Duda Jarek

Matter of size? Really? So how would you explain stationary probability density of electrons in macroscopic semiconductor sample? I would say that it's Schroedinger's ground state probability density ... (?) And I would gladly finally heard which quantum effect are you referring to, to reject quantum superposition of classical trajectories picture ... or how do you understand corpuscular half of duality ... but I agree it's not for this thread ... Returning to simple 'classical' situation from the topic - it's you who should said that it can be also described in Schroedinger's picture ... but I think such wavefunction would be thickening - it's not like in atoms that we have orbital of fixed wavefunction amplitudes, but it would be rather seen as continuously decohering ... (?) It's one of reasons I didn't want to go into QM here - I agree that classical picture is more convenient here. But still in classical picture we have unavoidable uncertainty, which through different kind of chaos leads to that for example in such macroscopic Penning trap, the most convenient picture could be thermodynamical one - it should reach some thermodynamical equilibrium and what we should work on are time averages of trajectories probability density, do you disagree? And I would say that natural thermodynamical assumption in such 'prisoned trajectories' situation is Boltzmann distribution among possible ones - there is a funny coincidence that it leads exactly to Schroedinger's ground state stationary probability density ... so I would conclude that it's not true that Schroedinger's picture works only in Planck's scales, but is just universal - works in proton's potential, but also in macrosopic Penning trap, semiconductor ... do you disagree?

I apology for misunderstanding - I'm not satisfied with the reason you gave, but I had no intention to take this discussion here - I also generally wanted by the way to understand your way of thinking in which classical trajectories are fine, unless we are considering EM field of proton, where the only description you tolerate is probabilistic(?). My intention was to point jerryyu to Penning trap for deeper understanding of the situation he was asking for and to remind to be careful about such classical (hard) descriptions - that in practice we don't/cannot have full information, so we should rather use probabilistic (soft) descriptions like Schroedinger's picture. To be more concrete - let's look at the topic: imagine we want to place a single particle on circulatory orbit perpendicular to magnetic field... Our particle sources are not perfect - we probably can assume some Gaussian of its initial momentum and time/position - we could predict well let say a few first periods, but the initial uncertainty becomes more and more essential (so called chaos) - especially on the axis along magnetic field: we can only assume wider and wider Gaussian there - the amount of information we have is decreasing with time (so called 2nd law of thermodynamics). How would you predict results of such experiment? Do you think we can ignore our lack of knowledge while considering such classical trajectories? peace

I disagree - classically we often also haven't full knowledge and to cope with it we use thermodynamical models which represent our knowledge, do you disagree? For example assuming Boltzmann distribution among possible scenarios: trajectories, what leads exactly to stationary probability distributions from Schroedinger's picture (like Feynman path integrals in imaginary time http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4443/4443_chap3_2.pdf ). ... and generally I would like to understand why when I've tried to discuss results claiming good agreement with experiment from dozens of peer-reviewed papers (with hundreds of citings) about such classical systems in e.g proton's EM field, you've classified it as speculations? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51199-any-comments-about-gryzinski-free-fall-atomic-model/ ! Moderator Note split from charged particle in magnetic field thread

OP? It's a thread about classical trajectory of charged particle in magnetic field - without magnetic momentum, on exactly perpendicular plane, it would 'circulate continuously', but generally it remains its momentum along magnetic field, so finally it makes kind of helix ... To make such trajectory bounded, we use e.g. Penning trap - and I thing in such papers jerryyu will find satisfactory answers, untrue? But generally we cannot know precisely these conditions, so we just have to use some statistical ensemble among possible scenarios - use probabilistic picture like Schroedinger's one, do you disagree?

I can't believe - (classical) ion trajectories in EM ... and swansont doesn't move it to speculations, but take a part in it ... Very interesting this kind of considerations are so called 'geonium atoms' in Penning trap, used for example to measure g-factor: http://heart-c704.uibk.ac.at/LV/AtomMolekul/dehmelt86.pdf Don't worry - because of Heisenberg principle, we cannot fully know e.g. initial conditions - we have to assume some probability density among scenarios - all trajectories should finally stabilize in the trap, so propagating this probability we should finally assume some probability cloud of electron - which have magnetic moment, so there is precessive motion involved(zitterbewegung), so we should use some order parameter describing expected relative phases in different places of this periodic internal motion of electron (like in superconducting ring) - Schroedinger's picture

Ok - you probably agree that all experiments(???) can be seen as superposition of standard classical trajectories - governed by Coulomb and Lorentz law, that we have solitons in physics, that duality principle has two halves (that children are similar to parents) ... but accepting its logical consequence (natural selection) bites your 'misterium of quantum inconceivability' (creation) - you know that wavefunctions are not fundamental, but really trying to understand: see a deeper picture there, would be against the way of thinking you've built (sin). If you will accept some day that physics(creation) could be understandable, would the next step be removing superposition? No! Don't worry - we have it also in classical field theories with solitons! Evolution in classical field theories is governed by hyperbolic/'wavelike' differential operators - in linear theories eigenfunctions of this operator are plane waves and their coordinates 'rotates its phase' with time - evolution can be represented as superposition of independently 'rotating' waves - like on water surface, EM, gravitational waves - interference naturally appears there ... What happens while adding nonlinear potential to this field theory? You probably say - plane waves will start interact with each other - succeeding powers in its expansion add more complicated vertices to Feynman diagrams ... But now look at solitons like on this animation - perturbabtive picture would try to build it from plane waves through infinite set of graphs which need renormalization ... Maybe I'm strange, but personally I prefer to imagine them in standard - localized - classical way ... Now if we consider single soliton - its evolution is just moving with constant speed, often 'rotating own phase'/spinning (wave nature) - it correspond to eigenfunction of this nonlinear evolution operator. Now if we have two solitons in the space - until they collide, they practically not interact - evolve independently - we have superposition of move+rotations. How to see now that single soltion/electron can interfere with itself? The success of quantum mechanics is simplicity of the way it represents extremely complex systems like half-silvered mirrors ... We think that classical field theories are intuitive, but they aren't - our intuition is governed by past->future causality relations, while Lagrangian mechanics fulfills CPT conservation - it just optimize 4D action: solution in each point of spacetime is in equilibrium with its 4D neighborhood - minimizing stress in all 4D direction, also past and future - spacetime is kind of '4D jello' ... I don't want to discuss that in this 4D field theory picture, single soliton could synchronize atoms of both mirrors ... so I will use convenient: quantum picture - especially they are equivalent Let's use perturbative picture to decompose soliton into plane waves ... and voila - plane waves interfere and so against intuition in classical field theories single soliton can interfere with itself Cheers ps. Here are some papers about making quantum computers on quants of magnetics fields (fluxons) in superconductor - macroscopic solitons: http://www.rle.mit.edu/media/pr150/44.pdf ... look at EM field around electron - aren't they also singularities/solitons ?

Ignored????? I thought I've agreed with the essence of these experiments - quantum superposition, haven't I ? They present superposition of trajectories, untrue? Does these experiments neglect that orbital is quantum superposition of classical trajectories? - it's what you've promised ... If not, please give some experiment which do it ... or let's go deeper into this intermediate picture (ps. this post is the analogue of making creationist to admit that children are similar to parents to wake up a possibility of understanding against misterium - to reduce the shock, we have to allow the designer to help sometimes )

Where interference experiments neglect particle nature of particles? In Mach-Zehnder we have two paths, in double-slit we have more of usually straight classical trajectories ... fulfilling Coulomb and Lorentz law (like in Stern-Gerlach), untrue? Ok, let's start with intermediate picture ... 'intelligent design' analogue - Can we imagine quantum orbital as superposition of many classical trajectories like in these experiments? In other words - do you accept soliton models (like fluxons, optical vertices, skyrmions) as the basis: on which we introduce quantum mechanics by allowing quantum superposition of multiple scenarios? If yes - if we take such single trajectory ... how would it look like?

So are Schroedinger's orbitals fundamental (reason) or not (result)? Which experiments shows that they cannot be the result of accepting corpuscle part of duality - that there is some trajectory behind, for example free-falling? These large number of papers from the best journals, having hundreds of citations strongly suggest that classical scattering works well, do you disagree? Free-fall model are succeeding scatterings from stationary point nearby - natural consequence for which in succeeding peer-revived papers there is shown often better agreement than for quantum calculations ... Which experiments are you referring to?

I know - like believers can choose creationist philosophy: God created us literally as in the Bible - everything is explained ... or try to search for a deeper understanding by accepting the possibility that God created us through evolution Dear quantunist, please finally explain why you take Schroedinger's picture literally even when we know that there are more precise (Dirac, QFT,...)... and don't accept the particle half in duality, which could allow to see PROBABILITY cloud as a result, not reason?

Please show me where I was trying to deny it???? No! It was never my point! What I'm fighting with are its magical inconceivable interpretations! - that from the fact that it doesn't see dynamics behind wavefunction collapse, you conclude that there isn't any - it's the problem which lead to indeterminism, inconceivability, splitting universes etc. ... religion instead of understanding! And all the time I'm asking for these 'verified predictions as why they are not equivalent' - please give one? Ok, once more: do you accept wave-particle duality? - that they are both waves and corpuscles? Looking at Mach-Zehnder interferometer - photons goes through concrete trajectories (are spatially localized - corpuscular nature) and simultaneously they have some phase rotation for interference (wave nature) - in field theories it means that they are just 'spinning' solitons. What's your problem with this simple, natural, understandable picture???? And doesn't it say that there is hidden concrete trajectory behind idealized representation of this situation: probability cloud of orbital? And so these 20 attoseconds electrons 'waits' before photoemission observed in the Science article doesn't have to be interpreted by 'blind faith': that it's out of physics (supernatural creature is making decision?) or it's time needed to split universes ... but just electron makes some concrete dynamics! Do you accept wave-particle duality? If yes - what this 'particle' half means for you? And generally - what do you think about wavefunction collapses? Ps. I've just realized what this situation reminds me: trying to convince creationist that God created us ... through evolution And to accept it, simple natural arguments are not enough, but they expect proof as fossils of all intermediate forms ... on which they wouldn't even look at. The problem is the 'misterium' phenomenon religion creates - the overwhelming feeling that it's so amazing that even trying to understand it would be a sin ...

By 'blind faith' I meant the belief that common classical picture cannot get near glorious quantum picture - it's not about saying that one of them is wrong, but just oppositely - that both are correct - just different pictures: - classical sees from corpuscular nature of particles, through concrete spatial situation and - quantum from wave nature - from eigenstates of evolution operator, which for linear theories are just plane waves (on water, EM, gravitational), while for nonlinear they are more complicated (like atomic orbitals, or solitons) - what is important is its 'internal periodic motion' with time passing - simultaneous rotation of phases for all coordinates - so called unitary evolution. And generally no - using just Coulomb+Lorentz force doesn't left place for any new fitted heuristic terms - and it looks that they are not needed. And if some original theory needs such fitted heuristic modifications, it should rather suggest that it's not so perfect ... But I will defend QM in this moment - for example in this hydrogen molecule calculations for only simple Coulomb force full calculations would already need computer simulations ... but they still ignore e.g. magnetic momentums, Lorentz law, nucleus distance oscillations, relativistic corrections etc. ... these fitted guessed corrections are just needed because QM picture requires nightmarish calculations - it's correct picture, but extremely inconvenient for such considerations ... When we accept that particles have also corpuscular nature (are solitons), we will see probability clouds of orbitals as mainly time average - that orbitals are idealized mathematical tool to represent complicated, energetically stable dynamical situation in simple way - in some situations classical (corpuscular) picture is just more convenient for calculations. And generally this free-fall model isn't mine - this thread is to discuss well documented somebody's work - so I wouldn't even try to disturb it with mine amateur simulations and all the time I ask to relate to peer-reviewed papers about it (not only single enigmatic words) - especially that there is plenty of them... I can concretely discuss what I've worked on - mathematical arguments showing that quantum picture and picture of classical theories with solitons has the same bases - there is equivalence between them - and so they lead to the same consequences. Please - I really don't and didn't want to hear defending QM! All the time I'm asking for concrete (counter)arguments against equivalence of these two pictures? That there is no duality and particles are waves only?

1) I've given you concrete way of thinking that both models have the same basis - doesn't it mean that their consequences are also the same? - please finally give me any concrete counterargument? or 2) Please give me any concrete comment to his papers/lecture in which he shows many situation in which classical picture gives straightforward good correspondence, while quantum calculations require introducing new heuristic fitted coefficients - doesn't it mean that this theory itself doesn't agree with experiment? or 3) Do you believe that particles have also corpuscular nature? Pleeeeeeese give me finally any concrete (counter)argument that these two worlds cannot be just equivalent? That this poor little electron just have to constantly worry to which kingdom he has to magically jump now? Please stop praising glorious QM, defending with blind faith presenting "We are the Quantum, you will be assimilated", but if you call yourself a scientist, start responding to concrete arguments I gave ... finally give me anything concrete I could finally discuss with (and better than with this angular momentum) ... You want agreement with all experiments - which precisely experiments you are referring to? - that can be understood not in both, but in quantum picture only? Please comment this sample: http://www.ipj.gov.pl/~gryzinski/hydrogen_atom%20html.htm We have interference on water, Mallus law ('squares') in classical electromagnetism ... maybe you are referring to the most 'quantum': computers? Such algorithms are working on fixed finite number of qbits, untrue? Quantum field theories are needed to work with potentially infinite number of quantum objects - to work with fixed finite number it's enough to work with classical field theories, like tensor product of Klein-Gordon equations - it's exactly the picture I would like to understand why you think it's not enough? Field theories governed by Lagrangian mechanics are about optimizing four-dimensional action - that each point of space-time is in equilibrium with its four-dimensional neighborhood ... this CPT conserving picture is different from our intuitive causality one and for example allow for 'quantum' computations: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/49246-four-dimensional-understanding-of-quantum-computers/ About potentially infinite number - QFT is abstract completely general way to represent them ... but look at nice animation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_defect - in field theories with solitons, we automatically also get potentially infinite number of them in much simpler way not leading to infinities ... and they can have simultaneously corpuscular and wave nature ... Which experiments you are referring to - that cannot be understood using (nonlinear: soliton) classical field theory (like Klein-Gordon or skyrmion models of baryons), but needs something more? What will be always still missing here?

Great ... this thread shows well social situation: Glorious inconceivable quantum mechanics is rightful fundamental theory if for each experiment we can find finite number of fitted modifications to get agreement. While Coulomb law + Lorentz law + Lagrangian mechanics is right if it straightforward agree with ALL experiments ... but still nobody would even read it ... So how such paper could say something bad about almighty QM, hurting feelings of its worshipers ... I can believe they will finally find a finite number of corrections and new exciting expansions to fit it to experiment ... I give up. Please wake me up if you finally have a tiny concrete argument that they cannot be just equivalent - different views on the same ... ? cheers

He continued this way you propose as long as he was alive: look e.g. here http://www.ipj.gov.pl/~gryzinski/hydrogen_atom%20html.htm I'm planning to start working on different 'classical' model in near future - soliton particle model like skyrmion, but modeling not only single particles, but with promising correspondence of structure of solitons and their interactions to the whole particle menagerie (natural expansion of quantum phase concept/stress tensor: ellipsoid field - between too abstract skyrmions and too simple optical vertices - 4th section of http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ) ... Such solitons are simultaneously spatially localized (corpuscular nature) and have 'internal periodic motion' (like precession of spin): wave nature - sometimes it's essential to be somewhere and sometimes to 'fit with own phase' for interference-like effects ... ... but I would also like to take a closer look, make simulations myself of these classical atomic models ... This way: reproducing ALL experiments seems as quite a lot of work and computer power, especially for small number of persons ... and honestly: would anybody really looked at it (if now nobody do it) ... As a mathematician you should know well that there is also much shorter way to show equivalence of two theories: compare their bases, not consequences! Ok, I will repeat myself (look at first posts for more details): For both quantum mechanics and field theories (linearized, in eigenbase of evolution operator), the basic evolution is unitary, untrue? But QM has additionally decoherence ... which in modern view is believed not to be out of unitary picture, but thermodynamical consequence of interaction with environment, untrue? Classical thermodynamics: that when we cannot trace particle, we should assume Boltzmann distribution among possible trajectories, leads to going to the lowest Hamiltonian eigenfunction (with nonzero projection) - similar calculus as Feynman path integrals for imaginary time - this simple, natural thermodynamical model has 'squres' against Bell's intuition ... It explains decoherence and for example makes that stable orbits while stochastic perturbation shifts toward the nearest quantum state... So again: What is still missing to get 'full QM' - equivalence of bases of both theories? And generally: doesn't the need of introducing heuristic fitted coefficients suggest that theory is far from perfect? Doesn't bother you the basic technique while quantum calculations: adding succeeding guessed terms with fitted coefficient? Would really fundamental theory need something like that?

Bignose, So let's look at Gryziński's lectures, for example in http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor7ang.html there is compared both calculations for hydrogen molecule. Quantum calculations (H.Haken, H.Ch.Wolf, Molec. Phys. and Elem. of Quant. Chem. p. 45-51, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995) need heuristically modifying standard approach, introducing fitted succeeding artificial coefficients to get agreement with experiment ... comparable with what is get straightforward using just Coulomb and Lorentz force ... how would you comment it? And generally look at first posts - it's not about saying that only one them is true! We know that QM imply classical picture (e.g. Ehrenfest theorem) ... it's about seeing them equivalent - as just different pictures of the same ... Like that we can see evolution of coupled pendulums through their positions (classical picture), or through their normal modes: eigenstates of evolution operator - in this eigenbase evolution is literally 'superposition of rotations of coordinates' - unitary (quantum picture). I've heard many things here, but still no concrete counterarguments - so I ask again: why do you believe that these pictures cannot be just equivalent? That quantum orbitals are not just simple mathematical representation of some stable dynamical state (like in nuclear shell model) - that these probability densities cannot be sharpened - became governed by physics: deterministic, like seen as made by concrete trajectories? What about corpuscular nature of particles? Extremely small size of electron as particle? Seeing double-slit, Stern-Gerlach through concrete trajectories governed by Coulomb, Lorentz law? DJBruce, His classical scattering theory was widely used (like 450 citings) and I haven't seen nonpositive comments about it (?) His atomic models are natural consequence - just succeeding scatterings from nearby .. and the only nonpositive comment I've found is this enigmatic 'unsatisfactory'. One of goal for this thread was to understand this situation - why these understandable, noncontroversial finally working modern successors of well known Bohr model are just unknown and not developed further? Doesn't this 'discussion' itself suggest that it's rather a sociological problem? - please give me one concrete argument why they cannot be just equivalent?

DJBruce, You've confused me, so I had to look at dictionary once again: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pseudoscience pseudoscience - " A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation." Which of: charge, Coulomb law, magnetic moment, Lorentz law, Lagrangian mechanics ... are considered to be without scientific foundation? If you want, here is a nicer set: out of physics collapses, splitting universes, infinite vacuum energy density creating virtual particles, infinite masses not always magically renormalizable, momentum chosen randomly (conservation?), almost pointwise particles are probability clouds, cat is simultaneously dead and alive, there are only subjective physics of different observers, nonlocality, indeterminism, a dozen of basic interpretations, which everybody not understand in own way, ... And do you imagine comprehensive search as on e.g. fig. 2,3 from the link to be made by a few persons not using modern computers? swansont, do you mean the Science article? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5986/1658 So is quantum mechanical description of dynamics of photoemission satisfactory? Does being a theory mainstream means that it's satisfactory? What is untested about Coulomb, Lorentz law and Lagrangian mechanics?

Great - extremely scientific description 'unsatisfactory' on one paper means that understandable noncontroversial physics has to land in pseudosicence? As I've read in Gryzinski's lecture - he improved later his original models from 1965: http://www.cyf.gov.pl/gryzinski/teor5ang.html These calculations just required computers and probably they are still simplified - there is a place for improvement ... when I was young I believed that science is about expanding what we do understand ... By the way: do you find quantum mechanical description of dynamics behind wavefunction collapse like photoemission satisfactory?

Ok - let's look at this link: 'objective criticism' - I had to miss it? 'No maths' - it's about approved and verified mathematical consequences, results of simulations of Coulomb and Lorentz law...? 'Incomprehensible' - these laws and way for searching for their consequences can be found in elementary books...? 'You are contradicting accepted science' - doesn't glorious quantum mechanics says that particles have also corpuscular nature? Particle physics that electrons are extremely small? It's exactly about their trajectories ... ? 'No evidence' - these peer-reviewed papers show good agreement with many different kinds of experiments ... ? 'No physical basis' - I would understand saying that QM founders didn't have experimental basis to know that wavefunction collapse isn't simultaneous, so they've assumed it as practical idealization ... but models from this topic are more recent and didn't need any such speculations - their basis is just Coulomb and Lorentz law ... ? 'Obvious errors' - I thought I've explained the problem with angular moment using a cat (can be even Schroedinger's)?... is there something more? 'It's not science' - they don't try to convince that each wavefunction collapse like photoemission is 'out of physics' or splitting universe phenomena, but just oppositely - show that we don't need any new exciting explanations - that we can even try to look at internal dynamics of such processes using standard, noncontroversial physics ... ? 'I have evidence, from this book and article' - there are some peer-reviewed papers from the best journals listed in Wikipedia article I've linked, but there can be easily found more of them... ? I have to admit that I still don't understand why it was moved?

What is speculative about it? - Coulomb law? Lorentz law? their natural consequences verified and approved by many world class reviewers? that cat can turn in air with zero initial angular momentum? these new optical measurement from Science showing that quantum SPECULATION that collapses are instantaneous is just wrong ... ???? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5986/1658 Please anybody explain why it was moved ???? Speculation: 'opinion/reasoning based on incomplete information: a conclusion, theory, or opinion based on incomplete facts or information' (from http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861711484/speculation.html )

Quantum mechanics says that while photoemission, electron is one probability cloud, then there is some mystical phenomena and there is instantaneously(?) chosen (by? out of physics: supernatural? splitting universe into parallel ones?) one of new probability clouds ... We are finally reaching measurement precision to see that it isn't really instantaneous: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630110910.htm So maybe there is some internal dynamics behind it - QM isn't fundamental theory, but only practical idealization and so we can sharpen its probabilistic picture ... like imagine concrete electron trajectory behind it, which from particle physics is believed to be extremely small ... Heisenberg uncertainty restricts measurement capabilities - does it say that the picture is also blurred for physics - internal dynamics? That we cannot model it - imagine what's going on behind the curtain? Even in double-slit or Stern-Gerlach experiment we imagine concrete trajectories ... aren't they also governed by Coulomb and Lorentz law? Why we cannot imagine them behind probability cloud of orbitals?

Experimental evidence started in 80s or earlier http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrieve&_udi=B6TJ1-4WDGCNK-1&_image=fig1&_ba=1&_user=4420&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2009&_alid=1441903185&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=5297&_issn=09276505&_pii=S092765050900084X&view=c&_acct=C000059607&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4420&md5=3d9cea58f6a7c0f05dcf360a29dabe08 and there is much more of them, for different isotopes and with huge statistical analysis ... in many papers accepted by reviewers of good journals... Do you know peer-reviewed papers claiming opposite results? What are they showing... That mathematical idealization - decay time of nucleus is constant only approximately ... Why can we be sure that these coefficient from Poisson theorem (extremely many of extremely rare chances) are really constant? Shouldn't we really understand nuclear/particle physics before such claims? Do we? Here is more discussion: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/

Extremely important news: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html Decay times depend on sun activity! It's another argument that we shouldn't look at nucleuses from blurred, fluctuating quantum picture ( http://www.physorg.com/news199711994.html ), but rather as a concrete spatial structure near (local?) energy minimum (so called soliton). To get it out of this local minimum, there is needed energy - many orders of magnitude larger than in chemistry. Standard assumption: Boltzmann distribution suggests that rarely, but it really can spontaneously gather huge amount of energy ... but maybe it's only idealization, chemistry can have some limits ... and so we should search for another source of this energy ... like neutrinos! Consequences? Besides the need to reconsider datings, planetary models ... Look at hypothetical proton decay - required by particle models like supersymmetry, useful to explain nonzero baryonic number o our universe ... but not observed in huge water tanks - maybe required energy to get proton out of extremal deep potential well is just larger than accessible by chemistry or solar neutrinos? Safer place to search for it would be extreme temperatures like the core of neutron star - such decay would be Nature's failsafe to prevent infinite matter densities - they would change into energy earlier ... it could also help to explain beyond GZK cosmic rays ...

Would humanity get to this point by developing mythology/metaphysics - because explanation of lightning using Zeus worked? Or maybe we've got here because they slowly and consequently expanded what was understandable? No connections? Really? While particle physicists know well that they are extremely small, in QM they are just blurred clouds and then there is mystical "zaaaaap" and voila: there appears chosen (by? 'out of physics': supernatural forces? Universe splits to parallel ones?) one of new blurred clouds ... and by definition we just cannot improve that picture - imagine what's happening behind the curtains ... why? Heisenberg's commandment? But uncertainty principle gives only restrictions for measurements, which unavoidably influence system ... where does it says that internal dynamics is also uncertain about itself? That the picture is blurred not only for the observer but also for physics? So what happens when someone shows that we shouldn't give up so early - that we can sharpen this blurred picture - see concrete motion behind it - that we can think about finding concrete dynamics of these 'moderns lightings' - expand what we do understand ... ? ... sounds 'crashing on a wall of fanatics who believed that their glorious unconceivable understanding of nature by definition cannot be improved' familiar from history? These models are not to deny QM, but to explain it by sharpening its blurry picture - so that we can not only experience its misterium, but maybe finally understand it - not as artificially introduced, but as naturally emerging.

Angular momentum? - but when electron is on the farthest position, it just stops: has zero angular momentum - situation here is much more complicated... For example when a cat fall down upside down - even if it looks like breaking angular momentum conservation, the cat is able to rotate ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_righting_reflex It can be modeled by two cylinders ... similar 'problem' we have in sports, especially jumps to water ... The point is that angular momentum conservation doesn't really forbid complex objects with zero angular momentum to rotate: like a cat, a jumper ... or proton-electron system. Anyway, however we will call different properties of a system, the real agreement we get with experiment - and it is what the author showed in his many papers ...