# Quantum Mechanics as a Probabilistic forecast of reality

• I
• physwiz222
In summary: No, the trajectories of the atomic orbitals emerge from the average position forecasted for the electron based on where it has been observed. There is no violation of classical laws.
physwiz222
TL;DR Summary
Is Quantum physics only a probabilistic forecast of random whizzing electron that we cant track because of our limitation so use probability to compensate.
Is Quantum Mechanics a Probabilistic Forecast of nature?Someone I know told me their interpretation of QM is that QM only a probabilistic forecast of systems like electrons around atoms. I would like someone to analyse this interpretation and say if its valid or not.

According to this person we use probability density because electrons move so fast on the order of femtoseconds its not possible to tell exactly where the electron around an atom is because we dont have the technology to pinpoint electron due to our detectors not being able to predict where the electron will be next due to high speed and erratic random motion. but could in principle so we use a probability density as a forecast of a fast erratic electron trajectory of where an electron is likely to be found. The wavenature arises from the erratic motion when forecasted resembling waves. The atomic orbitals arise from making an average forecast of the electron’s position based on where it has been. For example p orbitals are electrons whizzing around in ultrafast orbits around the nucleus but after many detections the distribution resembles a figure 8 shape so we use the p orbitals to forecast the trajectory. The trajectory for the p orbital is interpreted as erratic orbits which on average resemble a figure 8 shape of the p orbital. However the motion is well defined and follows trajectories its just to fast and erratic we need to use a probabilistic forecast as predicting the path and where the electron will be is too complicated for our technology. The Uncertainty principle is due to the fact if we take a picture of an electron we know where it is but not where its going but to know its velocity we take repeated trials like a motion blur making position uncertain. However a highly intelligent being if they could slow time down would see electrons orbit the nucleus and maybe in the future we could with better technology. This person also says Quantum Mechanics is merely a forecasting tool for the motion of electrons moving too fast to track so we use probability. This person also says Electrons really are billiardballlike points with defined position and momenta we just dont have the tools to pinpoint them so we use Probabilities as a forecast to compensate. This is what the interpretation says basically and it seems plausible buy im not sure.

I want to know if this interpretation is valid or wrong. If its right I want examples of evidence for it. If it’s wrong I want examples of actual physical laws it violates. I want an in-depth answer as to why it is wrong.

Wrong.
An accelerating charge emits radiation (loses energy) so atoms would not be stable.
Someone I know is not a valid source.

PeroK
Frabjous said:
Wrong.
An accelerating charge emits radiation (loses energy) so atoms would not be stable.
Someone I know is not a valid source.
Any other laws it violates both Classical AND Quantum

Frabjous said:
Wrong.
An accelerating charge emits radiation (loses energy) so atoms would not be stable.
Someone I know is not a valid source.
Also this person says maybe they dont radiate fast enough to fall in despite the erratic motion as they dont move fast enough to radiate.

weirdoguy and PeroK
physwiz222 said:
Also this person says maybe they dont radiate fast enough to fall in despite the erratic motion as they dont move fast enough to radiate.
So they are going too fast too measure, but too slow to radiate? This person does not know any physics. Talk to them about the weather.

PeroK and hutchphd
Frabjous said:
So they are going too fast too measure, but too slow to radiate? This person does not know any physics. Talk to them about the weather.
Ok could u also address other laws it violates both QM and classical

physwiz222 said:
Ok could u also address other laws it violates both QM and classical
Their model assumes that QM does not exist, so quantum effects (for example, tunneling) would not occur.

Frabjous said:
Their model assumes that QM does not exist, so quantum effects (for example, tunneling) would not occur.
What about classical laws like newtons laws as it is classical so while its wrong I am curious how it fares from a classical mechanic point of view.

Frabjous said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
I was thinking more along of the lines of do those erratic trajectories which when we forecast the position the orbitals emerge like p orbitals being random figure 8s and d orbitals erratic chaotic 4 leaf clovers like do those violate any classical laws. I meant more along those lines.

physwiz222 said:
I was thinking more along of the lines of do those erratic trajectories which when we forecast the position the orbitals emerge like p orbitals being random figure 8s and d orbitals erratic chaotic 4 leaf clovers like do those violate any classical laws. I meant more along those lines.
The orbits of 1/r potentials are ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas for the two body problem. So the proposed orbits are not stable orbits in general.

PeroK
Frabjous said:
The orbits of 1/r potentials are ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas for the two body problem. So the proposed orbits are not stable orbits in general.
So basically its violation of conservation of angular momentum then right?

physwiz222 said:
So basically its violation of conservation of angular momentum then right?
That‘s a hard argument to make. What if the particles are spinning?

Frabjous said:
That‘s a hard argument to make. What if the particles are spinning?
I meant the random 4 leaf clover and figure 8 orbits violating angular momentum conservation for a central force I read online more and these shapes ellipses parabolas and hyperbolas for a central force are due to angular momentum conservation

An orbit that crosses itself would have two different velocities at the same point which would mean two different angular momentums. The velocity at a cusp is not clearly defined so neither can angular momentum.

Frabjous said:
An orbit that crosses itself would have two different velocities at the same point which would mean two different angular momentums. The velocity at a cusp is not clearly defined so neither can angular momentum.
So the simple answer is Yes that these orbits violate conservation of angular momentum for figure eight and 4 leaf clover ones right.

"I know a guy who knows a guy" is not a reliable source. I would learn QM some other way, like through textbooks.

This also sounds like a small variation on the personal theory you were trying to discuss a few weeks ago, before that thread was closed.

PeroK
"I know a guy who knows a guy" is not a reliable source. I would learn QM some other way, like through textbooks.

This also sounds like a small variation on the personal theory you were trying to discuss a few weeks ago, before that thread was closed.
I just wanted to know expert’s opinions on this statement also the theory I had I believe has merit at least more than this nonsense.

"I know a guy who knows a guy" is not a reliable source. I would learn QM some other way, like through textbooks.

This also sounds like a small variation on the personal theory you were trying to discuss a few weeks ago, before that thread was closed.
also this theory and my “personal theory” are NOTHING alike. I expressed the belief that the wavefunction squared should be interpreted as a charge distribution of the smeared out electron while this person believes its only a way to forecast a chaotic system. They are nothing alike actually quite opposite. Also this is NOT my theory just what someone told me.

My BS is better than their BS does not change the fact that it is all BS.

physwiz222 said:
Someone I know told me
This is not a valid basis for discussion. We need a textbook or peer-reviewed paper.

Doc Al and Nugatory

• Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
510
• Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
27
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
36
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
29
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
798
• Quantum Physics
Replies
15
Views
2K
• Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
902