The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?

  • 66 Replies
  • 19350 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 10877
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 632 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« Reply #60 on: 11/10/2015 11:47:11 »
Quote from: mathew_orman on 10/10/2015 12:40:27
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/10/2015 11:30:52
Alas, no. Where did the helium absorption lines come from, in your classical electromagnetism? Please show the failure of QM, and the power of Maxwell's equations, to describe their narrow bandwidth.

And your classical model of H -> He fusion is....?

Maxwell created model of EM wave he had no idea how the waves are generated and why the speed of EM waves is constant...

Please answer the questions. Or not - I really don't care, and I doubt whether anyone else does.
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 



Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 133
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« Reply #61 on: 11/10/2015 12:07:46 »
If you want one you need to provide the details scientific experiment where assumed fusion takes place...
Logged
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5243
  • Activity:
    35%
  • Thanked: 430 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« Reply #62 on: 11/10/2015 12:14:04 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 11/10/2015 11:47:11
Please answer the questions. Or not - I really don't care, and I doubt whether anyone else does.
You're not going to get one. He's avoiding engaging in meaningful, logical discussion and like you I've lost interest as well.
These threads are going nowhere, so I'm out.
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 10877
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 632 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« Reply #63 on: 11/10/2015 19:04:40 »
Quote from: mathew_orman on 11/10/2015 12:07:46
If you want one you need to provide the details scientific experiment where assumed fusion takes place...


Just look at the sun and ask yourself why it shines. Don't bother to tell me - I know, as does practically everyone else in this forum. Then answer the questions. Or not. Please yourself - intellectual masturbation won't harm anyone else.
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 

Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 133
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« Reply #64 on: 12/10/2015 07:52:51 »
That is the worst example you could come up with...
Try again something I could put together in a lab...
Logged
 



Offline mathew_orman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 133
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« Reply #65 on: 12/10/2015 08:10:58 »
Quote from: alancalverd on 08/10/2015 22:55:58
Quote from: mathew_orman on 08/10/2015 08:29:18
Here is a plain example where QM fails to explain the phenomena:
Experiment:Silver mirror is mounted on a stage inside vacuum chamber and coherent laser beam of 650nm intersects the mirror at 45 deg.
Using QM explain why reflected beam has also 45 deg.


You cannot conduct the experiment. Lasers use quantum mechanics and therefore do not work on your planet. Please give an example of something you have actually done or seen.
Nothing 'Quantum' about Laser invention:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould
Logged
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 10877
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 632 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is quantum mechanics an accurate representation of subatomic reality?
« Reply #66 on: 12/10/2015 10:51:39 »
Quote
n 1949 Gould went to Columbia University to work on a doctorate in optical and microwave spectroscopy.[4] His doctoral supervisor was Nobel laureate Polykarp Kusch, who guided Gould to develop expertise in the then-new technique of optical pumping.[5] In 1956, Gould proposed using optical pumping to excite a maser, and discussed this idea with the maser's inventor Charles Townes, who was also a professor at Columbia and later won the 1964 Nobel prize for his work on the maser and the laser.[6] Townes gave Gould advice on how to obtain a patent on his innovation, and agreed to act as a witness.

I have highlighted the essential quantum phenomena, which cannot be modelled by continuum physics. Your non-quantum explanation of stimulated emission is now eagerly awaited, along with answers to all the other questions I have posed. 

You get one point for looking up lasers in Wikipedia, but 100 penalty points for not attempting to understand what it says. 
« Last Edit: 12/10/2015 10:54:53 by alancalverd »
Logged
helping to stem the tide of ignorance
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.109 seconds with 49 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.