“We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.”
[About describing atomic models in the language of classical physics]
— Niels Bohr
in his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28.
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
— Richard Feynman
Despite its prominent author, the paper requires some additional editing.
[About describing atomic models in the language of classical physics]
— Niels Bohr
in his first meeting with Werner Heisenberg in early summer 1920, in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933); quoted in Defense Implications of International Indeterminacy (1972) by Robert J. Pranger, p. 11, and Theorizing Modernism : Essays in Critical Theory (1993) by Steve Giles, p. 28.
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
— Richard Feynman
ABSTRACT
Here we propose the possibility that the pushing effect induced by electromagnetic radiation (EMR), i.e. the
light pressure, can explain the intimate physical mechanism (at the moment still unknown) through which the
so-called Wave Function Collapse of the hit particle occurs, whereby the particle passes instantly from a wave
behavior to a corpuscular one.
In other words, the interaction of a single light quantum with a subatomic particle localises it in that instant,
while inducing the collapse of its wave function (WFC).
As it is known, indeed, the observation of the microscopic world, that is the measurement of a quantum object,
inexorably modifies the physical system we want to examine.
According to Feynman, if we want to detect, observe, measure an electron, we need to light it, we need to point
on it an electromagnetic wave with the same or shorter wavelength.
Hence, a possible link between measurementand EMR seems to come out.
In short, it seems likely that it is the momentum of the light quantum to be transferred to the struck particle,
exerting a force on it, a pressure (the so-called Radiation Pressure) enough to induce the WFC of the measured
quantum object.
Here we propose the possibility that the pushing effect induced by electromagnetic radiation (EMR), i.e. the
light pressure, can explain the intimate physical mechanism (at the moment still unknown) through which the
so-called Wave Function Collapse of the hit particle occurs, whereby the particle passes instantly from a wave
behavior to a corpuscular one.
In other words, the interaction of a single light quantum with a subatomic particle localises it in that instant,
while inducing the collapse of its wave function (WFC).
As it is known, indeed, the observation of the microscopic world, that is the measurement of a quantum object,
inexorably modifies the physical system we want to examine.
According to Feynman, if we want to detect, observe, measure an electron, we need to light it, we need to point
on it an electromagnetic wave with the same or shorter wavelength.
Hence, a possible link between measurementand EMR seems to come out.
In short, it seems likely that it is the momentum of the light quantum to be transferred to the struck particle,
exerting a force on it, a pressure (the so-called Radiation Pressure) enough to induce the WFC of the measured
quantum object.
Despite its prominent author, the paper requires some additional editing.
Last edited:
Nice animation! Much more fun than a boring old PDF!
The quantum numbers are designated n, l and ml (principal quantum number, orbital quantum number and magnetic quantum number).
However, there is a fourth quantum number ms (spin quantum number).
No two electrons can have an identical set of quantum numbers according to the Pauli exclusion principle.
I've rediscovered this article on the path integral formulation, which was invented by Richard Feynman as a tool for calculating quantum mechanical probabilities: https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/path_integrals/
The problem with quantum mechanics is that it not only contradicts our everyday experience, but it goes against our very concept of reality.
The idea that, before arriving on the screen of my old computer monitor, an electron may actually have visited the far side of the Moon or my pint of Feynman's beer goes beyond my understanding!
Yet, quantum theory has never failed a test. And it's been tested more than any other theory in science.
Fortunately, the probability that massive objects will arrive at the destination predicted by Newtonian mechanics is very nearly one. Hence large objects move just as predicted by Newton.
Attachments
Naturally I was eager to learn more about the Double Slit Experiment, even if I think I got it first time.
Jim Al-Khalili confirms his status as Portsmouth's Second Finest Physicist here. Caution: Requires an attention span of 10 minutes, but once grasped, you have it forever:
I really don't know why Philosophers ask things like "If the Wave Function collapses, what does it collapse into?"
Anyway, I have been investigating the esteemed Philosopher, @Ro808's latest Quantum Mechanics discovery currently under peer review. And I have to admit I was looking forward to this.
Some red flags, like a specialist outside his field. an amusing email address, use of the chemist's archaic grams and ergs, simple schoolboy mathematics, a reading list including "Asimov's Guide to Science" and amazingly, Newton's "Principia", which makes him a braver man than me.
I DID find this discovery interesting:
How can a little 2.5 eV green Photon kick a big 510,999 eV / c^2 Electron out of the way? I really hadn't thought about it.
The serious point is that A. Puccini has made a good start investigating Quantum Mechanics, but is currently up to 16-y-o level.
And it's not his fault, because there is a lot of Bunk Sciencefrom Roland in this thread out there.
Jim Al-Khalili confirms his status as Portsmouth's Second Finest Physicist here. Caution: Requires an attention span of 10 minutes, but once grasped, you have it forever:
I really don't know why Philosophers ask things like "If the Wave Function collapses, what does it collapse into?"
Anyway, I have been investigating the esteemed Philosopher, @Ro808's latest Quantum Mechanics discovery currently under peer review. And I have to admit I was looking forward to this.
Some red flags, like a specialist outside his field. an amusing email address, use of the chemist's archaic grams and ergs, simple schoolboy mathematics, a reading list including "Asimov's Guide to Science" and amazingly, Newton's "Principia", which makes him a braver man than me.
I DID find this discovery interesting:
How can a little 2.5 eV green Photon kick a big 510,999 eV / c^2 Electron out of the way? I really hadn't thought about it.
The serious point is that A. Puccini has made a good start investigating Quantum Mechanics, but is currently up to 16-y-o level.
And it's not his fault, because there is a lot of Bunk Science
This is what I've written in another place and another time:
The wave function is not a wave, but an equation derived from the Schrodinger equation. It describes the evolving probabilities of where we would find the photon were it to be detected.
In the double slit experiment there is a superposition of probabilities. The wave function might tell us that at any one instant there is a 20% probability that the photon will be detected at this location on the screen, a 40% probability that it will be detected in that location, and so on.
The collapse of the wave function is the transformation from a superposition of different probabilities into a 100% probability, i.e., into a localised particle.
I shall now watch the video to see if Jim the apprentice Portsmouth physicist agrees with all or any of that, or if my description is too simplistic!
The wave function is not a wave, but an equation derived from the Schrodinger equation. It describes the evolving probabilities of where we would find the photon were it to be detected.
In the double slit experiment there is a superposition of probabilities. The wave function might tell us that at any one instant there is a 20% probability that the photon will be detected at this location on the screen, a 40% probability that it will be detected in that location, and so on.
The collapse of the wave function is the transformation from a superposition of different probabilities into a 100% probability, i.e., into a localised particle.
I shall now watch the video to see if Jim the apprentice Portsmouth physicist agrees with all or any of that, or if my description is too simplistic!
Right, that was a fun video, even though it told us nothing new.
However, it didn't get as far as the collapse of the wave function, which I was led to believe was its purpose!
However, it didn't get as far as the collapse of the wave function, which I was led to believe was its purpose!
Are we talking about Compton Scattering perhaps? 🤔
My Compton Scattering calculator says that an incoming green photon of wavelength 495 nm and energy 2.5 eV will transfer 2.6 x 10^-25 J to an electron (assuming a scattering angle of 30 degrees): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/compton.html#c1
I would gently admonish you to stop multiple posting. It may be good for your post count, but takes up unnecessary space in the page, which is limited to 20 posts in my Universe. A good Physicist is always concise.
To address your Collapse of the Wave Function confusion, the modern view is that when two particles interact, they each modify and mix each others wave function according to Conservation Laws, but do not collapse at all.
Compton scattering relates to a photon hitting a STATIONARY electron, which is not the case in the Double-Slit experiment.
It is akin to a snooker player sending a target ball sideways with a very slight glancing blow from another ball. But the target ball moves very slowly then, especially if the angle is extreme.
This is clearly not what is going on with the Double Slit experiment, where the electron must have been accelerated up to, guesses, the 15 keV typical of cathode ray tubes.
A. Puccini has also made the schoolboy mistake of muddling up energy, as in photon 2.5 eV, which he calls "impact force", and electron rest mass as in 510,999 eV / c^2.
I really don't want to waste time making a silk purse out of such a sow's ear. And nor should you.
Having let young Jim out of the Physics Lab for his lecture, I notice he is correctly wearing the bow-tie of theSpanner-Man or Grease Monkey Experimental Physicist. The Purer Theoretical Physicist always wears a straight tie and doesn't get his hands dirty. There being no Health and Safety issues associated with Pencil and Paper. Whereas straight ties worn in the lab have been know to conduct high voltages unexpectedly, or wrap themselves fatally round the chuck key of lathes. This is probably something you haven't thought about.
Great Electrmagnetism Experimentalist Michael Faraday:
Great Quantum Theoretician Paul Dirac:
The Quantum is a very slippery thing, akin to trying to grasp a bar of wet soap, and always trying to jump out of your hand.
I am devising a Double-Double-Slit Experiment for Jim to try. Having selected only electrons of a particle nature with a first pair of slits, I plan to confuse them with a second pair of slits back into a wave nature, which is a bit like the Double Stern-Gerlach experiment..
I am going to call this "Quantum Muddleness", and feel sure he and I shall share a Nobel Prize.
To address your Collapse of the Wave Function confusion, the modern view is that when two particles interact, they each modify and mix each others wave function according to Conservation Laws, but do not collapse at all.
Compton scattering relates to a photon hitting a STATIONARY electron, which is not the case in the Double-Slit experiment.
It is akin to a snooker player sending a target ball sideways with a very slight glancing blow from another ball. But the target ball moves very slowly then, especially if the angle is extreme.
This is clearly not what is going on with the Double Slit experiment, where the electron must have been accelerated up to, guesses, the 15 keV typical of cathode ray tubes.
A. Puccini has also made the schoolboy mistake of muddling up energy, as in photon 2.5 eV, which he calls "impact force", and electron rest mass as in 510,999 eV / c^2.
I really don't want to waste time making a silk purse out of such a sow's ear. And nor should you.
Having let young Jim out of the Physics Lab for his lecture, I notice he is correctly wearing the bow-tie of the
Great Electrmagnetism Experimentalist Michael Faraday:
Great Quantum Theoretician Paul Dirac:
The Quantum is a very slippery thing, akin to trying to grasp a bar of wet soap, and always trying to jump out of your hand.
I am devising a Double-Double-Slit Experiment for Jim to try. Having selected only electrons of a particle nature with a first pair of slits, I plan to confuse them with a second pair of slits back into a wave nature, which is a bit like the Double Stern-Gerlach experiment..
I am going to call this "Quantum Muddleness", and feel sure he and I shall share a Nobel Prize.
Last edited:
If you are referring to the "multiple posting" of posts #5,505 and #5,506, that was a dramatic device used to indicate the passage of time between saying I would watch your video and actually having watched it.
Post #5,507 then started a new topic on Compton Scattering as it would only be logical to do.
I would gently admonish you to stop including multiple topics in one post. That is far from being "concise" and confuses my ageing and addled brain.
I wasn't referring to a double-slit experiment when I mentioned Compton Scattering - which is the scattering of photons off free electrons.
A double-slit experiment for monochromatic light is not about photons striking free electrons.
I was referring to your extract from Puccini's paper in post #5,504 that specifically speaks of a photon hitting an electron.
I have NO IDEA what Ant1Puccini is talking about. He is but an amateur. But I do know that the Electrons are detected going through the slits with a lamp and detector using Photons.
I shall reread Feynman on this topic, because he discusses what happens with a really faint light source if I recall. I shall get back to you on that.
With only 9 posts before all these things are lost, like tears in rain, I have found out what Jim gets up to outside the Physics Laboratory.
Here provided free of adverts for "Get Rich Quick" schemes, Quack Medical cures, suggestions that Shakespeare would have done better if he had used "Grammarly", and worthy Charity appeals to give my hard-earned money to the poor.
I did wonder where my little spring visitor, the Robin with whom I am graet pals, goes in late summer. It seems he goes to the British Territory of Gibralter.
Jim has some hare-braned theory that he uses Quantum Entanglement and the Earth's magnetic field to navigate there.
In fact, he has another bee in his bonnet. He thinks that all life is Quantum. I think he is working too hard.
I shall reread Feynman on this topic, because he discusses what happens with a really faint light source if I recall. I shall get back to you on that.
With only 9 posts before all these things are lost, like tears in rain, I have found out what Jim gets up to outside the Physics Laboratory.
Here provided free of adverts for "Get Rich Quick" schemes, Quack Medical cures, suggestions that Shakespeare would have done better if he had used "Grammarly", and worthy Charity appeals to give my hard-earned money to the poor.
I did wonder where my little spring visitor, the Robin with whom I am graet pals, goes in late summer. It seems he goes to the British Territory of Gibralter.
Jim has some hare-braned theory that he uses Quantum Entanglement and the Earth's magnetic field to navigate there.
In fact, he has another bee in his bonnet. He thinks that all life is Quantum. I think he is working too hard.
Last edited:
A reminder (copied-pasted):
Over the years, one thing scientists have discovered is that nature is generally more complex than we give it credit for. The laws of physics are considered fundamental, although many of them refer to idealized or theoretical systems that are hard to replicate in the real world.Law of Universal Gravitation
Sir Isaac Newton's groundbreaking work in physics was first published in 1687 in his book "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy," commonly known as "The Principia." In it, he outlined theories about gravity and of motion. His physical law of gravity states that an object attracts another object in direct proportion to their combined mass and inversely related to the square of the distance between them.Three Laws of Motion
Newton's three laws of motion, also found in "The Principia," govern how the motion of physical objects change. They define the fundamental relationship between the acceleration of an object and the forces acting upon it.- First Rule: An object will remain at rest or in a uniform state of motion unless that state is changed by an external force.
- Second Rule: Force is equal to the change in momentum (mass times velocity) over time. In other words, the rate of change is directly proportional to the amount of force applied.
- Third Rule: For every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Together, these three principles that Newton outlined form the basis of classical mechanics, which describes how bodies behave physically under the influence of outside forces.
Conservation of Mass and Energy
Albert Einstein introduced his famous equation E = mc2 in a 1905 journal submission titled, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." The paper presented his theory of special relativity, based on two postulates:- Principle of Relativity: The laws of physics are the same for all inertial reference frames.
- Principle of Constancy of the Speed of Light: Light always propagates through a vacuum at a definite velocity, which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
The first principle simply says that the laws of physics apply equally to everyone in all situations. The second principle is the more important one. It stipulates that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Unlike all other forms of motion, it is not measured differently for observers in different inertial frames of reference.
Laws of Thermodynamics
The laws of thermodynamics are actually specific manifestations of the law of conservation of mass-energy as it relates to thermodynamic processes. The field was first explored in the 1650s by Otto von Guericke in Germany and Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke in Britain. All three scientists used vacuum pumps, which von Guericke pioneered, to study the principles of pressure, temperature, and volume.- The Zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics makes the notion of temperature possible.
- The First Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates the relationship between internal energy, added heat, and work within a system.
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to the natural flow of heat within a closed system.
- The Third Law of Thermodynamics states that it is impossible to create a thermodynamic process that is perfectly efficient.
Electrostatic Laws
Two laws of physics govern the relationship between electrically charged particles and their ability to create electrostatic force and electrostatic fields.- Coulomb's Law is named for Charles-Augustin Coulomb, a French researcher working in the 1700s. The force between two point charges is directly proportional to the magnitude of each charge and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. If the objects have the same charge, positive or negative, they will repel each other. If they have opposite charges, they will attract each other.
- Gauss's Law is named for Carl Friedrich Gauss, a German mathematician who worked in the early 19th century. This law states that the net flow of an electric field through a closed surface is proportional to the enclosed electric charge. Gauss proposed similar laws relating to magnetism and electromagnetism as a whole.
Beyond Basic Laws of Physics
In the realm of relativity and quantum mechanics, scientists have found that these laws still apply, although their interpretation requires some refinement to be applied, resulting in fields such as quantum electronics and quantum gravity.
Forgive me if i haven't read through the last 276 pages of this uber thread...
Forgive me further for pointing out that thinking/knowing has two hemispheres and that limiting this to one hemisphere blocks perceiving what is missing in theoretical physics.
Requesting still further patience pointing out the obvious that:
Gravity is a function of enormous mass, it is not 'generated', it simply is, as we perceive.
Looking at matter geometrically rather than dimensionally is one of the first steps of adjustment.
Ever increasing dimensionality is only a graphic representation, further layers of unnecessary complexity, the problem with much 'theory'.
We have space.
We have counter space.
Looking at the space between matter will get one further.
Another crippling limitation: There is only Electro-motive force.
Electro-motive force, is one part of 'yin and yang'
it's inseparable other is Magneto-dielecticity.
Aether physics was silenced with the advent of Einsteinian philosophical limitations, ( the first world war was the catalyst for the narrowing) this choked other avenues of needed research such as magneto dielectricity and aether drift. Or put another way nature was taken out of the 'equation'. This is the elephant in the room. True comprehension will suffer until this is overcome institutionally in todays scientific reductionist materialist stance.
We have woefully inadequate 'tools' to make sense of such phenomena, and as far as the last three decades has suggested to me,
the hopeful avenues are dumped by the wayside or lost to silence, due to the wayward wiles of finance/ commerce.
The pioneers of the balanced view that did not isolate nature will be for many a familiar if controversial list.
The truth leads to an inner approach, first. Not cutting and pasting regurgitating one sided theories.
Remember gravity has an opposite, levity.
Forgive me further for pointing out that thinking/knowing has two hemispheres and that limiting this to one hemisphere blocks perceiving what is missing in theoretical physics.
Requesting still further patience pointing out the obvious that:
Gravity is a function of enormous mass, it is not 'generated', it simply is, as we perceive.
Looking at matter geometrically rather than dimensionally is one of the first steps of adjustment.
Ever increasing dimensionality is only a graphic representation, further layers of unnecessary complexity, the problem with much 'theory'.
We have space.
We have counter space.
Looking at the space between matter will get one further.
Another crippling limitation: There is only Electro-motive force.
Electro-motive force, is one part of 'yin and yang'
it's inseparable other is Magneto-dielecticity.
Aether physics was silenced with the advent of Einsteinian philosophical limitations, ( the first world war was the catalyst for the narrowing) this choked other avenues of needed research such as magneto dielectricity and aether drift. Or put another way nature was taken out of the 'equation'. This is the elephant in the room. True comprehension will suffer until this is overcome institutionally in todays scientific reductionist materialist stance.
We have woefully inadequate 'tools' to make sense of such phenomena, and as far as the last three decades has suggested to me,
the hopeful avenues are dumped by the wayside or lost to silence, due to the wayward wiles of finance/ commerce.
The pioneers of the balanced view that did not isolate nature will be for many a familiar if controversial list.
The truth leads to an inner approach, first. Not cutting and pasting regurgitating one sided theories.
Remember gravity has an opposite, levity.
Last edited:
Steve (system7) is gonna just lurv those last four posts as we were both well within our edit time to combine each of our two posts together without making them separate entities!
Last edited:
Aha! A NEW page full of hope, and maybe free of Philosophy and Crackpottery,
I have been out in the twilight field tonight seeking Quicksilver Planet Mercury. And I think I got the little blighter, but do not claim a discovery in what is very questionable:
But a definite maybe, and I will do better over the next 10 days I believe:
Nice shot of the Orion Nebula, birthplace of Stars:
And a minor surprise. I noticed a little star cluster south of Sirius. It is M41, the Little Beehive Cluster. Feynman says Star Clusters show us Gravity at work.
Nikon D3200, f2.5, 75mm eff, and 2 seconds for the most part.
Best Regards from Steve in Portsmouth UK.
I have been out in the twilight field tonight seeking Quicksilver Planet Mercury. And I think I got the little blighter, but do not claim a discovery in what is very questionable:
But a definite maybe, and I will do better over the next 10 days I believe:
Nice shot of the Orion Nebula, birthplace of Stars:
And a minor surprise. I noticed a little star cluster south of Sirius. It is M41, the Little Beehive Cluster. Feynman says Star Clusters show us Gravity at work.
Nikon D3200, f2.5, 75mm eff, and 2 seconds for the most part.
Best Regards from Steve in Portsmouth UK.