0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

In the quantum explanation for the double slit experiment photons do not travel through either slit but materialize at the convergence of possible paths at the detector. Aephraim Steinberg at Toronto University was able to demonstrate that actual photons pass through only one slit and then only impact the target at the points commensurate with double slit interfernece. This and other experiments dispel the quantum explanation.

Is it just as logical to say that light sometimes does not exhibit characteristics that are wave like and sometimes does not exhibit characteristics that are particle like as it is to say that light some times exhibits particle like characteristics and some times exhibits wave like characteristics; equations work both ways. This may mean that light is something else that is unknown and neither a particle or wave. Einstein once said something like everybody thinks they know what light is and everybody is wrong.

Ever since Rutherford was able to demonstrate experimentally the probable physical construction of the atom, as a small but heavy nucleus, around which lighter, negatively charged electrons orbited and Niels Bohr was able to further improve upon the idea. Physics has been becoming more arcane and dislocated from reality with each problem that had to be solved.

Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?

Physics has been becoming more arcane and dislocated from reality with each problem that had to be solved.

So instead of saying in the logical way, yes physics has become more arcane, dislocated and difficult to understand for the layman....

5) Again take the fact that Quantum Mechanics claims that a ‘photon’ will travel for ever, with its energy intact until it is absorbed by an electron in an atom that crosses its path. Yet close observation shows that light obeys the inverse square law, which means that the intensity of light will be diminished inversely to the square of its distance from the source. If the intensity of light is reduced how can it fit in with the statement that a photon will travel for ever till it is absorbed?

As for not being dimensions in a physical spatial sense, they are as far as I know or can gather from reading, not like the 100 terms used to describe a sound wave by any means. In fact Max Born the founder of the probability wave function in Quantum Mechanics has 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.” As you can see Born not only states that more than three dimensions are required but that even in a mathematical sense it is a concept that ........we cannot enter. So either mathematically or physically it involves concepts into which it is not possible for the human psyche to enter but which have to taken for granted.

Regarding the multiple dimensions required for describing atoms: these are better thought of as parameters or coordinates than dimensions in the sense of x,y,z spacial dimensions. The same can be done for describing molecules as a system of nuclei, wherein the coordinates of each nucleus in 3 dimensions must be described to adequately describe the position, orientation and configuration of the molecule. To extend this to even simpler (and more abstract) cases, imagine the description of a polynomial curve in a 2-D plane. Any point in the plane can be described by only 2 coordinates, but to adequately describe a polynomial of degree n, n+1 parameters must be defined. For instance, a horizontal line needs only be defined by the y intercept; a sloped line must be defined by slope and intercept, a parabola must be defined by 3 parameters (there are some choices for which parameters one wishes to use). Another way to think about this is: it takes 2 points to define a line, 3 points to define a parabola, 4 points to describe a cubic equation etc. You could describe these complex functions in multiple dimensions (as is done in linear algebra), but it is not required.Bottom line is: the more complex a system, the more parameters are needed to describe it, regardless of the space that is resides in.

On the subject of multiple dimensions, I would interpret the terms in the same way as ChiralSPO. If we take the example of a complex sound wave we might need over 100 terms to describe it. Mathematically you could be correct in describing these terms as dimensions, but it would be a mistake to imply that these are dimensions outside of space, instead of individual frequencies superposed.

Colin2B: The claim that a photon will travel forever is in no way related to the inverse square law, the 2 are separate phenomena.Light does not obey an inverse square law except in the case of a point source. The inverse square law is due to the geometry of an expanding spherical surface and affects sound, light, gravity, radio wave, balloons and soap bubbles, etc. If we focus a radio signal using a directional antenna it no longer obeys the inverse square law. The same is true of sound and light.It is unreasonable to suggest that physics is arcane and detached from reality if you do not understand the physics of simple phenomena.

Colin2B: No, I can't see that. I see Born using the terms either, or; he does not say that more than 3 physical dimensions are required. What he is saying is that we need to give up the notion of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude ...

Colin2B: think you are doing what so many people seem to do which is to add an unnecessary and confusing interpretation to a straightforward piece of maths. Such interpretations lead to serious misunderstandings.

McQueen: you don't understand the difference between "reality" and "classical physics".Quantum mechanics is very different from classical physics, but MORE close to reality than classical ph. Simple prove: experiments confirm QM, not classical physics...

What is there to understand lightarrow ? See my last post, I have already answered this question. Maybe if you had said 'Don't you understand the difference between Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics it would have made more sense. As things stand I have already stated that my theory seems to give much much better results than Quantum Mechanics which satisfies me that I am on the right track.

Unfortunately much of the foundations that modern Physics is built upon is extremely shaky

I had stated that I agreed with McQueen's post in general but some of his criticism were unfounded (unfounded is probably an understatement). Basic Quantum mechanics is very well established. However, I find his implication that a lot of junk science has been piled up on it to be correct. I can't speak for McQueen but more specifically I am referring to the so called voodoo principles such as non-locality, remote entanglement, retro-causality, instantaneous transmission, etc.. Here is what some leading mathematician think about the present state of quantum theory: "I think there is going to be something else which replaces it", Roger Penrose; "we can't ignore the absurdity of the situation any longer" Frank Wilczek.

Just a question: do you really believe that a nuclear physicist, a physicist of elementary particles at CERN, or one who works on Lasers, or on low temperatures or what you want, in his work using even high level QM, ever say or write one of those words or phrases you have written?Answer: Never.Study QM in a book of Quantum Mechanics, not in a popular book and then you'll understand the difference (at least between QM and "interpretations of QM").

lightarrow: What does "dislocated from reality" mean? What is "reality" in your vision? It's perhaps what you perceive everyday with your senses? Or?

The other half, the half where Quantum Mechanics stepped off the side of a cliff on the basis of statements like, ‘ the complementarity principle which is clearly not a fundamental principle by any construction that can be placed upon the words, I have a lot of reservations about.

Maybe you are not informed that physicists too have a lot of reservations about the complementary principle. Infact you won't find any trace of its use in university textbooks on QM.

Quote from: lightarrowMaybe you are not informed that physicists too have a lot of reservations about the complementary principle. Infact you won't find any trace of its use in university textbooks on QM.Why would you say something like that? Complementarity is the principle that quantities with complementary properties cannot be measured accurately at the same time such as position and momentum. That fact is in all university textbooks on quantum mechanics as are examples which demonstrate it.

I was talking of "Bohr's complementarity principle":...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

Very synthetically, according to this idea, e.g., wave-like and corpuscle-like behaviours are complementary in the sense that experiments where one or the others appears are incompatible: in a single experiment either you see one or you see the other.

Unfortunately all this doesn't have a precise meaning in the QM formalism and for this reason is not considered as something clear.

Quote from: lightarrowI was talking of "Bohr's complementarity principle":...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINThat's a core concept in quantum mechanics and is at the heart of the theory. So your assertion that its not in textbooks is quite wrong.

The uncertainty comes in when there is an ensemble of identical experiments done and the measurements are repeated. Then, while the measured values are still have an error which as close to zero as one desires but the value is now different. The uncertainty principle is about ensembles, not single measurements in a single experiment.

If one of the recognized leaders in quantum mechanics can demonstrate to an audience of nuclear physicist that concepts like remote entanglement and faster than light communication is unnecessary nonsense why would any physicist assume otherwise.

lightarrow: Your last post did not make a lot of sense

but I think I can figure out what you were trying to say. The concepts that I object to are remote entanglement (which is different from entanglement) and the faster than light communication required for the concept of total, non-local, instantaneous quantum field collapse.

Enistein and his colleagues designed the E.P.R. experiment to test some of the aspects of the Bohr interpretation of quantum theory. All of the models of light at the time, except the Bohr model, would require initially entangled particles to maintain their opposite symmetries even after prolonged separation. When the experiment went against Bohr he introduced the concepts of remote entanglement and instantaneous transmission of quantum data

where the different particles were tested in different time frames

As for quoting a popular book, most of my information comes from the physics societies that I am a member of and many of the forum members would not be able to access those references.