Quantum321 Posted November 20, 2016 Posted November 20, 2016 I think we are on the verge of a revolution in QT. For years supporters have been telling us it's 'counter intuitive' Oh, really? I think it's counter science. I think the problem with wave-particle duality is the original premise that there are two different states of a particle. But that's fodder for another thread. I think science went off the rails when Schrodinger, frustrated by his lack of ability to measure where a particle is at any given time came up with the wave function formula. Science isn't about probabilities. I believe at this point in time we can not measure micro world! Why? Because to measure you must disturb the system you want to measure. This outside disturbance precludes an accurate determination of where any particle is at any given time. But Schrodinger's ego couldn't let him do that, he had to come up with a solution. Let me say that the wave function concept is correct when you disturb the original system. Schrodinger couldn't go beyond this because he did not have the tools to achieve his objective. This also applies to the double slit experiment. When you look at a particle or a photon (use a detector) you change the initial conditions and influence the outcome. How do I know? Every time you use a detector the particles always look like particles. The detector influences the system and precludes an accurate measurement.
Strange Posted November 20, 2016 Posted November 20, 2016 Oh, really? I think it's counter science. As there is a detailed mathematical theory that makes testable predictions which are confirmed by experiment, it is a perfect example of science in action. I think the problem with wave-particle duality is the original premise that there are two different states of a particle. There are not two different states. And it is not a premise but a result of the theory. I think science went off the rails when Schrodinger, frustrated by his lack of ability to measure where a particle is at any given time came up with the wave function formula. Science isn't about probabilities. This appears to be back to front. The interpretation of the ave equation as probability cam after the wave equation, not before. And Schrodinger never liked the idea of it being about probabilities. Because to measure you must disturb the system you want to measure. This outside disturbance precludes an accurate determination of where any particle is at any given time. This is the "measurement problem" and is completely different from the inherent uncertainty in the quantum world. This also applies to the double slit experiment. When you look at a particle or a photon (use a detector) you change the initial conditions and influence the outcome. How do I know? Every time you use a detector the particles always look like particles. The detector influences the system and precludes an accurate measurement. Bizarrely, despite everything else you have said, this appears to be correct.
pittsburghjoe Posted November 20, 2016 Posted November 20, 2016 The detector influences the system and precludes an accurate measurement. wrong, read this comment https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/double-slit-detectors-question.890825/#post-5604049
Quantum321 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 "As there is a detailed mathematical theory that makes testable predictions which are confirmed by experiment, it is a perfect example of science in action." If you can't physically measure the micro world then it is not possible to confirm by experiment. "There are not two different states. And it is not a premise but a result of the theory." Wave-particle duality is not two states? Then what do you call it" "This appears to be back to front. The interpretation of the wave equation as probability came after the wave equation, not before." I think we agree on this. The Schrodinger equation is used to find the allowed energy levels of quantum mechanical systems (such as atoms, or transistors). The associated wave function gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain position.
MigL Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 Don't hold your breath waiting for the 'revolution'.
Quantum321 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 pittsburghjoe "The detector influences the system and precludes an accurate measurement." "wrong, read this comment https://www.physicsf...5/#post-5604049" I just can't get on board with this.... MigL "Don't hold your breath waiting for the 'revolution'. The revolution has already begun. Just because we don't have the tools to make accurate measurements with out disturbing the initial system does not mean it can't be done some day. I found this lecture very interesting The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc By Ron Garrett
swansont Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 I found this lecture very interesting The Quantum Conspiracy: What Popularizers of QM Don't Want You to Know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc By Ron Garrett ! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 means you need to summarize it here, rather than rely on people watching it
Quantum321 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 In summation, Schrodinger did every thing he could determine the actual position and speed of particles. However, he was not able to achieve this given the measurement tools available to him. However, the best he could do was to predict the most probable position and speed of particles. This appears to be due to the fact that the current means of measurement (particle detectors) actually alters the initial condition of the system making accurate measurements impossible. This also appears to be true for measurements in the double slit experiment. In summation, Schrodinger did every thing he could determine the actual position and speed of particles. However, he was not able to achieve this given the measurement tools available to him. However, the best he could do was to predict the most probable position and speed of particles. This appears to be due to the fact that the current means of measurement (particle detectors) actually alters the initial condition of the system making accurate measurements impossible. This also appears to be true for measurements in the double slit experiment. -1
Sensei Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 In summation, Schrodinger did every thing he could determine the actual position and speed of particles. However, he was not able to achieve this given the measurement tools available to him. However, the best he could do was to predict the most probable position and speed of particles. This appears to be due to the fact that the current means of measurement (particle detectors) actually alters the initial condition of the system making accurate measurements impossible. This also appears to be true for measurements in the double slit experiment. Schrodinger equation is about probability of finding electron(s) around nucleus, at certain shell and sub-shell, while they're bound, part of atom.. While double slit experiment is about completely different subject (photon energy equation is E=h*f=h*c/wavelength)
Quantum321 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Schrodinger equation is about probability of finding electron(s) around nucleus, at certain shell and sub-shell, while they're bound, part of atom.. While double slit experiment is about completely different subject (photon energy equation is E=h*f=h*c/wavelength) I am well aware of that. Schrodinger was attempting to determine the actual location of particles (photons) but could not do it. The best he could do was to determine the probable locations. But in both cases the system was disturbed by the act of measurement. Edited November 21, 2016 by Quantum321
Sensei Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 I am well aware of that. I don't think so. You're denying yourself.. Schrodinger was attempting to determine the actual location of particles (photons) but could not do it. Since when Schrodinger was working with photons? The best he could do was to determine the probable locations. But in both cases the system was disturbed by the act of measurement. Schrodinger was not experimental physicist.. Little amount of experiments done at early stage of his career, had nothing to do with Schrodinger equation AFAIK.
Quantum321 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Since when Schrodinger was working with photons? I am sorry it should read electrons. I know that his equation describes the quantum mechanics of a single massive non-relativistic particle Edited November 21, 2016 by Quantum321
Strange Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) "As there is a detailed mathematical theory that makes testable predictions which are confirmed by experiment, it is a perfect example of science in action." If you can't physically measure the micro world then it is not possible to confirm by experiment. And, of course, you can measure it, which is how we know we have a good theory. "There are not two different states. And it is not a premise but a result of the theory." Wave-particle duality is not two states? Then what do you call it" A crude analogy to describe something that is not like the things we are familiar with. Things do not "switch" between particles and waves; they just have some particle-like properties and some wave-like properties. "This appears to be back to front. The interpretation of the wave equation as probability came after the wave equation, not before." I think we agree on this. The Schrodinger equation is used to find the allowed energy levels of quantum mechanical systems (such as atoms, or transistors). The associated wave function gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain position. Yes. And that interpretation came after Schrodinger formulated the equation. (And, like you, Schrodinger didn't like it.) In summation, Schrodinger did every thing he could determine the actual position and speed of particles. However, he was not able to achieve this given the measurement tools available to him. However, the best he could do was to predict the most probable position and speed of particles. Where do you get this incorrect and garbled view of history from? This appears to be due to the fact that the current means of measurement (particle detectors) actually alters the initial condition of the system making accurate measurements impossible. This also appears to be true for measurements in the double slit experiment. Not true. Edited November 21, 2016 by Strange
swansont Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 In summation, Schrodinger did every thing he could determine the actual position and speed of particles. However, he was not able to achieve this given the measurement tools available to him. However, the best he could do was to predict the most probable position and speed of particles. This appears to be due to the fact that the current means of measurement (particle detectors) actually alters the initial condition of the system making accurate measurements impossible. This also appears to be true for measurements in the double slit experiment. Hogwash. First of all Schrödinger wasn't an experimentalist (he ended up at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Dublin, where he was named Director of the School for Theoretical Physics), so measurement tools weren't the issue for him. Second, and arguably more important, the photons or electrons in diffraction can be fairly well localized. But they never appear in other positions, which is exactly what you expect of waves. The spacing of the fringes can be made to be macroscopic, so measurement accuracy simply isn't an issue. I am well aware of that. Schrodinger was attempting to determine the actual location of particles (photons) but could not do it. The best he could do was to determine the probable locations. But in both cases the system was disturbed by the act of measurement. Nope. 1
studiot Posted November 21, 2016 Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) The solution to the equation x - 4 = 0 is a single unique number. A solution to the equation x2 = 4 is either of a pair of numbers A solution to the equation sin(x) = 1 is one of an infinite list of numbers. The Schrodinger equation is used to find the allowed energy levels of quantum mechanical systems (such as atoms, or transistors). The associated wave function gives the probability of finding the particle at a certain position. The Schrodinger equation is a Hamilton-Lagrange equation of motion. As such it is an ODE in 1 dimensional space and a partial DE in 3 dimensional space. Do you know what a solution of such an equation is or how it is found? Do you know what it applies to or how many solutions there are? The solution involves the integration of two convoluted operators. As a result the answer is different depending upon the order of convolution. That is how the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is derived. You may also seek stationary (time independent) solutions. That is how energy states are derived. Any old solution may not be used directly to generate probabilities. A solution may be converted to a probabilistic interpretation by normalisation. Edited November 21, 2016 by studiot 1
Quantum321 Posted November 21, 2016 Author Posted November 21, 2016 I want to thank everyone in this thread for setting me straight. Schrodinger's equation was developed over 80 years ago and all the information I read omitted most all of his history. I did not know he was not an experimental physicist. Thanks everyone 1
MigL Posted November 22, 2016 Posted November 22, 2016 If I recall, it was Heisenberg who developed his Matrix Mechanics using experimental data. Shroedinger's Quantum Mechanics was developed from first principles. And I believe it was M. Born who showed that the two formulations are equivalent. Thank you for being so gracious to the people who helped you. And my apologies for my knobbish, non-explanatory, earlier response.
swansont Posted November 22, 2016 Posted November 22, 2016 Shroedinger's Quantum Mechanics was developed from first principles. It was more that Schrödinger said "let's try this". There were no "first principles" of QM when he formulated his wave equation, other than a wave equation form already existed.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now