0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fortunately, quantum mechanics has the virtue of being correct, and having a correct theory is more important than having a well-behaved one.
Some of the behaviour of particles does not look quite so peculiar if you consider a many dimensional universe because things a long way apart in our familiar space dimensions may be very close in other dimensions. also the wave like nature can have similar long range properties interference peaks can be a very long way apart if the waves are coherent and closely related.
Another fact is the phase of the quantum waves is always hidden.
This allows us to "see" the shapes of individual atoms and move them around by moving a probe with a single atom at its tip over a surface and measuring and controlling the force between the probe tip and the material.
Schrodinger’s wave equation needs 265 dimensions to describe an atom of uranium
What is causality ? It can be defined by the example used by the British Philosopher David Hume: A boy picks up a stone and throws it towards a window, the window breaks. So causality is a sequence of events resulting in another event. It has become almost axiomatic to smile condescendingly when anyone speaks of a ‘Mechanical Universe’. We have been programmed to instinctively react like ‘Mr. Bean’, when we hear the term a ‘clockwork universe’ to express our condescension by rolling our eyes and grimacing, without really paying much attention to what we are doing. Yet the world is very much a ‘mechanical’ or ‘physical’ place. Everything from childbirth, to the functioning of the heart and lungs, everything including the genesis of both living and non-living things is intensely mechanical in nature. Even to say that it is all causal does not quite describe the manner in which things are put together like a jig-saw puzzle, and this phenomena extends to the furthest reaches of the Universe many billions of light years away. It is amazing that in the face of all this evidence to the contrary, Quantum Mechanics, when faced with a few unexplained phenomena, decided that the sub-atomic world did not follow causality. One result of this is that Physicists tend to live in a magical Harry Potter kind of world, where the normal rules do not apply. In this sub-atomic world things can be in two places at the same time, an object can start of at one location undergo disembodiment and suddenly appear at another location or an object can be two things at one and the same time, events in short that never take place in the macroscopic world.What evidence did QM have in support of this view-point of a non-causal sub-atomic world. It could be perfectly understandable, if for instance the electron orbited the nucleus at near relativistic speeds but it doesn’t. Such a viewpoint would also be explained if the photon from time to time traveled faster than light, it never does. So where is the justification for the hypotheses.It is possible to predict the exact number at which a ball in a roulette wheel will stop and to do so before the wheel stops turning. This is possible provided the speed of the ball, it’s angle of trajectory, its spin and weight are known beforehand, together with information as to the height and slope of the partitions between the numbers, the depth of the partitions, the size of the wheel etc., all of this information is fed into a computer where probability theory is used to calculate with a 99.4% accuracy where the ball will finally end up when the wheel stops turning. Twenty years ago this would have seemed an impossible feat, and it is precisely this kind of initiative on the part of man to explore possibilities that QM attempts to extinguish, this is what irritated Einstein. What does QM have to offer as an alternative. QM often boasts of its probability functions that they are the most mathematically logical perfect solution to the problem in hand. Yet if this same probability function were applied to the roulette wheel problem it would never work. Why? Because it has nothing to work with, neither the speed, trajectory, size of the ball or anything else. What can mathematics based on such data hope to achieve?
Our mistake, when we study QM, is that we want to see "position" "velocity" and other classical concepts in things that don't have; the same as if we see from above the shape "C" formed by a group of people and then we go looking for a similar "C" shape in the single persons!
Don't you mean '256 parameters'? i.e. quantum numbers
Mcqueen you are making the mistake of confusing mathematical dimensions in a problem and true physical dimensions. It is easy for the number of mathematical dimensions in a problem to approach infinity they are used initially in analysis to allw many degrees of freedom which are eventually constrained as the model develops. Consider tracking all the atoms in a box full of gas or analysing a long coded message where initially all observations of every particle or sample must be considered as independent "dimensions" in the problem.
Yet, for heavens sake, hear what I have to say! If a photon was the synthesis of a particle and a wave(this exists in our world) . There would be no need for any of this. How can you have an absolute theory, when more plausible theories exist?
this is one of the features that allows electron microscopes ti have a far better resolution than optical microscopes and defines the spatial resolution of high energy colliders like the one at CERN.
Mcqueen you are making the mistake of confusing mathematical dimensions in a problem and true physical dimensions. It is easy for the number of mathematical dimensions in a problem to approach infinity they are used initially in analysis to allw many degrees of freedom which are eventually constrained as the model develops.
Ok, and what establishes how the photon must behave (wave or particle) in different settings?
Note that this model explains how an electron with dimensions of 10^^-13 can emit and absorb photons that are so much largere than themselves.
OK I’ll tell youi what I like and don’t like in Quantum Mechanics:1) I believe in the QM model of the atom, as a central nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons with electrons circling this nucleus.
2) I believe in the manner in which the protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus by exchange of muons etc.,
3) What I don’t believe in is the structure of the photon.
4) And the wave particle duality of light and matter.
QuoteOk, and what establishes how the photon must behave (wave or particle) in different settings?That's the whole point, it doesn't matter, it is a synthesis of a particle and a wave. It behaves naturally according to the circumstances, either as a particle or a wave. Note that this model explains how an electron with dimensions of 10^^-13 can emit and absorb photons that are so much largere than themselves. There is no magic or wave particle duality about it!
How do YOU then define the "size" of an electron?and how do you propose to measure this size?
1. "It behaves naturally according to the circumstances" doesn't explain anything. I could reply: "a photon is a blue angel with golden wings and behaves as it have to do, according to circumstances". Prove me that I'm wrong. Physics is something else.
QuoteHow do YOU then define the "size" of an electron?and how do you propose to measure this size? It ought to be smaller than the size of an atom the Bohr radius is given as 0.5 x10^^8 cms, so the generally acceoted value of the electron raidus as 10^^-13cms must be near enough.
Agreed light arrow. that was precisely what I was getting at the slower an electron is moving the bigger it gets.
Quote Agreed light arrow. that was precisely what I was getting at the slower an electron is moving the bigger it gets.With all due respect to Soul surfer and Light arrow this is utter BS. ( pardon the strong language!) Nowhere , either within the atom or outside it, is an electron traveling at relativistic speeds, or anywhere near relativistic speed (speed of light) so its size cannot possibly change according to its speed as you claim. An electron the size of an atom indeed!!!
Electrons have no measured size.You are confusing the DeBroglie wavelength with physical size; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis. The low momentum of thermal electrons is what gives rise to the small DeBroglie wavelength and hence the high resolution of electron-microscopes.The physical dimensions of the electron have never beem measured; even clasical physics arrives at a size <3 x 10-15m. But they could be genuine 'points'..?!?
Sorry,Re-reading the posts I think you've already covered this.But, don't you find the idea of an electron as a 'point-like' particle quite appealing (regardless of the wave-like behaviour you can also measure)?
Electron diffraction experiments are good enough to show that particles behave as waves, are they not? Have you got a better explanation?
You are very wrong McQueen matter waves associated with electrons are clearly visible and observable and definitely not a figment of an imagination you may not like the fact that our universe is built out of a web of probability rather than some sort of solid rock but it is.
Anyone who wants a 'good understanding' of Physics would NEVER try to say what something 'really is'. All you can say about particles is that they can be seen to behave as if they are waves. That is readily demonstrated. It is a fruitful way of looking at things because it allows you to predict certain behaviours but that is all.Is that point worth arguing about?
Then why do you say, and all of you in this thread have said it. That 'matter' waves are real.
It is all very well to talk about ‘matter’ waves but no-one can say what they are. De Broglie himself described them as ‘waves that correspond to matter.’ But no-one has till today managed to find out what these matter waves are, what is sure is that nothing is ‘waving ‘.