SEKI Posted January 23, 2022 Author Posted January 23, 2022 17 minutes ago, exchemist said: I have, and I'm struggling to understand what you are on about. You make what looks like a silly assertion, viz. that a photon cannot but diffuse and thereby ends up "disappearing". That is obviously rubbish, so I am paying you the compliment of not jumping to the conclusion that you don't know what you are talking about. I am trying to see if I can make what you have written align with my own understanding. This is that a wave packet indeed tends to disperse, so that the wave function becomes spread out in space. But that does not mean it eventually "disappears", merely that its position becomes less and less well defined. However, If your response is going to be merely: "Please read", that is unhelpful and I won't waste any more time on your ideas. I wrote: >>Sorry, I am not interested in discussing (1) and (2). >>Cardinal points of my model is (3)-(6). You wrote: >Is this all about wave packet dispersion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet#Dispersive (3) is about wave packet dispersion. (4)-(6) are not. So, your question was not appropriate. If you are not interested in the cohesive force, I recommend you to quit.
Genady Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 1 hour ago, SEKI said: The most important point of my model is introduction of cohesive force. I am sorry, it is to dirty the traditional mathematically beautiful theory, which is to be only approximately true. Predictions of this model should then differ from QM, and this difference should be testable experimentally. What are such predictions?
swansont Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 6 minutes ago, SEKI said: If you are not interested in the cohesive force, I recommend you to quit. When are you going to present a model of it? When do we get testable predictions?
SEKI Posted January 23, 2022 Author Posted January 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, Genady said: Predictions of this model should then differ from QM, and this difference should be testable experimentally. What are such predictions? Sorry, I have no idea. 14 minutes ago, swansont said: When are you going to present a model of it? When do we get testable predictions? Have you read the whole sentences of my first posting?
studiot Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, SEKI said: Sorry, I am not interested in discussing (1) and (2). Cardinal points of my model is (3)-(6). As the first sentence represents a direct refusal to obey the site rules I have reported it as such. The second sentence refers to the introduction of a force into QM. But it is provided with no more support or mathematics than your other claims. QM is energy based, not force based. So where exactly does does force fit into QM and how does this force act and interact with other variables in QM ? Edited January 23, 2022 by studiot
Phi for All Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 34 minutes ago, SEKI said: Have you read the whole sentences of my first posting? ! Moderator Note Please stop posting just to tell people to read what you wrote. Everyone has read it, and they're asking for clarity about the parts that are unclear or observably untrue. Focus on answering the very valid questions being posed to you. And you keep mentioning a model but we've seen no maths.
SEKI Posted January 23, 2022 Author Posted January 23, 2022 10 minutes ago, studiot said: As the first sentence represents a direct refusal to obey the site rules I have reported it as such. The second sentence refers to the introduction of a force into QM. But it is provided with no more support or mathematics than your other claims. QM is energy based, not force based. So where exactly does does force fit into QM and how does this force act and interact with other variables in QM ? Cohesive force is considered to be like surface tension. It is to dirty the traditional mathematically beautiful theory, which is to be only approximately true. I think the reality is not necessarily beautiful after all. I am sorry.
Genady Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 16 minutes ago, SEKI said: Cohesive force is considered to be like surface tension. It is to dirty the traditional mathematically beautiful theory, which is to be only approximately true. I think the reality is not necessarily beautiful after all. I am sorry. Unitarity is required for the total probabilities to add up to 1 all the time, among other things. Not for beauty.
SEKI Posted January 23, 2022 Author Posted January 23, 2022 9 minutes ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note Please stop posting just to tell people to read what you wrote. Everyone has read it, and they're asking for clarity about the parts that are unclear or observably untrue. Focus on answering the very valid questions being posed to you. And you keep mentioning a model but we've seen no maths. OK. And, yes, no math is presented. Cohesive force is considered to be like surface tension. I am sorry, I don't know how to deal with surface tension mathematically. I wrote in the first posting on this topic: "You may feel that the above quantum model is quite odd and half-baked, though I suppose that my model is leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds theories and so forth". I have never asserted my model is fine great theory. I just presented a rough tentative model. So, I hope that any fatal flaw of my model is pointed out, if any. Thanks.
Phi for All Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 5 minutes ago, SEKI said: And, yes, no math is presented. ! Moderator Note A scientific model is the representation of a phenomenon, rather than a verbal explanation. You could use visual models like charts, or a computer simulation, for example. Building a physical model is difficult at the levels you're discussing, but that's another example of a model. Using maths to represent how the phenomenon is calculated is the perfect tool at the quantum level. Without any of these, you don't have a model. This is an hypothesis at best, and several members are trying to help you shore it up where it's falling apart, despite your best efforts to ignore them.
exchemist Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 1 hour ago, SEKI said: I wrote: >>Sorry, I am not interested in discussing (1) and (2). >>Cardinal points of my model is (3)-(6). You wrote: >Is this all about wave packet dispersion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet#Dispersive (3) is about wave packet dispersion. (4)-(6) are not. So, your question was not appropriate. If you are not interested in the cohesive force, I recommend you to quit. What I am trying to understand is why you think your "cohesive force" is necessary, that's all. What problem in physics does it purport to solve? It seemed, from your description, to be something to do with preventing dispersion, I had thought. If it is not that, perhaps you could explain to me what the problem is that it addresses. Can you do that?
SEKI Posted January 23, 2022 Author Posted January 23, 2022 25 minutes ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note A scientific model is the representation of a phenomenon, rather than a verbal explanation. You could use visual models like charts, or a computer simulation, for example. Building a physical model is difficult at the levels you're discussing, but that's another example of a model. Using maths to represent how the phenomenon is calculated is the perfect tool at the quantum level. Without any of these, you don't have a model. This is an hypothesis at best, and several members are trying to help you shore it up where it's falling apart, despite your best efforts to ignore them. I am only an amateur who majored in physics for 6 years about 40 years ago. So, if no fatal flaw is pointed out in my model/hypothesis, I am greatly satisfied. I am so sorry for those who posted from a professional perspective. Please ignore this topic if you do not find a fatal flaw. Thank you very much.
swansont Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 2 hours ago, SEKI said: Have you read the whole sentences of my first posting? I see no equations. You have no model. 1 hour ago, SEKI said: So, if no fatal flaw is pointed out in my model/hypothesis, I am greatly satisfied. You don’t have a model, and haven’t presented enough to be able to point out more flaws than have already been identified. 1 hour ago, SEKI said: I wrote in the first posting on this topic: "You may feel that the above quantum model is quite odd and half-baked, though I suppose that my model is leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds theories and so forth". You don’t have a model. Copenhagen and many worlds are interpretations of QM, not QM itself.
SEKI Posted January 23, 2022 Author Posted January 23, 2022 28 minutes ago, swansont said: I see no equations. You have no model. You don’t have a model, and haven’t presented enough to be able to point out more flaws than have already been identified. You don’t have a model. Copenhagen and many worlds are interpretations of QM, not QM itself. It seems that what the word 'model' means is different between you and me. In fact, expressions such as 'schema model' are generally used. I didn't know the word 'model' means for physics professionals. Sorry.
Ghideon Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 14 hours ago, SEKI said: quantum + anti-quantum -> none (vacuum) This just raises further questions. Can you add sufficient details how anti-quantum relates to mainstream physics? What are the properties of anti-quantum?
Genady Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 I think that time evolution being non-unitary is a fatal flaw.
studiot Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, SEKI said: Cohesive force is considered to be like surface tension. It is to dirty the traditional mathematically beautiful theory, which is to be only approximately true. I think the reality is not necessarily beautiful after all. I am sorry. I can't see beauty or its opposite having any bearing on the scientific subject we are trying to discuss. 1 hour ago, SEKI said: I am only an amateur who majored in physics for 6 years about 40 years ago. So, if no fatal flaw is pointed out in my model/hypothesis, I am greatly satisfied. I am so sorry for those who posted from a professional perspective. Please ignore this topic if you do not find a fatal flaw. Thank you very much. I think Phi has made a generous offer that other members may help you recover some of your lost knowledge and perhaps even add something you missed out on in the last 40 years. In order to follow this offer I suggest we step aside for a moment to discuss 'surface tension' , which is not actually a conventional force at all. It is indeed the result of the balance of cohesive and/or dispersive forces which produces that remarkable phenomenon we call surface tension. Discussing the model of how surface tension comes about may help your understanding of what a scientific model is and the grades of model that might be offered (again as Phi noted). But until you understand surface tension, I don't see how you can say it is or is not an appropropriate basis for you proposal. Edited January 23, 2022 by studiot
swansont Posted January 23, 2022 Posted January 23, 2022 49 minutes ago, SEKI said: It seems that what the word 'model' means is different between you and me. In fact, expressions such as 'schema model' are generally used. I didn't know the word 'model' means for physics professionals. Sorry. Mathematical model.
SEKI Posted January 24, 2022 Author Posted January 24, 2022 9 hours ago, studiot said: I think Phi has made a generous offer that other members may help you recover some of your lost knowledge and perhaps even add something you missed out on in the last 40 years. In order to follow this offer I suggest we step aside for a moment to discuss 'surface tension' , which is not actually a conventional force at all. It is indeed the result of the balance of cohesive and/or dispersive forces which produces that remarkable phenomenon we call surface tension. Discussing the model of how surface tension comes about may help your understanding of what a scientific model is and the grades of model that might be offered (again as Phi noted). But until you understand surface tension, I don't see how you can say it is or is not an appropropriate basis for you proposal. I am sorry, I have neither ability nor intention to develop a mathematical model. I can only come up with a schematic model. If someone develop a mathematical model, I am very thankful. Anyway, thanks a lot for your kind suggestion. 1
studiot Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 6 hours ago, SEKI said: I am sorry, I have neither ability nor intention to develop a mathematical model. I can only come up with a schematic model. Don't be sorry for being honest. +1 What is wrong with a qualitative (=schematic) model ? Phi actually suggested this. Newton's third law for instance is only semi-quantitative for instance, yet it is a very profound law about understanding the Physics. So don't be afraid of examining your idea that the mechanism of your 'cohesive force' is similar to the mechanism of surface tension. This can be done successfully with purely qualitative modelling.
swansont Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 7 hours ago, SEKI said: I am sorry, I have neither ability nor intention to develop a mathematical model. I can only come up with a schematic model. If someone develop a mathematical model, I am very thankful. Anyway, thanks a lot for your kind suggestion. It's unfortunate that you are seemingly throwing out Schrödinger's formulation and have nothing to replace it with. Do you have anything that would allow your idea to be tested and falsified?
SEKI Posted January 24, 2022 Author Posted January 24, 2022 1 hour ago, swansont said: It's unfortunate that you are seemingly throwing out Schrödinger's formulation and have nothing to replace it with. Do you have anything that would allow your idea to be tested and falsified? You should read (3) carefully and point out what is wrong.
Genady Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 In the words of Pauli, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" "It describes an argument or explanation that purports to be scientific but uses faulty reasoning or speculative premises, which can be neither affirmed nor denied and thus cannot be discussed rigorously and scientifically." [Not even wrong - Wikipedia]
swansont Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 16 minutes ago, SEKI said: You should read (3) carefully and point out what is wrong. You haven't presented a way to test the idea of a cohesive force. You are claiming it without evidence. It's too vague. I can't point out what's wrong if there's nothing to point at. You give an example of a particle with a specific momentum, and point out that "According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and specific energy-momentum are not compatible." which is true. So if the spatial wave function is not of infinite size, as QM says it is, you are discarding Schrödinger's wave mechanics. And not replacing it. You own the burden of proof here. Demonstrate that you are right. Come up with evidence and/or testable predictions.
exchemist Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 29 minutes ago, SEKI said: You should read (3) carefully and point out what is wrong. I have read it and tried to engage you to find out why you say what you are saying. Let me repeat my earlier question to you:- What I am trying to understand is why you think your "cohesive force" is necessary, that's all. What problem in physics does it purport to solve? It seemed, from your description, to be something to do with preventing dispersion, I had thought. If it is not that, perhaps you could explain to me what the problem is that it addresses. Can you do that?
Recommended Posts