- #1

mohamed_a

- 36

- 6

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter mohamed_a
- Start date

- #1

mohamed_a

- 36

- 6

- #2

f95toli

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 3,380

- 895

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

mohamed_a

- 36

- 6

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))

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.

- #4

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 29,524

- 14,955

This does not seem to be to be a very fruitful approach.

- #5

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,558

- 18,231

Where? Please give specific references.I have read

- #6

- 13,280

- 5,677

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamic_quantum_analogsCould you recommend websites , sources or books that give good classical analogy to quantum mechanics

- #7

mohamed_a

- 36

- 6

- #8

mohamed_a

- 36

- 6

Toroidal electron modelWhere? Please give specific references.

- #9

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,558

- 18,231

- #10

mohamed_a

- 36

- 6

I am just looking for attempts to model quantum phenomena and not 100% valid ideas or approaches

- #11

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,558

- 18,231

First, PF's rules about valid sources are what they are regardless of what you are looking for.I am just looking for attempts to model quantum phenomena and not 100% valid ideas or approaches

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

Klystron

Gold Member

- 1,047

- 1,572

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

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,558

- 18,231

As far as I can tell, it's not peer-reviewed. It also looks questionable to me for a number of reasons.Requesting @PeterDonis or another mentor to determine if this is a valid peer reviewed source.

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.Torus shaped models describe certain aspects of electromagnetic (EM) fields such as those generated by radar transmitters.

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.

- #14

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 29,524

- 14,955

It's crackpot nonsense.This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper

- #15

StevieTNZ

- 1,874

- 850

There is this information on the website: https://www.scirp.org/journal/peer-review.aspx

- #16

StevieTNZ

- 1,874

- 850

Keyword "potentially"I think it is more important that scirp (the publisher) appears here

https://beallslist.net/#update

- #17

Klystron

Gold Member

- 1,047

- 1,572

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'.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.

...

While not meaning to divert this thread if the topic does not help the OP, I could use lessons in

- optimum strategies to locate actual STEM publications online,
- how to determine if a paper meets PF standards.

- #18

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,558

- 18,231

Yes, please do that.Perhaps I should open a separate thread after searching Insights and historical threads.

- #19

Klystron

Gold Member

- 1,047

- 1,572

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.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?

Perhaps the subjects

- #20

mohamed_a

- 36

- 6

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.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.

- #21

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,558

- 18,231

From this description, what you are looking for iswhat 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.

- #22

PeterDonis

Mentor

- 40,558

- 18,231

Since the actual topic of interest to the OP is off topic for this forum, this thread is closed.

Share:

- Replies
- 26

- Views
- 795

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 262

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 453

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 642

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 24

- Views
- 349

- Last Post

- Replies
- 21

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 45

- Views
- 942

- Replies
- 46

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 55

- Views
- 3K