A very ironic thing about physics is that most of what we know is moderate. The very big stuff, and the very small stuff is still intriguing.

Let us say you roll a ball down an incline Good! you can analyse its motion, path velocity, acceleration, energy, momentum, etc.

This is because you can see it, feel it and hence can make a picture of it in your mind.

Well, quantum mechanics is way too different. Suppose you are rolling down an electron down an incline. Bummer! we do not know if the electron would roll down or not, simply because we are not sure it is spherical, and we don’t even know if it is a discrete particle of a continuous charge distribution. Moreover, even if it was a ball, it wouldn’t roll down, because the forces involved will be very different from the classical mechanics. There will be electrostatic forces which will be several times larger than the gravitational forces.

If you are familiar with the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, you will realise that you cannot determine the position and momentum of an electron accurately, simultaneously.

What happens if you try to see an electron in a microscope, say with a tremendous magnification? It will simply fly off, like a small particle would when you blow it off.

So in my opinion, read a lot of philosophical and conceptual books on the topic. See how the subatomic particles behave when subjected to several conditions. Then proceed to the theory equations, etc. It really helps this way.

Dear Khulood Obaid:

Stealing answers from another websites is very bad manner and insulting for other researchers:

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-understand-quantum-mechanics

Thank you, Wulf.

The truth is, just reading the sentence "Well, quantum mechanics is way too different. Suppose you are rolling down an electron down an incline. Bummer! " sounded a little fishy to me... so I pasted in in Google and voilà!

Then, I sent a message to RG staff about including some kind of moderation, or (at least) recover the downvote function which is so much missed.

Following.

Hello to all.

I am grateful for your comments, and expect mine to contribute further material for a friendly and constructive discussion.

@Wulf Rehder

1.- The electron two slit experiment is an outstanding, often mentioned example of a material system with a physical behavior that is better understood in terms of the quantum mechanical doctrine than with Classical Physics. It has reached the status of a quantum paradigm.

It is my fervent wish to agree with this viewpoint. But before, I would like to know where has the self adjoint Schrödinger Hamiltonian operator of such physical system been written, and its eigenvalues and eigenfunctions calculated. Then it will be possible to verify why and how Quantism is advantageous for slit experiments. If the outcome favors Quantum Theory, with pleasure I will concede the triumph.

To start with, the electron and slits are a physical system that exists in 3-dimensional space. Presumably the slits, by the count of one, two, three or more, can be represented by potential functions $V_1(x,y,z)$, $V_2(x,y,z)$, $V_3(x,y,z)$, . . . yet to be defined. The states of the individual electron could correspond with wave functions $\psi(x,y,z)$ belonging a complex Hilbert space, say to $E=L^2(R^3;C)$. Then the simplest candidate to be the Hamiltonian operator would look something like $H_k=-\nabla^2+V_k$. Next, the eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ and a full collection of eigenfunctions $\psi_n$ of $H_k$ should be calculated, in particular establishing the dimensions of the eigenspaces $E_n$. The space of states would be the associated projective space $PE$ constituted by Hilbert rays. Then Schrödinger time dependent evolution equation would specify a quantum flow $[U_t]=[\exp((-i/\hbar)H_k)]$ on $PE$ with fixed point submanifolds $PE_n$. Then this dynamical system can be examined and its structure understood in terms of what I call "Projective Spectral Theorem". Finally, under the probabilistic interpretation of wave functions, we can compare the quantum mathematical model with the 1,2,3, . . . slit experiments and decide if the predictions of the model somehow agree with the physical experiments. If the potentials $V_k$ have been explicitly defined, and eigenvalues and eigenfunctions calculated, please send me the references.

Coulomb potential in $R^3$ is one of the simplest and better understood, followed by others having spherical symmetry. Maybe the slit potentials $V_k$ in $R^3$ have been studied and their Hamiltonians solved. I just do not know. Meanwhile, allow me to suspend judgment on whether or not QM predicts results of slit experiments.

2.- About collapse of wave packets, my viewpoint is contained in this reference

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308419467_Quantum_Wave_Collapse_is_Unsolvable

3.- Probability waves are just mathematical functions. When invoked, they seem to awake in physicists a diversity of intellectual and emotional reactions. But they are just mathematics. What else can they be? Perhaps you imagine that $|R_{n+1\ell}(r)\Theta_{\ell m}(\theta)e^{i m \vf}|^2$ is a physical object within your head, but such physics is a secondary neural phenomenon, mounted on the primary mental phenomenon $|R_{n+1\ell}(r)\Theta_{\ell m}(\theta)e^{i m \vf}|^2$, everything within your head, as are all thoughts.

4.- In my opinion QM is partially correct, but incomplete. The missing parts are described in the paper "I Do Understand Quantum Mechanics" posted in the facebook group "Postquantum Deterministic Physics"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/330199257510011/

and in the references there.

5.- The problem of the observer exists because QM is incomplete. Once corrections are made and the natural evolution equation with deterministic transitions is accepted things happen in the common sense manner. There is no need to give a special role to the observer, not more that in classical physics.

6.- From the viewpoint of the deterministic natural equations that I am proposing, cats, entanglements and other quantum souvenirs are unnecessary.

As any other equations, the natural wave equation has a range of applicability. Along a comment above on rolling electrons, the natural equation does not seem applicable to describe the dropping of balls from the inclined tower of Pisa. I have worked out the natural equation for the hydrogen atom and seems to work also for one electron atoms.

In general when you go out of context the equations no longer provide a satisfactory description of phenomena. The context may probably be determined by parameters. The existence of Schrödinger cuts in the form of parameters is a reasonable expectation, particularly if you work with a deterministc common sense theory.

7.- To Einstein I would say:

"Dear Professor, once more you were right. QM is incomplete. The missing mathematical parameter is the conjugate variable $\phi$ of $\psi$. The missing physical object is the photon. As $\psi$ represents an electron, $\phi$ represents a photon. The photon is the long ago announced occult parameter."

"The production and flight of pairs of particles has nothing to do with entanglement nor spooky action at distance. The quantum mechanical guys were wrong. They twisted, manipulated and deformed your reasoning. There was no need for those entanglement experiment. Anyway, since they have been performed, it suffices with classical, old, familiar and well understood conservation of angular momentum to explain the measured correlations. Superluminal information transfer and entanglement are unnecessary."

Think about it, Wulf. In the so called "entanglement experiments" the polarizations of the photons flying apart were always well defined: when they started traveling apart, all along their paths, and when measurements were finally performed. The results validated classical conservation of angular momentum.

If you make the wrong assumption that polarization are undetermined theoretical problems will arise. Then you have to invent entanglement and spooky action at distance to explain the experimental results.

8.- I foresaw, and later confirmed, that the exceedingly complicated and mysterious spin can be dismissed and rotations can take its place, at least for bound electrons. Ultimately due to Schrödinger unitary evolution equation, Pauli created confusion with this spin concept. I am brushing up a paper on electron rotations. One of these days it will be released.

%%%%%%%%%%

Wulf, after these initial 8, all your remaining questions, be them 20 or more, are welcome. But please make one at the time.

With gratefulness for your attention and most cordial regards,

Daniel Crespin

@ Daniel Crespin,

Dear Prof. Daniel Crespin,

I was really amazed reading your reply to Wulf Rehder!!! If what you are saying is correct, then it will be great!!! However, I wrote my opinion in the following only for friendly discussion. I have selected your 7th point, b’cos, I think, that’s the correct one where the essence of quantum formalism is in full bloom.

DC: 7. To Einstein I would say:

"Dear Professor, once more you were right. QM is incomplete….”

NG: In the EPR paper, there is absolutely no mistake either in using the quantum formalism or mathematics. Based on their results, they derived two possibilities:

1) In quantum mechanics, there is an action-at-a-distance, if quantum mechanics is considered to be correct and complete,

2) Or, there is no action-at-a-distance, means quantum mechanics is incomplete

But, in my opinion, they might have stated the second claim as “if there is no action-at-a-distance, then there is no quantum mechanics in Nature”. However, they didn’t do that way b’cos of the already piled up experimental results and evidences supporting quantum formalism but not the classical mechanics. The evidence for my opinion can be found in the same EPR paper itself…let us consider it briefly below:

Two particles interact initially for a brief time and fly apart in the opposite directions along X-axis. Then the following commutator,

[x1 - x2 , p1 + p2] = 0

is always satisfied, independent of whether position momentum commutators, [x1 , p1] and [x2,p2] is zero or not if the particles become independent of each other, i.e., [x1 , x2] = 0; [p1 , p2] = 0; here, x1 and x2 are position operators and p1 and p2 are momentum operators of particle 1 and 2, respectively. Therefore, According to quantum formalism, the eigen values (or expectation values) of (x1 – x2) and (p1 + p2) can be simultaneously and accurately measured. Since, the particles are separated to a sufficiently long distance and they are not influencing each other by any physically known interactions, they can indeed be treated as two independent free particles, i.e.,

[x1 , x2] = 0; [p1 , p2] = 0 and [x1 , p1] = [x2 , p2] = i \hbar.

Therefore, an observer A can make a position measurement on particle 1 and another observer B can make momentum measurement on particle 2, to obtain their eigen values as accurately as possible. So, it becomes possible for A to accurately know the momentum of particle 1 from the measurement of B and the total momentum, and similarly B can learn accurately about the position of particle 2 from the relative distance of separation, because, [x1 - x2 , p1 + p2] = 0 holds true for both the observers. If that is the case, then the basic commutation relations, which is the heart of quantum mechanics, are violated i.e., [x1 , p1] = [x2 , p2] becomes equal to zero but not equal to `i \hbar’. Therefore, it’s easy to see that, quantum formalism becomes self-inconsistent! i.e., quantum formalism refutes the commutation relations which are the very basis to write down the formalism itself at the first place!!! Then, how to circumvent this situation in a self-consistent way? But, the quantum formalism itself has no problem b’cos it exhibits action-at-a-distance, i.e., position measurement by A on particle 1 influences the momentum measurement by B on particle 2 and vice versa and this influence is instantaneous and independent of the separation between the particles, violating the Cosmic speed limit imposed by the Theory of Relativity. Einstein called it spooky. Therefore, abandoning the spooky-action-at-a-distance simply means abandoning the basic commutation relations and hence, quantum mechanics itself!!! There is no question of whether the quantum formalism is complete or not as the way EPR titled their paper. As, I already mentioned, they posed such a question simply because of the already piled up experimental support and evidences favoring quantum mechanics but not classical mechanics.

DC: "The production and flight of pairs of particles has nothing to do with entanglement nor spooky action at distance. The quantum mechanical guys were wrong. They twisted, manipulated and deformed your reasoning. There was no need for those entanglement experiment. Anyway, since they have been performed, it suffices with classical, old, familiar and well understood conservation of angular momentum to explain the measured correlations. Superluminal information transfer and entanglement are unnecessary."

NG: You wrote “ … Anyway, since they have been performed, it suffices with classical, old, familiar and well understood conservation of angular momentum to explain the measured correlations….”. Is it this way and that simple? If that is the case, then John Bell would have done it instead of deriving his inequalities!

I do agree that there is no need to doubt the validity of the correctness of conservation laws in the quantum world exactly like the case in the classical world. That’s why, in QM, we always try to find a maximal set of commuting operators.

Please provide a derivation for the Malus law in the case of polarization entangled photons experiment done by Allain Aspect et al. Also, explain the outcome of Stern-Gerlac experiment for the same situation as photons for the case of a pair of spin entangled electrons prepared in a singlet-state. If you can do it according to your own statement, “…. it suffices with classical, old, familiar and well understood conservation of angular momentum to explain the measured correlations. Superluminal information transfer and entanglement are unnecessary", then I am sure that you are replacing quantum mechanics by some other new mechanics. Of course, it will be nice and great!!! Then you can differently say Einstein, "Dear Professor, you were not exactly right. QM is incorrect. See here, I have a new mechanics …”

Thanking you and best regards …NG.

Namaste N. @Gurappa

Thanks for your clear, precise, articulate and interesting comments.

Classical conservation laws usually refer to classical quantities that are well defined at all times. The quantum self adjoint operators are a relatively more complicated formalism that, when used indiscriminately and without due care, becloud rational ideas and physical intuitions. So, beware of the risks: Once surrounded by the quantum shadows you start seeing phantoms that confirm your artificially created pseudo-reality.

As far as I can understand it, the quantum uncertainty principle, or maybe another quantum postulate I now miss, are invoked to create the belief that certain physical quantities, say spin, are undetermined until measured. In other words, when indoctrinated by Quantism you end up believing that the values of the physical quantities really do not exist at all times.

When classical conservation laws are applied to quantities that are undetermined the original meanings are lost and confusion takes over. It could be that Professor Bell was addressing exactly that situation and trying to debunk Quantism. Unfortunately he is no longer with us to confirm or deny this supposition. Perhaps his biographers have enough serious information to support a credible opinion on this issue.

Nevertheless, if time allows, I may one day derive the Malus law and the outcome of Stern-Gerlach experiment. Then it will be duly announced.

Many experimental results are presently claimed by quantum theoreticians. In due time there will be an explanation in terms of deterministic natural wave equations. It will be the task of a fresh generation of researchers.

The inadequacy of Quantism has been producing too many irrelevant concepts, results and descendant theories that cannot be addressed individually. It is preferable to concentrate on the most important and basic quantum contradictions and with strength apply there a sword.

The Gordian knot was impossible to disentangle, it had to be cut.

Namaste N.

Cordially yours,

Daniel Crespin

@ DanielCrespin,

Dear Daniel Crespin,

Thank you for your nice reply and I love the spirit dwelling in it. I can see the beauty of your heart from the way you addressed your reply by starting and ending with “Namaste”

According to my experience in understanding QM, what I realized is that, probabilities and uncertainties in QM are quite dubious and have nothing to do with a single quantum particle. But, their appearance is merely due to the nature of doing experiments i.e., repeated measurements on a large number of identically prepared individual systems. I actually posed a question in RG, “Can the color of a photon change when it passes through a narrow slit?” which is actually not a question but a trouble arising when the uncertainty principle is applied to a single quantum. It has no meaning and never helps to understand the quantum phenomenon at a single particle level, but emerges out statistically due to the nature of doing experiment. Therefore, I am safe from your cautious remark, “…As far as I can understand it, the quantum uncertainty principle, or maybe another quantum postulate I now miss, are invoked to create the belief that certain physical quantities, say spin, are undetermined until measured…”. My personal realization is that the `empty space’ is quite different from what we demand it to be due to our sensual experience. There is a particular realization of space where one does not have to bother about a given physical system as whether it’s classical or quantum, b’cos, in that space there are no such distinctions. The Euclidean (or Minkowski or whatever) is merely an effective realization of that actual space. With this and few more ideas, I wrote a paper titled “On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: Wave-Particle Non-Duality and the Nature of Physical Reality” (available in RG), whose abstract is as follows:

“The Schrodinger's wave function can naturally be realized as an `instantaneous resonant spatial mode' in which quantum particle moves and hence the Born's rule is derived after identifying its origin. This realization facilitates the visualization of `what's really going on?' in the Young's double-slit experiment which is known to be the central mystery of quantum mechanics. Also, an actual mechanism underlying the `spooky-action-at-a-distance', another mystery regarding the entangled quantum particles, is revealed. Wheeler's delayed choice experiments, delayed choice quantum eraser experiment and delayed choice entanglement swapping experiments are unambiguously and naturally explained at a single quantum level without violating the causality. The reality of Nature represented by the quantum mechanical formalism is conceptually intuitive and is independent of the measurement problem.”

You can have a look at it in the case you are interested ….

One thing I am 100% sure is that QM is the basic underlying theory and in reality, there is nothing like `classical mechanics’ (CM) which is merely an `effective realization’ of QM, though our initial intuition is only `CM’. Note that, I am saying that CM is an effective realization but not as a limiting case of QM! My understanding is that QM is a casual and deterministic theory and that’s why the `effective’ CM is also exhibiting the same causality and determinism and the case of conservation laws are also the same.

Thanking you and best regards …NG.

Following

@Gurappa

Namaste N. Gurappa

Thanks very much. I am sure we will eventually find a common ground on which to agree.

Namaste,

Daniel Crespin

@ Daniel Crespin ,

Dear Daniel Crespin,

I hope that I already stated my stand on QM more or less clearly. Since, I am behind to realize the truth and reality, I am always ready to jump into a common ground to meet you there, the moment I realize my platform to be wrong and unreal and there is a common ground to stand and stay.

Thanking you and best regards.....NG.

@ N. Gurappa

Namaste Gurapa

We both have the same goals and both of us will benefit from this exchange of messages and discussion. Any disagreement should lead to clarifications, clarification means better understanding, and better understanding is a common goal.

Namaste Dear Gurappa

Daniel Crespin

Raised in a corpuscularist tribe, Richard Feynman took the right means to never, never understand anything in quantum physics.

Here is the list of the fifteen surreptitious and clandestine postulates we do not more admit :

Article Fifteen surreptitious, copenhaguist and corpuscularist postu...

The complete book is now translated into english and is available :

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/transactional-quantum-microphysics-principles-and-applications/paperback/product-23656620.html

@ Daniel Crespin. No access without fb.

:-(

@ Jacques Lavau

I am not sure what you mean, but for access to researchgate use this link

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Crespin/contributions

and for Facebook click here

https://www.facebook.com/groups/330199257510011/

I will soon look at the links you sent.

Cordial regards,

Daniel Crespin

" a time dependent movement of points "? About the hydrogen atom in a stationary state , Huh?

So we have no physics in common.

Thousands of well established facts are incompatible with the corpuscularism and any kind of "duality" :

Plane polarized light exists.

Quarter-wave plates work well.

Interferential colors work well (ducks, pawns, lapwings, green lizards, crenilabrus tinca...).

Anti-reflect coatings work well.

Ramsauer-Townsend transparency is confirmed hundreds of time for 1921.

Radiocrystallography works well. I have confounded an international crook with radiocrystallographic evidence.

Etc.

And lots of evidence in spectral absoptions.

I recommend you to consult Stephen Hawking :

In “The Grand Design”, in the chapter on the “buckyballs” double slit experiment, the authors say that in case of the experiment, a particle may take any possible way (”perhaps to Jupiter and back”).

Huh huh !

See Greiner too :

http://citoyens.deontolog.org/index.php/topic,887.0.html

Huh huh !

We will do again the exercise already given at the end of chapter 2, we will calculate the global Broglian frequency of a cat weighing 3 kg.

3 kg . 1.35639 . 1050 kg-1 . s-1 = 4.069 . 1050 Hz

Admit you translate it at 1 cm/s, hence its wavelength:

\frac{662.6076.10^{-36}kg.m^{2}/s}{3kg*0.01m/s}= 2.2087 . 10-32 m.

Hin hin! And you planned to make of “wave function” of that? Its respiration, the heartbeat, the movements of its vibrissae, eyes, and ears, are tens of magnitudes bigger than this kind of “wavelength”.

These Göttingen-Københavnist guys did not have the eyes lined up with the holes, and never realized the monstrous gap of scales between the microphysics and their mythical “observer”.

@Wulf Rehder

Thanks for your valuable time.

And cheers to you too!

I start with two issues. First, do I think I understand quantum mechanics? Answer, yes, I think i do, at least to some extent. The probability of anyone understanding the totality of a branch of physics is, in my opinion, zero, because when you start asking "why" questions, sooner or later you have to resort to, "That is the way it is." Second, am I right? Since I differ from just about everyone else, most will say, "No!" or something ruder.

To me, the Schrödinger equation, in the form presented it, is fully deterministic. If you know ψ, you know it after a change of conditions, at least in principle and if your maths are adept enough. So, what does ψ represent? I go with de Broglie and Bohm and say it is a physical wave entity, given by ψ = Aexp(2πiS/h), and so far, nothing dramatic. Now I say from Euler's complex number theory, that wave becomes real at the antinodes, and I also argue that to give diffraction in the 2-slit experiment, the wave front has to arrive at the slits at the same time as the particle, more or less. If so, the energy of the system must be mv^2, which means the wave must be transmitting energy. This is effectively a value for Bohm's quantum potential, and it also defines A in the above equation. From that, it is reasonably easy to explain WHY the electron does not spiral into the nucleus, and from that, obtain the Exclusion Principle. Similarly, the Uncertainty Principle is obtained, but the product of the uncertainties is the quantum of action h. The advantage of this approach (from my point of view) is it gives analytical equations to describe the chemical bond, and for the hydrogen molecule, neglecting all but the electric field, the bond energy is about 0.3% out by mental arithmetic, which own principle is good enough that perhaps we can make advances in chemical theory.

I also come up with the odd point that will really get people to disagree with me. I argue Einstein was correct with his EPR paper, and the rotating polariser experiments do NOT demonstrate violations of Bell's inequalities. I put 5 different reasons in my ebook "Guidance Waves", but one extra here - the set up B+C- is simply A+B- rotated by 22.5 degrees. You cannot generate two new variables by rotating your apparatus because that violates Nöther's theorem, and more to the point, you need that theorem to hold to get the spins entangled in the first place. The experiment does not give you sufficient variables to put into the inequalities. Further, if you assume the source is polarised, and do the experiment (at least in a thought experiment) now you do have sufficient variables, but if you assume the Malus relationship (which is a statement of the law of conservation of energy) then now Bell's inequalities are complied with. Now, of course someone can prove me wrong on that, and I would dearly love to see such a proof.

As I said, I cannot know that I am right, and in some ways there will be something wrong in what I think I know, but I argue that at least i have partial understanding, even if it is different from everyone else's.

@Jacques Lavau

It seems that you have concerns about movement of points.

Are you familiar with dynamical systems, particularly when the space of states X is an infinite dimensional manifold?

Depending on the set $X$ the "points" belonging to X can be wave functions, electric fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields, tensor fields, or other objects having "infinitely many degrees of freedom". Then "time dependent movement of points" refers to how the wave or the fields move as time changes. The Maxwell equations specify a time dependent movement on a "space" where "points" are electromagnetic fields. The Schrödinger unitary evolution equation tells how "points", equal to quantum wave functions $\Psi$ in the space $X=L^2(\R^3;\C)$, change along time, the movement being expressible as $U_t=\exp((-i/h)H)$ with $H$=Schrödinger self adjoint Hamiltonian operator. Many other examples exist. Ask your local experts.

The book that launched modern Mathematical Physics is "Foundations of Mechanics" by Abraham and Marsden. In this famous treatise all is about defining various (many!) sets X and describing laws of movement in the form of infinitesimal generators in X which, once integrated, provide collections of time dependent maps $U_t:X\to X$, often called "one-parameter groups". These are the basic tools of contemporary theoretical Physics, whether or not acknowledged by the theoreticians. Thus theoretical physics is about a set $X$ physically interpreted and endowed with a collection of maps $U_t:X\to X$. By definition $X$ together with $U_t$ is a dynamical system.

The elementary high school cases of "uniformly accelerated point moving in a straight line"; the "point moving with uniform circular movement on a plane"; or the less elementary "point moving in an elliptic trajectory under a gravitational potential"; and the "$n$ material points with masses $m_1,\cdots , m_n$ interacting under Newton Laws" (classical Solar System, or n-body problem) are all dynamical systems in finite dimensional manifolds. Infinite dimensions are required for waves.

Consider the hydrogen atom. Normalized quantum wave functions are not quantum states. There is a "phase redundancy" and the quantum state is the wave function $\Psi$ together with all its scalar multiples, that is, the quantum state is a Hilbert ray $[\Psi]$. Therefore the quantum space of states is the projective space $PL^2(\R^3;\C)$. And the quantum law of movement is induced on $PL^2(\R^3;\C)$ by $\exp((-i/h)H)$. Projective spaces are smooth manifolds that have been extensively studied by topologists. In the quantum case they are infinitely dimensional and are highly non-linear due to their rich cohomology.

This description of the quantum space of states and evolution equation is quantum mechanically correct and all the virtues and vices of QM remain here.

The solution of the contradictions, the incompleteness, the lack of determinism, the uncertainty and most other maladies of QM is:

1.- Take as wave functions the real valued ones $\psi$ (as distinct from the complex valued $\Psi$), their space being $E$.

2.- Let the space of electron configurations $[\psi]$ be the real projective space $PE$.

3.- Define the photon states as elements $\phi$ of the (symplectic) cotangent manifold $T^*PE$, of the projective $PE$.

4.- Use as total energy function the sum of energy of the electron configuration plus the kinetic energy of the photon.

5.- Postulate as evolution equation the Hamiltonian vector field of the total energy.

This is a theory dealing with wave functions, also called "scalar fields". But this is no longer Quantum Mechanics because now trajectories exist that join stationary electron configurations lying at different energy levels. In consequence the problematic QM can be discarded. The physics simplifies because now there is no need for discontinuous quantum jumps; nor for uncertainty principles; nor for nondeterminism; nor for spooky action at distance; nor for entanglement; nor for replacement of rotations with quantum spin; nor for wave-particle duality; nor for probabilistic interpretations. What we have here is a classical non-linear wave theory. These simplifications are not immediate corollaries of 1-5, but when details are worked out the simplifications are as stated.

My aim was to obviate as many technicalities as possible but unfortunately the result is not satisfactory for all. Some enthusiasts of Physics may be not familiar with all these concepts. Whenever possible I will try to explain better. I beg your forgiveness if and when time restrictions prevent me from completely assuming these duties.

To all the participants in this thread:

Do not hesitate in making constructive criticism and asking reasonable questions. And please pardon my ignorance of the many things that I may be unable to explain.

With best regards for all,

Daniel Crespin

The real test of your understanding of the quantum microphysics is the nine years old kid. Will he or she be able to re-explain with his/her hands the following phenomena?

With your hands first, and drawings and animations if you have them.

With the hands of the pupil.

The calculations come after the basic understanding.

“But why the emperor is naked on the main street?”

@Wulf Rehder

Dear Herr Rehder,

Thanks for your constructive and helpful most recent contributions.

We do not care if someone had a normal life, as most people has, or if he/she has been a victim of child abuse, is enslaved by substance addiction, or is just a frustrated person that, after failing an incipient scientific career, was forced into what he considers a less satisfying activity, just to make a living. All and everyone, be them normal or abnormal, are and will always be welcomed to this scientific thread, as you presently are.

If you are paid to meet people full of talents and virtues, describing these characters is a most satisfying activity, beautifully inked with sincerity. Happiness becomes your nature and joy will shine in all your texts.

At the other extreme I can imagine how terrible it can be for an unwilling author to be obligated to be hypocritical by writing eulogies about people he actually finds despicable. The intellectual slavery will make him a resentful human being eager to moist his pen in animal bile. Of course human beings could exist capable of willingly descend to those depths, but we do not know if that is your case. Any information on the matter will be appreciated. We are aware that unwilling ink for money is not as bad as unwilling sex for money.

Hence, whenever you feel the painful need to vent your bitterness, count almost always on us. Not on my initiative, but only if requested by Researchgate administrators of course, or by other participants, will you be blocked from my threads. Please keep coming that we will try to respond making you very happy, with answers like this one or, most frequently, by ignoring you.

Allowing disgruntled persons access to this thread helps them to make a brief escape from their unhappy world. Such an action rewards us with the virtue of being charitable. In this manner we provide them with a chance to proudly mention their admirable scientist relations. And also to spread their faith in Quantum Mechanics, way beyond the manifested doubts of feeble minded past scientists. Thanks to us, these pitiful evaders will enjoy for a moment the illusion of impressing others with the sharpness, breadth and quality of their scientific knowledge.

It is not that we are prey for self-dissatisfied people desperately in need of human attention and kindness, but we do want these predators to think that we are such easy prey and use the opportunity to show them what their true human condition is.

In my opinion your discourse is interesting, most revealing, and should be kept in the open. So far we know that, perhaps, you are an unfulfilled scientist, some sort of writer, and also a dedicated fan of Quantum Mechanics with expertise in Pataphysics and Quackery. Let us know your remaining talents. If you ever find a self administered test in a web page entitled "Are you a wannabe?" do not hesitate, take the test, and tell us about your score.

Young people will benefit by having your example. Inspiring writers illustrate the roles to follow while frustrated persons are models to be avoided.

I do not warranty frequent answers but I am sure that you will know, if the situation arises, how to interpret our silence.

Lebewohl, Herr Rehder

Daniel Crespin

In 1916, Albert Einstein had proved that each photon is directional, and carries the momentum hν/c. 

Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation) Mitteilungen der Physikalischen Gesellschaft, Zürich, 16, 47–62.

   The problem is that in 1916, nobody had practice of the directivity of the antennas. After the radars of the 2nd world war, we have no more excuses.

Just compare the Wellington with the 1.7 m wavelength radar, and with 9.1 cm radar. https://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/technologies/article/postulats-herites-du-copenhaguisme-162467

An emitting atom has no means to provide a directivity. Only the transaction [Emitter-optical-medium-absorber] can do.

But wait a minute: According to the hegemonic Göttingen-copenhaguist mythology, as in power for 1927, suddenly at his fantasy, the cement-maker sends a 20 tons trailer cruising at random simultaneously on all the roads. Its "wave of probability" spreads on all the surface of Earth, and suddenly, Miracle! The driver finds a customer whose hopper has room for 20 tons cement. So is the miracle of the "collapse of the wave function" as usually taught by the hegemonic sect. So an emitting atom may wait more than 14 milliards years, even much more, to know in which direction is the recoil, and how many. So is the Newtonian macro-time they teach to be a universal time...

Care must be taken to distinguish quackery from "violations of group think". On the link provided, one must be careful to distinguish between advanced maths and adequate maths. Strictly speaking, special relativity relies on an application of Pythagoras' theorem, and that is quite adequate. My criterion is, does the theory take you somewhere the others do not, and if so, do the calculations match what nature tells you.

First, I apologize to all participants if a previous message of mine seems unrelated to the question of the thread.

@Ian Miller

Dear Professor Miller,

My comment below refers to an individual atom, and not to a statistical situation.

Since you mention relativity I should remark that the natural equation of the hydrogen atom proposed in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316793987_The_Natural_Model_of_the_Hydrogen_Atom

predicts that, when the photon is being continuously absorbed and the electron approaches a stationary configuration, the photon slows down, in the sense that it spends a long time near the stationary electron. It can stop completely if the stationary configuration is exactly reached. This behavior is typical of dynamical systems when trajectories approach critical points. With speeds no longer equal to the constant c, relativistic corrections may be irrelevant or meaningless for the natural equation.

The more stationary the electron becomes, the slower the photon will evolve and the longer its "absorbed lifetime" will last. In particular the lifetimes depends on how well the stationary condition is attained. Therefore the constancy of the speed of light, well known in free space, no longer holds when the photon interacts with the electron.

If relativistic corrections were deemed necessary because of laboratory measurements, a better explanation could exist in the non-relativistic realm.

With most cordial regards,

Daniel Crespin

Why should we NOT understand QM? Is it beyond the human logic? Are there things beyond the human logic? Do there exist miracles in the universe?

@ Sofia D. Wechsler

Hello Miss/Mrs. Wechsler

The simple, low level, follow-the-traffic answer is "Because Richard Feynman said so". And no one, so far and to the best of my knowledge, challenged him.

May be characters like Planck, Einstein, Schrödinger, De Broglie, Bohm and Shimony did not say "nobody understands". They discreetly restricted themselves to a first person "I do not understand". But they should not be ignored.

Why can some people nowadays believe that they understand QM? One possibility is that QM is actually a correct description of atoms and particles in general.

The other case, which you are free to reject, is that the quantum doctrine has been taught for too long. And enough repetition of a lie can make it look like a truth, especially when the lie is numerically correct. The bad part is that the quantum dynamics is completely wrong and cannot be repaired.

If the natural equation I propose is correct, an alternative is now available and QM can be finally understood for what it is. QM is only partially correct and must be replaced. The replacement implies a rich non-linear mathematics based on Schrödinger self adjoint operator, and an enormous physical simplification.

If you are not yet familiar with dynamical systems, surely there are local experts on this topic available at your place. Ask one of these for a briefing and then look at the first few articles in

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Crespin/contributions

See also our Facebook group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/330199257510011/

Not only for QM and for the natural equation, but as general culture for any scientist, it is very, very important to assimilate the clarifying power of dynamical systems. Dynamical systems make differential equations much more understandable.

Sophia, I am very appreciative for this opportunity to discuss these matters with you.

Cordially,

Daniel Crespin

Hello to all Researchgate followers

This is the first of several documents created for our Facebook group "Postquantum Deterministic Physics"

hosted at

https://www.facebook.com/groups/330199257510011/

Their purpose is to explain QM to the general public.

Other future documents, once ready, will also be posted in Researchgate. They will continue with QM to later pass to the natural deterministic equation we have been proposing.

%%%%%%%%%%

Hello Facebook friends

HERE IS A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE QUANTUM DOCTRINE

PART I

There is, no doubt, a physical microworld of atoms, molecules, photons, electrons, and other particles.

After decades of discussion, Quantum Mechanics became the officially recognized doctrine that scientifically deals with the microworld.

However the very most important founding fathers of Quantism, including Planck, Einstein, De Broglie and Schrödinger, considered that QM was incomplete, maintained active criticism of QM, and died with their boots on.

Presently the scientific authorities on the microworld have solid scientific reputations based in their contributions to the enhancement of QM. Their ascent in science occurred because of their intelligent work in the advancement of the doctrine. They refuse to look at papers unless these agree with their doctrine. Dissenters are quarantined behind walls and doors of indifference, occasionally with derision.

Therefore this group was created. If we can give to the smart, educated, non-specialized public a good understanding of Quantism and its difficulties, hopefully a better one than Quantists can provide, followed by a clear description of the proposed replacement, then the closed doors will have to open.

%%%%%%%%%%%%

Long ago, when Alexandria was a Greek city, many wise men, all of them believers in the Geocentric doctrine, were busy calculating epicycles to predict with some accuracy the path of planets in the sky. There is no question that they were among the most intelligent men of their times.

But epicycles were too complicated, Geocentrism was replaced by Heliocentrism, and a better understanding of the Universe arose. In particular, the position on man within the immensity was better understood, preparing the way for a full Renascence. Still later Geocentrism was perfected with the Laws of Kepler. Galileo acted as a high enough stepping stone for Newton, and Modern Civilization arose. These historical processes have been the subject of uncountable monographs, articles, books and educational movies.

Quantism is to electrons, as epicycles were to planets. It works partially but is unsatisfactory because it requires too many departures from common sense.

Quantism has matter waves, called also wave functions, that are mathematical names for chunks of matter. And then Quantism tells us that these chunks of matter are, from the quantum viewpoint, just chunks of probabilities. Here solid matter becomes evanescent chunks of numbers. To these ideas Einstein replied "God does not play dice".

Let us agree that, in what follows, a "chunk of matter" means "smallest known chunk of negatively charged matter", commonly called "electron". We will talk about a single electron trapped by a proton, forming together a hydrogen atom.

Technically movement is often called "evolution". Thus, the answer to "How Earth evolves around the Sun?" is "Earth evolves following an elliptic path around the Sun". This is one of Kepler laws, and was found to be also a consequence of the Three Newton Laws, together with his Law of Gravitation.

Asking "How, according to Quantism, do the chunks of matter move?" for us will be "How, according to Quantism, do electrons move when trapped in hydrogen". The answer is "The chunks of matter evolve according to Schrödinger Quantum Law of Evolution".

Is it possible to explain in simple language the electron movement according to Schrödinger evolution? Yes, it is. The electron, according to Quantism, either remains completely quiet or, if given a push, starts to trembles endlessly as a bewitched piece of jelly. This is a simple, essentially correct description of the electron evolution.

In technical parlance one would say: "The electron, according to Quantism, is either stationary or has an endless quasi-periodic movement". We have reached the crux of the quantum difficulties.

TO BE CONTINUED

Most cordially,

Daniel Crespin

Dear Daniel

(and please call me just Sofia). In QM there are partly things that we have to accept, as the uncertainty principle - for instance, a quantum object cannot have at once position and velocity - and partly, things yet to be explained. In the latter category fall the meaning of the superposition principle, the collapse, and the fact that quantum correlations appearing in entanglements seem to show that results of present and future measurements are interdependent - as if the future is known.

I want to insist on the superposition principle: if the wave-function is of the form |a> + |b> what in fact we have in the apparatus? A particle on the path a and a particle of path b? The answer seems to be negative, since the wave-function does not contain the product |a>|b>. But, on the other hand, if we pass both wave-packets through fields, both are deviated, as if each one contains a particle - see my thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_something_wrong_with_the_superposition_principle_Do_there_apear_phantom_particles

This is the situation, in short. What we don't yet understand we have to continue to investigate.

Now, you say

" The bad part is that the quantum dynamics is completely wrong and cannot be repaired. "

What you say?! It's strange to me. To my knowledge, QM was NEVER contradicted by an experiment. Would you give an example showing the contrary? Please don't indicate articles, I am terribly busy. Do describe an example, in a few lines and in your own words, which shows that QM is contradicted by an experiment.

I also noticed a statement of yours

" The electron, according to Quantism, either remains completely quiet or, if given a push, starts to tremble endlessly as a bewitched piece of jelly. "

What you mean by quiet, and what you mean by trembling? First of all the electron is not a classical object, it is a wave (see interference experiments) carrying the charge -e and mass m0 = 10-27g. The linear momentum P of an electron in the atom has mean value zero, but P2 has the mean value different from zero. So, there is movement inside the atom - symmetrical movement - but not the movement of a billiard ball. If bombarding the atom with other particles the atom can eventually get more internal energy. In particular, the mean value of P2 of the electron may increase.

With best regards,

Sofia

In my opinion, you can never say any theory is "complete" because you never know what is around the corner. If you say a theory, like Newtonian mechanics is complete within its set of premises, then I suppose QM fails that test because there are a number of different interpretations, and within these interpretations I would argue that the main proponents do understand them. However, they will not claim "complete understanding" because like it or not, if you do that someone does an experiment that is difficult to comprehend.

In many cases, this is because the experiment has been interpreted in a specific way. An example is the delayed quantum eraser experiment. I argue that had one small variation been added on, the conclusion might have been quite different, but of course until someone does it, we shall never know. And nobody will be in any hurry to do it, because, just in case I am wrong, there is no glory in merely confirming what someone else did, especially when that is what people want to believe.

I am trying

The question " Do you agree with someone that claims to understand Quantum Mechanics" doesn't focus the basic problem, in my modest opinion, in the most fruitful way. "Understanding Quantum Mechanics (QM)", in fact, is too big a claim. I would like to replace the question by a simpler one: "Is there a point of QM on which you fully agree, and is there a point on which you fully disagree?". In which case I would have something to say without making you waste too much time.

What means to understand QM? We are classical creatures, quantum systems don't behave classically.

Whatever we can do vis-a-vis the quantum systems, is to build a theory that predicts correctly the results of ALL the experiments with quantum objects. This was/is done, and its name is QM.

The problem is that at present, QM does not answer some basic questions - i.e. how works the collapse, and what is the meaning of the superposition principle. Worse than that, when we have to do with entanglements, it seems that results of present measurements depend on the settings of future measurements, as if the future is known.

This is indeed a thing that we do not understand, s.t. efforts are being invested to explain it, (among others).

From my location up here on Mars, understanding QM is something like understanding the Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization on Earth. Sofia is beginning to speak out about a number of contradiction under which our quantum civilization is collapsing. These contradictions, however, are the symptoms of a sliding-doors game which has precise historical origins...

"L. de Broglie's great theoretical discovery of the wave phenomenon associated with the electron was followed by incontrovertible experimental evidence of the reality of de Broglie's waves, and may be said to hold the field today along the whole line. It must have given to de Broglie the same shock and disappointment as it gave to me, when we learnt that a sort of transcendental, almost psychical interpretation of the wave phenomenon had been put forward".

E. SCHROEDINGER, THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS (Dublin seminars, 1949-1955) Ox Bow Press (1995).

Either there is a wave or there is not. If you believe there is not, you have to argue that in the 2-slit experiment, the particles simply follow what would be expected from a wave equation by magic. Similarly, either there ear particles or there are not. If you believe there are not, you have to argue that the wave collapses to a point on a detector by magic, as it sudd3ently realises it has been detected. To argue there is a wave and a particle, as de Broglie and Bohm did, seems to me eminently sensible. Accordingly my interpretation of quantum mechanics adopts that point of view, but I add two more aspects.

"Let me say at the outset that I am opposing not a few special statements of Quantum Physics held today (1955). I am opposing the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views, shaped when Max Born put forward his probabilistic interpretation".

E. SCHROEDINGER, THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS (Dublin seminars, 1949-1955) Ox Bow Press (1995).

Adriano,

It's your full right to oppose whatever you want. The question is whether you can rigorously prove that those things you oppose are wrong. Otherwise, the fact that you oppose is a private problem of yours, with no consequences.

Let me tell you something personal, from my own research. There are experimental facts that simply BEG the interpretation of full/empty waves. But, what to do, that Hardy's paradox does not permit this interpretation. By the way, this is why I adviced you to try your hand/your luck, and see if you can find continuous trajectories compatible with the case that both detector D+ and D- fire. I "smell" that you didn't follow my advice. If you yes would do, you would see what I speak about. That paradox is a heartless, unmovable wall, that breakes all the hopes of those who look for particles and trajectories, any trajectories - not necessarily Bohmians, including the more general hypothesis of empty/full waves. It is the nightmare of the Bohmians.

With kind regards,

Sofia

Sofia,

Let me worsen my situation at your eyes.

When in Classical Physics one launches a particle in a stationary field, one only needs the knowledge of its launching position and momentum in order to determine a well-defined trajectory, holding forever. Maupertuis attributed the fact that the particle is “obliged” to run along such a precooked trajectory to God Himself.

In the Wave-Mechanical case, the only difference is that one must assign position and momentum over the surface from which the particle, together with its pilot wave, is assumed to start, in order to obtain a full set of trajectories holding forever. These trajectories, normal to the phase fronts of a wave solving the energy-dependent Schroedinger equation, are geometrically coupled, giving the wrong (Maupertuis-like) idea of a magic “particle entanglement”, in case you launch two of them along the same trajectory set. You can imagine as many satanic exceptions as you want, but you cannot deny the existence, in principle, of (coupled) particle trajectories.

Best regards

Adriano

Adriano,

Yo speak in riddles for me. I am not interested to discuss classical mechanics or classical wave-mechanics. As to the QM, there is no such thing as assigning both position and momentum to some quantum object. The exists the uncertainty principle.

You also say

" These trajectories, normal to the phase fronts of a wave solving the energy-dependent Schroedinger equation, are geometrically coupled, giving the wrong (Maupertuis-like) idea of a magic “particle entanglement”, "

I never heard in QM of coupled trajectories, such inventions are not known to me.

If you want to invent a new theory it's your right, but it a new theory requires from you to prove that it explains correctly ALL the quantum experiments.

Good luck!

Nobody has ever provided the physics of the magical transmutation of any individual wave into something corpuscular, with "corpuscular aspects".

Any individual wave : photon, electron, neutron, etc, any limited-mass "particle".

In 1935, very enthusiastic of the new Knabenphysik, Linus Pauling and Bright Wilson Jr. pretended to rewrite the radiocrystallography into corpuscular terms. Their result is so funny that I have included it - with pleasure - pages 190-192 of the handbook. They postulated a quantification of the linear momenta. Huh huh ! http://www.lulu.com/shop/jacques-lavau/transactional-quantum-microphysics-principles-and-applications/paperback/product-23656620.html

Sofia,

I'm not inventing a "new theory". I'm simply exploiting a standard equation - the energy-dependent Schroedinger equation. ANY Helmholtz-like equation (to whose family the energy-dependent, single-particle Schroedinger equation belongs) is endowed with coupled trajectories, both in classical and quantum physics (see arXiv:1701.01168v9). Trajectory coupling is a general wave property.

Now, as Bohm says in his "Atomic Physics" (1935), "It's very attractive to interpret a particle of matter as a wave-packet due to the superposition of a number of wave-trains. But this tentative interpretation comes up against insurmountable difficulties, since a wave-packet of this kind is in general VERY SOON dissipated". It's the claim, indeed, of viewing an average quantity as an observable, while it's only, on the contrary, a useful invention of our mind. The uncertainty principle is not a founding property of the de Broglie - Schroedinger Wave Mechanics. It basically refers to wave-packets: an impossible contradiction characterizing both Copenhagen and Bohmian physics. Whence their "nightmares", as you say.

Best regards

Adriano

Sofia,

You are fighting a strange battle. You stressed an important contradiction in the Copenhagen-Bohm approach. Very well, then. Go on along that line.

Why transforming your success into a rearguard war?

Adriano

Adriano,

If you want to create a theory of trajectories, it's your right, and it's not my bussiness. I just told you that for a theory to be correct, it has to explain ALL the experiments in QM. Is this a "fight" for you? For sure, your theory won't explain Hardy's paradox, that even to read you refuse, not to speak of trying to solve with your theory. But it's also your right to disregard any experiment that your theory won't explain. And again it's not my bussiness.

Now, I AM A TOO MUCH BUSY PERSON.

So, GOOD BYE, and ALL THE BEST!

Sofia,

I didn't see a fight between you and me, but between you and any doubt about SQM's tenets.

Since neither of us really took the other's reasons into account, it's high time, indeed, to say good bye.

And thank you.

Adriano

"For a theory to be correct, it has to explain ALL the experiments in QM".

But what about the tons of experimental facts well established, but kept out of the small subset permitted by the Göttingen-København heirs?

Lots of necessary knowledge never cross the distance between two lecture rooms on the same campus.

The Monday, the electrons are said to be punctual, in the QM lecture room.

But Wednesday, they are proved to extend on several tens of interatomic distances, in the Solid State Physics lecture room.

And many other examples.

I recall, again and again and with no results, the Ramsauer-Townsend transparency, proved for 1921. Heavily censured in all the QM handbooks, excepted the D. Sivoukhin's.

Hello friends

A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE QUANTUM DOCTRINE

PART II

If the push away from stillness is small, the electron receives a small amount of energy and discreetly, but permanently, quivers. For larger impulses the jelly trembling can become a dread horror shuddering. The movement under Schrödinger evolution stops only if some external intervention carefully reshapes the electron into a new stationary state.

It is like the grim curse punishing Karen in Hans Christian Andersen story "The Red Shoes". For the trapped electron, if stillness is perturbed it begins a dance that can not be detained. In the quantum model this incapacity to stop is the otherwise benevolent Physical Law called "Conservation of Energy". In the case of the electron Schrödinger law is a malediction of never stop trembling.

Summing up, under Schrödinger quantum evolution law the electron can remain motionless, still, stationary, like a lead soldier standing guard. Or can be active, endlessly dancing, suffering like Karen the energetic torture of eternal movement.

The quantum theoretical electron dance is particularly worrying because, as established for physical electrons by experiment, mad dancing is not what electrons do. If offered an amount of energy insufficient to exactly reach a new stationary state, the electron rejects the offer. And active electrons are always radiating energy and will remain doing so until a new stationary state is reached.

On one hand the theoretical evolution was handicapped with a curse. On the other hand physical experiments were telling that the child like unstoppable dance was not happening in the real world. Then the fathers of Quantism decided that the Schrödinger bewitched evolution law was physically correct and must stay. The reason could have been that to be really worthy any physical needs some evolution equation, and no other was available. And to break the spell of the red shoes they resourced to a external, strange, almost satanical probabilistic intervention.

Quantism postulated that certain probabilities exist of a restoration that converts a perturbed state into a new stationary state, accompanied by the emission or absorption, as the case may be, of a photon. The intervention was called "quantum jump".

Confronted with such weird, unnatural hypothesis Schrödinger, being certainly a visionary but a rational one, said: "Had I known about this damned quantum jumping, I would never have messed with the subject". The original German phrase "Diese Verdammte Quantenspringerei" became a landmark.

It is certainly hard to believe that new stationary states can be reached by chance, without the guidance of a wise and purposeful hand. This should be the hand of a differential equation that knows exactly where to go. Instead, Quantists tell that it is the hand of blind luck. We now give a look at the electron energies.

Most cordially,

Daniel Crespin

TO BE CONTINUED

Hello Facebook friends

A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE QUANTUM DOCTRINE

PART III (Last)

Recall that we are considering an individual electron trapped by a proton, forming a hydrogen atom.

At the beginning of the 20th century spectroscopy was a firmly established branch of Physics. The year 1901 Planck found that, for electromagnetic waves within a cavity, there is a fixed proportionality between their frequencies v and the values E of their energies. He calculated the value of the proportionality constant as h=6.62x10^{34} J·s=4.13x10^{15} eV·s, now called Planck constant. Planck relation for electromagnetic waves is then E=hv.

Since James Clerk Maxwell and Heinrich Hertz light is known to be an electromagnetic wave. In 1905, Einstein introduced the idea of a smallest possible chunk of light and called it photon. He then proposed that photons carry energy and that, although very small (much smaller than a train of radio waves), they can be assigned an energy E, a wavelength L and a frequency v. Energy and frequency are related to each other by v=c/L with c=speed of light. He went further and proposed that for photons energy and frequency are related as in the formula earlier proposed by Planck. When applied to individual photons the expressions E=hv and E=hc/L are currently called "Planck-Einstein relations".

As is the case of photons, all electron states, stationary or animated, have a well defined amount of energy. As the state evolves under Schrödinger evolution the energy will remain the same; will decrease if energy is radiated; or will increase if energy is absorbed. It was deduced from the study of spectral lines that in all cases the possible energies for an electron trapped by a proton are in the range from 0 to a topmost value of 13.6 eV, called Rydberg constant, Ry=13.6 eV.

Energy is always relative, like height or depth. The relevant fact, when dealing with energy, are not so much the values themselves but to keep track of the differences of the energies between the various states. If we are careful enough instead of the range 0 to Ry we can add any number, say -3.1416, and use the range -3.1416 to -3.1416+Ry. It was found that for hydrogen the most convenient range results from subtracting the value Ry so that the energy values of a bound electron lie in the range from -Ry to 0.

If hydrogen is conceived as a well where the electron is trapped, the well bottom is at energy level -Ry and the well top is at energy level zero. Often, to simplify language, instead of "the range from -Ry to 0" we will use "the continuum range" or an even shorter "the range". Thus the range is a full continuum of values and these are the values available to the bound electron states, whether stationary or animated.

From spectroscopic studies, and from the Planck-Einstein formula relating wavelengths to energies, a remarkable fact was obtained. The stationary energies, defined above as the energies of the motionless electrons, are very special. They are not arbitrary values in the continuum range but only the following very special energy values are stationary: -Ry, -Ry/4, -Ry/9, -Ry/16, -Ry/25, and so on.

Thus, the only stationary energies are the negatives of Rydberg constant divided by the square of an integer. This was remarkable and strange. Why in Nature should this be so? Nobody knew.

There was a time when scientists compared electron in atoms to plums in a pudding. This was the Thompson model. Then the idea arose in 1913, inspired by the heliocentric Solar System of Kepler, that electrons were little points moving in circles around the atomic nucleus. This was Bohr model, already endowed with mysterious "quantum jumps". Several additional atomic models were created, but all were eventually abandoned and considered obsolete. The only model surviving to this day is the quantum model based on wave functions and built around H by our much admired and quantum-reluctant hero Edwin Schrödinger.

The electron shapes are beyond human sight. They are too small for our eyes. Several decades ago, and recently again, some scientists claimed to have observed orbitals, or rather to have taken their pictures, but the issue remains controversial. Anyway, the electron shapes belong to two mutually exclusive classes: They are either stationary or animated.

It was said before, in informal language, that the electron is a "smallest chunk of negatively charged matter". The term "chunk" has connotations of arbitrariness, irregularity or disorder. It is not the case of the stationary electron shapes. They exhibit astonishing combinations of form and symmetry suggestive of a completely new aesthetic of Nature. For a glimpse Google images with "hydrogen orbitals" or go to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Again, it is common knowledge that the shapes of the electron, either stationary or active, cannot be observed directly. We can admire sculptures in art galleries or enjoy ballet at the theater, but the electron is too small for our eyes to see. If they are invisible, how can we speak about they being symmetric or appreciate any aesthetic in their shapes?

Imagine the surprise in 1926 when Erwin Schrödinger calculated an exhaustive list of motionless electron shapes. To accomplish this feat he used a miraculous mathematical object nowadays called Schrödinger energy operator, or Schrödinger Hamiltonian, whose cryptic formula is H=-(h^2/8\pi^2\mu)\nabla^2+V.

The operator involves wave functions, second order partial derivatives, Coulomb electrostatic potential, reduced mass of hydrogen, linearity, orthogonality, spherical harmonics, and Laguerre polynomials, at least. It requires considerable physical background just to arrive at a reasonable heuristics for H.

Associated to H there is a so called "eigenvalue problem", which Schrödinger solved. The solution consists of a sequence of numbers and a list of wave functions.

The sequence of numbers turned out to be exactly the sequence of stationary electron energies already known from spectroscopy. And the list of wave functions consisted of invisible stationary electron shapes, now amenable to be drawn by means of their formulas. These results have been later supported by many additional studies and experimental facts.

For each stationary energy value -Ry/n^2 there are in Schrödinger list exactly n^2 wave functions having that energy

Since they are stationary, the wave functions in Schrödinger list are safe from the unjust curse of Schrödinger evolution and are spared the fate laid on beautiful little Karen. Any model or theory that betters Quantism must assimilate Schrödinger list.

The Schrödinger list cannot explicitly include all the motionless states (they constitute "multidimensional manifolds"). But the list is exhaustive in the following sense: "Any motionless wave function which (necessarily) has energy equal to one of the stationary values $-Ry/n^2$, can be uniquely expressed as an averaged superposition of the $n^2$ wave functions appearing in Schrödinger list with the same energy $-Ry/n^2$".

Allowing now more than one stationary energy we have: "Any wave function, stationary or animated, having any energy in the continuum range, can be uniquely expressed as an averaged superposition of wave functions in Schrödinger list".

Actually the colorful orbitals of the hydrogen atom that are usually exhibited in Internet represent the "normalized squared modulus" of the wave functions in Schrödinger list.

The bottom line is that Schrödinger quantum evolution and quantum jumps contradict each other. To make this inconsistency palatable an extensive quantum ideology was developed by Quantists or adapted from outstanding critics. These include various principles and concepts:

Wave-Particle Duality

Principle of Complementarity

Principle of Correspondence

Principle of Uncertainty

Principle of Indeterminacy

Breakdown of causality

Breakdown of continuity

Breakdown of determinism

Virtual particles

Creation and destruction operators

Quantum wave collapse

Entanglement

Important effects of observer minds on measurements

Special measurement theories

Schrödinger cat

Local violation of energy conservation

Nonexistence of hidden, occult or ignored variables.

Multiverses

Etc.

The present author has proposed a natural deterministic model of hydrogen. See "I Do Understand Quantum Mechanics" downloadable from this group called "Postquantum Deterministic Physics"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/330199257510011/

and visit also this pair of links

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Crespin/contributions

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_agree_with_someone_that_claims_to_understatnd_Quantum_Mechanics

If thing go as planned the restoration of certainty, causality, determinism, continuity and other important classical principles will soon attract the attention of the Physics establishment leading eventually to a reexamination of Quantism. And then QM will be repaired.

Most cordially,

Daniel Crespin

END OF "A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE QUANTUM DOCTRINE"

It is hard to un derstand the text of D. Crespin because of the unclear phrase "shapes of electron". The electron has no shape, by the QFT it is surrounded by virtual photons.

What have shapes are the orbitals of the electron. These are clouds, not lines. The phrase that "stationary energies, defined above as the energies of the motionless electrons" is totally wrong, the average value of the operator P̑2 in the bound states of the electron, is strictly positive. Therefore the electron has a kinematic motion.

D. Crespin:"Any wave function, stationary or animated, having any energy in the continuum range, can be uniquely expressed as an averaged superposition of wave functions in Schrödinger list"

Since when a stat of positive energy (a state in the continuous range of energies) can be expressed as a linear superposition of states with negative energies (bound states)?

D. Crespin: "an extensive quantum ideology was developed by Quantists"

It's not ideology it's facts experimentally proved. The existence of virtual particles was proved - see Savasta's works; the uncertainty principle is already known from Maxwell's electomagnetism; entanglements are widely known; raising and lowering operators are just mathematical tools for experiments in which the number of particles is not constant - what's your problem with them? On the collapse there is indeed a debate, very tough. Multiverses is science-fiction.

About the non-determinism, if we don't accept it we have to accept retro-causality from the future.

SDW, you still believe that the Newtonian macro-time has relevance and causal power in microphysics.

However, atoms do not age, and atomic nuclei do not age either.

The Newtonian macro-time is only a statistical emergence, flowing in the same direction as the entropy.

JL, I still believe that you did not understand what I talked about. The issue was that our universe does not admit retro-causation.

As to aging, atoms/nuclei do age when they are excited - the aging is manifested in de-excitation. Did you hear about thermo-nuclear chains? This is the aging of unstable nuclei. The Pb element appeared in nature as the final product of such a chain.

Dear friends,

when I entered this discussion branch, I was overwhelmed before being able to to tell you what I had in mind. Since reading and digesting a paper is always an intolerable task, I’ll not submit you to this terrible experience, and I’ll limit myself to syntetize here my message:

1) ANY Helmholtz-like wave equation may be easily shown to be equivalent to a set of EXACT trajectories. These trajectories turn out to be generally coupled by a term which is the one and only cause of diffraction and interference processes.

2) The energy-dependent Schroedinger equation is itself a Helmholtz-like wave equation, and leads therefore to such a set of exact trajectories, along which particles are driven by their de Broglie’s wave.

3) I'm speaking of exact dynamical trajectories, and NOT of Bohmian hydrodynamical probability flow lines.

4) When the coupling term is absent, the trajectories reduce to their geometrical optics approximation: Classical Dynamics.

5) I have good reasons to believe that the uncertainty principle doesn't apply to this case. If you do not believe me, well: this is at least a perfectly working science fiction work...

6) Full stop. I hope you are still there. Any discussion is welcome.

Adriano Orefice

@Sophia

Dear Sophia

Would you believe that I already have some knowledge of what you kindly explain now to us? Yes, I think I do.

Long ago, when initially meeting Quantism, I though that it was a somewhat obscure discipline. But it never occurred to me that Quantism could be the erroneous theory I was to discover it is.

On the aesthetic side, my background was four years of Math graduate school coupled with "Foundations of Mechanics" by Ralph Abraham and Jerry Marsden. My purpose was to develop a more clear version of Quantism, as needed when in love with Geometry.

Contemporary Geometry, I mean: Morse Theory, symplectic manifolds, Hamiltonian gradients of energy functions and the like. Nowadays you can easily find papers on QM, written by QM loyalists, that use these geometric tools.

Mine was not such a difficult enterprise because many geometric objects were already present in standard quantum expositions. Soon the quantum scheme was translated into geometrical terms:

Complex wave functions $\Psi:R^3\to C$

Normalized squared modulus $|\Psi|^2/\|\Psi\|^2$

Infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space $E^C$ with $\Psi\in E^C$

Schrödinger self adjoint Hamiltonian operator $H^C:E^C \to E^C$

Eigenvalues $\Lambda_n$

Eigenspaces $E_n$

Schrödinger time dependent evolution $\partial \Psi/\partial t = (-i/h)H(\Psi)$

Quantum unitary flow given as an exponential $U_t = \exp((-i/h)H)t: E^C\to E^C$

Hilbert rays $[\Psi]$

Associated complex projective space $PE^C$

Associated eigenprojectives $PE_n$

Quantum energy function $e_{H^C} =/: E^C\to \R$

Tangent manifold $TPE^C$ of $PE^C$

Symplectic structure in $PE^C$

Hamiltonian vector field $X_{e_{H^C}}$ of $e_{H^C}$, with $X_{e_{H^C}}:PE^C\to TPE^C$

Hamiltonian flow $[U_t]: PE^C\to PE^C$ which is induced by the linear flow, $[U_t]=[\exp((-i/h)H)t]$

Energy conservation by the flow $e_{H^C}([U_t]([\Psi])) =e_{H^C}(([\Psi])) $

Critical manifolds equal to the eigenprojectives $PE_n$

Global structure of the flow $[U_t]$ as given by the Projective Spectral Theorem

Except the last line, I think all of the above can be found in the paper "The Quantum Model".

But something did not fit. For weeks, perhaps months, I was unable to nicely fit the quantum probabilities in the above scheme. Trajectories in $PE^C$ joining stationary states $[\Psi_m]$ and $[\Psi_n]$ were obviously required, but I could not figure out how was mysterious QM using probabilities to provide these.

Until I read (in Max Jammer book "The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics", p. 324) Schrödinger statement that "If one has to stick to this damned quantum jumping, then I regret having ever been involved in this thing", which can be shortened to "If this damned quantum jumping stays, I regret to be involved".

A flash struck me: Quantists understood the need of transitions while, Schrödinger understood his wave mechanics, and he knew that what this violated his unitary equation. For me, the goal suddenly changed from clarifying QM more replacing QM with the yet to be found correct equations and theory.

With probabilities the quantum guys got it wrong. They artificially forced probabilities into the formalism. The deterministic trajectories are missing because the quantum formalism is incomplete. Impatiently the Quantists invented quantum jumps, that is to say, adapted the Bohr model of the atom to wave mechanics.

First, around 1992, I worked out a gradient theory, called Realism. This only explained photon radiation, but not absorption unless you changed the sign of the evolution equation. But it was anyhow better than QM that explained neither.

From the very beginning I knew that complex numbers were a hindrance, that that the vector space $E$ of real valued wave functions $\psi:R^3\to R$ is enough, that the space of electron configurations should be the real projective $PE$, that photons could not be ignored and that they were the conjugate variables of the electron configurations represented with the cotangent manifold $T^*PE$. Furthermore the total energy should include the kinetic energy the photon. And the evolution equation must be the Hamiltonian vector field of this energy.

To solve the equation I unsuccessfully tried to extend the Projective Spectral Theorem to the cotangent manifold $T^*PE$. This was clearly required to confirm that the theory was consistent with the physics. Finally, a couple of years ago, I found a direct geometric method that is good enough to analyze the natural evolution equation.

I hope, Sophia, these anecdotal details to be sufficient to justify why I consider your messages as the confession of a radical Quantist, and a measure of your deep faith in the Quantum Doctrine. Contrary to that, my posts have been elaborated in rejection of the quantum doctrine and with the hope of eventually replacing it.

You can verify my standpoint by simply reading the papers here in Researchgate

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Crespin/contributions

With my most cordial an respectful regards,

Daniel Crespin

Daniel,

I understood nothing. You use all the time the $ sign. It makes the reading impossible for me. The RG gives you the possibility of upper case and lower case. Use them.

Also, you told me a long story, from which I didn't understand WHAT seems to you UNACCEPTABLE about QM. Take in consideration that the QM was constructed by the greatest minds, and was exhaustingly tested. The theoreticians and experimentalists of QM are not a gang of impostors meant to ellude the world. They are honest people. I had the honor to be acquainted with some of them, e.g. I had talks with Abner Shimony who impressed me by his profoundness of thinking.

Maybe your teachers in QM did not succeed to convince you. l am telling you sincerely that I am extremely displeased how the QM is taught in our days in universities. Equations, equations, etc., no phenomenology. The new generation doesn't know anymore that physics is first of all phenomena.

I recall when the first time I had a talk with Asher Peres he exclaimed "You had very bad teachers!!!!" Maybe this is your history too. But, in the neighborhood of Peres, I had the greatest teachers, who reshaped whatever I thought of QM. Also, I was there when some important facts on QM were discovered.

Now, if you speak in jokes and riddles, I have difficulty in understanding what you try to say. I suggest you to place the finger on WHAT makes you doubt QM. Also, please don't tell me "read my article" because I am so busy that I don't know when is day and when is night. PLACE THE FINGER on what seems to you the hardest problem, and describe it it in your own words.

With kind regards,

Sofia

P.S. The theory of de-excitation of an excited atom can be found in books of quantum optics - e.g. Walls & Milburn. I have some objections on this theory, but I can't tell you at this early stage of talk.

Dear Daniel,

Sofia doesn't realize that she's talking, too, in riddles and jokes. Why won't you try - both of you - to avoid your jargons and speak in human terms?

That's what I'm trying to do. I cited, for instance, some very clear passages (which you kindly recommended!) from de Broglie and Schroedinger.Their own words, not mine!

"I am so busy that I don't know when is day and when is night. PLACE THE FINGER on what seems to you the hardest problem, and describe it it in your own words", Sofia says.

This common sense ought to concern everyone, at least down here on RG.

kind regards

Adriano

SDW. You are aging : the probability you will die in the next year increases each year.

Since it was synthesized in the implosion of a supernova, a 232Th nucleus does not age: it still has the same probability to decay into 228Ra and alpha.

@Sophia

I assumed that physicists without exception are familiar with LaTex, the standard code to compose pdf documents when formulas are required. Submissions to all(?) Physics journals are in LaTex.

I will soon compile and post here a pdf with some of my previous messages.

Regards,

Daniel

I think that there is a danger of losing track of what "understand" means. Yes, I think most of us agree what the equations are, although for Daniel's benefit, I do not read LaTex. I have a small program that converts what i write to the LaTex form, but I for one can't be bothered to try and unravel a lot of that code.

But back to understanding. At the most fundamental level, we have wave-particle duality. From that we get the options: There is a wave but no particle; there is a particle but no wave; there is a wave and a particle; there are neither. That is the logic choice. The problem now is, different people make different choices, but most refuse to choose, taking refuge is various equations, from which they can "Shut up and compute". You can claim understanding by saying you understand what the equations do. Others deny that is understanding. However, if you go deeper, you cannot claim understanding unless you can make the choice and KNOW you are correct. I argue you can't do that. You can think you are correct, in which case you may be able to say can say you understand IF your premises are correct.

In my case, I argue there is a wave, and there is a particle. The wave is represented by ψ = Aexp(2πiS/h), S the action, and from Euler I stay "Action is manifest only in discrete quanta". From that, it is reasonably easy to derive the Uncertainty Principle (with more uncertainty than others think - if you could prove your limit through observation on a single particle in linear motion, you would prove me wrong) and the Exclusion Principle (which has nothing to do with spin in this derivation.) From that, and with a pocket calculator, I can get the bond dissociation energy of Sb2 to within a couple of kJ/mol. from analytical equations, which takes me somewhere where most can't go, so I claim to have some reasonable understanding. But maybe I am wrong, it is all an illusion by nature, and my chemical bond properties I onbtainare a collection of accidental coincidences.

Oh, Daniel!

I HATE LaTeX. Please be so kind, don't use it! If you can use the (very summary indeed) possibilities of editing of RG, it's better.

With kind regards!

Dear Adriano,

Do I speak in riddles? I am not aware of this. You are the first one who tells me this. I will try to pay more attention.

About my complaint of being busy, it's TRUE. Look, in my country it's 3 o'clock at night. I believe that being busy is the problem of the most of us.

People have the custom to indicate articles. It's good, but not realistic. For presenting a main idea it's not needed to put someone to read a whole article. We are over-flooded with material. Out of understanding for people, the good procedure is to describe that idea in a few lines. Of course, whoever would be interested in details, would read the whole article. It happened to me repeatedly that I read articles indicated by people, because they insisted, and I found out that the people simple did not understand what I talked about and recommended irrelevant articles. Nobody is glad to waste time.

With kind regards,

Sofia

Dear Sofia,

I hate LATEX too. But Daniel knows very well that Homo Sapiens (or at least most of us Homines Sapientes, including Mulieres Sapientes) makes use of WORD, togeter with its Equation Editor. But the real problem is another one.

I spent my life in the Thermonuclear Fusion community, where the common language was (and is) the old fashioned one of Planck, Einstein, de Broglie and Schroedinger, and where I noticed the basic role of electromagnetic trajectories. When I finally realized that Thermonuclear Fusion is far out of reach, I passed to Wave Mechanical particle trajectories, which turned out to be an immediate consequence (in two simple pages) of the Schroedinger equations.

And here came the real difficulty, of which you are a particular case. The dominant belief in Standard Quantum Mechanics induces in fact most physicists to deny and ignore the very existence of those two pages.

When you spoke, moreover, of single photons splitted in many wave-packets, most of which belonging to empty waves, claimed that it’s an experimental truth and said that they don’t cope with simple-minded trajectories and particles, since they probably need the “vacuum participation”, I tried to hide my dismay, with the only effect of finding myself before a wall, because of course trajectories are anathema, most of all when they are are shown to be so simple.

Best regards

Adriano

For all participants:

I just added an article in pdf format "A Simple Explanation of the Quantum Doctrine". It collects some of my comments above.

It is available here

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Crespin/contributions

and here

https://www.facebook.com/groups/330199257510011/

With cordial regards,

Daniel Crespin

Dear Daniel,

I read your "Simple Explanation", which I recommend and on which I agree at 99%. For the remaining 1%, I'll refer to my arXiv:1701.01168v10. But never mind! I'll synthesize it here in a nutshell:

1) The basic equation is and remains Schroedinger's energy-dependent (i.e. time-independent) equation. It's by no means a "hieroglyphic formula", since it's simply obtained from very plausible assumptions. It's also simply seen to lead to exact point-particle dynamic trajectories, while the energy-independent equation necessarily involves wave-packets and probabilistic concepts.

2) Once supplied with its starting conditions on a launching phase surface, the particle is addressed along its trajectory by the energy-preserving "gentle role" of the associate (stationary) de Broglie's wave, which is one of its basic properties, as well as mass, charge and spin.

Best regards

Adriano Orefice

Crespin : The minus signs are forgotten : 10-34, 10-15.

@ Jacques Lavau

Thanks very much Jack!

I see they are in page 4 of the pdf

Hope to make the corrections today or tomorrow

Gratefully,

Daniel

@Jacques Lavau

OK, exponents on p. 4 are now negative . Also, the tittle of section 13 was changed to "Quantum mirages" and other minor details were updated

Thanks again!

I have published in french the duty of the nine years old kid, with solutions:

1st task: the transfer of a photon from an emitter to an absorber in the simple case, with no possibility of interferences between several paths.

The kid is apt to pan his two hands, parallel to the wavefronts, at a constant speed. The preparation consists in drawing at the blackboard the sketch of the envelope of the Fermat spindle: as small in diameter as an individual emitter, as tight at the other end as an absorption reaction is, and as thick in the middle as the Fermat principle allows. All the pack must arrive at the absorber with less than a quarter of period dephasing.

Image: http://jacques.lavau.deonto-ethique.eu/Physique/ellipse_Fermat.jpg

Of course, the gesture of the kid and the Fermat spindle are the same for any other individual wave, such as the transfer of an electron in a vacuum tube.

Please do not ask the kid to tell how many wavelengths or periods compose such an individual wave: he has not the experimental means for such an evaluation, and he does not master the theorem of Emmy Noether, nor the properties of the spectra (Fourier transform).

2nd task: We choose the case where the frontier of phase is a diametral plane, n = 2, l = 1.

So it is enough to keep a hand by phase domain (each representing a half of the electron), and alternate their orientations: left palm up, right palm down, and alternate with left palm down, right palm up, and so on. Never a hand crosses the plane frontier. It is a stationary state.

Images for the N2 molecule:

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/440190/filename/thesis_DrStefanHaessler.pdf

The other links are now dead.

There is not more bzzzz mad and corpuscular electron bzzzzing everywhere, than butter on the branches.

3rd task: The transfer of an electron from the emitter to its absorber, in a more elaborate case, with two paths, for instance two slits, or above and under a micro-solenoid for an Aharonov-Bohm experiment. No need to feed the micro-solenoid for now, but we polarize correctly the three threads : minus, the splitting electrode, plus and minus, the two refocalizing electrodes.

You have to help the kid by graduating from 10 cm to 10 cm the pair of paths leading to three different absorbers: one on the middle, one at extinction by dephasing, and a third at the first rephasing.

Each hand slides along each path, with the index figuring one front wave, and the thumb another front wave, Now the kid regularly walks, following the graduations on the blackboard; when out of phase, a thumb of one hand falls in the middle of the thumb and the index of the other hand.

Objection: yes, there are front waves with light, say where E and B are maximum for a plane wave, or when E is vertical upside in the case of a perfectly circularly polarized photon. But no, we cannot experimentally define front waves for the electron wave: it has four components, and we lack an experimental way to isolate and follow just one of the four. We have not even a way to isolate the fraction of time the electron runs forward at c speed, or runs backward at speed -c. Your objection for the thumb and index are valid; however, the wavelengths of the electron still exist and are put in evidence in scattering, like the Bragg scattering discovered by Compton. So we do not trick nor the child, nor the public.

I leave you ending alones the tasks 4 and 5, the extensions to crowds. They are the usual optics experiences.

The calculations come after the basic understanding.

Of course the Göttingen-Køttingen sect and their heirs disagree, and keep shouting : "Shut up and calculate !". The formalism is strictly undulatory and strictly determinist, so the formalism succeeds.