In summary: STEM publicationsI think you need to give more details about exactly what you are looking for and why.Torus shaped models describe certain aspects of electromagnetic (EM) fields such as those generated by radar transmitters. If the OP is interested in EM fields. [deleted reference.]Requesting @PeterDonis or another mentor to determine if this is a valid peer reviewed source.As far as I can tell, it's not peer-reviewed. It also looks questionable to me for a number of reasons.
  • #1
36
6
I have read about several approcahes to bypass some classical restrictions to quantum facts such as the electron being in a torus-like shape to avoid ,the greater than speed of light, rotation paradox . Could you recommend websites , sources or books that give good classical analogy to quantum mechanics (preferably springer or wiley)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
By "classical analogy" do you mean "aid to understanding"? Or something that can actually be used for calculations?
An example of the first would be the Bloch sphere;. An example of the 2nd case (I guess) could be using imaginary time when dealing with tunnelling.
 
  • #3
f95toli said:
By "classical analogy" do you mean "aid to understanding"? Or something that can actually be used for calculations?
An example of the first would be the Bloch sphere;. An example of the 2nd case (I guess) could be using imaginary time when dealing with tunnelling.
I mean something that really does make calculations valid. as an example i have mentioned the electron spin. if ,classically , electron was a revolvong sphere it will have to move much faster than the speed of light to give the observable results but another approach is to think of it as a torus which doesn't violate the calculation (i want the sources that address these types of issues (electron being a torus as example))
 
  • #4
This does not seem to be to be a very fruitful approach.
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
  • #5
mohamed_a said:
I have read
Where? Please give specific references.
 
  • #7
Demystifier said:
yes something like that i thought that there might be a book or refrence discussing this issue in details with several trial to each and every quantum phenomena (electron spin = toroidal electron model, wave-particle duality = pilot wave theory, etc).
 
  • #9
mohamed_a said:
This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper; it's in an "open" journal that, as far as I can tell, allows submissions without any kind of review. That makes it questionable.
 
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper; it's in an "open" journal that, as far as I can tell, allows submissions without any kind of review. That makes it questionable.
I am just looking for attempts to model quantum phenomena and not 100% valid ideas or approaches
 
  • #11
mohamed_a said:
I am just looking for attempts to model quantum phenomena and not 100% valid ideas or approaches
First, PF's rules about valid sources are what they are regardless of what you are looking for.

Second, if you're going to allow "attempts" that make predictions that contradict experiments, what's the point?

I think you need to give more details about exactly what you are looking for and why.
 
  • #12
Torus shaped models describe certain aspects of electromagnetic (EM) fields such as those generated by radar transmitters. If the OP is interested in EM fields. [deleted reference.]
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Klystron said:
Requesting @PeterDonis or another mentor to determine if this is a valid peer reviewed source.
As far as I can tell, it's not peer-reviewed. It also looks questionable to me for a number of reasons.

Klystron said:
Torus shaped models describe certain aspects of electromagnetic (EM) fields such as those generated by radar transmitters.
If this is an actual area of research, you should be able to find a reference that's better than the one you gave. The physics of radar has been well studied for decades and there should be plenty of peer-reviewed references for any "torus shaped models" that are useful in that regard.

That said, I'm not sure any of these references are what the OP is actually asking for. That's why I asked the OP in post #12 to clarify exactly what they are asking for and why.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
  • #14
PeterDonis said:
This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper
It's crackpot nonsense.
 
  • Sad
Likes Klystron
  • #15
PeterDonis said:
This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper; it's in an "open" journal that, as far as I can tell, allows submissions without any kind of review. That makes it questionable.
There is this information on the website: https://www.scirp.org/journal/peer-review.aspx
 
  • #17
PeterDonis said:
As far as I can tell, it's not peer-reviewed. It also looks questionable to me for a number of reasons.If this is an actual area of research, you should be able to find a reference that's better than the one you gave. The physics of radar has been well studied for decades and there should be plenty of peer-reviewed references for any "torus shaped models" that are useful in that regard.

...
Yes, I expected to find several valid papers on topological models applicable to radar science. Twenty years ago a similar Google search returned useful information with minimal froth. Today I found an utter deluge of popular torus nonsense and DIY electromagnets even when including search terms such as 'dielectric' and 'radar science'.

While not meaning to divert this thread if the topic does not help the OP, I could use lessons in
  1. optimum strategies to locate actual STEM publications online,
  2. how to determine if a paper meets PF standards.
Perhaps I should open a separate thread after searching Insights and historical threads.
 
  • #18
Klystron said:
Perhaps I should open a separate thread after searching Insights and historical threads.
Yes, please do that.
 
  • #19
caz said:
The arxiv page that you deleted said that it was eventually published in Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical by IOP Publishing which I thought was an acceptable journal. Or am I misunderstanding the information on arxiv?
I meant to just add a qualifier but ended up deleting; my original post was contained in a reply. I know nothing about arxiv reliability. Tori effectively model EM Fields under certain conditions even ignoring fractal geometry. Topological knot theory does apply to many aspects of electronics, for instance twisted pair conductors, some polarization methods and waveguide couplers.

Perhaps the subjects are too advanced. Appreciate your feedback.
 
  • #20
PeterDonis said:
First, PF's rules about valid sources are what they are regardless of what you are looking for.

Second, if you're going to allow "attempts" that make predictions that contradict experiments, what's the point?

I think you need to give more details about exactly what you are looking for and why.
If there are other valid models of the atom or electron they would probably be more famous and accepted , the standard model is still the most successful in explaining practical phenomena. So, what I am looking for is "attempts" or theories that explain quantum outcomes from a different prespective. For example, the pilot wave theory makes it more intuitive to understand quantum outcomes and it is indeed valid to some extent.
 
  • #21
mohamed_a said:
what I am looking for is "attempts" or theories that explain quantum outcomes from a different prespective. For example, the pilot wave theory makes it more intuitive to understand quantum outcomes and it is indeed valid to some extent.
From this description, what you are looking for is interpretations of QM. (The pilot wave is one such interpretation.) That is off topic for this forum; it should be discussed in the QM interpretations subforum. But before starting a new thread in that forum, you should look through existing threads and should also take some time to look through the existing literature on QM interpretations; just asking "what QM interpretations are there" is too broad a question.
 
  • #22
Since the actual topic of interest to the OP is off topic for this forum, this thread is closed.
 

Suggested for: Classical analogy approach to quantum mechanics

Replies
35
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
972
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
913
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top