The really important breakthrough in theoretical physics is that the Schrödinger Time Dependent Equation (STDE) is wrong, that it is well understood why is it wrong, and that it should be replaced by the correct Deterministic Time Dependent Equation (DTDE). Unitary theory and its descendants, be they based on unitary representations or on probabilistic electrodynamics, will have to go away. This of course runs against the claims about string and similar theories made in the video. But our claims are a dense, constructive criticism with many consequences. Taken into account if you are concerned about the present and the near future of Theoretical Physics.
Wave mechanics with a fully deterministic behavior of waves is the much needed and sought --sometimes purposely but more often unconsciously-- replacement of Quantism that will allow the reconstruction of atomic and particle physics. A rewind back to 1926 is the unavoidable starting point to participate in the refreshing new future of Physics. Many graphical tools currently exists that allow the direct visualization of three dimensional waves, in particular of orbitals. The same tools will clearly render the precise movement and processes of the waves under the truthful deterministic physical laws. Seeing is believing. Unfortunately there is a large, well financed and well entrenched quantum establishment that stubbornly resists these new developments and possibilities.
When confronted with the news they do not celebrate, nor try to renew themselves overcoming their quantum prejudices. Instead the minds of the quantum establishment refuse to think. They negate themselves the privilege of reasoning and blindly assume denial, or simply panic. The net result is that they block any attempt to spread the results. Accessing funds to recruit and direct fresh talents in the new direction is even harder than spreading information and publishing.
Painfully, this resistance is understandable. For these Quantists are intelligent scientists (yes, they are very intelligent persons) that instinctively perceive as a menace the news that debunk the Wave-Particle duality, the Uncertainty Principle, the Probabilistic Interpretation of wave functions and the other quantum paraphernalia. Their misguided lifelong labor, dedication and efforts --of themselves and of their quantum elders, tutors, and guides-- instantly becomes senseless. I feel sorry for such painful human situation but truth must always prevail. For details on the DTDE see our article Article Deconstruction of Quantum Wave Mechanics
Hopefully young physicists will soon take the lead and a rational wave mechanics will send the dubious and troublesome Quantism to its crate, since long waiting in the warehouse of the history of science.
With cordial regards,
Daniel Crespin
Because fluctuations aren't and can't be described by a deterministic theory, but by providing a probabilistic description. There's nothing ``troublesome'' about quantum mechanics in any formalism (wave mechanics is just one of many). It is mathematically consistent and does agree with experiment. It would be a good idea to learn it at the technical level.
The only open issue is what might be the degrees of freedom that can resolve quantum fluctuations, just like (the classical dynamics of) atoms and molecules resolve thermal fluctuations. In any event, what matters is that any resolution of the fluctuations can reproduce the known results and can predict new features.
At the atomic level, the electron is not a particle but a wave. The electron can be here and there at the same moment.
Imagine that you mave many worlds overlapping at the atomic level each of these worlds has an electron. When you look at the atom you can not distinguish between these worlds, because they overlap. This is the Copenhagen interpretation for the Quantum Mechanics.
But there is another Quantum Mechanics from 1950, The Bohmian Quantum Mechanics. In the Bohmian Quantum Mechanics the electron is a particle that obeys a destiny. There are possible destinies that overlap.
The Bohmian Mechanics (1950) is simpler but has but has some very difficult ideas. The Copenhagen interpretation (1926) is complicated but is very easy to understand.
The electron has a probability of being somewhere-it can't be ``here and there at the same moment'', that statement is, just, wrong.
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is, in fact, meaningless, because it confuses the properties of probabilities, with how they are calculated. It makes as much sense as claiming that there's a many worlds interpretation of any process like flipping a coin or throwing dice.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics simply states that the probability density is given by the square of the absolute value of the wavefunction. What Bohmian mechanics tries to do is to provide the equations of motion for degrees of freedom that can resolve the fluctuations, thereby providing a deterministic description. It's equivalent to any other formalism, just the calculations are much harder to do. Most importantly, the fact that the equations are deterministic doesn't imply that the results are deterministic. That's what hasn't been appreciated. In all interpretations of quantum mechanics everything boils down to computing probabilities.
What the different formalisms of quantum mechanics do is provide rules for calculating the probability that events occur. Once these probabilities are calculated, their properties are those of any probability density. And while the rules for computing the probabilities can differ, the final results don't. That's why it's a matter of taste which one to use.
The difference between quantum mechanics and its classical limit is just in the space of states, not in how probabilities are manipulated.
Dear Stam Nicolis Nicolis and Valentin Bogatu
I think your comments are reasonable as long as you believe in Quantism. But the point is to go beyond the quantum nonsense and this requires to free your minds --at least momentarily-- from the quantum axiomatic and approach the whole subject afresh. Please give yourselves the chance. Adopt a relaxed attitude and read the previously linked article, "Deconstruction of Quantum Wave Mechanics", whose abstract is copied below.
Note how Bohr misunderstood the inadequacy of the STDE. Instead of proposing further research to obtain a valid deterministic law of movement for the electron waves he maintained the useless STDE and as a remedy introduced the misleading ad hoc "quantum principles" thus creating a hundred years of incertitude. The quantum axioms clearly violate the STDE.
Abstract: The model of the hydrogen atom originally introduced by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926 is a two-body proton-electron system. It relies on the Schrödinger operator H and on the linear Schrödinger time dependent equation. Then Niels Bohr discovered that the model contradicts the basic dynamics of the atom and quantum wave mechanics was invented, with incidences here told from a deconstructive standpoint. The final section of this paper sketches a new, alternative, continuous, causal and fully deterministic wave mechanics --already mentioned in [1], [2], [3] and elsewhere-- crucially relying on H and solvable in terms of its eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, but definitely non-linear. An important implication is that the deterministic hydrogen atom must be conceived as a three-body system consisting of proton , electron and photon.
There are many formulations of quantum mechanics, so one more has to show (a) that it can reproduce everything that’s known and (b) show what the comparative advantage agzinst the other formulations is.
Since the end results are, anyway, the same, it’s just, a matter of taste which formalism to use. How the results are obtained isn’t that interesting.
Dear Stam Nicolis
It seems that for you "the end results are, anyway, the same, it’s just, a matter of taste which formalism to use."
I do not question your right to adopt such belief without specific substantiation. More than a stating a belief your phrase reveals a general attitude. Dogmatism is a well known phenomenon and, generally speaking, it is not by itself a crime.
Beware, however, that such attitude may contradict the spirit and purpose of the discussions carried in reseachgate.net, or of any scientifically oriented forum.
Having you taken such dogmatic standpoint, and without you providing a specific criticism to the arguments given in the discussion, or to better support your statements, my only alternative is to manifest deep regret and hope that you open up and discuss the subject from a less orthodox position.
Cordial regards,
Daniel Crespin
Well, the Schrödinger Time-Dependent Equation is a fully deterministic wave equation: given an initial condition, namely, the wave at t=0, one can deduce the wave at an arbritary time. What is not deterministic is quantum mechanics itself, because we cannot measure the wave at any given time. It is fair to say that some people have never accepted that impossibility; e.g., Einstein never did.
Dear Jose Gaite
It is exactly as you claim.
The Schrödinger Time Dependent Equation (STDE) is fully deterministic.
There is a unitary linear flow $U_t=\exp((-i/h)Ht)$ such that an electron at state $\psi^{(0)}$ when $t=0$ will be at state $\psi^{(t)}=U_t(\psi^{(0)})$ at time $t$.
Theoretical fact:
The STDE is energy conservative. This means that for $e_H=$Rayleigh quotient ("normalized mean value") of $H$, $e_H(\psi^{(0)})=e_H(\psi^{(t)})$ for all times $t$. In other words, whatever the state the energy of the electron never changes. Then trouble arises.
Empirical fact:
The physical energy of electrons is experimentally known to be non-constant. In detail, electrons prefer states corresponding to eigenfunctions. And they make transitions between the preferred states. When such transitions happen the energy of the electron changes.
Theory and experiment are in contradiction:
The theory claims that electrons preserve their energies while moving. Spectroscopy tells that when electrons move they typically change their energy; otherwise no photons could be radiated nor absorbed, let alone photons for the spectral lines.
Quantum principles appear:
Quantum Wave Mechanics (QWM) is the wave theory of the STDE to which "quantum principles" were added that artificially "explain" the physical behavior of electrons. The added principles are about uncertainty, wave-particle duality, intrinsically random jumps, probabilistic interpretations, and others. The existence of the quantum principles is the best proof of the inadequacy of the STDE.
The STDE is irrelevant for Quantism:
If the quantum principles are accepted as truths the STDE can be dismissed. The principles by themselves do everything that can be theoretically required. The STDE just stands there and does nothing.
A Purely Probabilistic Quantum Theory (PPQT) can be concocted by keeping the Hamiltonian operator $H$ (this is not a time dependent equation, is just an algebraic object) trowing away the STDE and maintaining the quantum principles.
A much better alternative:
The previous discussion suggest that the STDE is a mistaken law of nature. Hence discard both the quantum principles and the STDE, keep $H$ and adopt a new Deterministic Time Dependent Equation (DTDE) having stationary energies and states as before, but now with trajectories joining stationary states that lie at different energy levels. Such equation exists. With the DTDE atomic Physics will become the rational, causal, continuous, deterministic, understandable scientific theory as always should have been. Please see our
Article Deconstruction of Quantum Wave Mechanics
Thanks very much, Jose Gaite, for your intelligent participation. Your comments and criticism have motivated these remarks. The stronger the criticism the more welcomed they will be.
With cordial regards for all,
Daniel Crespin
How a complex-valued distribution function ("wave-function") can emerge from the "classical" picture of a particle, i.e. considering a particle as a spatially extended object, is sketched in this preprint :
Preprint NOTION OF GAUSS PROXIMITY APPLIED TO THE INTRINSIC DYNAMICS ...
This might be the ultimate key for replacing traditional dogmatic QM by a much more reasonable deterministic theory.
More about the notion of "proximity" can be found in my public storage area (see the link "website" of RG-profile ).
Note that my notes ( in German )
DAS KONZEPT DER GAUSS-PROXIMITAET IM 3-DIMENSIONALEN AFFINEN EUKLIDISCHEN RAUM
about the notion "proximity" is still an incomplete working paper.
Daniel-Crespin, It is well known among physicists that the Schrodinger equation (STDE) is incomplete. For example, it is not compatible with relativity. This is why quantum field theory introduces elements that allow for the creation and destruction of quantum states, while the Schrodinger equation does not.
You said above: "The theory claims that electrons preserve their energies while moving. Spectroscopy tells that when electrons move they typically change their energy; otherwise no photons could be radiated nor absorbed, let alone photons for the spectral lines."
What you offered here is a good example of where the Schrodinger equation is incomplete. However, quantum physicists know this. What the Schrodinger equation represents is what happens to quantum states and superposition states when they are not involved in exchanges of energy. Only linear changes are possible to quantum states. Superpositions never collapse to one actuality under these conditions. Whenever measurement is involved, however, there are non-linear effects, such as your example above.
Quantum formalism says that the use of the Schrodinger equation is only valid for states that are not being observed or measured. We can also say that these are only valid for states where there is no exchange of energy or momentum. The STDE is only for showing how "coherent" quantum states evolve over time.
Quantum formalism uses a different step in the process to evaluate the results of measurements, where there is an exchange of energy or momentum.
If you want to challenge the foundations of quantum mechanics, I wouldn't start with challenging the Schrodinger equation. It would be more compelling if you could explain why we see a wave-like interference pattern when electrons or photons are sent, one at a time, through two-slits. And why does the interference pattern disappear when we measure which slit the electrons or photons go through?
Or why is it that we can know for sure what the result of measuring the spin of an electron will be if we measured the electron just before we measure it again? Whatever the result of the first measurement is, it will always be the same with the second measurement as long as the second measurement happens soon enough after the first, and the spin axis being measured is the same for the first and second measurements. However, when the second measurement is made using a different axis, then there is no way to know for sure what the result of an individual electron will be. The results can only be predicted statistically. Why is that?
If you can explain these two issues using only classical physics, then you can start to make the case that perhaps a fully deterministic classical physics could replace quantum mechanics.
Hopefully, this is the kind of feedback you are looking for.
In the spirit of open and respectful dialogue,
Doug Marman
Hello Doug
Thanks for your attentive and well expressed comments. It is a pleasure to read neatly articulated and well explained thoughts.
I have been -and I still am- engaged in the preparation of material about various quantum topics. That keeps me for weeks away from researchgate.net and other platforms.
Let me resume my viewpoint on Quantum Wave Mechanics (QWM), and please forgive any possible redundancies.
The Schrödinger self adjoint operator H is the defensible part of QWM. However it is used within the erroneous context of the linear Schrödinger Time Dependent Equation (STDE).
A causal and Deterministic Time Dependent Equation (DTDE) for the hydrogen atom exists. The equation will work for other single valence electron atoms. Actually I have been working on three deterministic wave mechanical systems.
In this note "atom" will mean "hydrogen atom" and more detailedly "closed hydrogen atom composed by one proton, one bound electron and one bound photon".
%%%%%
The first system is for the hydrogen atom.
This is a Hamiltonian vector field $X_H:T*PE\to TT*PE$ over the cotangent manifold $T*PE$ of the real projective $PE$ associated (a smooth but highly non-linear manifold) to the vector space of wave functions $E$. The projective is the space of electron configurations and the cotangent vectors are the photons.
Here $E$ is defined as the orthogonal direct direct sum of the real eigenspaces $E_n=\ker (H+\lambda_n I)$ of H; that is, $E=\bigoplus E_n$. Recall that $\dim E_n=(n+1)²$ and the eigenvalues of $H$ are $-\lambda_n=-Ry/(n+1)²$, where $Ry$ is the Rydberg energy constant of hydrogen and $n=0,1,2,... $.
There is of course a quadratic total energy function $e_{Tot}:T*PE\to \R$ such that $X_H$ is the symplectic gradient of $e_H$.
%%%%%
The second system is for photons in free space. Here the Hamiltonian is the Laplace operator $\nabla²$ with a continuous spectrum of positive energies $\lambda>0$. The eigenfunctions are plane harmonic waves and the space of wave functions is the direct sum $F=\bigoplus F_\lambda$ of the eigenspaces, which can be given a good enough inner product.
The configurations of the free (or empty) three dimensional space are the elements of the projective $PF$ (again a smooth manifold) and the photons in free space are elements of the cotangent manifold $T*PF$.
There is a total energy function $T*PF\to \R$ with a symplectic gradient that provides the time dependent equation for the photons.
%%%%%
The third system is for the interaction of free the photons and the atom. The vector space of wave functions is the product $E\times F$ (or the direct sum $E\oplus F$ if you prefer), with space of interacting configurations the projective $P(E\times F)$ of the product. The space of interacting photon states is the cotangent of the projective, $T*P(E\times F)$, with a time dependent evolution equation equal to the symplectic gradient of the total energy.
%%%%%
There is no question that the above description is too sketchy, but details have been checked and they fit mutually together as well as with the physics of photons and atoms.
%%%%%
Since you mention the two-slits experiments, it would be my pleasure to provide a deterministic model.
My belief is that the experiment refers to a situation in ordinary three dimensional space. To obtain a deterministic model I only need for some quantum expert to provide me with the following:
1) The Hamiltonian; 2) its eigenvalues; and 3) the eigenspaces.
In many places the results of the two-slit experiment is discussed as a quantum phenomenon but nowhere I see these three important preliminaries worked out. Without a correct Hamiltonian operator and its spectral structure I am unable to build a model and doubt anyone can.
Without these three ingredients the discussion would be like discussing the hydrogen atom without the hydrogen Hamiltonian, without eigenvalues and without eigenfunctions. Just an endless recitation of personal beliefs and conflicting opinions between the participants.
There are cases of physics teachers drawing wave functions for the two-slit and referring to superposition, interference and probabilities as if the functions were the result of solid calculations. Eventually these specialists show some honesty by recognizing that their theories are impossible to understand.
%%%%%
Since the STDE is incorrect, where does QWM stands?
To state that QWM is incomplete you have to discard, first and foremost, the STDE. And then also trow away the other strange quantum axioms.
If you keep the STDE then QWM is wrong. If you maintain uncertainty, causelessness, discontinuity, randomness, etc. then QWM is even worse.
Discard the STDE and its accompanying non-sense and start using the correct DTDE to rescue one century of redeemable quantum theoretical results, mostly the extensive existing body of calculations of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions.
%%%%%
Doug, I see in your vitae that the foundations of psychology is an area where you are an expert. So you are familiar with the classical experiments of Milgram about obeying the authority and of Asch on conforming the majority. These are good examples of the collective hallucination that reigns over theoretical physics nowadays.
Most believers in Quantism are under the spell of the authorities and colleagues. Hundreds or rather thousands of serious thinkers have devoted endless effort to the collapse of the wave packet, quantum entanglement, intrinsically random discontinuous jumps, and so on. This is happening in the XXI Century and has been going on for one century. Interned in the ideological quantum prison physicists practice and suffer the denial of common sense and rationality. And all because an equation, a mathematical formula written over blackboard and on paper is incapable of conforming the physical phenomena that it supposedly governs. The formula is wrong. That is all. Throw it away and be free from the tyranny of quantum ideas.
It is not that physicists are confederate in an experiment or prank. They are prisoners of a mistaken law of evolution and a set of false axioms intended to substitute the failure of the crooked law.
%%%%%
As you can appreciate, Doug, this subject is endless. If you accept some of these arguments and statements of mine, it is well. It you don't, it is well anyway.
I much appreciate the opportunity that your message gave me to express these ideas and am grateful for your kindness.
With the most cordial regards to you and your gentleness,
Daniel Crespin
It is possible to make some ( non-standard ) assumptions concering the very nature of an electron ( and other "elementary" particles ) such that, in the context of classical field theory !!! AND the notion of GAUSS PROXIMITY !!!, a complex-valued field quantity emerges which is related to the alleged "center of charge" of the electron at a tiny small interval of time in which the measuring process of position happens. Thereby this quantity can be considered to play the role of the "wave function" of QM.
see the RG preprint : NOTION OF NOTION GAUSS PROXIMITY ...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353646453_NOTION_OF_GAUSS_PROXIMITY_APPLIED_TO_THE_INTRINSIC_DYNAMICS_OF_A_PARTICLE_CHARACTERIZED_AS_A_SOLITON_HAVING_A_DIPOLE-LIKE_FLUCTUATING_CHARGE_DISTRIBUTION
Following and extending this conceptual approach might lead a desired ( deterministic ) theory which replaces the nonsense of standard dogmatic QM.
Daniel,
I have also been busy this last month. I now see that you responded to my comments. Thanks for the friendly exchange.
Yes, I also see how people, including scientists, often follow along with the status quo. I think this happens more often when we face things that just don't make sense. It can feel so uncomfortable, that it seems easier to go along with what others are saying, rather than face that uncomfortable feeling.
David Mermin said that while other physicists began saying, "shut up and calculate" as a way to avoid the hard questions, he realized that he couldn't do that. He needed to keep looking for a way to make sense of it.
I appreciate your questions and observations as a way to also challenge things that don't make sense. I applaud this. I think it is healthy to stand back and admit how much we do not know. That, for me, is how we start learning.
This has left me with an appreciation of the questions. We generally put so much attention on the answers, but I've come to realize that it is the questions that pull us on to learn.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Sulfites
- Inorganic Chemistry
- Inorganic Chemicals
- Salts