Review requested

[Shauno]

I want to publish the attached paper on Quantum interpretations but it has never been reviewed, even though it has been around in various forms on the Internet for 20+years.

I would appreciate any corrections, criticism re wording etc.

London_Interpretation.pdf

[hypervalent_iodine]

I can't comment on the content, but I would suggest that 2 references is not sufficient for any sort of substantial article that one might hope to publish in the sciences. Where exactly do you want to publish this?

[Shauno]

Hi.

I'm not sure which journal. I was looking at APJ but early days yet. The paper only has 2 references because that is only the number of references used. The paper is about interpretations so does not contain much new content, mostlly just puts it "in the right order" and views QM more fully using Kantian world view.

[studiot]

You have asked for comments on the paper.

Reading it I have some difficulty discerning exactly what it is you are interpreting.

You should certainly spell this out at the beginning.

 

Your comparison of Classical v Quantum  including when to use which only covers cases selected to support your case.

Other situations and considerations dshould be visited/included.

 

For example the QM solution for the translational energy of an isolated molecule in a rectangular box a x b x c is

[math]{\varepsilon _{translation}} = \frac{{{h^2}}}{{8M}}\left[ {{{\left( {\frac{{{n_x}}}{a}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{{n_y}}}{b}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{{n_z}}}{c}} \right)}^2}} \right][/math]

Where n is restricted to integer values.

which is much more complicated than the classical version

[math]{\varepsilon _{translation}} = \frac{{M{v^2}}}{2}[/math]

 

Furthermore there are a very large number of very closely spaced levels in the QM solution, clustered around the classical value.

So simplicity suggests the classical calculation wins hands down.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by studiot

[Shauno]

Hi studiot

I have added to the introduction to hopefully make the paper clearer.  Newer version is attached.

London_Interpretation.pdf

[LaurieAG]

On 13/03/2018 at 11:23 AM, Shauno said:

I would appreciate any corrections, criticism re wording etc.

Hi Shauno,

You are using the standard Compton wavelength λ instead of the reduced Compton wavelength ƛ (barred lambda).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Relationship_between_the_reduced_and_non-reduced_Compton_wavelength

Quote

When the Compton wavelength is divided by 2π, one obtains the "reduced" Compton wavelength ƛ (barred lambda), i.e. the Compton wavelength for 1 radian instead of 2π radians:

Quote

The reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass on the quantum scale. Equations that pertain to inertial mass like Klein-Gordon and Schrödinger's, use the reduced Compton wavelength.

 

[Mordred]

A lot of this paper is out of date with modern advanced QM...

 For example modern QM has a position and momentum operator and from the Schrodinger equation a time evolution operator. You should also detail out the Dirac notation and the Pauli matrixes. Also you should also include the Bra ket notation...

Here is a paper on the Operator methods on QM.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/aqp/handout_operator.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwipx5uyg_vaAhUW9mMKHSUtBmoQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2H99IE30D4TUt1Y_d8QKKE

 I will add more suggestions later on as I have to get ready for work.  I would also suggest adding the translation operator 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://pages.uoregon.edu/soper/QuantumMechanics/momentum.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwipx5uyg_vaAhUW9mMKHSUtBmoQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2epF3dvdYKHQ8CNdG65tju

Might be an idea to study what is current in modern QM as the mathematical methods have greatly developed over the past 20 years.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Mordred