Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Has Quantum theory ever predicted anything useful?

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#51 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 February 2020 - 11:31 PM

Maxwell basically defines chemistry and is our best model for how atoms interact.  QT avoids detail, and therefore you have to generate "cookbooks " from repeated trial and error measurements.

 

At the risk of feeding a troll:

 

This is completely and utterly false.  Every bit of it.  It is not just an odd or idiosyncratic spin on things.  It is simply wrong.


  • SillySMS likes this

#52 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 11 February 2020 - 12:43 AM

Dave

 

Is this your response to Einstein, et al?

 

Still advocating,

Barry


Edited by bcgilbert, 11 February 2020 - 12:46 AM.


#53 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 11 February 2020 - 12:56 AM

Dave

 

Give us your opinion of Einstein?

 

Insulted proxy,

Barry



#54 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 11 February 2020 - 10:02 AM

Maxwell basically defines chemistry and is our best model for how atoms interact. QT avoids detail, and therefore you have to generate "cookbooks " from repeated trial and error measurements.


That statement has...no basis in reality, and implies you know very little of chemistry.

The modern understanding of chemical bonds was largely worked out in the 1930s by Linus Pauling in his seminal work "The Nature of the Chemical Bond."

Pauling applied QM to the electron configuration in molecules, and developed the key concepts of hybrid orbitals and resonance.

It allowed bond lengths and angles to be calculated and compared to experimental measurements. It also cleared up many mysteries, such as why the bond angle in water (H2O) is 108 degrees rather than 180. It also explained why the covalent bond sites in carbon are arrayed tetrahedral rather than planar. This proved important to solving the structure of large biological macromolecules. Pauling himself derived the structure of the alpha helix in proteins, and Watson and Crick were aware that their structure for DNA had to conform to Pauling's rules in order to be plausible.

I have Pauling's textbook "General Chemistry." Go ahead and look at any chemistry textbook, old or new. It will probably not mention Maxwell except maybe in passing, because Maxwell's equations are not relevant to the nature of chemical bonding. Schrodinger's equation however is of paramount importance.

Modern extensions of Pauling's work have revealed more subtle QM effects, such as antibonding, which results from the Pauli exclusion principle, and plays a role in the structural change in hemoglobin going from the deoxygenated state to oxygenated.

As for Einstein, he was not a chemist and his contribution to understanding chemical bonds was negligible.


Edited by EJN, 11 February 2020 - 10:11 PM.

  • SillySMS likes this

#55 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 12 February 2020 - 02:14 AM

Something I cherry picked off web;     http://scarc.library...ive/page42.html

 

          "Heisenberg’s purely mathematical approach to the structure of the atom — based on a difficult set of matrix calculations — yielded results that matched the bewildering array of new observations physicists were making about the properties of simple atoms. But for a chemist like Pauling, trained to view atoms and molecules as real things with particular sizes and shapes, pure mathematics was unsatisfactory.
He preferred Schrödinger’s theory. The old picture of electrons circling the atomic nucleus like little planets did not fit the new data physicists were gathering. But unlike Heisenberg’s purely mathematical approach, Schrödinger proposed a new theory that replaced orbiting electrons with an image more like standing waves around the nucleus — waves like those found in a plucked guitar string or the head of a beaten drum. By applying an existing mathematics of wave functions to atomic questions, Schrödinger was able to create equations that matched the properties of simple atoms.
It became clear during the months of Pauling’s stay in Europe that Schrödinger’s and Heisenberg’s ideas were not two different realities but two different mathematical methods for arriving at the same atomic reality. Ultimately they became joined under a new name: quantum mechanics. Researchers, it seemed, could pick whichever method was easiest to use for a particular problem.
Pauling preferred the wave approach not only because the mathematics was somewhat easier for him but also, he said, because it contained "at least a trace of physical picture behind the mathematics."
 .

.                                                                                                                                                     42 
“In the early 1930s, Pauling was publishing an average of one significant piece of work every five weeks, most of it on the chemical bond or new molecular structures. By the end of this period he had moved almost entirely away from wrestling with the wave equation. "About 1933 or 1934 I gave up on the idea of myself making very complicated quantum-mechanical calculations about molecular structure," he said. "I made a lot of simple quantum-mechanical calculations and drew conclusions, and realized that if you could ever make really accurate quantum-mechanical calculations you wouldn't learn anything from them because they would just agree with the experiment."
He had developed his own "semiempirical" style, combining a broad application of Schrödinger’s wave mechanics with model building and structural data from X-ray crystallography, then matching his results with other laboratory data from across the field of chemistry. It was a very fruitful approach. Through the early 1930s he racked up success after success until, by 1935, he wrote, "I felt that I had an essentially complete understanding of the nature of the chemical bond."

.

.

 

Standing waves are the bread and butter of Maxwellian folk these days.  Schrodinger's equations reek with Maxwell.  A modern 3D EM simulator, would have helped Pauling enormously.  Consider the Hydrogen Atom, a positive charge,  a negative charge, each charged particle has a magnetic moment.   How Maxwellian can you get?.  A modern 3D EM simulator can model an aircraft carrier with all its superstructure,  you can have several radio frequency sources operating, representing ship radar aircraft radar missile radar, all the radio communications on the ship and aircraft, you can predict the complex current over the whole surface of the ship down to cm resolution, calculate near and far EM fields for all frequencies of the sources.  From the scattered Field patterns you could detect a stealth aircraft near buy, it would look like a black hole in the field patterns, you may deduce the type of aircraft from previously obtained signatures.  That’s Maxwell, you may need a beast of a computer, of course

The Casimir effect can be explained easily by Maxwell and with great difficulty by QED.
The Stern Gerlach effect, the AB effect,  wave particle duality, can also be explained with maxwell.
The laser baffled QM’s for twenty years.

The next thing you'll be telling me, is that the smart phone is a Q device?

My referring to Einstein and your evaluation of his work, was mainly related to the material in the earlier part of the post, relating to EPR, Entanglement, and Q computing, I did not Introduce chemistry.   I would offer this comment, chemists may do well to study Maxwell rather than QM.

The Maxwellian community are alive and well in the comm’s industry and the military,
Don’t discount them so easily.

Barry.

PS.    Pauling was a very clever fellow.


Edited by bcgilbert, 12 February 2020 - 02:17 AM.


#56 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 12 February 2020 - 11:17 AM

I did not Introduce chemistry.

Actually you did on your very first post which started this thread. Just sayin':
 

...I believe chemists use a set of cook book rules, probably derived from Schrodinger's equations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Schrodinger's equations reek with Maxwell


Well both being wave equations they have a similar mathematical structure 

 

1/c2 ∂2u/∂t2 = ∂2u/∂xi2    where u = E, B

 

ihψ/∂t = -h2/2m ∂2ψ/∂xi2 +

 

both contain the Laplace operator, 2/∂xi2 = ∇2


Edited by EJN, 12 February 2020 - 10:29 PM.


#57 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,611
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 12 February 2020 - 02:29 PM

Anyone remember the timecube?

 

https://timecube.2enp.com/

What the actual f....?

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


  • Inkswitch and Todd N like this

#58 Rock22

Rock22

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Diamond Bar, California

Posted 12 February 2020 - 03:55 PM

What the actual f....?

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

Weird is an understatement.  My eyeballs wanted to throw up while reading it.


  • Astrojensen likes this

#59 FloridaFocus

FloridaFocus

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 231
  • Joined: 26 May 2016
  • Loc: Gainesville, FL

Posted 12 February 2020 - 04:09 PM

What the actual f....?

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

When I read this response I thought, "surely this comment is un-called for."

 

Then I opened the link....

 

...I stand corrected.


  • Astrojensen likes this

#60 bcgilbert

bcgilbert

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2020
  • Loc: Tamworth, NSW, Australia

Posted 12 February 2020 - 11:23 PM

EJN

 

           Have I been unfaithful To Maxwell all these last fifty years, using, "the imaginary unit i = sqrt(-1) which Maxwell does not,"  all my text books, and my network analyser screens, showing real and imaginary stuff, yikes! maybe I'm a QM.

 

Plank did not believe the field was quantized, only the matter, this implies photons do not exist, only Maxwellian waves. I'm happy with this.    All the Bell tests, in  all the EPR experiments have not addressed such theories.  They much prefer strawmen, of the type , this and that loophole 

 

I don't seem to be able to engage anyone, down at the detailed level of Maxwell, on any of the foundational level of physics, how a polarizer works, wave particle duality, young's two slit, or why the electron does not crash into the proton below the ground state.

 

I guess It's Bohr's legacy kicking in,  particles don't have intrinsic properties until you observe them, you must not look behind the screen.

I'm the idiot that wants to look behind the screen.

 

Anyone want engage me on how a polarizer works, it's crucial to 90 % of EPR experiments?

 

 I'm feeling a bit like Copernicus and Galileo at the moment, waiting for a knock on the door in the middle of knight.


Edited by bcgilbert, 13 February 2020 - 05:05 AM.


#61 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 13 February 2020 - 11:47 AM

Originally published in The Chicago Reader:

 

Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though — my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at —
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom — whatever — but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our cat still purring — or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough *BLEEP*.
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons — you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed —
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability — certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried —
In vain — until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven — but five bucks says he ain't."


  • llanitedave likes this

#62 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29,960
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 13 February 2020 - 04:10 PM

I don't have any problems with those aspects of QM that don't have "spooky action at a distance",  I'm simply advocating for Einstein, Bell, Plank, and Schrodinger.   Magic has no place in Physics!


Advocating? Do natural phenomena require advocates? Or do they just happen?

Do you advocate for seasons, or for sunspots?

#63 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 13 February 2020 - 07:05 PM

I'm advocating for mold, spores, and fungi.


Edited by EJN, 13 February 2020 - 08:52 PM.


#64 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 February 2020 - 08:05 PM

Advocating? Do natural phenomena require advocates? Or do they just happen?

Do you advocate for seasons, or for sunspots?

I think this is the inevitable consequence of insisting that the laws of the universe must make intuitive sense, not just to someone, but to you personally.

 

Once you've decided that, you're kind of forced into the position of picking something you feel makes intuitive sense and 'advocating' that it must be the way the universe works.  From there it is but a short step to deciding that anyone who doesn't agree is a moron, or that there is some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth.

 

I enjoy trying to understand the universe, and I enjoy the debates between different views.  But I don't see why there must be an underlying truth that we can fully comprehend, let alone agree on.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Maybe a bit of clarification on Bell, who was definitely at the forefront of this kind of thing, but whose views are often misrepresented and taken out of context.  My views:

 

On this subject, Bell was very much an outlier from the physics community, which I do not mean as a criticism.  He was definitely with Einstein et al in not liking the implied 'action at a distance' in QM, which he seemed to feel was 'unphysical'.  When he developed his theorem/inequalties, he seems to have hoped that experiment would not show the Bell Inequalities were violated, supporting the idea of local hidden variables driving apparently mysterious behaviour.  Of course the opposite result has been repeatedly confirmed - the inequalities are violated.

 

So now the question is, what does that mean exactly.

 

The standard response, shared by most physicists, is to shrug shoulders and accept that QM is 'spooky', and while we may not fully understand it, something real is going on.

 

However other smart people, including Bell, don't like that and insist that the spookiness can't be real, and there must be another explanation.  Let's be clear, though, they are not disagreeing with either the maths or the experiment, just the interpretation.

 

One loophole is called superdeterminism.  Gerard t'Hooft I think is fond of this one.  Essentially the idea here is that there are hidden variables which operate so deterministically that every single event in the universe forever was predetermined at t=0.  While we see things as random, because we can't predict them, and they seem to follow certain statistics, they are not. When I measure an electron as spin-up, it was always going to be spin-up, and its entangled counterpart was always going to be spin-down.  Neither result is random and the particles do not need to exchange any information to be consistent.  Of course this has some pretty profound philosophical implications - it basically means we have no free will or anything even approximating it.

 

There are also various other alternatives.  Without going into detail, though, the mainstream view is that the alternatives (including superdeterminism) are not worth much, because they are no less weird than the standard approach they are trying to replace.  For example, people have mucked around with hidden variables that are non-local.  But what's the point of that?  Wasn't the non-locality of QM integral to the problem we were trying to solve?  Haven't you just made things worse?

 

Finally, my sense of Bell's various statements is that he didn't think he had the answer.  He simply felt we are being a bit lazy in just assuming Copenhagen is true, and that there is a better explanation out there if we were just smart enough to find it.  I think this part of his position is a completely defensible one, even if I think his refusal to countenance the standard answer was a bit eccentric.


  • llanitedave, Crow Haven, brave_ulysses and 1 other like this

#65 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,656
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 13 February 2020 - 08:45 PM

Weird is an understatement.  My eyeballs wanted to throw up while reading it.

Well, ummm the dreaded lysergic? 



#66 EJN

EJN

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,535
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Between what is and what's not there

Posted 13 February 2020 - 08:51 PM

One loophole is called superdeterminism.  Gerard t'Hooft I think is fond of this one.  Essentially the idea here is that there are hidden variables which operate so deterministically that every single event in the universe forever was predetermined at t=0.

 

There was a recent article and paper on superdeterminism by Sabine Hossenfelder.

 

http://backreaction....didnt-take.html

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf



#67 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 February 2020 - 08:54 PM

Well, ummm the dreaded lysergic? 

I'm a little surprised y'all haven't seen it before.  It's from the days when the internet was young and exciting, and was the canonical nut-case site.  Never bettered in my opinion.  The original is long gone, but mirror sites live on.


  • Jim_V likes this

#68 DaveC2042

DaveC2042

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 February 2020 - 09:10 PM

There was a recent article and paper on superdeterminism by Sabine Hossenfelder.

 

http://backreaction....didnt-take.html

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.06462.pdf

Interesting, but I have to admit I'm not the fourth person to understand superdeterminism.



#69 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,656
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 13 February 2020 - 11:05 PM

I'm a little surprised y'all haven't seen it before.  It's from the days when the internet was young and exciting, and was the canonical nut-case site.  Never bettered in my opinion.  The original is long gone, but mirror sites live on.

I was a late entry to the internet. Being rural, has certain technological disadvantages. I only recently managed to get access to high speed, I was, gasp on dial up still in 2017



#70 Mister T

Mister T

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,807
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:05 AM

The Key to understanding the Universe is understanding that we will never understand it.scratchhead2.gif


  • llanitedave, Jim_V and jpcampbell like this

#71 Jim_V

Jim_V

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,656
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2018
  • Loc: Iron Range Lake Ontario

Posted 14 February 2020 - 10:06 AM

The Key to understanding the Universe is understanding that we will never understand it.scratchhead2.gif

My Brain would never understand the answer anyhow....help.gif



#72 Mister T

Mister T

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,807
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 14 February 2020 - 12:24 PM

Physicist #1:" That makes absolutely no sense at all!!"

Physicist #2: QED! lets publish!

 




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics