- #36
Careful
- 1,670
- 0
What I want to say boils down to this: in the beginning of th 20'th century, the consequences of Maxwell theory were not well known yet - the famous dirac radiation formula for the electron being ``derived´´ only in 1938 (correction!) for the first time (actually CLASSICAL micromagnetism is an active research area now and reveals many new results still); the known classical phenomena basically being limited to some very special class of solutions to simple (celestial) problems and a whole class of linear problems and first order corrections to suitable asymptotic linearizations of simple non-linear ODE's (or PDE's). It is rather obvious that in such times the phenomena observed at the microscale (double split and black body radiation) came as a shock ! Another example (out of many) is the claim made by Feynman that the gyromagnetic factor of 2 for the electron could only be predicted by QM while actually in 1970 or even before, Wheeler, Carter and others realized that the Kerr solutions in GR gave exactly this figure too (actually it was thought that this could not be because the naive calculation with a circular current in the plane gave the factor of one :tongue2:).Hurkyl said:(emphasis mine)
What is your point? It sounds as if you are saying that we don't know absolutely everything, and therefore we should have faith that all will eventually be explained classically. Is this accurate?
Now QM really was like an emergency solution, a relatively easy formula which was made to fit observations. It's consequences however, non-locality, the probability interpretation and so on, led its inventers to claim that the scheme would probably be replaced soon (Einstein, Schroedinger, Dirac, de Broglie ...). Of course, it does not lead to any of the following insights: (a) it does not explain why charge is quantized (ii) it does not explain *how* a particle decays... all it did was introducing a new *adaptive* force which allows for equilibrium to settle in (but this could have been achieved by classical means - though involving much more difficult computations !).
My suggestion is that if you really want to understand what is going on at the microlevel then you need to look for a realistic model concerning the structure of elementary particles (actually one of the references I gave above shows that this substructure can significantly influence the motion of the centre of mass coordinate in the radiation back reaction process). So in that sense, QM did not offer any understanding, on the other hand QM did offer the realization that equilibrium can be reached through interactions with a vacuum field - which is the starting point of SED. But many other options are possible...
So, nonlocality so far seems a problem for QM, since I am quite optimistic that (sub) atomic quantum physics can be retrieved without giving up local realism. QM in that sense is like thermodynamics of microscopic phenomena. What I want to tell you, is that this is an exciting time for discovering the next range of phenomena classical physics offers us, this thanks to the computational power of the computer.
Cheers,
Careful
Last edited: