Careful said:
Two answers :rtharbaugh1 said:
eather theories which break Lorentz invariance only at very high energies so no contradiction with experiment there. By the way, the modern deformed special relativity theories - associated to quantum gravity effects - do the same no ? (look into a magazine about Galileian mechanics)Hurkyl said:
rtharbaugh1 said:
(a) I don't see how this applies to double slit. High energies are not required. As I have pointed out before, quantum effects are detectable at ordinary energies. You seem to be saying that double slit effect is the result of an aether which should be effective on the bench top. But Michealson-Morley seems to show that there can be no such aether effective in bench top experiments. At very high energies, very short lenghts and times, there may be an aether effect due to four and maybe higher dimensional actions. But of course you have already committed your reputation to the argument that there are no such higher dimensions. It seems to me your stand is , umm, counterfactual.Careful said:Two answers :
(a) there exist *modern* contrived
(b) I was merely using this analogy to mention the ``interference´´ result, the issue of Lorentz invariance is not substantial in this reasoning.
Cheers,
Careful
selfAdjoint said:
How do you figure? The problem with a stable atom is an apparent flaw in CM. Raising issues with QM does not make the problem go away -- it's just a smoke screen. Even if you were able to show that every experiment done since 1905 is actually in disagreement with quantum mechanics, that would only mean that we have two failed theories -- it wouldn't magically fix CM.Careful said:
)Yes. Keep in mind that "rational" is not synonymous with "having faith that the theory I like will prove to be correct, and the theory I don't like will prove to be flawed" -- in fact, that is essentially the antonym of "rational".Careful said:
I went and checked a textbook derivation on this one again to be sure -- sure enough, all of the orbitals are stationary. So why would one think it radiates?Careful said:
Of course -- that's by definition. But, that implies all the things that come with being an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian -- such as all physical quantities (e.g. charge and current distributions) being time independent.Careful said:
It feels silly that I have to explain the textbook argument to you, but alas...Careful said:
None of the papers you've "linked" have been by either of them, which makes it difficult.Careful said:
Only if I was trying to argue something to the effect that QM solves them.Careful said:
careful said:
Yep, but actually one should go through the old Phys Rev papers of Boyer and Marshall first, something which is still partially on my ``to read´´ list but a human life is just too short sometimes ! Actually, another cute thing to do would be to study how an accelerated gravito-electromagnetic electronmodel would behave (say an accelerated spinning charged configuration). As said before, GR changes drastically EM on the Compton scale of the particle (equal charges attract and so on...) what happens with the radiation field here? I think Will Bonnor (a good oldieselfAdjoint said:
) has been looking into this...The Bohr model posits an orbiting point charge, and not a stationary charge/current distribution.Careful said:
Surely you'd admit that hypothesizing an all-pervasive background radiation field which acts as a supplier of energy to electrons is a rather major change to EM, né?Careful said:
I do -- the problem is that much of what you say seems to be irrelevant to the questions I want to hear answered! When I hear someone saying CM is adequate, I don't want to hear all the reasons why QM is inadequate! (and besides, it conveys a perception that the arguer thinks CM is adequate simply because he finds QM inadequate)Careful said:
Hurkyl said:The Bohr model posits an orbiting point charge, and not a stationary charge/current distribution.
Ok fine, I meant something like a rotating string, or a shell or something else alike .(you must have felt happy here
To be absolutely clear about what I want to say: you want to uphold a realistic interpretation about the wave function (q psi^2 = charge distribution). But then you should take into account the self interactions of the charged ``fluidum´´ and so on, which is not done at all (evidently, the stationary wave functions as being realistic charge distributions are not stable at all). What one does in the textbook derivation however is to POSIT that any solution to the Schroedinger equation - one which does not allow for a dynamical electromagnetic self coupling - EXISTS. But allowing myself such liberties, a classical rotating charged string, will also do the job - simply consider a planar circular current. Now, to get out the quantum behavior here (and to make the model stable !) you might add a new type of force field which balances out radiation when the string is brought out of equilibrium (which is of course an undesirable thing to do).
Voila, such line of thinking is entirely CLASSICAL - from our ``misunderstandings´´ it seems that you interpret this word as ``textbook material´´- and does the job. The problem with such strategies is that we do not learn anything since we just shift it to the next level : ``what is the field theory behind this new mysterious force and what are its charge carriers ?´´. Obviously, if a new problem shows up at the next level, we can apply the same strategy and so on and so on... Of course, any rigid stationary object or any configuration alike does not radiate, but through what fundamental interactions does it *exist* ? In QM this comes at the price of a new strange ``force´´ and a very strange equation for it. This is one of the things I like about Einstein-Maxwell theory, here you have a chance of getting out a realistic stable charged spinning fluidum without introducing any new forces at all. Moreover, in both cases you still have to study stability of these configurations (which is the coupling to QED for QM) and that is a *very* non-trivial part.
**
Surely you'd admit that hypothesizing an all-pervasive background radiation field which acts as a supplier of energy to electrons is a rather major change to EM, né? **
No, it is actually very natural if you think about it, it is simply a well posed problem within EM, albeit one people don't speak about too often. It is actually not anything ``new´´ (in the sense of new physics) either.
**
But this is the sort of response about which I was talking -- a research path that addresses the traditional problems with classical methods. This is far superior to expressing disbelief that physicists thought that had proven anything, when some formula had not yet been worked out.**
My dear friend, I have mentioned these papers before in other threads as well as many other things. And as I said: other routes are also possible. It is just that you cannot imagine anymore that there is a pleithoria of classical possibilities (all well within EM and GR) to explain so called mysterious QM phenomena. Even nonlocality could be retrieved - I think- if you give up GR and go back to Newton, but so far I see no reason for that. Actually, an interesting paper in that line of thinking was written recently by Peter Holland, it teaches you how the Lorentz symmetry in EM could be an effective phenomenon (within the context of Galileian fluidodynamics), rather than a fundamental one:
`` constructing the electromagnetic field from hydrodynamic trajectories, peter Holland, November 2004 ´´
I think that one was published in the proceedings of the London Royal society, but I am not sure anymore.
**
Of course, our miscommunication about the papers didn't help -- since you weren't providing new links or references, I had been assuming that it was related to the links you already provided. (Which were on backradiation) **
But I said a few times that I mentioned these before, or in another thread.
The reason why I don't say ``you should look for that and that kind of specific classical model to explain quantum phenomena´´ and provide plenty of references for all of them, is that I am not sure myself what the ``right´´ way to go is. It seems to me there are some few distinct possibilities from which SED is one. Therefore, it is always useful to treat less ambitious (but still very difficult) problems first, like studying details of the radiation mechanism within Einstein Maxwell theory - say - before you embark in one path. You seem to want too much right away Hurkyl, that is NOT the good strategy to solve a difficult problem
As long as there is not a candidate theory present which does achieve that - and even after that - you shoud be open minded for the more rational alternative, and I always find it a pitty when young eager minds (well I am not old actually :-)) want to go for the quick bite.
Cheers,
Careful
I sense a few contradictions in your . . . arguments. Apparently your textbook is pushing the envelope. Do you have any citations in mind?Careful said:**Of course -- that's by definition. But, that implies all the things that come with being an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian -- such as all physical quantities (e.g. charge and current distributions) being time independent. And since stationary charge/current distributions don't radiate, there's no need to bother with considering radiation in the Hamiltonian) **
Come on, there is no straigthforward *good* prescription at all for the radiation field determined by the wave function (actually, there exists an obvious candidate, but this one does not seem to give stationary states) ! In the Hamiltonian we are talking about, you just put in BY HAND that there is NO correspondence between the wave function and the radiation vector potential. The Schroedinger equation - as it stands there - does not allow for a dynamical coupling between charge and radiation. It is easy to ``solve´´ the problem like that in classical mechanics too you know
What you say is the following: one should just take any stationary current for an equation of motion which does not contain a radiation vector potential and solve the Maxwell equations with respect this current. But in this way, I can claim that (correction!) a classical atomic model with electrons as rotating strings is stable too !
**
It feels silly that I have to explain the textbook argument to you, but alas...
The atom continuously radiates energy. Due to conservation of energy, in order to remain "stable", it must have an external source that is continuously pumping energy into it. (Does that even qualify as "stable"?) **
The point is that the electron will not only radiate energy, it will also *extract* energy from an an external radiation field. The question being whether this could be a stable process. Again, it probably makes no sense in speaking about a stable atom in vacuum. You should read the textbooks more critically.
**
None of the papers you've "linked" have been by either of them, which makes it difficult. **
True, I gave them in another thread as I mentioned specifically. They can all be found in
* simulation study of aspects of the classical hydrogen atom interacting with electromagnetic radiation : circular orbits, Daniel C Cole and Yi Zou
*Analysis of orbital decay time for the classical hydrogen atom interacting with circulary polarized radiation, Daniel C Cole and Yi Zou
* quantum mechanical ground state of hydrogen obtained from classical electrodynamics, Daniel C Cole and Yi Zou
**Only if I was trying to argue something to the effect that QM solves them.
But given the assumption that QM maintains the classical property that stationary charge/current distributions do not radiate, the textbook solution of the (Hydrogen) atom clearly solves that problem.**
Not really, the textbook treatment does not teach you anything of that kind; the STABILITY of this configurations is a more advanced (partial !) recent result - check out another thread where I have posted the relevant papers.
** And, of course, the EPR experiments are not a problem for QM. **
Neither are they for CM, apart from some restrictions it puts on local realism.
I am trying to be patient with you here, I would appreciate it if you would even just consider to think about what I say.
Cheers,
Careful
As long are you cannot specify your ``feeling´´, how can I react? My argumentation is correct and the QM bibles I had to learn in my student time are very standard - as were the devoted high priests conveying them to me. Perhaps you can go straight to the content of the matter - such as Hurkyl partially did - that usually simplifies the discussion.Chronos said:
Careful said:
Careful said:What you say is the following: one should just take any stationary current for an equation of motion which does not contain a radiation vector potential and solve the Maxwell equations with respect this current. But in this way, I can claim that (correction!) a classical atomic model with electrons as rotating strings is stable too !
Careful said:
) )); the entire difficulty is to show that this configuration remains stable under background radiation (noise). This is a problem with backcoupling which has to be treated nonperturbatively and that is exactly what SED does from the start. and see if our theories GR + EM could produce a stable, non-distributional, charged dust configuration. In that respect, you might want to look for doughnut-like configurations (the Kerr singularity being a ring ). Careful said:
).Ah, by dougnut I mean ``filled up´´ torusselfAdjoint said:
I just don't like distributional matter configurations - seems very unphysical to me (I could give better reasons here if you want to - but these are somewhat more speculative). But don't misunderstand me: I think that classical string theory - spiced up with SED - could be a very nice thing to look at - in a sense, it would be easier to start with. Careful said:Ah, by dougnut I mean ``filled up´´ torus
Cheers,
Careful
Obviously, you would expect topology change to occur IF one could find such a configuration in the first place. )
