing mass can possess a diffused form and exist as a wave or cloud AND a mass less photon can be a particle. There is in reality no justification for eithjer statement except that at the time there seemed to be a need for this to be true.

Strange that you'd choose to edit a post after a reply. In any event the addition changes nothing. For starters nothing in the explanation you quoted implies any sort of aether. Secondly the mass of the electron is present in absolutely every equation that describes how electrons behave. It is far from ignored. Finally we have direct experimental confirmation of the electron cloud.

Here is an news article: http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

and here is the scientific paper: https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001

[Phractality]

The electron is present as a cloud.

Yes; that is a useful simplification of reality. Treating electrons as probability clouds results in simpler maths than models that dare to consider the paths of electrons around individual circuits of their orbits, even below the Planck time scale.

Analogous models, i.e., models that are analogous to familiar mechanical systems, may offer a deeper and more psychologically satisfying reality. Some of us, who have not yet fully outgrown the "Why?" phase of our childhood development, are not fully satisfied with that electron cloud analogy. We need to know why the clouds is shaped as it is. Such quests for a deeper understanding, when not proven to have economic benefits, are considered frivolous, if not heretical, by all "serious" scientists. That has always been the case, hasn't it? Copernicus, Galileo, ....

Some such models are falsifiable by simulating the Planck-scale mechanics of virtual molecules. Then, integrating the locations of the virtual electrons should yield the known probability cloud for each Bohr orbital. Unfortunately, it may be necessary to renormalize a laundry list of parameters to yield the one combination that matches our universe. Come to think of it, my own model suffers from that malady. Too many unknown parameters; beginning with inertial density and hardness of the aether.

[McQueen (OP)]

Yes; that is a useful simplification of reality. Treating electrons as probability clouds results in simpler maths than models that dare to consider the paths of electrons around individual circuits of their orbits, even below the Planck time scale.

Analogous models, i.e., models that are analogous to familiar mechanical systems, may offer a deeper and more psychologically satisfying reality. Some of us, who have not yet fully outgrown the "Why?" phase of our childhood development, are not fully satisfied with that electron cloud analogy. We need to know why the clouds is shaped as it is. Such quests for a deeper understanding, when not proven to have economic benefits, are considered frivolous, if not heretical, by all "serious" scientists. That has always been the case, hasn't it? Copernicus, Galileo, ....

The problem as I see it is not in having mathematical models of electrons  that are the result of a probability wave but that those same  mathematical models of the electron result in the need for multiple dimensions: 

On the subject of the multiple Dimensions arising from Schrodinger’s equation Max Born had this to say:

“ We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions…………..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.”

I am getting a bit tired of quoting the same passage over and over again, however, from the gist of the quote it is quite clear that Max Born, the founder of the probability wave, was able to accept that the Schrodinger wave equation involved multiple dimensions, and that this was a mathematical artifice into which it was not possible to enter (ergo., what are those multiple dimensions, where do they exist ? : not possible to explain or imagine), but that he was able to live with that possibility if he could get the correct answer at the end. This reasoning might make sense to a statistician ( it probably does make sense to a statistician) but it doesn't make much sense to me, nor is it a very satisfying solution. This is especially so when the Lamb shift has proven through solid, reproducible experimental evidence, the existence of virtual photons and especially when the emission and absorption of virtual particles automatically means that the need for an electron following the physical pattern of wave/particle duality no longer exists.

[agyejy]

This is especially so when the Lamb shift has proven through solid, reproducible experimental evidence, the existence of virtual photons and especially when the emission and absorption of virtual particles automatically means that the need for an electron following the physical pattern of wave/particle duality no longer exists.

Virtual particles cannot and do not exist outside of quantum field theories like Quantum Electrodynamics. In general they are described as excitations of the underlying quantum fields that aren't stable enough to be real particles. You can think of real particles as solitons while virtual particles are closer to evanescent waves. In quantum field theories everything is both wave and particle. Not sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle but for lack of a better way to describe it a wave and a particle. Some experiments emphasize one aspect over the other but there is always a wavelength and everything is always discrete packets. If anything virtual particles being highly unstable excitations of the field tend to be more obviously wavelike than most things we call particles. The reality is that the existence of virtual particles actively necessitates the blurred line between the classical notions of particle and wave in the quantum realm that is the currently accepted paradigm. This is of course the exact antithesis of the quoted statement.

[McQueen (OP)]

Virtual particles cannot and do not exist outside of quantum field theories like Quantum Electrodynamics. In general they are described as excitations of the underlying quantum fields that aren't stable enough to be real particles.

It is obvious that you do not read anything properly before replying. I have stated that there is solid, verifiable and reproducible experimental evidence that 'virtual' particles do exist, in the form of the Lamb shift. (You will be surprised to learn  that until a very short time ago Quantum Mechanics supporters were claiming with equal fervour, that there were no such things as 'virtual' particles. ) That being so, how can you claim that virtual particles exist only in quantum mechanics ? Or that they do not exist outside of the quantum field? This is like saying the moon can only be seen from your window! You may claim that they are excitations of the underlying quantum fields. That doesn't mean that you are right. It is perfectly reasonable to accept that there are really small interactions  in the sub-atomic world that we cannot see  or measure, and that being impossible to measure on our scale that they do not violate the conservation of energy laws. This does not mean that they are evanescent waves or that they have to be evanescent waves.  This will bring you full circle through the Schrodinger wave equation, to the question of how a wave, cloud or whatever, can absorb or emit a particle. Or does it emit a wave that turns into a particle. OR does this wave/particle entity have super powers that means it has to be neither and can interact with either ? Or that it is a particle when being measure and a wave  when it is propagating. I repeat my Question WHY? WHY? WHY? when it is no longer necessary ?
Even more important and something that tells us a lot about what Quantum Mechanics is is the fact that if you except 'virtual' photons as being excitations of the field that the electron interacts with, then why is it still necessary to have the cloud theory. A dog in the manger is a veritable angel when compared to Quantum mechanics which just seems to want to hoard and hoard, everything it has ever thought of, even when thos ideas are obsolete.

[agyejy]

It is obvious that you do not read anything properly before replying.

Talk about irony.

I have stated that there is solid, verifiable and reproducible experimental evidence that 'virtual' particles do exist, in the form of the Lamb shift.

Never disputed that part of the statement.

(You will be surprised to learn  that until a very short time ago Quantum Mechanics supporters were claiming with equal fervour, that there were no such things as 'virtual' particles. )

No one that actually understands quantum field theory would ever make that claim. Also, theoretical understanding in science evolves over time. You cannot dismiss an entire domain of thought because it has gradually progressed through dedicated study and comparison to observation. To do so would be to deny the very concept of science itself and at that point the entire discussion becomes meaningless.

That being so, how can you claim that virtual particles exist only in quantum mechanics ?

That isn't even remotely the point I was making. Assuming that you think I was trying to say virtual particles aren't physical things that exist. To be explicit and perhaps pedantic I said virtual particles are thought to exists because of quantum field theories.

Or that they do not exist outside of the quantum field? This is like saying the moon can only be seen from your window!

When one thing is made of something else that first thing can't exist without the second thing. Virtual particles are made from quantum fields and thus don't exist without quantum fields.

You may claim that they are excitations of the underlying quantum fields. That doesn't mean that you are right.

There is no way to develop a theory that includes the concept of virtual particles that does not rely on the existence of quantum fields. The whole formalism surrounding virtual particles is derived from quantum field theory.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept that there are really small interactions  in the sub-atomic world that we cannot see  or measure, and that being impossible to measure on our scale that they do not violate the conservation of energy laws.

But these would not be virtual particles and would not be capable of producing the indirect observational evidence of virtual particles like the Casimir effect which by the way was again a direct consequence of quantum field theory and the physical existence of quantum fields. Further, these small interactions would have to be local in nature and thus impossible of actually reproducing the quantum mechanic effects we actually observe in nature because it is now well proven that quantum mechanics is inherently non-local.

This does not mean that they are evanescent waves or that they have to be evanescent waves.  This will bring you full circle through the Schrodinger wave equation, to the question of how a wave, cloud or whatever, can absorb or emit a particle. Or does it emit a wave that turns into a particle. OR does this wave/particle entity have super powers that means it has to be neither and can interact with either ? Or that it is a particle when being measure and a wave  when it is propagating. I repeat my Question WHY? WHY? WHY? when it is no longer necessary ?

For starters why is a highly unscientific question and generally does not have an answer within the realm of science. Secondly, reality doesn't care a whit about whether or not you think something makes sense or not. The current formalism that science has developed is extremely accurate and until you can conclusively prove through quantifiable predictions that a discrepancy exists between current theory and experiment that you can resolve by some other theory we have no choice but to accept current theory. Any new theory will have to reproduce the successes of all previous theories and thus are unlikely to change too much. For example, we have fairly good evidence that quantum mechanics is non-local and probabilistic and that there is no way to construct a theory that matches observational evidence that isn't also non-local and probabilistic. Finally, as I have already pointed out the classical notions of particle and wave do not apply to the quantum realm. Things in the quantum realm simultaneously have properties normally associated with classical particles and classical waves. A quantum entity is not a particle at one point and a wave at another nor does it emit a wave at one time and a particle at another. All quantum entities are things that are not entirely wave nor entirely particle and how we happen to measure the entity defines the ratio of particle properties to wave properties that we see.

Even more important and something that tells us a lot about what Quantum Mechanics is is the fact that if you except 'virtual' photons as being excitations of the field that the electron interacts with, then why is it still necessary to have the cloud theory. A dog in the manger is a veritable angel when compared to Quantum mechanics which just seems to want to hoard and hoard, everything it has ever thought of, even when thos ideas are obsolete.

The electron cloud is a consequence of the fact that quantum entities have properties we normally associate with classical waves. The fact that other non-solitonic wave like things exist does nothing to change that fact.

[McQueen (OP)]

No one that actually understands quantum field theory would ever make that claim. Also, theoretical understanding in science evolves over time. You cannot dismiss an entire domain of thought because it has gradually progressed through dedicated study and comparison to observation. To do so would be to deny the very concept of science itself and at that point the entire discussion becomes meaningless.

This a new theories forum so you can't relate everything back to quantum mechanics, saying things like , "Oh QM says it's not like that it's like this.". Immediately the whole concept of a New Theories forum becomes obsolete and it becomes instead a forum where Quantum Mechanics is literally forced down everyone's throats, regardless of any points or discrepancies that might be raised. 

You cannot dismiss an entire domain of thought because it has gradually progressed through dedicated study and comparison to observation.

That is precisely why I am dismissing it, why have a wave/particle duality when there is no reason for it ,then again remember there is no reality in the sub-atomic world so how can you refer to it : Look at this quote from QM once again:
The electron is present as a cloud. Averaged over the cloud, the positive kinetic energy is half as big as the negative potential energy. More importantly, the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity.  In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate.
Firstly it is obvious that the whole raison d'etre of the 'electron as cloud' theory is because if it was not a cloud it would radiate energy and fall into the nucleus. Look in particular at the last sentence which is the justification: "There's no reason for it to radiate.". Well if the electron interacts with 'virtual' particles, whether they are fluctuations of the field or whatever there is an absolutely verifiable theory as to why it does not spiral into the nucleus, i.e., it mediates its energy through emission and absorption of 'virtual particles'.  How come you now have two theories for why electrons do not fall into the nucleus? One because it interacts with 'virtual particles' and one because it is a wave or cloud?  Notice I do not say , two reasons why electrons do not radiate, because the statement would not be supported by the facts. AND please do not try to brush this aside!
 

When one thing is made of something else that first thing can't exist without the second thing. Virtual particles are made from quantum fields and thus don't exist without quantum fields.

Look at the prejudice, first you are absolutely sure that the wave/particle duality has to be true because otherwise the electron would radiate away energy and fall into the nucleus , and then when a new discovery is made,namely 'virtual particles' you are equally certain that only the quantum mechanics theory of why they exist is true. How in the Big Bang do you account for the 100 or more fields that quantum mechanics postulate? Maybe each of these particles had its own associated field as a preordained prerequisite of the Big Bang? Your interpretation of  QM sounds more like a h...'s a's the more I hear of it.

[agyejy]

This a new theories forum so you can't relate everything back to quantum mechanics, saying things like , "Oh QM says it's not like that it's like this.". Immediately the whole concept of a New Theories forum becomes obsolete and it becomes instead a forum where Quantum Mechanics is literally forced down everyone's throats, regardless of any points or discrepancies that might be raised. 

Any theory that directly contradicts established observational evidence is a waste of time and counterproductive.

That is precisely why I am dismissing it, why have a wave/particle duality when there is no reason for it ,then again remember there is no reality in the sub-atomic world so how can you refer to it :

So what you are saying is that you refuse to participate in actual scientific thought.

Look at this quote from QM once again:
The electron is present as a cloud. Averaged over the cloud, the positive kinetic energy is half as big as the negative potential energy. More importantly, the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity.  In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate.
Firstly it is obvious that the whole raison d'etre of the 'electron as cloud' theory is because if it was not a cloud it would radiate energy and fall into the nucleus. Look in particular at the last sentence which is the justification: "There's no reason for it to radiate.". Well if the electron interacts with 'virtual' particles, whether they are fluctuations of the field or whatever there is an absolutely verifiable theory as to why it does not spiral into the nucleus, i.e., it mediates its energy through emission and absorption of 'virtual particles'.  How come you now have two theories for why electrons do not fall into the nucleus? One because it interacts with 'virtual particles' and one because it is a wave or cloud?  Notice I do not say , two reasons why electrons do not radiate, because the statement would not be supported by the facts. AND please do not try to brush this aside!

To start with you have gotten the whole thing backwards. The electron cloud is not a theory it is a consequence of the observed wave nature of electrons and I linked to direct experimental observations of its existence. Another thing to keep in mind is that virtual particle interactions are not the same as radiation. In virtual particle exchanges the number of particles before and after the interaction is the same. In radiation a particle that didn't exists before the event exists after the event and carriers energy away. The radiation talked about in the inward spiral is real photons not virtual photons and you can't substitute one for the other. The exchange of virtual photons does not ameliorate the need for an accelerating charged particle to emit radiation. If the electron was going around the nucleus as a particle it would be accelerating due to moving in a circle and thus would have to radiate real photons. The fact that the electrostatic force keeping it moving in a circle is mediated by virtual photons will not change this fact. The only viable conclusion is that the electron isn't actually going anywhere and exists as an electron cloud.
 

Look at the prejudice, first you are absolutely sure that the wave/particle duality has to be true because otherwise the electron would radiate away energy and fall into the nucleus , and then when a new discovery is made,namely 'virtual particles' you are equally certain that only the quantum mechanics theory of why they exist is true. How in the Big Bang do you account for the 100 or more fields that quantum mechanics postulate? Maybe each of these particles had its own associated field as a preordained prerequisite of the Big Bang? Your interpretation of  QM sounds more like a h...'s a's the more I hear of it.

Virtual particles were predicted by quantum mechanics before anyone had any experimental reason to postulate they might exist. For a while people did think they were simply a mathematical trick until the theory became more sophisticated and it became clear there were real physically measurable consequences. The very concept of virtual particles would not exist without quantum mechanics. Once again the fact you dislike quantum mechanics is not a valid argument about its validity.