Speed of Electrons

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There is a model of what is happening: it's called quantum mechanics. Things are waves, and obey the relationships described by QM. You seem to want a mechanism to explain why quantum mechanics works that way. I can't help you. And until someone comes up with a way of testing ideas about such mechanisms, neither can anybody else.

 

Yes. " Things are waves, and obey the relationships described by QM. " You seem to want a mechanism ( is that wrong of me ) to explain why quantum mechanics works that way. Is this not what the string theorists are up to . But there appear to be difficulties.

 

.

 

The model IS quantum mechanics. But it appears that you cannot accept QM as the model, because it does not admit of classical interpretations. In that case either you are doomed to never understand, or you will have to invent and validate some alternative to quantum mechanics. Since an army of professional physicists has found no alternative to quantum theory in roughly a century since its discovery, I would personally bet that you are doomed.

 

"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

 

 

 

I cannot believe that we are conducting a technological society which is based , in the main , on quantum mechanics, which is no more than a fragmented, yet very precise and accurate technology yet fundamentally not conceptualised. We appear to be riding along on a list of phenomenon, such as Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, Pauli exclusion principle, particle wave duality, de broglie probability wave, localised , entangled , spin , spooky action at a distance, God playing dice, and a whole host of parts, with not a real tangible feeling for what is going on .

 

( Even if one accepts that, it is nothing like the classical world ), it surely cannot be beyond words and images. ( models for want of another word ) .

 

 

Or are these the words of another "Doomed scientist who dared to look at Medusa's face "

 

.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2011 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[DrRocket]

.

( Even if one accepts that, it is nothing like the classical world ), it surely cannot be beyond words and images. ( models for want of another word ) .

 

What is the basis for this assertion. Wishful thinking ?

 

QM is certainly not beyond description in terms of mathematical models. QM is in fact a mathematical model. But classical imagery simply does not apply.

 

Or are these the words of another "Doomed scientist who dared to look at Madusa's face ".

 

Probably not. If you wish to be recognized as a scientist it would be advisable to put your statements in scientific terms and back them up with real data and real mathematics. Vague philosophical statements are of no value.

 

No one is particularly happy with the various interpretations of quantum theories, but the theory makes extraordinarily accurate predictions and it is rather difficult to discount that success criteria.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What is the basis for this assertion. Wishful thinking ?

 

QM is certainly not beyond description in terms of mathematical models. QM is in fact a mathematical model. But classical imagery simply does not apply.

 

 

 

Probably not. If you wish to be recognized as a scientist it would be advisable to put your statements in scientific terms and back them up with real data and real mathematics. Vague philosophical statements are of no value.

 

No one is particularly happy with the various interpretations of quantum theories, but the theory makes extraordinarily accurate predictions and it is rather difficult to discount that success criteria.

 

I appreciate your engagement , and in no way disrespect your comments. ( both yours, Ajb, and Mr Swansot and others ). I do believe this sort of engagement and discussion is productive as long as it is honest and does not get dogmatic unless a fundamental truth is up for discussion. In keeping QM just mathematical I believe is a mistake and I have also noticed that many physics breakthroughs were made, even if in the wrong direction , when scientists got together and discussed at length " Philosophical ideas " .

 

I hasten to say that a Greek thinker and measurer , if so displaced in time as to be brought to examine a precision moulding press tool, would marvel at the precision sizes of the piece parts, but likely be totally at sea as to its use. A nearby engineer could soon explain the workings of such a machine tool, and indeed the Greek would be enlightened. Without such an explanation he would only marvel at the precision.

 

 

I am that Greek seeking such enlightenment.

 

.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I cannot believe that we are conducting a technological society which is based , in the main , on quantum mechanics, which is no more than a fragmented, yet very precise and accurate technology yet fundamentally not conceptualised. We appear to be riding along on a list of phenomenon, such as Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, Pauli exclusion principle, particle wave duality, de broglie probability wave, localised , entangled , spin , spooky action at a distance, God playing dice, and a whole host of parts, with not a real tangible feeling for what is going on .

 

What do you mean "we?" Are you a scientist, or are you criticizing from the sidelines?

[StringJunky]

I appreciate your engagement , and in no way disrespect your comments. ( both yours, Ajb, and Mr Swansot and others ). I do believe this sort of engagement and discussion is productive as long as it is honest and does not get dogmatic unless a fundamental truth is up for discussion. In keeping QM just mathematical I believe is a mistake and I have also noticed that many physics breakthroughs were made, even if in the wrong direction , when scientists got together and discussed at length " Philosophical ideas " .

 

 

 

 

I am that Greek seeking such enlightenment.

 

.

 

Mike. it appears that there is no alternative but to learn the maths and get rid of commonsense if one wants to understand QM.

 

Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics providing a mathematical description of the dual particle-like and wave-like behaviour and interaction of matter and energy. Quantum mechanics describes the time evolution of physical systems via a mathematical structure called the wave function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

 

“The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won’t understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. I can’t explain why Nature behaves in this peculiar way.

 

Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can`t believe it. You can’t accept it. You don’t like it. A little screen comes down and you don’t listen anymore. I’m going to describe to you how Nature is—and if you don’t like it, that’s going to get in the way of your understanding it. It’s a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They’ve learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of commonsense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is—absurd.” QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter - R Feynman

.

Edited April 5, 2011 by StringJunky

[DrRocket]

I appreciate your engagement , and in no way disrespect your comments. ( both yours, Ajb, and Mr Swansot and others ). I do believe this sort of engagement and discussion is productive as long as it is honest and does not get dogmatic unless a fundamental truth is up for discussion. In keeping QM just mathematical I believe is a mistake and I have also noticed that many physics breakthroughs were made, even if in the wrong direction , when scientists got together and discussed at length " Philosophical ideas " .

 

 

 

 

I am that Greek seeking such enlightenment.

 

.

 

No one ever said QM is just mathematical. QM is a physical theory. It predicts physical phenomena.

 

But to understand QM at any fdepth you must understand the mathemativcs that is the language.

 

 

"To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

 

 

 

 

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong." – Richard P. Feynman

 

http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

 

 

[ajb]

No one ever said QM is just mathematical. QM is a physical theory. It predicts physical phenomena.

 

More than this, it predicts physical phenomena very well. Even the more crazy predictions like entanglement and quantum tunnelling are realised in nature.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What do you mean "we?" Are you a scientist, or are you criticizing from the sidelines?

 

The "we " is the developed technologically based world.

 

Yes I place myself in the framework of a scientist . If I happen to mention a disbelief in our accepting QM at face value without a real perception of what is going on, only but belies my desire to find things out. Surely the scientific method is to :-

Observe ( QM seems a very precise yet little understood fog ).

Propose or guess ( There is a non mathematical model that has not yet become apparent )

Experiment ( go into inter-discipline mode { qm and another subject area }. Over and over rigorously view QM from afar and measure models against QM phenomenon)

Falsify the model -QM relationships.

Evaluate

Re-enter the loop until "bingo " you hit the "motherload" and publicise.

 

 

But to understand QM at any depth you must understand the mathematics that is the language.

 

 

I thought the copenhagan agreement on QM broke up with two camps.

 

One saying "shut up and calculate "

 

and the other group went away to think, discuss and come up with new ideas.

 

What is wrong with saying " Fine the maths is brilliant, predictive, and very useful in manufacture and quantitative analysis in astronomy . But maybe there is another whole area of neglected understanding , by taking a non mathematical look at QM, and just observing to see what there is to be seen through non mathematical eyes. " Blue sky research.

 

.

 

http://depts.washing...rg_SSN_1_14.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Mike. it appears that there is no alternative but to learn the maths and get rid of commonsense if one wants to understand QM.

 

.

 

 

 

I am by far from being non mathematical, having studied Pure maths, applied maths , EM maths as applied to field theory and electronics at University, however I do find it hard to see models using only maths . I am sure there are models somewhere waiting to be found which will lift the fog on QM.

 

.

PS Thanks for your great comments. Much appreciated.

 

 

 

.

 

More than this, it predicts physical phenomena very well. Even the more crazy predictions like entanglement and quantum tunnelling are realised in nature.

 

 

Yes well , this illustrates my point. Even though quantum tunneling is an incorrect model as it is the probability wave that exists the other side of the barrier wall , it still helps with QM understanding . Similarly with the word "entanglement"

 

 

Great stuff

 

.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Yes well , this illustrates my point. Even though quantum tunneling is an incorrect model as it is the probability wave that exists the other side of the barrier wall , it still helps with QM understanding .

 

How is tunnelling incorrect if it has been observed? Quantum mechanics gives a very clear mechanism for tunnelling to occur. Also tunnelling is important in modern electronic devices, like flash memory and certain diodes.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How is tunnelling incorrect if it has been observed? Quantum mechanics gives a very clear mechanism for tunnelling to occur. Also tunnelling is important in modern electronic devices, like flash memory and certain diodes.

 

Sorry, I was not meaning that the phenomenon of tunneling is incorrect, as clearly it makes nuclear fusion possible in stars, and as you say all the IT uses. What I meant was the description or model of a tunnel/ train tunnel is good as far as I can sea, but as you guys have "been beating me with", classical models are incomplete individually. Namely if I understand it correctly, it is not a penetrating in a strait line through a potential hill , that is happening but a probability peak, though a small peak exists on the other side of the hill by some form of wierd ( non classical ) quantum effect. An electron , according to the probability function/wave , where it will find itself at some remote small chance location in space-time ( however it does it "wierdly" ) on the other side of the potential hill . As, to whether it dug itself a level strait hole through the hill. I very much doubt. Surely this is a case, as you guys have been trying to get me to concede, ( or shut up and calculate ), makes classical models like " Hill" be incomplete. However I am very happy with the word model "Hill " or "Tunnelling" all be it , that further models are required to explain how it got on the other side of the hill, other than saying the mathematical probability wave had a small peak on the other side of the hill. Patently it works and works very precisely, which I would not dare to suggest otherwise, with the shear weight of research , development, and production of devices that work precisely as per QM prediction.

 

My personal scientific desire, is to back off at a distance , possibly inter-discipline distance, possibly visually distant (screwed up eyes , figuratively ), turn round and look at QM with the appropriate MODELS ( not just mathematical models ) and see what there is to be seen !

 

Maybe nothing ! Its like sending a scout over the mountain range to see what he can see. Maybe he sees nothing, Maybe he is killed in the process by foes. Just maybe he sees something, that just might have some relevance. Surely this is the observation, that starts the chain of scientific endevour , off ( observe, postulate, experiment, measure, conclude , evaluate/ falsify , iterate the process all over and over.

 

I'm off to Italy for five months next week Wednesday 13th, Up into the mountains of Umbria . I'm going to poke an internet dongle into the sky and if I can get the www then I might have some further contact. If not then in September I will return . I have a library of QM books over there, and a lot of Sun and a flaggon of wine. Should you wish to join myself and wife in our mountain Casa . Once leaving Switzerland, head south to Florence, East into the Appenines, Hit the ancient Roman North Road ( Via Appenines ) , where it crosses the pilgrims trail to Assisi, there you will find us. Leave a message on my members message pad. Look for a Dongle sticking up in the air on a bamboo pole with a long USB cable.

 

Thanks for all you guys interesting comments ! Mike

 

.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Mike Smith Cosmos