[McQueen (OP)]

               There seems to be a consensus, in the scientific community that regardless of the complexities involved in Standard Theory, that the mathematics used is so brilliant that, the theory cannot possibly, ever be wrong. This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.

      If one examines the properties of light it is apparent that light when it interacts with matter, follows the laws of reflection, when the term reflection is used it is not referring solely to light reflecting off a mirror but stating that light follows the property of reflection in general, as for instance if one is sitting in the garden and admiring the flowers, the incoming sunlight is reflected off the flowers in  keeping with the classical laws of reflection : angle of incidence = angle of reflection. The same goes for refraction.
 
           Following this line of thought, quantum mechanics does not see electrons as little ball bearings orbiting around the nucleus but as an electron cloud that has no definite location or velocity, in stead it is described as a spread out or smeared out wave function: So, Schr?dinger's equation provides the mathematical framework for understanding the electron cloud as a probabilistic distribution of electrons in an atom. It describes the behavior of electrons around an atomic nucleus as probabilistic wave-functions.

             The convention following from the use of Schrodinger?s wave-function to describe the electron cloud means that no scope for the reflection or refraction process is possible. When the electron cloud absorbs a photon, the subsequent emission of a photon doesn't necessarily obey the law of reflection (angle of incidence = angle of reflection.) The same applies to refraction because the process of absorption and emission involves transitions between quantum energy levels within the atom, which can occur in any direction. The emission of a photon from an excited state is generally isotropic or governed by other factors like the quantum mechanical properties of the atom and its environment. 

           In the context of our modern world with the immense strides that have been made in technology, is this aetiology good enough? Look at the smart phone in your hand. It is processing data at the rate of several gigabits per second. Which means that it is taking input data, processing that data and outputting the answer. Consider that the electron which is miniscule in size by comparison and the infinitesimal sub-atomic distances it has to traverse, should surely be able to oscillate at the rate of several hundreds of trillions of times per second. That this is indeed the case can be seen in the working of atomic clocks that depend on the oscillation of the fine structure valence electrons in the Caesium 130 atom. However, it should be noted that the oscillation of the fine structure electron in the Caesium atom does not result in the emission of photons of that frequency and rate, there is not enough energy in these photons to allow for emission, therefore the energy is transferred to the atom which enters a super metastable state.  Therefore, one of the age-old axioms of quantum mechanics that a single photon cannot possess a frequency but that the term frequency is only applied to the photon as a mathematical artifice to calculate its energy, is challenged and the contention is made that single photon frequency is real. It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.

To be continued with your permission???..

[alancalverd]

It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.

To be continued with your permission???..

Don't bother. If you start with an illogical premise, you will only confuse yourself further.

[McQueen (OP)]

Don't bother. If you start with an illogical premise, you will only confuse yourself further.

           I presume you are referring to Feynman, and concluding that since Feynman has already given an explanation for reflection there is no need to go further: ″It′s a waste of time.″ in your words. Fine I have no problem with that. A look at Feynman′s explanation for the reflection of light might be illuminating. Pardon the pun:

                  Richard Feynman's ″arrow″ representation of reflection involves imagining an arrow representing the amplitude for a particle to go from one point to another. When considering reflection, Feynman proposed reversing the direction of time for the particle, effectively reversing the arrow. So, in Feynman's representation, reflection is visualized as reversing the direction of the arrow representing the particle's path.

                Fine, so Feynman′s explanation that you no doubt rightly, value so highly, involves light travelling backward through time in order for reflection to take place. No problem with that.  But to brazenly state, that this (or other equally bizarre) theory is right and cannot be questioned, might be questionable. Even though I have pointed out to you that these theories are old and dated and do not account for events happening really fast like absorption and emission of photons by electrons within the atom at rates of hundreds of trillions of absorptions and emissions per second. Further that the electron emits and absorbs at these rates is supported by empirical evidence in the form of the working of atomic clocks.   Please, take a second to consider what I am saying, there is no point in being overly hasty.  There is a possibility that you might discern some justice in what I am saying.
 

[paul cotter]

"Could quantum theory be wrong?", yes of course it could be wrong, as could any theory. However quantum theory has been stunningly successful in explaining observations and making predictions and to debunk it would require a better theory and I see nothing on the horizon. Quantum theory is counterintuitive and baffling but that in itself does not make it wrong.

[alancalverd]

   I presume you are referring to Feynman,

No, just to the nonsense you put forward in the sentence I quoted.

[McQueen (OP)]

"Could quantum theory be wrong?", yes of course it could be wrong, as could any theory. However quantum theory has been stunningly successful in explaining observations and making predictions and to debunk it would require a better theory and I see nothing on the horizon. Quantum theory is counterintuitive and baffling but that in itself does not make it wrong.

           Thank you, for a meaningful answer!  I agree with you when you say that both quantum mechanics and relativity are such well-established and entrenched theories that it seems futile to criticise them even at a distance.

              If one could suspend belief for a moment and look at the theory that is proposed in this post, it might begin to make sense. Firstly, when one sees the brilliant manner in which mobile phones work, it is worthy of note that this performance is due to the terrific rate at which these phones are processing data, it is possible to watch movies seamlessly, to use GPS, to connect to practically any location in the world and so on. Speeds of up to 2.5 GHz are the norm, which nominally means that the phone can handle 2.5 billion instructions per second. Given that this is so, how can we be satisfied with the slow, lethargic, hit or miss, randomly directed absorption and emission process in place in quantum-mechanics? Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible? This new theory I am proposing has the answer, photon to electron interaction, not the photon, to entire surface area of receptive substance, interaction.

             Now that the problem has been identified, how can it be remedied?  What steps need to be taken to get on the right track and be in line with our burgeoning technology? Here is what is suggested:
1)   Get rid of wave particle duality and replace it with virtual interactions which would in any case work much better than wave-particle duality.
2)   Get rid of the concept of the electron cloud within the atom and replace it with electron as tiny solid particles orbiting the nucleus.
3)   Get rid of the concept that the electron cannot approach the nucleus, it can. Look at this scenario, The electron is a charged particle with a charge of 1.6 x 10^-19 C. So, suppose you have the scenario of a hydrogen atom with an electron at the n = 3 energy level and a photon of 700 nm wave length approaches. It is absorbed by the electron, the extra momentum sends the electron towards the nucleus, it reaches the nucleus, the two exactly equal and opposite  charges of the electron and proton cancel out, what is left is the extra energy and momentum acquired by the electron when it absorbed the photon. Here, it should be remembered that the electron is 2000 times smaller than the proton, the proton thus resembles a perfectly flat, perfectly smooth, perfectly solid surface of which it recoils according to classical laws of reflection or recoil. So the electron reflects of the nucleus at an angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence. , when the electron reaches its new position at n = 3, it emits a 700 nm photon, the forces of recoil make it retrace it steps to its original position at n = 3, where it absorbs another identical photon to the one it had originally absorbed and repeats the process at the rate of hundreds of trillions of times per second. (10¹⁴ Hz).
4)   This would explain why the propagation of light is rectilinear.

 There is more, a lot more to this theory.

[Origin]

When the electron cloud absorbs a photon, the subsequent emission of a photon doesn't necessarily obey the law of reflection (angle of incidence = angle of reflection.) The same applies to refraction because the process of absorption and emission involves transitions between quantum energy levels within the atom, which can occur in any direction.

This is just a strawman argument since the absorption and emission of photons from electrons is not how refraction or reflection are explained.

[Origin]

Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible?

So are you saying that you think a photon with the wavelength of 500 nm is 500 nm long or something?
I guess in your world that means that a photon in the radio wavelength region can be a meter in length or more??
Those would be some mighty big photons...

[Bored chemist]

That this is indeed the case can be seen in the working of atomic clocks that depend on the oscillation of the fine structure valence electrons in the Caesium 130 atom

Caesium 130 barely exists.

Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible? T

I have a portable radio which is able to receive long wave broadcasts with a  wavelength of 1500 metres or so.
What's the basis for your view that the size of the receiver is important?

It is apparent therefore, that when we speak of a photon possessing a frequency of 500THz, it means exactly that, the electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 500 trillion photons per second.

We are not.
A 500 THz photon carries about 3X 10^-22 J of energy.
If you delivered 5 X 10^ 14 of them per second that would be a power of 0.15 microwatts.
So, even a small number of electrons (say a million) doing that would represent a significant amount of power.
That's impossible.
It gets even more absurd if you do the same simplistic maths with visible light.
So it's clear that you do not understand what's going on.

[Origin]

There is more, a lot more to this theory.

And apparently you don't understand a bit of it.

Addressing the question in the title of the thread I think the answer is no.  The reason the answer is no is because quantum theory accurately predicts the outcome of various experiments.  It very well could be that there can be a better or more accurate theory that will replace quantum theory, but that does not mean quantum theory is wrong.  Newtonian gravitational theory is not wrong, it just does not cover all areas as well as General relativity.  Newtonian gravity will do just fine in trajectories of cannon balls or sending a space ship to land on the moon but it is not so good at determining the deflection of light due to a massive body for instance.

[Zer0]

@McQueen

Nobody Understands it...
Nobody!

Still, Thanks for trying.
It's what Matters.
: )
Someday, We shall have the CheatCodes to this UnIverse!

ps - Nothing right or wrong about a Crescent Moon.
It's profound Beauty lies in it's Incompleteness.

[McQueen (OP)]

So are you saying that you think a photon with the wavelength of 500 nm is 500 nm long or something?
I guess in your world that means that a photon in the radio wavelength region can be a meter in length or more??
Those would be some mighty big photons...

Look a bit closer, I had mentioned a frequency of 500 THz not a wavelength of 500 nm,

[McQueen (OP)]

It gets even more absurd if you do the same simplistic maths with visible light.
So it's clear that you do not understand what's going on.

I will leave it to others to explain to you the meaning of simplistic!

[hamdani yusuf]

There seems to be a consensus, in the scientific community that regardless of the complexities involved in Standard Theory, that the mathematics used is so brilliant that, the theory cannot possibly, ever be wrong. This, in spite of many illogicalities and oversights.

You might like to watch this video. Laypersons might not be aware of the problems discussed there.

Quantum Electrodynamics is rotten at the core

Quantum electrodynamics is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science.  This precision is all based on a single experimental value - the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron called the g-factor.  In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.

00:00 Introduction
01:54 Manhattan Project
03:46 Dirac's equation
04:38 Quantum Field Theory and Ignoring Infinities
05:57 Shelter Island Conference
07:43 Bethe's Lamb Shift
08:19 Schwinger factor
09:50 2nd Conference
12:08 Dyson's Unification
13:55 3rd Conference
15:40 Dyson points out divergence after normalisation
16:31 Doctoring theoretical value to match experiment
18:04 Coefficient rabbit hole
24:12 Muon's g-factor problem
25:14 Fudging the electron g-factor
26:24 Final remarks

I'd also like to read the other's comments or counter points on it.

[hamdani yusuf]

There are some sequels.

Quantum Mechanics: A Theory in Search of an Interpretation

Quantum theory consists of a mathematical formalism together with a vast amount of information concerning how to apply that formalism to electrons, atoms, radiation, field, etc.  As an instrument for predicting the results of experiments, it is enormously successful.  However, despite this, it says little if anything about the electrons, and such that produce the results.  From its inception, it has been a theory in search of an interpretation.  In this episode, we will explore the origins of the quantum world as well as understand what the Copenhagen Interpretation is.

00:00 Introduction
00:31 Origin of the Quantum World
05:37 Copenhagen Interpration
08:07 Copenhagen High Principles
09:55 Problems with the Interpretation

3 Different Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

The Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics embraces the idea that there are no deterministic hidden variables that give rise to the probabilities of the quantum world.  This means that it is not generally possible to predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty and the there is no deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics which could predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty. 

But there are other theories that embrace determinism and that seek out these hidden variables.

00:00 Introduction
00:52 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen padadox
02:56 Bohm's variation of the paradox
05:06 Bell's Theorem
06:40 Many Worlds Interpretation
10:50 Stochastic Mechanics
11:59 Pilot-wave Theory
16:34 Fluid Experiments showing Pilot-wave

[hamdani yusuf]

In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.

https://physicsdetective.com/something-is-rotten-in-the-state-of-qed/

Consa tells us that Dyson said that the Heisenberg S-matrix could be used to calculate the electron?s g-factor, transforming it into the Dyson series. It was an infinite series of powers of alpha, where each coefficient could be calculated by solving a certain number of Feynman diagrams. Consa also tells us that enthusiasm returned to the American scientific community, but that some were critical. Like Paul Dirac, who said ?How then do they manage with these incorrect equations? These equations lead to infinities when one tries to solve them; these infinities ought not to be there?. And Robert Oppenheimer, who thought ?that this quantum electrodynamics of Schwinger and Feynman was just another misguided attempt to patch up old ideas with fancy mathematics?. Another critic was Enrico Fermi who said this: ?There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics. One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism. You have neither?. Well said Enrico.

Leading scientists often disagree with each other, but they are rarely mentioned in textbooks.

[Origin]

Look a bit closer, I had mentioned a frequency of 500 THz not a wavelength of 500 nm,

Really?  It seems that you don't remember what you wrote, let me refresh your memory:

Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself.

If you look closely I think you will agree that you did in fact mention a 500 nm wave length....

[McQueen (OP)]

Quantum electrodynamics is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science.  This precision is all based on a single experimental value - the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron called the g-factor.  In this episode, I want to examine a paper by Oliver Consa who examines the very suspicious coincidences, errors, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalisation infinities which have been swept under the rug.

I remember reading about this the first time and thinking how remarkable it was that this problem of infinities could be so successfully dealt with, a precision of 10¹¹ or something like that was quoted. When I investigated a little further I found that it had nothing to do with dealing with infinities and everything to do with the anomalous magnetic movement of the electron.

[McQueen (OP)]

If you look closely I think you will agree that you did in fact mention a 500 nm wave length....

What difference does it make? 500 nm means a frequency of 600THz and 600 Thz means a wave-length of 500 nm, both of which are well within acceptable levels for atomic spectra from excite atoms. I don't see what you are getting at.

[Origin]

What difference does it make?

It is hard to have an honest discussion with someone who makes a statement and then denies they made that statement.

I don't see what you are getting at.

Here is what I am getting at.  You said:

Also, the unrealistic scenario of where an incoming photon with a wave-length of 500 nm is supposed to be absorbed by an electron that is 5.6 billion times smaller than itself. How is it possible?

You seemed to be saying a 500 nm photon is 'to big' to be absorbed by an electron, which is wrong and silly.  Perhaps I was mistaken about what you meant.  So is there some other reason you said, "How is this possible?"