Jeremy0922

Quantum mechanics contradicts with the experiment result of light speed

72 posts in this topic

We are discussing the behaviours of the electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom, and motion of them is Essential features that we can confirm.

 

Probability is an interpretation by matter wave, But meet many difficulties that can not be explained.

 

So, I think we have to select an other way to understand Schrodinger equation.

 

But what your not understanding is there's no math for trajectories or classical motion in quantum physics, there's just correlations. The probability of an electron can classically shift (though still not between energy states themselves), such as if I throw a ball, but an electron as an existent object still can't accelerate because when charged particles accelerate they radiate light, which would mean an electron would radiate all its energy away. Electrons don't need to move between energy states because their mechanics automatically correlates to them having new probabilities. I guess a better way to describe it would be that an electron never moves, but it's probability does, though it still doesn't physically shift between energy states. The electron is never measured as moving because only it's probability instantly correlates to a new shape when there is a change in it's parameters such as spin or moentum, which instantaneously changes the probability if where you'd measure an electron in a given volume of space. If you can think of probability as a separate entity from existence or measurement, it should be easier to see.

Edited by EquisDeXD
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it doesn't directly say, but there's still mathematical evidence for what happens, like superposition, and the fact that we can only see the specific statistical results we see as an effect of specific mechanics, such as wave mechanics. Otherwise the transition between states can happen with no trajectory because the electron doesn't move, at the moment it's quantum state changes, it's probability therefore instantaneously correlates to new probabilities, and correlation is not a time dependent phenomena.

 

For sure, if we don't consider superposition then we could not understand many experimental results.

 

Probably the easiest way to think about quantum mechanics "pseudo-classically" is via Feynman's formulation. Basically, a particle take all possible paths between two points, not just the classical trajectory.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure, if we don't consider superposition then we could not understand many experimental results.

 

Probably the easiest way to think about quantum mechanics "pseudo-classically" is via Feynman's formulation. Basically, a particle take all possible paths between two points, not just the classical trajectory.

 

 

Actually, it is the most important thing to understand what schrodinger equation describes?

 

By solution and consequence of Schrodinger equation of hydrogen atom, the structure and spectrum of hydrogen atom could be explained accurately. So, Schrodinger equation describes the structure and structure's change, because the spectrum is radiation caused by structure change of the hydrogen atom, but not the motion of the electron.

 

the hydrogen atom is consisted of the moving electron and proton with the same cycle or frequency, the frequency is a characteristic physic quantity to describe property of the hydrogen atom. when the hydrogen atom is resonating, the spectrum radiation is emitting. Schrodinger equation of hydrogen atom is a math tool to describe the relationship of resonate frequencies of structure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it is the most important thing to understand what schrodinger equation describes?

 

That depends on what you mean by important. Solving the Schrödinger equation is important in applications and gives you quite a direct way to get at eigenvalues and eigenvectors. However you should be aware that the Schrödinger equation is one representation of the Schrödinger picture is equivalent to the Heisenberg picture via the Stone--von Neuuman theorem.

 

It is the CCR (and then its representations) that is fundamental in quantum mechanics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it is the most important thing to understand what schrodinger equation describes?

 

By solution and consequence of Schrodinger equation of hydrogen atom, the structure and spectrum of hydrogen atom could be explained accurately. So, Schrodinger equation describes the structure and structure's change, because the spectrum is radiation caused by structure change of the hydrogen atom, but not the motion of the electron.

Ok so far, I think.

 

the hydrogen atom is consisted of the moving electron and proton with the same cycle or frequency, the frequency is a characteristic physic quantity to describe property of the hydrogen atom. when the hydrogen atom is resonating, the spectrum radiation is emitting. Schrodinger equation of hydrogen atom is a math tool to describe the relationship of resonate frequencies of structure.

How does the Schrödinger equation consistent with this? You can't claim there is electron or proton motion. If you assume there is classical motion, you get the wrong answer, but the Schrödinger is not the only example of this. Thus, one concludes that classical motion is not a valid concept to apply in these situations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the Schrödinger equation consistent with this? You can't claim there is electron or proton motion. If you assume there is classical motion, you get the wrong answer, but the Schrödinger is not the only example of this. Thus, one concludes that classical motion is not a valid concept to apply in these situations.

 

 

Glad to meet you again, swansont.

Schrodinger equation is one of the basic postulations of QM, but it can be deduced from orbit resonance of hydrogen atom by classic theory, as shown in my previous thread "Electromagnetic radiation and steady state of hydrogen atom" on SFN. So, I would like to believe Schrodinger equation is a mathematical tool which could be applied to describe the structure resonance of hydrogen atom, and matter wave is an unnecessary conception.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to meet you again, swansont.

Schrodinger equation is one of the basic postulations of QM, but it can be deduced from orbit resonance of hydrogen atom by classic theory, as shown in my previous thread "Electromagnetic radiation and steady state of hydrogen atom" on SFN. So, I would like to believe Schrodinger equation is a mathematical tool which could be applied to describe the structure resonance of hydrogen atom, and matter wave is an unnecessary conception.

 

There no exact agreement no what a particle actually is, but there's still loads of statistical evidence supporting that there's no classical trajectories.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to meet you again, swansont.

Schrodinger equation is one of the basic postulations of QM, but it can be deduced from orbit resonance of hydrogen atom by classic theory, as shown in my previous thread "Electromagnetic radiation and steady state of hydrogen atom" on SFN. So, I would like to believe Schrodinger equation is a mathematical tool which could be applied to describe the structure resonance of hydrogen atom, and matter wave is an unnecessary conception.

That link would be the model that gets the angular momentum of the ground state wrong? i.e. a failed model?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That link would be the model that gets the angular momentum of the ground state wrong? i.e. a failed model?

 

 

Quantum number l, the angular momentum of the state, is an interpretation about the mathematical solution of Schrodinger equation of the hydrogen atom. As resonance equation, l is the parameter to describe the sub-vibration overlapped on main orbits, l=0 means there is no sub-vibration.

 

I disagree your comment about my new model of the hydrogen atom, because the atomic, molecular, and solid-state structure problems are about the interactions among moving charged particles, they should be solved by electromagnetics. My works just had done it, and I believe it is better than else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum number l, the angular momentum of the state, is an interpretation about the mathematical solution of Schrodinger equation of the hydrogen atom. As resonance equation, l is the parameter to describe the sub-vibration overlapped on main orbits, l=0 means there is no sub-vibration.

 

I disagree your comment about my new model of the hydrogen atom, because the atomic, molecular, and solid-state structure problems are about the interactions among moving charged particles, they should be solved by electromagnetics. My works just had done it, and I believe it is better than else.

 

If you can mathematically prove that your mechanics yield the same results at least 90% of the time as the other equations do, you'll still have to get in line behinf Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Dirac and Hamilton and Bhom and ect. There's already wave mechanics incorporated into a large part of quantum mechanics. The main difference between your theory is that your trying to introduce a "causation", even though there's no observed motion for trajectories between energy states.

By our statistical observations, we never measure the direct "velocity" of an individual electron in the nano-meter realm, it's physically impossible because we measure electrons at a point at an instantaneous moment in time, the only data we have for the physical manifestation of an electron is where it appears, and it never appears to move, it only appears as points according to it's probability.

Edited by EquisDeXD
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can mathematically prove that your mechanics yield the same results at least 90% of the time as the other equations do, you'll still have to get in line behinf Heisenberg and Schrodinger and Dirac and Hamilton and Bhom and ect. There's already wave mechanics incorporated into a large part of quantum mechanics. The main difference between your theory is that your trying to introduce a "causation", even though there's no observed motion for trajectories between energy states.

By our statistical observations, we never measure the direct "velocity" of an individual electron in the nano-meter realm, it's physically impossible because we measure electrons at a point at an instantaneous moment in time, the only data we have for the physical manifestation of an electron is where it appears, and it never appears to move, it only appears as points according to it's probability.

 

 

Thank you, remind me to think about the above problems.

My work is just a start, to remind us that the atomic and molecular level structure of matter can be explained by electromagnetic theory. But to solve all the problems, more scientists are need to participate in order to achieve.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a ground state hydrogen atom, the energy of the electron should be a constant value E0, and the movement of it is described by the wave function. By the Copenhagen interpretation of wave function, the electron could be at any position outside the proton (nucleus), and may be at where the protential energy V of the electron is larger than E0. Then the total energy E of the electron is larger than E0, because of E= V+T, and kinetic energy T is larger (or equal to) zero.

Clearly, the result violates energy conservation law, doesn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[math][H,H]=0[/math] conservation of energy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[math][H,H]=0[/math]

That is only a mathematical rule.

E=T+V is a physical relationship which can be measured.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E=T+V is a physical relationship which can be measured.

So you measure the eigenvalues of the electrons around the Hydrogen atom. These are the only energies that you are ever going to measure the electrons (that are bound) to have. In quantum mechanics we have the rather strange property that we can only really say what is going on when we measure it. meaning, you will never see an electron not in one of these eigenstates and that we have no real idea where it was before we looked for it.

 

But none of this really is anything to do with conservation of energy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you measure the eigenvalues of the electrons around the Hydrogen atom. These are the only energies that you are ever going to measure the electrons (that are bound) to have. In quantum mechanics we have the rather strange property that we can only really say what is going on when we measure it. meaning, you will never see an electron not in one of these eigenstates and that we have no real idea where it was before we looked for it.

 

But none of this really is anything to do with conservation of energy.

If we consider Schrodinger Equation is a standing wave equation to describe the resonace of the hydrogen atom, the contradiction will disappear. And the movement of the electron obeys classical theory and Schrodinger Equation, when the resonance of hydrogen atom takes place. the eigenvalues and eigenfunction is for the description of the vibrations of the electron orbit, and the spectrum of hydrogen atom is produced by the resonace.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we consider Schrodinger Equation is a standing wave equation to describe the resonace of the hydrogen atom, the contradiction will disappear. And the movement of the electron obeys classical theory and Schrodinger Equation, when the resonance of hydrogen atom takes place. the eigenvalues and eigenfunction is for the description of the vibrations of the electron orbit, and the spectrum of hydrogen atom is produced by the resonace.

So, okay. We agree that you will only ever measure discrete changes in the energy and this implies that the electrons are in these resonances: at least when we take the measurements.

 

You will never measure a photon emitted from the hydrogen atom with an arbitrary energy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, okay. We agree that you will only ever measure discrete changes in the energy and this implies that the electrons are in these resonances: at least when we take the measurements.

 

You will never measure a photon emitted from the hydrogen atom with an arbitrary energy.

Absolutely, you are right. By current technology, we can not measure a single hydrogen atom, and also can not measure that the electron moves around its nucleus. But a right theory can describe it.

An electron is moving in a center electric field V®. We could select classical theory to solve that physical problem, and could select QM to solve that. The results are different by the two theories.

Firstly, question yourself,why are there different results for the same problem?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, you are right. By current technology, we can not measure a single hydrogen atom, and also can not measure that the electron moves around its nucleus. But a right theory can describe it.

An electron is moving in a center electric field V®. We could select classical theory to solve that physical problem, and could select QM to solve that. The results are different by the two theories.

Firstly, question yourself,why are there different results for the same problem?

 

One is wrong. That one is discarded.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a right theory can describe it.

An electron is moving in a center electric field V®. We could select classical theory to solve that physical problem, and could select QM to solve that. The results are different by the two theories.

Firstly, question yourself,why are there different results for the same problem?

We know that classical theory is not able to describe the phenomena we observe at the atomic level.

 

I am missing your point of energy conservation in QM.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As your opinion, which one is wrong?

 

The one that doesn't agree with experiment — classical physics.

 

!

Moderator Note

Similar threads merged

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know that classical theory is not able to describe the phenomena we observe at the atomic level.

At present, the mainstream physics think the same as you said above, but I think that is wrong because of wrong analysis for electromagnetic radiation produced by the moving charged particles in the atom, as I said in the previous topic "Electromagnetic radiation and steady state of hydrogen atom" on SFN. Hydrogen atom structure and linear spectrum, including the ground state can be interpreted, according to classical theory.

 

 

The one that doesn't agree with experiment — classical physics.

!

Moderator Note

Similar threads merged

Electromagnetism laws were from the experiments, which have been proved,to be right, and now have been widely applied in many fields.

I don't know why do you say they are wrong.

 

Energy conservation is an other topic, I think it is better to keep two thread seperated.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classical physics is right where you can apply it, but fails in situations where quantum theory must be applied. Photon bunching and antibunching, for example, is not something that can be explained classically — it requires photons. So you can't just make a blanket statement that classical physics explains all. It doesn't.

 

There is a common theme in your posts, that you think there are problems with physics developed after 1900. So it can stay in one thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classical physics is right where you can apply it, but fails in situations where quantum theory must be applied. Photon bunching and antibunching, for example, is not something that can be explained classically — it requires photons. So you can't just make a blanket statement that classical physics explains all. It doesn't.

 

There is a common theme in your posts, that you think there are problems with physics developed after 1900. So it can stay in one thread.

Classical theory need to be developed in order to explain new physical phenomenon. The current theory about electromagnetic wave can not explain the photon, and therefore need us to find a way to deal with it, but not simply abandoned.

As shown in my previous thread on this website and my published paper, considering the pinch effect of the induction magnetic field on the induced electric field, completely self-constrained space displacement current can be used to explain the photon. That is an useful attempt, and success to explain the ground state and spectrum of hydrogen atom. Resonance effect of the structure of atom produced by outside field including photon, might be a an useful idea to understand the "quantum phenomenon".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now