QM and electron orbits

"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.

{snip verbose extension of fractured pottery}

Intriguing comment considering that the first sentence you snipped
said that I agree with you:

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

But I am way past wondering at people's attitudes.

As for the Copenhagen interpretation, I told you what I observed
how its supporters apply the HUP the case.

I'll let you debate the issue with them. I am not interested.

André Michaud

"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.

{snip verbose extension of fractured pottery}

[Old Man]


No matter what happens, energy will not commute with either momentum
or position, in general. So just because we have a stationary state,
we can know its energy, but that's about all we can know. Position
and momentum in atomic stationary states are elusive quantities due to
the UP.

"Igor" wrote in message
om...
"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.

{snip verbose extension of fractured pottery}

[Old Man]


No matter what happens, energy will not commute with either momentum
or position, in general. So just because we have a stationary state,
we can know its energy, but that's about all we can know. Position
and momentum in atomic stationary states are elusive quantities due to
the UP.

Along with energy, don't forget the other good quantum
numbers: total angular momentum and parity, J(pi).

[Old Man]

"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

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message . com...
"Old Man" wrote in message ...
..

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

(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message . com...
"Old Man" wrote in message ...
..

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


Oops! Accidentally posted too soon.

I can argue this issue from either direction.

The idea that "no further progress could be made in understanding the
foundations" could have been either philosophical or pragmatic. If
philosophical it is unscientific: how could anyone guess what the
physicists of the year 3004 may be doing? If pragmatic then they were
simply saying that no progress could be made at that time and efforts
could be better spent on some other issue.

My guess is that the latter was what was intended.

(Patrick Powers) wrote in message om...
(Andr? Michaud) wrote in message . com...
"Old Man" wrote in message ...
.

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


Oops! Accidentally posted too soon.

I can argue this issue from either direction.

The idea that "no further progress could be made in understanding the
foundations" could have been either philosophical or pragmatic. If
philosophical it is unscientific:

It definitely is philosophical. If you become fully acquainted (maybe
you already are) with the Copenhagen school of thought, you will eventually
become aware that on account of a deep (practically religious) belief in
Heisenberg's notion that the uncertainty principle is a physical
reality and thus an unsurmountable barrier to further explore the
foundations underlying QM, then you will see how unscientific the
notion is.

The believers find all kinds of excuses not to attempt pushing forward.
Even Feynman, supposed to be a guiding light in physics wrote in his
most important paper in 1949:

"In many problems, for example, the close collisions of particles, we
are not interested in the precise temporal sequence of events. It is
of no interest to be able to say how the situation would look at each
instant of time during a collision and how it progresses from instant
to instant."

Richard Feynman, Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics,
Phys. Rev. 76, 771 (1949).

This is how he justified the potential existence of virtual photons.

He thus posed as a research philosophy his refusal to push forward to
the last unexplored fronteer in fundamental physics and has induced the
respectful following generations of physicists to refrain from indulging.

Unfortunately, most current physicists belong to the Copenhagen school.
The few that dont have no choice but to shut up on account of the aggessive
attitudes of their peers on this subject.

how could anyone guess what the physicists of the year 3004 may be doing?

Exactly. Who can gess even at what the physicists of year 2005 will be
doing?

The Copenhagen bunch, on their part, KNOW that nothing can be found
beyond QM, and since they are the current majority, no research is
formally authorized. Only fools would waste time and taxpayer money
looking for stuff that doesn't exist!

If pragmatic then they were simply saying that no progress could be made
at that time and efforts could be better spent on some other issue.

My guess is that the latter was what was intended.

Unfortunately, after having extensively studied physics history, I think
that the worst case scenario was intended: No more research beyond QM
to clarify foundations that they do not believe even exist.

Regards

André Michaud