"Old Man" wrote in message ...
"Andr? Michaud" wrote in message
om...
Laura wrote:
"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
om...
This message is a continuation of the discussion in the thread
'Neutrino mass'.

It is more like a reiteration of your position, already stated in that
thread.


I admit to not being formally educated in QM.

Neither am I.
But I try not to criticise things I don't understand.

I am nevertheless trying
to criticise a belief normally taught in such education.

If you're referring to the idea of the electron being "smeared" across
the orbital, then it is you who has misunderstood.
"In a general paper on quantum mechanics, Schroedinger discusses and
rejects the interpretation that a single quantum is somehow phyiscally
"spread out" or "blurred" among the different parts of a superposition ."
That is what is being taught.

To my knowledge, what is being taught, in perfect accordance with
Heisenber's teachings is that the electron is not localized until
the wave function collapses. So, when in motion, it is definitely
considered in the Copenhagen school view of QM as being spread out.

Stationary states aren't subject to uncertainty. The
parameters of an electron in a stationary state can be
measured with precision. Via multiple observations
of identically prepared systems, one can measure the
distribution of degenerate states, that is, states of equal
energy and angular momentum, to unlimited accuracy.

[Old Man]

Strict copenhagen interpretation says that the uncertainty principle
always applies in atoms.

But common sense and, as you say, observation of identically
prepared systems say that you are right.

It is quite unfortunate that the idiotic attitude, initiated by
Heisenberg, immediately followed by Bohr (unfortunately letting
go of his very promising model) according to which no further
progress could be made in understanding the foundations simply
because they considered that if more could not be understood then
meant that more could never again be understood in the future has
stalled progress for so long.

No one seems to realize that this attitude has tainted science
all through history.

I have no doubt that common sense will eventully prevail again
and that more precise mathematical tools will eventually be
developped to deal with the foundation.

But since peer pressure from the followers of the omnipresent
Copenhagen school supporters is such a hindrance, pressure cannot
be successfully exerted from inside the community to initiate
the trend.

I do what I can to help reintroduce both into academia from the
outside, and I hope that many others do the same.

The sooner the academic thinking engine is restarted, the quicker
progress will resume.

Regards

André Michaud