0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quantum mechanics is a great way of modelling the interactions of subatomic particles but I don't think it is an accurate description of subatomic reality.
In the same way that the Newtonian theory of gravity could be used to land a man on the moon or was instrumental in the realisation that light had speed.
While Einsteins theories of gravity demonstrated that gravity was due the effect caused by time-space being curved , which allowed the prediction of blackholes .
A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerated frame of reference
I think current understanding of the subatomic scale is still missing some essential element..
Hi PmbPhy thanks for your reply
I think you may have slightly missed the point of my post I think current understanding of the subatomic scale is still missing some essential element .
...but it has flaws which show that it too is missing some fundamental understanding of the structures it describes .
I don't claim to have an answer but I think it's something science shouldn't loose sight of , ..
I could list half a dozen examples where the model fails ...
but this isn't meant as an attack on the standard model ...
The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, as well as classifying all the subatomic particles known.
..only as suggestion that we all remember it's just a model and it's far from complete
Over time and through many experiments, the Standard Model has become established as a well-tested physics theory.QuoteThat means that it's a theory, not a model. A model is described in the followinghttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/For example; to make things easy to calculate we often ignore a lot of complications where reality is too complicated and a simple "model" is easier to use. For example: if you want to determine the time it takes a satellite to orbit the earth in geosynchronous orbit then you model it as a sphere rather than what it really is, i.e. an ellipsoid of revolution with mountains, canyons, varying mass density, etc.Quote from: CorneliusDalvertThe biggest problem is the scale which places true observation of quantum interactions beyond our current ability to view , thanks for the links I'm always curious to learn more.You're most welcome. If you like you can use my private website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/I'm in the process of building a website called New England Physics at http://www.newenglandphysics.org/As you can see there's a forum under it for people interested in physics. Membership is exclusive, by invitation only. You seem like the pleasant, open minded sort. If that's true and you'd like to join then I herein offer you membership. If you want to take it then send me a PM here and I'll tell you what to do in order to join. But first you must read the forum rules and follow them to the letter. They're listed at http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/forum_rules.htm
That means that it's a theory, not a model. A model is described in the followinghttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/For example; to make things easy to calculate we often ignore a lot of complications where reality is too complicated and a simple "model" is easier to use. For example: if you want to determine the time it takes a satellite to orbit the earth in geosynchronous orbit then you model it as a sphere rather than what it really is, i.e. an ellipsoid of revolution with mountains, canyons, varying mass density, etc.Quote from: CorneliusDalvertThe biggest problem is the scale which places true observation of quantum interactions beyond our current ability to view , thanks for the links I'm always curious to learn more.You're most welcome. If you like you can use my private website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/I'm in the process of building a website called New England Physics at http://www.newenglandphysics.org/As you can see there's a forum under it for people interested in physics. Membership is exclusive, by invitation only. You seem like the pleasant, open minded sort. If that's true and you'd like to join then I herein offer you membership. If you want to take it then send me a PM here and I'll tell you what to do in order to join. But first you must read the forum rules and follow them to the letter. They're listed at http://www.newenglandphysics.org/amateur_forum/forum_rules.htm
The biggest problem is the scale which places true observation of quantum interactions beyond our current ability to view , thanks for the links I'm always curious to learn more.
I've removed my last post as it was a steaming pile of ignorance
Quote from: Cornelius I've removed my last post as it was a steaming pile of ignorance ....you have my respect....
If you mean extra dimensions in QM, don't worry, I don't believe they are extra physical dimensions. They are the total number of parameters or coordinates needed to describe a system.
Hi PmbPhy I've removed my last post as it was a steaming pile of ignorance fueled by lager RQM is bombproof I wikied it till my head hurt after rereading the drivel I posted last and I guess I must try harder However I'm still uneasy about extra dimensions but that as they say is another story
Quantum mechanics is a great way of modelling the interactions of subatomic particles but I don't think it is an accurate description of subatomic reality . In the same way that the Newtonian theory of gravity could be used to land a man on the moon or was instrumental in the realisation that light had speed . While Einsteins theories of gravity demonstrated that gravity was due the effect caused by time-space being curved , which allowed the prediction of blackholes .Newton models the effect while Einstein understands the underlying structure ...
It does not support logic of continuity of motion... Thus not able to model physical motion of atoms, electrons, photons and EM waves...Most if not all Molecular Dynamics Simulators use classical mechanics...
Quote from: mathew_ormanIt does not support logic of continuity of motion... Thus not able to model physical motion of atoms, electrons, photons and EM waves...Most if not all Molecular Dynamics Simulators use classical mechanics...That is mostly incorrect. Physical motion can easily be described by quantum mechanics for atoms and molecules. The results are in terms of "probability waves" rather than classical trajectories. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamicsand search on the term "quantum".
Delude yourself, by all means, but humility before the facts is the essence of understanding science.The "logic of continuity of motion" has no validity in the face of facts. Quantum mechanics, far from failing, describes the observed discontinuities in atomic physics.
If you don't believe that the wavelike nature of matter and probability is crucial then you need to study the subject of quantum mechanics a little more in depth. It will give you insights that you may have missed altogether.