Quantum mechanics contradicts with the experiment result of light speed

[Jeremy0922]

An other important question:
Does quantum mechanics able to explain the ground state of hydrogen atom ?

[ajb]

Does quantum mechanics able to explain the ground state of hydrogen atom ?

Yes, you can add relativistic corrections to the non-relativistic approach (spin-orbit coupling and lamb shift) or use the Dirac equation and you get extremely good agreement with nature.

 

But you know this right? This is common knowledge to final year undergraduates in physics.

[Jeremy0922]

Yes, you can add relativistic corrections to the non-relativistic approach (spin-orbit coupling and lamb shift) or use the Dirac equation and you get extremely good agreement with nature.

 

But you know this right? This is common knowledge to final year undergraduates in physics.

These are calculation results, based on the speculations of QM, including Schrodinger equation and Plank hypotheses.

So, I think the ground state of hydrogen atom is come from speculations, but not from physical analysis or prove.

[ajb]

These are calculation results, based on the speculations of QM, including Schrodinger equation and Plank hypotheses.

So, I think the ground state of hydrogen atom is come from speculations, but not from physical analysis or prove.

But we know that the mathematical modes of quantum mechanics match nature well, the Hydrogen atom is an example of this. Schrödinger's original analysis matched nature okay, and so let support to quantum mechanics. The relativistic corrections were later included and the agreement with nature was closer.

[Jeremy0922]

But we know that the mathematical modes of quantum mechanics match nature well, the Hydrogen atom is an example of this. Schrödinger's original analysis matched nature okay, and so let support to quantum mechanics. The relativistic corrections were later included and the agreement with nature was closer.

Ok, you are right in math. But the question is why the hydrogen atom has a ground state?

[ajb]

But the question is why the hydrogen atom has a ground state?

As in, why there us a non-zero minimum energy?

[Jeremy0922]

As in, why there us a non-zero minimum energy?

A steady orbit of the electron with non-zero minimum energy had been proved by electromagnetis laws as shown in my paper. But the ground state with non-zero minimum energy is just from the solution of schrodinger equation which is one of the postulates in QM.

 

My paper about H atomic structure and radiation: GED-Luo.pdf

[ajb]

A steady orbit of the electron with non-zero minimum energy had been proved by electromagnetis laws as shown in my paper. But the ground state with non-zero minimum energy is just from the solution of schrodinger equation which is one of the postulates in QM.

 

My paper about H atomic structure and radiation: GED-Luo.pdf

Okay, but I claim that Maxwell's laws and the equations of motion for a charged test particle are "just" postulates in electromagnetic theory.

[Jeremy0922]

Okay, but I claim that Maxwell's laws and the equations of motion for a charged test particle are "just" postulates in electromagnetic theory.

Maxwell's equations were deduced from electromagnetic concept, definitions and experimental laws, so we couldn't say they are postulates.

[ajb]

Maxwell's equations were deduced from electromagnetic concept, definitions and experimental laws, so we couldn't say they are postulates.

 

 

And so how is this different to quantum mechanics?

[Jeremy0922]

And so how is this different to quantum mechanics?

The outstanding work of Quantum mechanics is interpretation of spectrum from atom, molecule, and solid-state matter, by solutions and consequences of Schrodinger equation of these problems. But the new concepts from some postulates in QM, such as matter wave, not only deny the causality and reality of the world, but also self-contradict, and their correctness should be reconsidered.

By my opinion, the spectrum of atom and molecule is produced by its vibrations, Schrodinger equation is one of mathematical tools to describe, which could be deduced from standing wave equation of them, steady orbit and resonance of an H atom could be explained by classical theory. So, we could state classical theory has ability to solve atomic structure and spectrum, and the new concepts in QM are unnecessary.

 

[ajb]

The outstanding work of Quantum mechanics is interpretation of spectrum from atom, molecule, and solid-state matter, by solutions and consequences of Schrodinger equation of these problems.

How is this fundamentally any different to how any piece of classical theoretical physics?

 

Maxwell's equations were developed out of interpreting experimental results on electricity and magnetism by people like Webber. They also stem from the theoretical work of people like Faraday who introduced "lines of force".

But the new concepts from some postulates in QM, such as matter wave, not only deny the causality and reality of the world, but also self-contradict, and their correctness should be reconsidered.

Don't confuse causality and the notion of complete determinism. When you get to the level of relativistic quantum field they we have causality in accordance with special relativity.

 

So we have the wave-function in quantum mechanics. Again, how is this so fundamentally different to having the mathematical concept of a electromagnetic field? I mean, both are mathematical description that can be used to make real world predictions that agree well with nature.

 

I don't see that one can object to quantum mechanics as it is based on interpretation of experiments and mathematical formalisms.

By my opinion, the spectrum of atom and molecule is produced by its vibrations, Schrodinger equation is one of mathematical tools to describe, which could be deduced from standing wave equation of them, steady orbit and resonance of an H atom could be explained by classical theory. So, we could state classical theory has ability to solve atomic structure and spectrum, and the new concepts in QM are unnecessary.

You have already touched on something that is impossible to understand classically; ground states that are not zero energy states.

[Jeremy0922]

How is this fundamentally any different to how any piece of classical theoretical physics?

 

Maxwell's equations were developed out of interpreting experimental results on electricity and magnetism by people like Webber. They also stem from the theoretical work of people like Faraday who introduced "lines of force".Don't confuse causality and the notion of complete determinism. When you get to the level of relativistic quantum field they we have causality in accordance with special relativity.

 

So we have the wave-function in quantum mechanics. Again, how is this so fundamentally different to having the mathematical concept of a electromagnetic field? I mean, both are mathematical description that can be used to make real world predictions that agree well with nature.

 

I don't see that one can object to quantum mechanics as it is based on interpretation of experiments and mathematical formalisms.You have already touched on something that is impossible to understand classically; ground states that are not zero energy states.

 

Classical theory not only can explain electromagnetic phenomenon caused by charged particles, but also prove the steady ground orbits with non-zero energy, and Schrodinger equation could be deduced from the resonance of the ground orbits, which could be applied to explain spectrum of atom. By the solution of Schrodinger equation, Quantum mechanics could interpret the structure and spectrum, but cannot explain classical electromagnetic phenomenon.

 

 

Therefore, I think classical theory is better than QM for the treatment of charged particles system, including atomic, molecular, and solid-state structure.

[elfmotat]

Classical theory not only can explain electromagnetic phenomenon caused by charged particles, but also prove the steady ground orbits with non-zero energy.

 

But that's simply not true. An electron, obeying classical physics and orbiting around a nucleus, will give off electromagnetic radiation by the Larmor formula. Since it is constantly radiating away energy, it will eventually spiral into the nucleus. Thus, stable classical atoms cannot exist.

 

Classical theory doesn't explain a host of other phenomenon, such as the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, etc. (there's too many to mention). Your mind is stuck back in the 19th century.

 

Quantum mechanics could interpret the structure and spectrum, but cannot explain classical electromagnetic phenomenon.

 

Haven't you heard of Quantum Electrodynamics? You're about half a century behind on the times.

 

Therefore, I think classical theory is better than QM for the treatment of charged particles system, including atomic, molecular, and solid-state structure.

 

But it's not. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Edited February 24, 2013 by elfmotat

[Jeremy0922]

But that's simply not true. An electron, obeying classical physics and orbiting around a nucleus, will give off electromagnetic radiation by the Larmor formula. Since it is constantly radiating away energy, it will eventually spiral into the nucleus. Thus, stable classical atoms cannot exist.

 

Classical theory doesn't explain a host of other phenomenon, such as the photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, etc. (there's too many to mention). Your mind is stuck back in the 19th century.

You could find answers for your almost questions in my paper and the previous threads on SFN.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/44948-electromagnetic-radiation-and-steady-state-of-hydrogen-atom/

Edited February 24, 2013 by Jeremy0922

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You could find answers for your almost questions in my paper and the previous threads on SFN.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/44948-electromagnetic-radiation-and-steady-state-of-hydrogen-atom/

 

Was your paper published in 2012 in the Galilean journal ? I have just read your paper . Interesting ! Very interesting !

Edited February 24, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Jeremy0922]

Was your paper published in 2012 in the Galilean journal ? I have just read your paper . Interesting ! Very interesting !

Yes, GED,23(4),71-77.Thanks

[Popcorn Sutton]

I had to make a proviso before I finished reading. A particle takes all PROBABLE paths between two points. All possible would be extremely inefficient

[Jeremy0922]

I had to make a proviso before I finished reading. A particle takes all PROBABLE paths between two points. All possible would be extremely inefficient

By classical theory, a charged particle moves along the traject which is controlled by Lorentz force (including radiation resistance) in any time.

 

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

But that's simply not true. An electron, obeying classical physics and orbiting around a nucleus, will give off electromagnetic radiation by the Larmor formula. Since it is constantly radiating away energy, it will eventually spiral into the nucleus. Thus, stable classical atoms cannot exist.

 

Does Earth orbiting Sun is constantly radiating energy and eventually spiral into the Sun?

So even in classical physics such orbiting is possible..

 

And in some cases electrons really radiate energy and fall into nucleus - it's electron capture.

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

 

completely self-constrained space displacement current can be used to explain the photon.

 

I didn't follow this thread. Sorry if it has been answered already.

So you don't believe that light wave is made of photon particles really existing as "particles".. ?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

Does Earth orbiting Sun is constantly radiating energy and eventually spiral into the Sun?

So even in classical physics such orbiting is possible..

 

One must calculate the rate at which energy might radiate — it will depend on the net charge (if any) of the earth and its acceleration. That will let you calculate the radiated power. Then compare that to the energy of the earth, and you'll get the time it would take to change the orbit.

 

Classically, charges continually radiate when accelerated.

 

 

 

And in some cases electrons really radiate energy and fall into nucleus - it's electron capture.

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

 

Electron capture is not from an electron continually radiating.

[Jeremy0922]

For multi-particles system, such as an atom, the interations among radiations from different charged particles and the radiation action on other must be considered for us to achieve correct results