0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Useful only in its own domain and "Logic"...
Why study theories which reject logical reasoning and continuity of motion?
Science that starts with observations and works for a theory is usually better than science that starts with theory and then looks for verification (Einstein is a notable exception to this rule of thumb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnellingA particle can move from one position to another without being anywhere in between by "tunneling" This phenomenon is very well established both experimentally and theoretically. Your computer and cell phone wouldn't work if it didn't happen.
Quote from: mathew_orman on 06/10/2015 14:48:26Useful only in its own domain and "Logic"...It's a pretty big domain, stretching from astronomy to particle physics. I use QM most days to optimise the imaging, treatment and protection of humans and animals, and in the development of all sorts of electronic gadgets. It's also pretty handy for satellite and inertial navigation, although the plane flies well enough on newtonian mechanics.QuoteWhy study theories which reject logical reasoning and continuity of motion? Because they explain what we see and predict the next observation.
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.
Logic takes no assumptions...
Quote from: alancalverd on 06/10/2015 14:38:43Delude 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.Sure, it gives a description to anything but the description is not useful...But if you still want to argue, then please give a specific example and we will analyze it to see if it is useful or not...
You need an example with detailed experiment...Wiki quotes compare inaccurate model of radiation which since has been refined using classical thermodynamics...QM model was designed to agree with experimental results and not predicted them based on the same input data the Rayleigh had...You need to look at the history of events to find out who first delivered accurate results and provided more accurate mathematical model...
Need one specific example if you want to argue about QM contribution...
Also, one specific example where logic fails reality or uses false assumptions...
Quote from: mathew_orman on 07/10/2015 14:22:45You need an example with detailed experiment...Wiki quotes compare inaccurate model of radiation which since has been refined using classical thermodynamics...QM model was designed to agree with experimental results and not predicted them based on the same input data the Rayleigh had...You need to look at the history of events to find out who first delivered accurate results and provided more accurate mathematical model...For a more recent example (in English, no less!) see this book chapter: http://www.wiley-vch.de/books/sample/352730777X_c01.pdfIt addresses proton tunneling observed in the molecule tropolone (not the at all the same example in my previous post)
Quote from: mathew_orman on 07/10/2015 12:35:50Need one specific example if you want to argue about QM contribution... choose any of those I mentioned and explain it your way. Or try to explain single-electron diffraction without using QM. QuoteAlso, one specific example where logic fails reality or uses false assumptions...Choose any false assumption you like, e.g. that the electron is not subject to the rules of quantum mechanics, and apply logic. Lo and behold, the hydrogen atom shrinks to the size of a proton and the sun becomes a dwarf star.
Quote from: mathew_orman on 07/10/2015 14:22:45You need an example with detailed experiment...Wiki quotes compare inaccurate model of radiation which since has been refined using classical thermodynamics...QM model was designed to agree with experimental results and not predicted them based on the same input data the Rayleigh had...You need to look at the history of events to find out who first delivered accurate results and provided more accurate mathematical model...I recommend downloading and looking at this powerpoint (it's 12 MB): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjACahUKEwiljO3lu7DIAhVBdz4KHTKDBXg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fichf.edu.pl%2Fr_act%2Fact_pl%2Fkarpiuk1w_EN.ppt&usg=AFQjCNFjO8LmzWQnI562MbzVArC3VL0RbA&sig2=BLY4x2-OzpviiaYiMCWG9Q&cad=rjaIt summarizes the experimental work relating to the ultraviolet catastrophe, shows schematics of the experimental apparatus, and the formulas used, devised and solved by the scientists. It contains many citations of the original papers, which contain experimental descriptions and raw data (unfortunately it's in German, and it's old German at that)