Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Johnny Boy wrote:
"I understand your reasoning, which is the standard dogma leading to the non-causal absurdities when interpreting quantum mechanics."
Converation over. The "standard dogma" is what got us out of caves and into the 21st century. It is what discovered electrons and quarks. It is what put a man on the moon. And it is what will someday, if we don't let the fundy's win, allow us to populate the galaxy.
That you reject it out of hand demonstrates a total lack of interest in education and learning.
Dear D A, Do you always have to go off on a tangent? You know well that the "standard dogma" that I have been referring to is the interpretation of quantum physics; NOT the validity of physics. Can you explain to me in detail how the the Copenhagen interpretation of quantumm mechanics, as such, has been instrumental in placing a man on the moon?
This interpretation, introduced by Bohr, Heisenberg and Born, married physics to metaphysics. Physics is based on two questions: "why? and how?". Bohr's statement of complementarity stated that in the quantum world it is futile to ask questions like: "Why does an electron act as either a particle or a wave?" or "How does it manage to do so?" No wonder those people practising metaphysics and mysticism welcome this interpretation with open arms, and mouth the mantra: an electron is an electron is an electron! Maybe it IS a mystic world, but as a scientist I refuse to accept that there are aspects of Nature about which I should not ask "how" or "why"; even when my head is bitten of by you and Uncle Al when I do so.
Now let us consider Heisenberg's interpretation of his own uncertainty relationship for position and momentum. According to this interpretation both position and momentum of a free electron cannot manifest simultaneously; however, all experimental data on the free electron can be accurately modelled as the movement of a particle with a centre of charge and a centre of mass! This is the experimental fact. No experiment has ever shown that an electron ejected by a cathode becomes "uncertain". All the electrons follow well defined classical paths which can only manifest if momentum and position manifest simultaneously for their centres of mass. If this were not the case, the movement of a free electron would have been akin to Brownian movement. Has this ever been observed? If it were the case we would not have had electron microscopes or electron accelerators. What happens when the electron moves with a constant velocity? Since it follows a classical path, it means that its centre of mass MUST be stationary within the inertial reference frame moving with it! Now let us in addition, consider a "vacuum foam" of energy. As Uncle Al pointed out, an electron cannot be stationary when one has such a vacuum energy; however, this is at variance with experiment (as outlined above). How did Heisenberg, address this problem? He stated that the "electron's path only comes into existence when it is observed". Another metaphysical concept. It implies that if there is no observer, there would be no path; however, an electron in free flight within an electron accelerator is not "observed" but it still follows a definite path which requires the manifestation of both momentum and position at all instants of time. But notwithstanding this experimentally verifiable fact, Heisenberg postulated that it is impossible for both momentum and position to manifest at the same time (unless the electron is observed). Is observation not a "measurement"? So this implies that when you measure you CAN observe both the position and momentum of the centre of mass of a free electron. This is also the experimental fact. As I scientist I rather believe experimental results than an interpretation that is at variance with experiment. My model of the electron as a localised wave with a centre of charge and thus a centre of mass, removes these contradictions. It also gives a possible reason why the mass of an electron consists entirely of electromagnetic energy.
