The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
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
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Is the Quantum Mechanics view of things correct ?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Is the Quantum Mechanics view of things correct ?
2 Replies
1269 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
McQueen
(OP)
Hero Member
631
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 9 times
Is the Quantum Mechanics view of things correct ?
«
on:
04/08/2015 15:35:18 »
Epistemology is concerned with the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. Epistemology is primarily concerned with propositional knowledge, or the knowledge that such-and-such is true, rather than other forms of knowledge, for example the, knowledge of how to such-and-such. When applied to the science of physics, epistemology becomes particularly important because it clearly sets out the criteria needed to outline a proposition in physics. Unfortunately, this term ‘propositional knowledge’ is still subject to different interpretations, particularly when it comes to how rigorously it should be applied and particularly in connection with the sub-atomic world on whether it applies or should be applied at all.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
However, the problem of whether or not epistemological mores should be applied to the subject of physics whether on the macro or the sub-atomic level is not the central issue but the question of how or by whom it should be employed. A subject when viewed through one perspective might appear absolutely unacceptable when viewed through another perspective.
When undertaking the critique of an established school of thought, be it one dealing with science or with any other subject such as poetry, mathematics or literature, one of the criteria to be taken into account is the desirability of distancing oneself from the result and therefore of maintaining a neutral outlook. Thus, it is not a question of ‘winning’ an argument for the sake of winning an argument at any cost or of establishing a point through improper or questionable means but of having always in mind a desire to establish the truth of any conclusion that is reached and to reach that conclusion through fair, equitable and well established means.
In this particular instance where a widely established and respected science such as ‘Quantum Mechanics’ is under discussion, it is more than ever necessary to endeavour to maintain a balanced and neutral approach to the facts at hand. Using this approach it will be possible to demonstrate that all is not as it appears in the science of ‘quantum mechanics’.
Perhaps the greatest 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 to the ceiling has nothing on Quantum Mechanics! 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.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
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.
The root of the problem as was hinted at the beginning of this article lies in the perspective from which this problem is viewed. From the point of view of natural philosophers such as Newton, Descartes, Faraday and even Einstein and Henri Lorentz, the preferable approach is to identify the problem and then to think of a new approach that will fit the criteria of the problem that had been identified, resulting in a solution. Thus
identification
of the problem,
isolation
of the problem and
investigation
followed by a possible
solution
for the problem. The same problem when viewed from the view of mathematical statisticians becomes a question of amassing information or put colloquially one of ‘ the more the merrier’, thus the more points of reference that are available on a related subject, the greater are the chances of reaching a statistically acceptable resolution to the problem. Thus the approach of Quantum Mechanics to physics has not focused on identifying and isolating the problem with a view to finding an empirical solution but rather on identifying statistical probabilities resulting from the amassing of data. To aid in this view of Quantum Mechanics is the opinion that the sub-atomic world, is by definition something that can never be defined in terms of the macro world.
From the point of view of Newton, or Descartes or any of the other Natural Philosophers who based their work on ’empirical’ analaysis, the quantum mechanics approach of piling theory upon theory appears not only ludicrous but highly detrimental as also the mathematical devices and methods used. While for statisticians, which is what proponents of Quantum Mechanics are, the problem though involved is capable of being interpreted through statistical probabilities. Take for instance the subject of the propagation of light. Quantum Mechanics has adopted wholesale the theory on the propagation of light proposed by the Danish philosopher Huygens. From Huygens are taken the basic Quantum Mechanics methods of ‘perturbation’, ‘hilbert spaces’ and an ‘isotropic medium’. So far so good, although from a purely common sense point of view, this theory is highly suspect from its inception because quantum mechanics is as its name implies, essentially a particle or ‘quantum’ theory. But if the proponents of Quantum Mechanics do no see the need for seeking for new approaches or solutions, they do not have the same objection to using new justifications for continuing on the course that has been decided, in this case the justification for continuing to support existing, purely wave based theories on the propagation of light was the wave particle duality, where both wave and particle views were acceptable. To paraphrase Mohammed Ali who floated like a butterfly and stang like a bee, light propagated like a wave and arrived as a particle! On top of Huygen’s theory of wave propagation is superimposed, Maxwell’s theory on the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, with its concept of fluctuating electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s theory is also exclusively a wave theory and almost impossible to adapt to a particle theory. Although if this point is raised proponents of Quantum Mechanics will point out that Maxwell’s theory has been ‘perfectly’ adapted to particle theory.
So far so good. But ON TOP of this amalgamation of theories is once again super-imposed Schrodinger’s wave equation, which is one of the cornerstones of Quantum Mechanics, the fact that Schrodinger’s Wave theory requires 276 dimensions, dimension like length, breadth, height and time only referring to completely new and understandably unexplainable dimensions, not degrees of freedom like the space between the tip of the nose and the upper lip as used in facial recognition software, is for the mathematicians and statisticians of Quantum Mechanics of little importance. Statistically speaking it is just a blip on the horizon. Yet the Quantum Mechanics theory on the propagation of light is not yet over, for on top of this seemingly crazy amalgamation (Not to a mathematical statistician) of particle and wave theories is put the capstone of Planck’s theory on the discrete nature of radiation or the ‘quantum’. Yet after ‘successfully ‘ incorporating all of the foregoing theories mathematically into one immense theory on the propagation of light, this final obstacle posed only a small problem and was solved by the introduction of first, second and third quantization or as many quantisations as were needed. ‘Quantisation’ is the method by which errors amounting to 10^12 are written off and brought back to zero so that calculations can start again!
Thus instead of searching for new solutions to the problem of light seeming to posses both wave and particle properties, Quantum Mechanics just heaps theory upon theory and conjecture upon conjecture in the hope that something has got to give ‘Statistically’ somewhere.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
At this point it is necessary to emphasise that the achievements of Quantum mechanics when based, not on philosophy or conjecture but on empirical evidence , are of the highest order. The work done on subjects like the atomic structure, and atomic spectra in the lyman, rydberg and balmer series and in measuring the mass, charge and radius (classical) of the electron, proton, the discovery of the neutron and other fundamental particles and the properties of the photon are unsurpassed in science as to brilliance and veracity. It is only when Quantum Mechanics ventures onto the less than solid ground of the wave-particle duality that the huge accretions and mass of unsupported conjecture, passed off as fact are seen. It should also be stated that the work of Walter Heisenberg, especially his uncertainty principle has added immeasurably to our understanding of the sub-atomic world. This might seem to be a contradictory statement but one must consider that the same philosophical conjectures were first advanced by Immanuel Kant almost a Century earlier, together with the fact that it is reasonable and logical to assume that there are some interactions at the sub-atomic level of which we can never be totally cognizant. In any event regardless of the magnificent achievements of Quantum Mechanics in other fields, the fact remains that on the subject of the propagation of light, the propagation of an electric current, the propagation and formation of radio –waves and a plethora of related subjects Quantum Mechanics has been a dismal failure.
In the end it is just a question of perspective, the natural philosophers against the mathematical statisticians.
Gestalt Aether theory offers an almost painfully simple explanation of the propagation of light and related phenomena, but when considering this, due notice should be taken of the fact that nature itself is not all that complicated, the whole of the wide Universe is composed of only a hundred or so elements and all of the varied and complicated life forms on earth are a result of the code resulting from combinations of only four different amino acids.
«
Last Edit: 05/08/2015 14:58:45 by McQueen
»
Logged
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”
chiralSPO
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
2130
Activity:
28.5%
Thanked: 190 times
Re: Is the Quantum Mechanics view of things correct ?
«
Reply #1 on:
04/08/2015 17:05:07 »
QM doesn't tell us how things happen or why things happen. I wish it could! What it does do is let us understand what does happen, and predict what would happen if we did X.
If a simpler, more elegant theory gave all (or even many) of the right answers, everybody would be using it! As it stands, QM and QED offer the most accurate predictions of how matter, light and magnetism interact. As far as I know, no other models come close when making predictions on a subatomic, or even molecular scale.
Rather than pointing out problems with established theory (most of which don't appear to be problems to me), perhaps you would like to propose solutions or alternatives?
Logged
McQueen
(OP)
Hero Member
631
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 9 times
Re: Is the Quantum Mechanics view of things correct ?
«
Reply #2 on:
05/08/2015 04:24:21 »
ChiralSPO: QM doesn't tell us how things happen or why things happen. I wish it could! What it does do is let us understand what does happen, and predict what would happen if we did X.
If a simpler, more elegant theory gave all (or even many) of the right answers, everybody would be using it! As it stands, QM and QED offer the most accurate predictions of how matter, light and magnetism interact.
My aim was to emphasise the difference of approach between two schools of thought: the
natural philosophers
to which section belong scientists who depended on empirical evidence such as Newton, Descartes , Faraday, Einstein and Lorentz and the
Mathematical Statisticians
such as Max Born, John Von Neuman, Paul Dirac, Walter Heitler and Fritz London.
While the Natural Philosophers depended on Investigation, Identification, Isolation and Solution of the problem, the Statistical Mathematicians depended on statistical interpretations where the final statistical probabilities depended upon the amount of information that was available to analyse. This meant that while statistical mathematicians were content and even willing to incorporate many existing theories into their own theory, the Natural Philosophers with their dictum of finding
new
solutions to unresolved problems languished, admittedly because they were unable to explain many phenomenon that today, with a greater understanding have become clear. Therefore Quantum Mechanics flourished
because
the natural philosophers had no answers to put forward for consideration.
I have
put forward
a practical solution that works well both on the macro level and the sub-atomic level explaining with great accuracy near and far fields as well as how an electron can produce a radio wave or EM radiation that is thousands of kilometers long. That I think is considerably more than Quantum Mechanics achieves, even though according to you it is a
simpler, more elegant theory
. How does this simple and elegant theory explain the fact that no mention is made of the photon in the transfer of electrical energy ( and electric current). Do you really think that a theory based on such outmoded ideas is as simple and elegant as you claim ? In the end it is all a question of perspective.
Logged
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...