"Old Man" wrote in message
...

"Andr? Michaud" wrote in message
om...
"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. ....

No it doesn't. The HUP applies to certain pairs of
canonically conjugate variables. It doesn't apply to the
quantum numbers that uniquely define atomic stationary
states. transitions between these states are subject to
strict causality.

There is an inherent uncertainty between degenerate states,
that is, between states that are slightly non-orthogonal, as in
radioactive nuclei. In those cases, the wave function is a
superposition of several states.

Old Man seems to have forgotten that, even in the case of the
eigenfunctions of the electron in an atom, they are eigenfunctions of
energy and of angular momentum.
They are not eigenfunctions of position or momentum
The position and momentum of the particle are therefore subject to the
restrictions of the HUP.
Also, since the state is an eigenfunction of angular momentum, the
angular position of the electron is totally indeterminate, as is
required by the HUP.

Old Man should remember that being in an eigenstate of *some*
observables does not imply being in an eigenstate of *all*
observables.

Franz