Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Quantum mechanics contradicts with the experiment result of light speed


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#21 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 6,845 posts
  • LocationWarsaw, Poland

Posted 19 October 2012 - 12:20 PM

As EquisDeXD has also pointed out, there is no defined trajectory between measurements.


Indeed, and this always makes me scratch my head!

Roughly, quantum mechanics tells you about what to expect when you make a measurement, but nothing about what happens when "you are not looking"!
  • 0
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#22 EquisDeXD

EquisDeXD

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:03 AM

A field does propagate to where it already exists or light waves could not travel after the first photon started

They don't need to travel when their uncertainty already covers the area within the field. Because their uncertainty extends to such, they can interact with anything within a field, thus making their effects real.

Indeed, and this always makes me scratch my head!

Roughly, quantum mechanics tells you about what to expect when you make a measurement, but nothing about what happens when "you are not looking"!


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.

Edited by EquisDeXD, 20 October 2012 - 03:24 AM.

  • 0

#23 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:39 AM

Only if you have measure its location. As EquisDeXD has also pointed out, there is no defined trajectory between measurements. You can't impose classical physics on this and expect valid results.




Whether or not it can be measured, the position of the particle is a fundamental physical quantity for the physical theories including QM to describe the phenomenon. For example, the potential V( X ) of the electron in hydrogen atom need known the precise positions of the proton and the electron for its Schrodinger equation.

Indeed, and this always makes me scratch my head!

Roughly, quantum mechanics tells you about what to expect when you make a measurement, but nothing about what happens when "you are not looking"!



If we consider the Schrodinger equation as a resonant equation of hydrogen atomic structure, many contradictions caused by matter wave could be avoided.
  • 0
Trust Science. Think independently

#24 EquisDeXD

EquisDeXD

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:46 AM

Whether or not it can be measured, the position of the particle is a fundamental physical quantity for the physical theories including QM to describe the phenomenon. For example, the potential V( X ) of the electron in hydrogen atom need known the precise positions of the proton and the electron for its Schrodinger equation.

We do experiments and gather statistical data that can only be described under specific sets of mechanics, and those mechanics say there is no physical motion between states. Also, in QM you don't always need to know precise position or precise momentum, you can mix and math to get an accurate probability model which allows you to see more or less where an electron exists most away from the nucleus.




If we consider the Schrodinger equation as a resonant equation of hydrogen atomic structure, many contradictions caused by matter wave could be avoided.


Quantum mechanics often does use wave mechanics to describe probability, but there still isn't exactly a physical oscillation, which is why you need quantum field theory to describe the actual existence of particles as merely fields which can have mathematical oscillation patterns.

Edited by EquisDeXD, 20 October 2012 - 03:48 AM.

  • 0

#25 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:31 AM

We do experiments and gather statistical data that can only be described under specific sets of mechanics, and those mechanics say there is no physical motion between states. Also, in QM you don't always need to know precise position or precise momentum, you can mix and math to get an accurate probability model which allows you to see more or less where an electron exists most away from the nucleus.

Quantum mechanics often does use wave mechanics to describe probability, but there still isn't exactly a physical oscillation, which is why you need quantum field theory to describe the actual existence of particles as merely fields which can have mathematical oscillation patterns.



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.
  • 0
Trust Science. Think independently

#26 EquisDeXD

EquisDeXD

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:06 AM

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, 20 October 2012 - 06:26 AM.

  • 0

#27 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 6,845 posts
  • LocationWarsaw, Poland

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:50 AM

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
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#28 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

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
Trust Science. Think independently

#29 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 6,845 posts
  • LocationWarsaw, Poland

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:06 PM

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
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#30 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,415 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:43 PM

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

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#31 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:27 PM

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
Trust Science. Think independently

#32 EquisDeXD

EquisDeXD

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:21 PM

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

#33 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,415 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 21 October 2012 - 12:10 AM

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

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#34 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:20 AM

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
Trust Science. Think independently

#35 EquisDeXD

EquisDeXD

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 285 posts

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:28 AM

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, 21 October 2012 - 06:34 AM.

  • 0

#36 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 21 October 2012 - 07:28 AM

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
Trust Science. Think independently

#37 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 12 February 2013 - 08:28 AM

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
Trust Science. Think independently

#38 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 6,845 posts
  • LocationWarsaw, Poland

Posted 12 February 2013 - 08:55 AM

[H,H]=0 conservation of energy.
  • 0
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.

#39 Jeremy0922

Jeremy0922

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 171 posts
  • LocationChina

Posted 12 February 2013 - 09:07 AM

[H,H]=0

That is only a mathematical rule.

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


  • 0
Trust Science. Think independently

#40 ajb

ajb

    Physics Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 6,845 posts
  • LocationWarsaw, Poland

Posted 12 February 2013 - 09:43 AM

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
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.


Mathematical Ramblings.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users