Could multiple dimensions explain quantum leap?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the idea that energy quantization may only apply to the three observable dimensions, suggesting that electrons could exist in additional dimensions during quantum leaps. This theory proposes that electrons appear to jump between orbitals without occupying the space in between because they may be absorbing or emitting energy in other dimensions. However, participants emphasize the need to adhere to established physical theories and avoid personal speculation, as the original theory lacks mathematical support. The conversation also touches on the complexities of quantum mechanics, indicating that a deeper understanding requires advanced knowledge beyond introductory materials. Overall, the thread highlights the importance of grounding discussions in accepted scientific frameworks.
psuedoben
Messages
36
Reaction score
2
please point out the flaws/add to my reasoning here:

it is known that energy is quantized, but could that be for just the 3 dimensions we're able to experience? Is it illogically to propose that energy might not be quantized when looking at all of the dimensions together? this could explain quantum leaping, to us it appears as though electrons jump from one orbital to another without spending any time between the two because it cannot absorb/emit energy of those levels. What if electrons can absorb/emit energy of those levels but when they do they exist in other dimensions (beyond the three we can observe) and so it only seems to us as though the electron jumps orbitals skipping the space between, but in reality it is traveling through that space but only through another dimension?

(I understand that this untested "theory" has little to no mathematical evidence to support it, but keep in mind I'm only a freshman undergraduate so I've spent very little time studying these subjects)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bhobba said:
It isn't eg the energy of a free particle
We already know why - but does require the full machinery of Quantum Field Theory to explain which is why its not usually discussed in beginner texts and popularisations since it is advanced.
Personal speculation, especially that of the handwavey type, is off topic by forum rules.

Happy to discuss the issues you raised above, but it must be in the framework of current accepted physical theories.

Thanks
Bill
good point! I'm new to this so ill remove this thread and stick to the rules next time
 
psuedoben said:
good point! I'm new to this so ill remove this thread and stick to the rules next time

If you want to start a new thread that's fine, but, providing we stay away from personal speculation we can continue here if you like.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
If you want to start a new thread that's fine, but, providing we stay away from personal speculation we can continue here if you like.

Thanks
Bill
ok, i would like to continue then!
-what do you mean the energy of a free particle? are you saying that energy isn't always quantized or am i misinterpreting?
-also, if you feel capable could you try to explain our understanding of quantum leap? (keep in mind you're talking to someone who has only taken college level general chemistry)
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K