# Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?

• 32 Replies
• 9113 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 552
##### Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« on: 17/07/2015 05:55:55 »
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.  Obviously there is nothing wrong with such a development provided that it meets with criteria for acceptable physical phenomena. Unfortunately much of the foundations that modern Physics is built upon is extremely shaky.  Here are 10 facts that most people would find unacceptable in modern Quantum Mechanics and by extension in modern physics:
[attachment=19827]
1)Perhaps the biggest fault that can be found with Quantum Mechanics is that Quantum Mechanics is without doubt the biggest hoarder in scientific history!The person who never throws away a single newspaper and stacks them up till they fill every room up to the roof has nothing on Quantum Mechanics!
[attachment=19829]
Yet even this process of hoarding is quite selective, anything, even the most outrageous notion that has once been associated with Quantum Mechanics, is enshrined and given unlimited legitimacy. In trying to accommodate all these esoteric ideas Quantum Mechanics has passed from being a science which explains physical phenomena to one that describes arcane philosophies that have little use for ‘reality’ but depend on complicated mathematical constructions to explain the world and the Universe.  The point here is to decide what is acceptable to reason and what is not.
From this point of view many of the problems arising out of Quantum Mechanics is because  it is an outdated and archaic science based on ideas put forward as solutions to problems that are almost a century old, many of which have since been satisfactorily solved using modern day technology.   One of the by-products of using arcane and esoteric solutions, mathematical or otherwise, as a substitute for quantifiable empirical solutions as Quantum Mechanics has done, is that it results in an accretion of proliferating errors that soon cloud the very issues that an attempt is being made to explain or resolve.  It also leads to a bloated theory.
In the beginning Quantum mechanics had become so entangled with itself in trying to explain the physical characteristics of an atom that it had resulted in highly esoteric formulas that resemble the supernatural or psychic more than any reasonable scientific hypotheses. Yet amazingly, probably as a result of the highly esoteric mathematics that it employs, Quantum Mechanics has managed to effectively silence any opposition and to maintain its position at the forefront of physics.

2)   The first, practically insurmountable problem faced by physicists of the early twentieth century, were the direct result of the discovery of the electron and the structure of the atom. The early twentieth century was a period of exploding scientific knowledge. J.J. Thomson had discovered the electron and had documented many of its properties, Robert Millikan and Harvey Fletcher had determined the electron’s charge ($$1.6 . 10^ {-19}C$$)and it was then possible using  classical physics to determine the electron’s mass ($$9. 1 . 10^{ -31}Kgs$$) and its radius ($$2.8 . 10^{ -15} m$$), although the adoption of wave particle duality made the radius of an electron mutable. It was well known by this time that an accelerating electron radiated energy, for instance electrons accelerating in an antenna are responsible for electromagnetic radiation in the form of radio waves and so on.  The problem was this; J J Thomson had proven with his experiments   with cathode ray tubes that electrons were particles, how then did electrons orbit around the nucleus of the atom without radiating away their energy and spiraling into the nucleus?  Physicists who studied the problem came up with unacceptable figures that seemed to indicate that theoretically  atoms should not exist !A crucial problem that faced  early scientists was known as the l’armour formula which predicted that that the electron would release electromagnetic radiation while orbiting a nucleus. Because the electron would lose energy, it would rapidly spiral inwards, collapsing into the nucleus on a timescale of around 16 picoseconds: The time taken for the electron to spiral into the nucleus is shown mathematically below:

Where:
r = classical radius of electron
a= acceleration of electron in its orbit under coulomb forces.
c=speed of light
t = time

$$\frac {a^3}{4r^2C}= 1.6 . 10^{-11}$$

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this result is that atoms and hence matter should not exist ! However since atoms did  obviously exist, it followed that there must be some flaw in   reasoning and an explanation for why electrons did not spiral into the nucleus.  The answer that Quantum mechanics hit upon was that all sub-atomic particles were part wave and part particle or the theory of wave/particle duality in short. Ask yourself whether such ill informed ( considering the state of the art technology of the day ) hastily formulated, highly suspect and esoteric theories have the right to be enshrined as a gospel of scientific knowledge today ?
[attachment=19831]

Since a wave is non-localised, it follows that the problem of the electron spiraling into the nucleus did not arise, since it was no longer a particle that was radiating and losing energy but a wave. In actual fact this is a simplification, since the electron even in wave form has to be accelerating, it should continue to radiate away energy ! Neils Bohr’s explanation was that in certain orbitals the electron does not radiate. and never in the ground state, which is the orbital closest to the nucleus.  If time is taken to think about this statement, someone is sure to ask: “Why not?”
This is just one example of a compromise made between verifiable fact and highly dubious theory raised to the level of a principle that are allowed to exist in Quantum Mechanics. The question is why, are such obvious fallacies and stratagems given credence, many years after they have been disproved.  (This is an example of what I mean about hoarding!) If we take the theory of the electron as wave and particle or wave/particle duality then things begin to become really strange! The problem with the wave particle duality theory is that it involved the proposal of a type of ‘matter wave’ in which no one knew what was waving and the ‘matter’ (i.e., the waves) that were waving were travelling faster than light. No-one still can say what is waving even today! This problem was solved by saying that these particular waves contained no energy and so could travel faster than light! ! One has to ask oneself is such a hypothesis, made eighty-nine or so years ago, acceptable? If so why is it acceptable?  This was not a good start for any logical conclusion to a science. To ‘invent’ a new kind of wave, a ‘matter wave’ that had no actual existence in reality, did not resolve any of the questions that had been raised, for one thing no one, including the person who had discovered ‘matter waves, Louis De Broglie, knew what was waving ! Despite this seemingly insurmountable drawback,  ‘matter waves’ received wide-spread support since there seemed to be no other reasonable explanation that would explain how electrons could radiate energy and yet not ‘fall’ into the nucleus of the atom.
Today with the almost incomprehensible developments that have been made in technology, it has been established in what is known as the ‘Lamb Shift’ that electrons are continuously emitting and absorbing ‘virtual photons’ as they orbit the nucleus. This has been experimentally verified and it explains why the electron does not ‘fall’ into the nucleus since it is constantly both emitting and absorbing energy.  By this exchange of energy the electron is able to maintain its equilibrium.  ‘Virtual photons’ are similar to real photons except that their interactions take place over a very short time period. Thus according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle:
$$\Delta e \Delta t \geq \hbar$$
Thus the Lamb Shift offers a perfectly logical explanation for the fact that the electron does not spiral into the nucleus and it does so using what amounts to classical physics, thereby dispensing with the need for wave-particle duality. Yet Quantum Mechanics has stubbornly continues to support the wave –particle duality in spite of the fact that it was created to explain ‘why’ or rather ‘how’ matter in the form of atoms was able to exist.  Thus even though a perfectly valid explanation has been found that does not require esoteric reasoning such as wave-particle duality, the wave-particle duality has not been abandoned. Stubbornness would probably rate high on the list of ten things that are wrong with Quantum Mechanics: Bohr developed his ‘complementarity principle’ in 1927. He asserted that some mutually exclusive views of nature could both be true, just not at the same time. His prime example was the wave-particle duality. In any given experiment, light (or an electron) could be one or another, but never both.A hundred years ago no-one could have predicted that sound could be given the attributes of a solid particle. It was possible to focus certain frequencies of sound in such a way that the resulting sound wave could shatter stone.  In the medical process known as lipotripsy, sound waves are used to shatter kidney stones. A particle works in a similar way by hitting the object (the stone) with enough force to cause it to break along its weaker zones.
Consider that the ‘complementarity principle’ is a fundamental principle’ of quantum mechanics.  A  fundamental Principle’ according to the Oxford Dictionary means a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. How can the ‘complementarity Principle’ be treated as a fundamental truth when it is not only open to two interpretations but is demonstrably shown to be anything but fundamental  as can be  seen for instance in the use of ultra sound to break kidney stones, where a wave is being used to shatter a solid object (i.e., having the properties of a particle as well as a wave) . Why cannot the same idea apply to photons also ?  The answer of course is that it can! One interpretation of the photon can therefore be that it is both wave and particle (i.e., a wave possessing energy equivalent to a particle.)
[attachment=19833]

The particle like attributes of sound waves as used in lipotripsy offer a possible explanation of how a photon can be simultaneously both a wave and a particle possessing the properties of each. This view of light as wave/particle would not only resolve many issues but also the fundamental one of why i] Planck’s constant exists in the first place !  Yet this explanation, that photons might simultaneously possess both wave and particle properties  is absolutely unacceptable to Quantum mechanics.  i.e., In any given experiment light could be a particle or a wave, but could never possess both properties at the same time.   Yet in spite of being a ‘statement’ that is unsupported in that it is open to debate, and to different interpretations,  wave/particle duality is taken as an incontrovertible law by Quantum Mechanics, anyone bringing up an objection or an alternative solution is immediately ostracized in the most severe manner imaginable. The quantum mechanics ‘complementarity principle ‘ is unsupported by evidence, while illustration offering the example of lipotripsy provides an empirical basis for the fact that a simultaneous wave-particle entity can exist.   It is impossible to even attempt to imagine the difference between the manner in which scientists like Newton would have approached such a situation and the brazen brassy boldness with which Quantum Mechanics asserts something questionable.
To be contd:

[/size]
« Last Edit: 17/07/2015 06:01:22 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 552
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #1 on: 17/07/2015 07:05:28 »
Contd.....\
3)   The ‘complementarity’ model and the mutually exclusive properties of particle and wave imposed on light were not the only problems that wave/particle duality posed.  There was also the problem of Schrodinger’s wave equation.  Schrödinger came up with the "wave packet" to represent the electron. An electron appears to be a particle. But the waves would disperse. A multi-dimensional space was required. Helium required a 6-dimensional space, lithium got 9 dimensions and uranium needed 276. Try as he might, there was no way for Schrodinger to prevent this dispersal of the wave packet. Since it was made up of waves that varied in wave-length and frequency, as the wave packet travelled through space, it would soon spread out as individual waves moved at different velocities. An almost instantaneous coming together, a localization at one point in space would have to take place every time an electron was detected as a particle. Secondly when attempts were made to apply the wave equation to helium and other atoms, Schrodinger’s vision of the reality that lay beneath his mathematics disappeared into an abstract multi-dimensional space that was impossible to visualize.
[attachment=19835]

The wave function of an electron encodes everything there is to know about its single three dimensional wave. Yet the wave function for the two electrons of the helium atom could not be interpreted as two three dimensional waves existing in ordinary three dimensional space. Instead the mathematics pointed to a single wave inhabiting a strange six-dimensional space. In each move across the periodic table from one element to the next, the number of electrons increased by one and an additional three dimensions were required. Schrodinger was never able to come to terms with the fact that his construct did not represent ‘reality’. Yet the question remained how could a system that required so many dimensions, the three dimensions we live in are hard enough to explain, represent how the atom behaved? Is a system requiring 276 dimensions acceptable to a physical explanation at any level ? Most probably not, yet it has been accepted for almost a hundred years !At this point Max Born ( a statistical mathematician and physicist)  put an end to the discussion by claiming that the waves did not have a physical existence but that they were probability waves. This still gave rise to problems because each of these probability waves represented the possibility location of an electron and it was only when it was located that the wave would collapse and the position of the electron be known. I think it is clear that the Quantum Mechanic explanations were highly convoluted and not very realistic.Quantum Mechanics is essentially a statistical science, it holds the view that ‘there is no description of reality’............
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.”
4)   Wave/particle duality also called for light to be disembodied during its passage from one point to another. Can a seemingly solid particle like an electron or a neutron be in two places at once ?  Again is this acceptable to most people ? Apparently it is. Even though our senses and every physical experience  might tell us something different. Here again two or more common sense explanations for the phenomena do exist. Which is preferable the eerie esoteric quantum Mechanics explanation or theone that is based on sound empirical evidence ?

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?

6)   The question is are there any other such glaring anomalies in Quantum Mechanics, the answer is that there are. Take for instance the Hugyen-Fresnel principle of light propagation. Every point on a wave-front may be considered a source of secondary spherical wavelets which spread out in the forward direction at the speed of light. The new wave-front is the tangential surface to all of these secondary wavelets. Huygens' principle can be seen as a consequence of the isotropy of space—all directions in space are equal. Any disturbance created in a sufficiently small region of isotropic space (or in an isotropic medium) propagates from that region in all radial directions. The waves created by this disturbance, in turn, create disturbances in other regions, and so on. The superposition of all the waves results in the observed pattern of wave propagation. Isotropy of space is fundamental to quantum electrodynamics (QED) where the wave function of any object propagates along all available unobstructed paths. When integrated along all possible paths, with a phase factor proportional to the path length, the interference of the wave-functions correctly predicts observable phenomena. Every point on the wave front acts as the source of secondary wavelets that spread out in the forward direction with the same speed as the wave. The new wave front is found by constructing the surface tangent to the secondary wavelets. As can be seen Quantum Mechanics adopted the Hugyens-Fresnel principle whole heartedly, the only problem is that the Hugyens-Fresnel principle; like the concept of 'matter waves, like the concept of spin, like the concept of wave-particle duality is fatally flawed, the secondary wave-lets generated by the primary wave can move only in a forward direction and till today no explanation is forthcoming for this.  How can a wave propagating in an isotropic medium move only in a forward direction. Quantum mechanics also adopted Maxwell's theory of propagation which had already been superimposed onto the Hugyen's - Fresnel Principle. Now the pattern emerges that answers the question of why Quantum Mechanics is so horribly convoluted and involved in its mathematical descriptions.  It is jerry built and super-imposed onto the Hugyen's-Fresnel Principle, Maxwell's Theory of light propagation, Schrodinger's wave, Planck's quanta, nothing has been left out everything is adopted whole hog, no new ideas , no new discoveries. This gives rise to the huge bloated towering !Quantum Mechanics theory. Looked at whole like this it is distinctly unappetising.
7)   In 1801 Thomas Young devised an experiment called the Double Slit Experiment that showed that light had all the characteristics of a wave. Only waves undergo diffraction and interference. The Experiment is illustrated below:

[attachment=19837]
Thomas Young’s Double Slit experiment seemed to contradict newton’s experiments with light that indicated that light was a particle. With the coming of Quantum Mechanics the Double Slit experiment was refined to allow for individual photons to pass through the slits, an amazing phenomenon was seen. When both slits were open even though the ’single’ photon would have to pass through one of the slits over time an interference pattern was built up. When only one slit was open a diffraction pattern was built up over time. This seemed to imply that (a) either the photon knew that the other slit was open OR (b) the photon itself split up and followed multiple paths in order to pass through both slits at once, both ideas support the wave like property of particles. The experiment was repeated using electrons, neutrons and alpha particles always with the same results, an interference pattern when both slits were open and a diffraction pattern when only one slit was open! Obviously to the proponents of Quantum Mechanics this was the ultimate proof off wave particle duality. BUT hold on for detractors of Quantum Mechanics this experiment was the ultimate proof of something else. Look at the Diagram below:
[attachment=19839]
In this version of the experiment it is assumed that an undetectable Aether exists, undetectable to the human sense but very apparent to micro particles. Since the Aether exists everywhere, when both slits are open it will travel through both slits and manifest as an interference pattern. If single particles are now released they will follow as illustrated in the diagram above the path of the interference pattern created by the Aether. When only one slit is open the aether will make a diffraction pattern and this is what the micro particles will show. Thus the Double Slit Experiment can be taken as the ultimate proof of the existence of an Aether !

In a branch of Quantum Mechanics known as Quantum Electrodynamics, which in brief tries to explain Maxwell's propagation of electromagnetic waves in terms of quanta or particles, a process called quantisation is used in which disparities numbering in the region of $$10^ {12}$$ are ‘normalised’ or brought back to zero and then the maths continues just as if nothing had happened. The result of this weird mathematics is that the electromagnetic field is described as a fluctuating field consisting of what are known as “virtual” quantum entangled pairs, which are constantly undergoing a process of creation and annihilation. Thus when a “real“ photon (as in an electromagnetic field ) comes into contact with these quantum entangled pairs, which according to quantum mechanics permeate the whole of space, the result is the annihilation of the original photon and the creation of a new positron/electron pair which in turn is annihilated to give rise to a photon with exactly the same energy as the original photon. One has only to study this scenario very briefly to realize that it is immensely complicated . How for instance are the enormous range of photon energies accounted for ? Or how for that matter, do low energy electromagnetic waves consisting of quantum energy  values of $$10^{-12} eV$$ and less manage to produce electron/positron pairs? It is not surprising then that these difficulties are reflected in the mathematics which attempt to define this process resulting in numerous infinities which are conveniently written off in a process called re-normalization and which by any other word would be classified as a form of cheating. Quantum Mechanics also uses a mathematical stratagem that allows for division by zero ! There I have said it.  Division by zero!
11)   Quantum Mechanics offers no explanation for why the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Quantum mechanics offers no explanation for the planck constant.
Another rather nauseating quality of Quantum mechanics is that it is too ready to put down scientists like Newton and Descartes saying that their view of the Universe was that of a clockwork mechanism. Newton, Descartes, Faraday, Galileo and others of their ilk would have   considered it a mortal sin to put forward a hypotheses as a fundamental principle. Quantum mechanics is replete with instances where such hypotheses have been elevated to fundamental principles with little or no empirical support.

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### sciconoclast

• Sr. Member
• 149
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #2 on: 18/07/2015 16:38:20 »
I agree with you in general but some of your criticisms are unfounded. Your last picture is a great illustration of David Bohm's pilot wave theory in which two bound Dirac neutrinos form the photon and their rotations generate a pilot wave in the ether.  I personally believe that Bohm was off in the right direction and Bohr was not. However, I think that experiments and observations demonstrate that the photon substructure, the generated waves, and their interaction is much more complicated than Bohm's original description; but, I cannot introduce my hypothesis here.

As you mentioned there are no real waves in quantum theory. Or mathematical waves or wave particle duality for that mater; perhaps it should be called the duality of non-locality and actualization.  There is only a mathematical abstraction consisting of vectors radiating out from a point of origin along which intervals correspond to positions at which a photon could actualize (come into existence). The time distance intervals of quantum theory produce the same results as the less complicated wave functions which is why the wave functions are used by most physicist.

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.

To counter some experiments that show light to be a real interfering wave and a real particle there has been a new version of quantum theory that has been interjected into the popular media recently. In this version light is a superposition of both the probability for wave like behavior and particle behavior. If you test for wave like behavior you get wave like behavior and if you test for particle like behavior you get particle like behavior.

This is sort of like saying if you test to see if Schrodinger's cat is dead it will be dead but if you test to see if it is alive it will be alive. It is an example of the increasingly complicated and convoluted logic of quantum theory that you mentioned. Another is remote entanglement which does not hold up under scrutiny.

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.

Your post is great. I am glad to see someone is raising these questions.

#### sciconoclast

• Sr. Member
• 149
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #3 on: 18/07/2015 21:23:40 »
I have posted a listing of some of my youtube videos which are relevant to the subject in the New Theories Section

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 552
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #4 on: 19/07/2015 04:05:01 »
Quote
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.
I was wondering about these type of experiments. The other day I was reading about an ‘experiment’ that proved finally without a doubt that FTL (Faster than light ) communication and AAD (Action at a Distance) were a reality. A photon was cut in half, one half was kept in Tokyo and the other half was sent to Australia and an interaction with one half reflected in a change in the other half. With claims like this any new theory that tries to make headway  is going to have a tough time!
Quote
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.
What if it is just what it seems to be, namely a wave that has the energy of a particle  I have put forward such a theory
here
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4806
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #5 on: 19/07/2015 12:54:13 »
Quote
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.

Not a good idea to begin a thesis with obvious poppycock. The problem with the Bohr atom is precisely because it contradicts reality. Quantum mechanics begins with reality and develops mathematical models that reflect what actually happens, not what classical mechanics suggests ought to happen.

It is indeed a complicated and difficult subject, especially for those whose intellectual vanity will not accept irreversible scalability, but why should it be easy?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• 8730
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #6 on: 19/07/2015 13:32:28 »
I got this far "Physics has been becoming more arcane and dislocated from reality.. " and then i lost interest because, of course, physics has becoming less dissociated with reality as it progressed.

If you don't like it, that's not reality's problem.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2784
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #7 on: 19/07/2015 14:44:23 »
Quote from: McQueen
Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
The answer to this question is: No!   I'll explain why as I go along.

You claimed the following:
Quote from: McQueen
Physics has been becoming more arcane and dislocated from reality with each problem that had to be solved.
That's quite wrong. Physics is not a thing or a statement of anything. Physics is a field of science. It's the study of nature. You're not talking about physics. You're talking about physical theories which physics, being the study of nature, produces. The more we learn the closer to reality our understanding of nature becomes. Now comes the tricky part. To understand this we have to consider how our senses developed. We live in the macroscopic world. By that I mean that what we observe with our senses are macroscopic objects. We’re too large to be able to sense individual photons nor do we have the ability to track individual electrons or protons with our senses. As such our minds developed in parallel to those senses so that the worked as one single unit. That unit cannot detect single subatomic particles nor can it track single subatomic particles. That’s how our minds developed. When our minds developed to a certain extent and were able to demand that our bodies construct gadgets which were able to extent its senses things became clearer and more exact. It’s not logical to expect that we’d learn nothing new with this new extension of the senses. We should have expected nature to be radically different and that’s what nature turned out to be, i.e. radically different than we first observed it to be. That’s why nature appears to us to be so bizarre.  So your claim that Physics has been becoming more arcane and dislocated from reality with each problem that had to be solved. is quite wrong for that reason.

That was a lot of work so I'll go on later in another post when I'm not so tired and drained from having to figure out exactly how to explain that to someone who appears to be a layman in physcis. I hoped that helped.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 552
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #8 on: 19/07/2015 17:12:28 »
If you truly believe that physics has not become more arcane and dislocated from reality for whatever reason, your own post disavows it.  So instead of saying in the logical way, yes physics has become more arcane, dislocated and difficult to understand for the layman, for this reason, and then stating whatever the reason is. You say, no you are quite  wrong and then come up with a long explanation about how our minds developed to deal with the macro world, making it difficult to even comprehend the sub-atomic world, which like Alice in wonderland entering through the rabbit hole has all of these wonderful properties that are only visible through a looking glass containing 276 dimensions. What you cannot seem to understand and what does not at all seem to be able to penetrate into the persona that has been created to justify your (speaking of QM in general) take on the sub-atomic world, is that trying to define it in terms of 276 dimensions, whether mathematical or otherwise,  is not reasonable, in fact it is very unreasonable bordering on total insanity. Claiming that the photon can only be a wave or a particle , just not both at the same time, is unnatural, untrue and given the circumstances, unjustified. What more can I say, none of these statements seem to get anywhere.  Further IF you deign to read the two posts on my theory that I have been allowed to make at this forum (in New Theories), you will if you will allow yourself, be able to see that a simpler, more streamlined theory exists that does NOT have to resort to  276 dimensions and to false statements, for to claim something (complementarity) as a fundamental principle, when it so obviously is not, is just that a falsehood. In fact it (My theory) gives a much more rational, clearer description of phenomena taking place in the sub-atomic world than anything I have read about in Quantum Mechanics.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• 8730
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #9 on: 19/07/2015 17:34:05 »
"If you truly believe that physics has not become more arcane and dislocated from reality "
Those are two separate things.
It's true that complex physics is understood by fewer people than simple physics.
But the same is true of sewing.
So yes, complicated needlework is "arcane" and so is complicated physics.

But physics is not becoming dissociated from reality, but more associated with it.
it does a better job of explaining what the universe does.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 4806
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #10 on: 19/07/2015 20:15:07 »

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

Arcane, yes. Difficult to understand for the layman, perhaps. But dislocated? Far from it. The whole point of physics is to generate the best achievable model of reality - the very opposite of dislocation.

A modern car is very easy to drive. Most of them start "on the button", have superbly balanced power steering, and all sorts of adaptive torque control and suspension. Even the tyres last longer than they used to. Compared with a 1920s car, it is vastly more complicated and few garage mechanics can claim to be able to repair any vehicle, whereas diagnosing and fixing any pre-war Ford or Rolls was pretty much the same, and driving either above 30 mph required a degree of skill and finesse that is nowadays found only among  professional rally drivers.

Thus with physics. Our understanding of the universe is way beyond anything Aristotle could have comprehended, to the extent that we can land a probe on a comet and generate images of brain function, but few of us, even professionals, can do useful work across the entire field.

Civilisation is specialisation. And it is good.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 2024
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #11 on: 20/07/2015 00:20:12 »
There are a number of problems with your post, but lack of time means I will pick up only 2.

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?

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.

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.

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 ... This is born out by the very maths he evolved.
It is problematic to take quotations from the bible or elsewhere out of context. As you know Born made his initial contribution to quantum physics by using the maths of matrices. With these he would be very familiar with using them for probability calculations and handling multiple dimensions. However those dimensions are as described by ChiralSPO and myself in the posts I have included below.
To take a simple probability example, the sample space for rolling 2 dice can be shown as a 2 dimensional table, 3 dice in 3 dimensions and 4 dice in 4, etc. however when rolling 10 dice no one would suggest that the dice have performed multidimensional acrobatics to provided the result of the throw!
Mathematicians use the term space in a number of ways that do not imply similarity to the physical space we live in. In particular for a set of particles in 3 dimensional space, the coordinates and vectors for those particles describe what is known as a configuration space. For 10 particles in our 3 dimensional space the configuration space would require 30 dimensions,  and this is what Born was talking about, he not suggesting that we live in a multidimensional space.

I 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.

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.

and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 552
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #12 on: 20/07/2015 01:31:08 »
Quote
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.
Such comments as: It is unreasonable to suggest that physics is arcane and detached from reality if you do not understand the physics of simple phenomena. Are definitely derogatory and uncalled for, especially when the one making them does not seem to have a very clear idea of what he is talking about.
True everyone knows (or once knew) about antenna gain, but the point is over any type of distance, the gain is lost and the transmission once again follows the inverse square law. As you had pointed out (perhaps unknowingly:  sound, light, gravity, radio wave, balloons and soap bubbles, etc. ) this is due to the isotropy of space, or is it ? That is one of the questions that my theory discusses.
Quote
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 ...
Maybe too many late nights, read it again.
Quote
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.
Schrodinger’s Wave function or the probability function, like it or not involves 276 dimensions, mathematical or otherwise, like it or not every particle mentioned in quantum mechanics is described by this function, if you can accept it or that it is necessary, well and good. I have put forward a theory where it is not necessary and which works much better both in description and in yielding measurable quantities. Explains phenomena such as Planck’s constant and the speed of light as constant the propagation of light, the propagation of electricity, gravity and it does all this without resorting to a 276 dimension explanation.  Quite an achievement ! Good Morning, Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Goodnight!
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #13 on: 20/07/2015 08:22:51 »
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...

--
lightarrow
« Last Edit: 20/07/2015 08:24:26 by lightarrow »

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 552
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #14 on: 20/07/2015 10:30:45 »
Quote
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.
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• 1911
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #15 on: 20/07/2015 13:14:20 »
McQueen, does your model work for molecules too? QM is quite cumbersome for calculating the electronic structures of complex molecules (but the predictions made are usually in excellent agreement with what we observe in the real world.) It sounds like you have only focused on atoms so far, but if you have found a shortcut that works in more complex systems, I would like to hear more about it.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #16 on: 20/07/2015 13:26:36 »
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.

Statement n. 1:
Quote
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.
What does "dislocated from reality" mean? What is "reality" in your vision? It's perhaps what you perceive everyday with your senses? Or?

--
lightarrow
« Last Edit: 20/07/2015 13:28:26 by lightarrow »

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #17 on: 20/07/2015 13:32:43 »
Statement n. 2:
Quote
Unfortunately much of the foundations that modern Physics is built upon is extremely shaky
False. It was "shaky" at the beginning of XX century, when black body radiation, photoelectric effect and several other things couldn't find any correct description with the foundation of physics at the time.

--
lightarrow

#### sciconoclast

• Sr. Member
• 149
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #18 on: 20/07/2015 14:02:40 »
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.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #19 on: 21/07/2015 19:23:28 »
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?
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

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2784
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #20 on: 21/07/2015 22:36:33 »
Quote from: lightarrow
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?
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").
Nice response.  [^]

#### McQueen

• Hero Member
• 552
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #21 on: 22/07/2015 02:52:05 »
Quote
lightarrow: What does "dislocated from reality" mean? What is "reality" in your vision? It's perhaps what you perceive everyday with your senses? Or?
I think that Quantum Mechanics is the most magnificent, amazing, wonderful, sublime achievement of the human mind that has ever been achieved, or at least ONE HALF of it, the half that depends on observation and empirical evidence, and is responsible for such achievements as the atomic structure, spectral analysis, charge of the electron, electron mass, and other such measurements and so on. 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. I know that the answer to this is but there are no observations that can be made on the sub-atomic world, only statistical probabilities. I have put forward a theory that does explains many of the subjects that need to be better defined, including planck's constant, propagation of light, the propagation of electricity in a wire carrying an electric current, the speed of light as a constant and so on. Imagine planck's constant has been in existence for more than a 100 years and because of the attitude that nothing could ever be discovered about the sub-atomic world only statistical surmises and probabilities, no-one has bothered to find out what planck's constant actually is, or rather( because the claim will immediately be 'we know what it is') why it exists.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2015 03:31:30 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #22 on: 22/07/2015 12:56:23 »
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.

--
lightarrow

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2784
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #23 on: 22/07/2015 13:33:51 »
Quote from: lightarrow
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.
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.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #24 on: 23/07/2015 15:17:02 »
Quote from: lightarrow
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.
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":
http://www.britannica.com/science/complementarity-principle

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.

What you say instead, Pete, it's not a principle but a theorem of QM (the old "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" or the fact there are operators associated to observables which don't commute).

--
lightarrow

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• 2784
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #25 on: 23/07/2015 16:06:27 »
Quote from: lightarrow
I was talking of "Bohr's complementarity principle":
http://www.britannica.com/science/complementarity-principle
That'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.

Quote from: lightarrow
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.
That's incorrect. An experiment is not to be confused with a measurement. And the complimentary principle is not about simultaneous measurements but about measurements that are taken in rapid succession. As such the value of the measurement of, say, position and momentum have an error that is as close to zero as one desires. 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.

Quote from: lightarrow
Unfortunately all this doesn't have a precise meaning in the QM formalism and for this reason is not considered as something clear.
Of course it has a precise meaning and it's very clear.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #26 on: 23/07/2015 18:16:52 »
Quote from: lightarrow
I was talking of "Bohr's complementarity principle":
http://www.britannica.com/science/complementarity-principle
That'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.
It's not one of the postulates of QM.

--
lightarrow

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #27 on: 23/07/2015 18:23:20 »
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.
And where I have wrote that?

--
lightarrow

#### sciconoclast

• Sr. Member
• 149
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #28 on: 24/07/2015 23:22:31 »
In answer to Lightarrow's as to whether a nuclear physicist would ever make the kind of comments I had attributed to some leading mathematicians and theorist: yes.

As I stated before in previous post, Lee Smolin stated in the early part of his book, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, "most physicist do not like quantum theory". Of course he was referring to the more crazy aspects that I mentioned. Lee Smolin was a co-founder of Perimeter Institute which was establish to study quantum physics. He also holds a Nobel prize in physics and is the Originator of Standard Nuclear Theory.

If you go to a thread that I started some time ago on this forum, "is remote entanglement not proven", you will find a lot of discussion about Sidney Coleman's lecture, "Quantum Physics in your Face". 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

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #29 on: 25/07/2015 09:03:06 »
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.
It seems you don't have clear that quantum entanglement does exist but cannot imply faster than light communication in the sense you cannot use entanglement to send informations faster than light and this is alraeady known from decades.

--
lightarrow
« Last Edit: 25/07/2015 09:05:25 by lightarrow »

#### sciconoclast

• Sr. Member
• 149
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #30 on: 25/07/2015 20:17:19 »
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 to save his concept of non-locality. I think this is called circular reasoning.

When a later version of the experiment, where the different particles were tested in different time frames and which test was first was different to different observers, the Bohr concepts ran in to trouble again. This led to the idea that quantum theory is not restricted to time constraints and wilder concepts such as retro-causality.

Recently it was shown that with multiple entangled particles and time frames the math for the Bohr interpretation becomes self conflicting.

These concepts are the type of junk science that I was referring to has having been piled onto an other wise basically good theory.

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.

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• 4586
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #31 on: 26/07/2015 22:37:06 »
lightarrow: Your last post did not make a lot of sense
Which part and why?
Quote
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.
Are you aware of the fact that relativity is not touched at all from that because there isn't any physical object, nor information, that can travel faster than light?
Quote
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
No, not "instantaneous transmission of data" at all; you seem not to distinguish that from "instantaneous influence"; they are completely different things.
Quote
where the different particles were tested in different time frames
What does it mean?
Quote
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.
Just to be sure we are talking of the same thing, how do you write an entangled state between two particles in Dirac notation?

--
lightarrow

#### sciconoclast

• Sr. Member
• 149
##### Re: Are these Ten Things about Quantum Mechanics, wrong?
« Reply #32 on: 01/08/2015 18:40:07 »
I thought if I waited someone else would jump in after your last comments; ques not.

I am not use to seeing the word influence in relation to quantum entanglement. When one entangled photon or electron, etc. is tested for and actualizes to a specific set of characteristics from a larger set of possible characteristics the other particle also actualizes from a larger set of possible characteristics to the opposite set of characteristics. How can this take place without transfer of information.?

We are both in agreement that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light; the question then is does Bohr's principle of remote entanglement require it.

As for the importance of relativity: If the actualizing of the first particle to be tested determines the characteristics of the other particle then which actualization occurs first becomes important and very complicated when they occur in different time frames.

As soon as I figure out how to upload an equation to this site I will post the one you asked for which is irrelevant to the discussion. If I cant post it I will send you a personnel message.