| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"tony fleming" |
| Date: |
21 Apr 2006 10:00:58 PM |
| Object: |
QM an overconstrained problem |
using Self-field theory (SFT), we can see that QM as it is taught today
is actually an
overconstrained problem where the distance between electromagnetic
charges needs TWO
degrees of freedom rather than ONE. ie it needs centres of motion
rather than point-to-point. this is why we end up seeing the problem
as a non-linear wave problem rather than a much simpler linear problem.
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
23 Apr 2006 03:00:10 AM |
|
|
tony fleming:
using Self-field theory (SFT), we can see that QM as it is taught today
is actually an overconstrained problem where the distance between
electromagnetic charges needs TWO degrees of freedom rather than ONE.
That has to be one of the most absurd arguments yet.
ie it needs centres of motion rather than point-to-point.
Huh? That sentence doesn't even make sense.
this is why we end up seeing the problem as a non-linear wave problem
rather than a much simpler linear problem.
Since the non-linear aspect is observed in phenomena like pair production
and bruekner scattering, your argument against a non-linear theory is
wrong no matter what your argument actually is. Nature takes precedence
of personal preferences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
25 Apr 2006 02:40:13 AM |
|
|
Bilge
tony fleming:
using Self-field theory (SFT), we can see that QM as it is taught
today
is actually an overconstrained problem where the distance between
electromagnetic charges needs TWO degrees of freedom rather than
ONE.
That has to be one of the most absurd arguments yet.
no it's not, its based on the facts. heisenberg was speaking rubbish
when he spouted on about HUP eighty years ago.
and you adherents of QM and QFT have been bull-at-a-gate saying this
was the bees knees ever since. he spoke utter garbage about something
that he didn't appreciate. what his inaccuracy was in reality was a
numerical error in QM since he was modelling the photon incorrectly as
a wve packet when all along it could be modelled as a system of two
subparticles which operates BOTH to give a sinuosoidal field when
observed from the outside AND as a (composite) particle.
I don't think you've botherred to read any pdf's on SFT yet have you?
that will explain you obdurance to a mathematical model of physics that
is more realistic than QM and QFT.
ie it needs centres of motion rather than point-to-point.
Huh? That sentence doesn't even make sense.
yes it does
this is why we end up seeing the problem as a non-linear wave
problem
rather than a much simpler linear problem.
Since the non-linear aspect is observed in phenomena like pair production
and bruekner scattering, your argument against a non-linear theory is
wrong no matter what your argument actually is. Nature takes precedence
of personal preferences.
Well i thought we scientists were using the scientific method nowadays.
since roger bacon a few hundred years ago!! in other words the SFT
maths fits the results better than the old classical field theory which
is indorporated into QM and QFT.
So seeing as the results of SFT as applied to the hydrogen atom have
been accepted by peer-review what's your trouble?? there's no 'personal
preference'. just good science.
that's why we can get actual motions of the electrons and not just
'clouds' of probability
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
22 Apr 2006 01:32:38 AM |
|
|
"tony fleming" <tfleming1@hotkey.net.au> wrote in message =
news:1145674858.125748.243480@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| using Self-field theory (SFT),
Is that catholic, muslim, shinto or buddhist SFT?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Matz" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
22 Apr 2006 12:34:32 PM |
|
|
Yes i can agree. So i do not know much SFT, i see that this indeed is the
main Problem of QM Theory.
The wave function has a center and in many particle problems (more than two)
there are basic mistakes
leading to wrong theories like Hattree - Fock theory. So far i know SFT
there are nice ideas in and
probably a healthy cup of truth, although hidden in concepts which are not
fully worked out and
brought together. My opinion: Good discussions on the basic errors in QM.
Further so !
"tony fleming" <tfleming1@hotkey.net.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1145674858.125748.243480@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
using Self-field theory (SFT), we can see that QM as it is taught today
is actually an
overconstrained problem where the distance between electromagnetic
charges needs TWO
degrees of freedom rather than ONE. ie it needs centres of motion
rather than point-to-point. this is why we end up seeing the problem
as a non-linear wave problem rather than a much simpler linear problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
23 Apr 2006 03:05:09 AM |
|
|
Josef Matz:
Yes i can agree. So i do not know much SFT, i see that this indeed is the
main Problem of QM Theory.
The wave function has a center and in many particle problems (more than two)
there are basic mistakes leading to wrong theories like Hattree - Fock
theory.
Precisely what mistakes have you found in the hartree-fock method?
Be specific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Matz" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
23 Apr 2006 02:29:29 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrne4mh22.kj.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Josef Matz:
Yes i can agree. So i do not know much SFT, i see that this indeed is
the
main Problem of QM Theory.
The wave function has a center and in many particle problems (more than
two)
there are basic mistakes leading to wrong theories like Hattree - Fock
theory.
Precisely what mistakes have you found in the hartree-fock method?
Be specific.
For Example He ground state does not converge to measured results as far as
i know. While SFT has very
good results as far as i know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
24 Apr 2006 07:45:10 PM |
|
|
Josef Matz:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrne4mh22.kj.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Josef Matz:
Yes i can agree. So i do not know much SFT, i see that this indeed is
the
main Problem of QM Theory.
The wave function has a center and in many particle problems (more than
two)
there are basic mistakes leading to wrong theories like Hattree - Fock
theory.
Precisely what mistakes have you found in the hartree-fock method?
Be specific.
For Example He ground state does not converge to measured results as far as
i know. While SFT has very good results as far as i know.
Which means what, precisely? I said be specific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Matz" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
25 Apr 2006 02:53:13 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrne4r015.a1.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Josef Matz:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrne4mh22.kj.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Josef Matz:
Yes i can agree. So i do not know much SFT, i see that this indeed
is
the
main Problem of QM Theory.
The wave function has a center and in many particle problems (more
than
two)
there are basic mistakes leading to wrong theories like Hattree -
Fock
theory.
Precisely what mistakes have you found in the hartree-fock method?
Be specific.
For Example He ground state does not converge to measured results as far
as
i know. While SFT has very good results as far as i know.
Which means what, precisely? I said be specific.
This means that QM is wrong with respect to He ground state. More precise on
can not be or ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
25 Apr 2006 10:50:36 AM |
|
|
Josef Matz:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrne4r015.a1.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Josef Matz:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrne4mh22.kj.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Josef Matz:
Yes i can agree. So i do not know much SFT, i see that this indeed
is
the
main Problem of QM Theory.
The wave function has a center and in many particle problems (more
than
two)
there are basic mistakes leading to wrong theories like Hattree -
Fock
theory.
Precisely what mistakes have you found in the hartree-fock method?
Be specific.
For Example He ground state does not converge to measured results as far
as
i know. While SFT has very good results as far as i know.
Which means what, precisely? I said be specific.
This means that QM is wrong with respect to He ground state. More precise on
can not be or ?
Do you have any idea what hartree-fock is? Look it up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
25 Apr 2006 06:31:12 AM |
|
|
Josef, let me say that SFT has NOT yet solved the He atom. But it can
do so AFTER we tackle the bohr magnetron. that's what is see is next
on the agenda. It can be an analytic solution rather than a numerical
solution a la QM. it will solve for the actual dynamics of the outer
shell electrons AND for the nuclear particles. Each electron adds four
unknowns to the problem, while each proton adds 18 unkowns. Each weak
electron ALSO adds four to the overall unknowns. so the He atom, or
again He_2, will be pretty small compared to the size of the QM
ineteraction matrix. but as i say, it has not been done YET. it will
be an interesting case because only the numerical approach of QM is
available at the moment.
cheers Tony.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Matz" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
26 Apr 2006 09:53:52 PM |
|
|
"tony fleming" <tfleming1@hotkey.net.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1145964672.540406.186460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Josef, let me say that SFT has NOT yet solved the He atom. But it can
do so AFTER we tackle the bohr magnetron. that's what is see is next
on the agenda. It can be an analytic solution rather than a numerical
solution a la QM. it will solve for the actual dynamics of the outer
shell electrons AND for the nuclear particles. Each electron adds four
unknowns to the problem, while each proton adds 18 unkowns. Each weak
electron ALSO adds four to the overall unknowns. so the He atom, or
again He_2, will be pretty small compared to the size of the QM
ineteraction matrix. but as i say, it has not been done YET. it will
be an interesting case because only the numerical approach of QM is
available at the moment.
cheers Tony.
Ok then i have read this somewhere else, was it Mills Tables, another one
who says he has
results. Go to this link.
"optionsgeek" <ronnotel@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1132968842.741204.43860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
While I'm perfectly prepared to reject Dr. Randell Mills' and his
theory of Hydrinos and being non-sensical, I was more inclined to do so
before reviewing the spreadsheet he has published. It purports to
calculate, in a tractable, closed-form solution, multiple ionization
levels for atoms with 1 to (at least) 20 electrons. He does this using
physical constants and elementary algebra. As far as I'm aware, nothing
remotely similar has ever been demonstrated.
Can someone explain to my poor befuddled mind why this isn't a
significant discovery?
His spreadsheet is available at
http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/computation.shtml
My reponse to sci.physics.research was rejected. I would like to discuss
with
you on the remarkable Mills theories and about the foundation of Quantum
mechanics.
Here my thoughts:This is probably a significant discovery. The third
equation of QM is wrong,
which is simply:
The wave function is a function of the particle coordinates in a n particle
problem.
But this is wrong. Another approach is:
In an n - particle problem the wave function is a function of r only. Each
individual wave function has a center and the center (the center of charge)
for a particle has a defined coordinate r(i) i=1...n
So if it is true that Psi = Psi(r(i),i=1...n) is wrong, but
Psi = Psi(r) (just one r not many !) = function of two - body psis
then a theory must exist which has closed solutions for the energy schemes
for all molecules
and many - electron atoms. I know a little how the separation of the
Schrödinger equation works
with this approach. And i think therefore that Hattree - Fock Theory is
wrong and therfore not
able to converge to the measured results. So i am not worked in in Mills
theory but i think
such thoughts have a fundamental truth beyond. An electron can have bond and
antibond states with
other electrons for example in a many electron atom. Also it can bond to two
atoms at the same time
(chemical bond).
The second point: MILs Derives are partwise electrodynamic in origin. He
uses adjusted hydrgen like two particle solutions of the Schrödinger
equation if i read right and enough.
So it seems to me that this guy uses the stroboscopic model which might be
the exact description
of the world. Maybe the third equation of Quantum mechanics is a wrong
principle (e.g. Landau Lifschitz). Then this guy got a very good imagination
on the real thing.
One should take his ideas serious, i think. Hattree Fock is wrong historic
quantum *****.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
27 Apr 2006 01:54:30 AM |
|
|
josef matz wrote
My reponse to sci.physics.research was rejected.
what was their reason? did you challenge existing quantum theory?
I would like to discuss
with
you on the remarkable Mills theories and about the foundation of Quantum
mechanics.
sure thing
joe, dr mill's work takes more than a first glance. while he has
produced marvellous results for the atomic structure and apparently
elsewhere, it looks to me though like it contains many of the
preexisting problems of quantum theory. i understand what he's done is
to use a combined set of equations using maxwell's equations,
relativity, etc. while i will pick out the differences between CQM and
SFT i can see on a first glance, his is a considerable body of work at
giving another view apart from QM, and QFT towards a unified field
theory or grand unification, etc. I think he has succeeded in large
part especially at the atomic physics level. i do consider SFT gives
us another level of physics though at the photonic level including a
completely new chemistry which explains the way DNA emits photons and
hence how biosystems communicate with each other..
I agree with him when he says "Thus, General Relativity and Maxwell=E2=80=
=99s
Equations are valid on any scale". yes this appears in self-field
theory (SFT) too.
but he sees Relativity as a warping of space time, as in conventional
SR and GR. self-field theory on the other hand see the time and space
dilation as due to the "internal" motions of the photon rather than an
extrinsic quality of space itself. so this is a question of the
'physical nature' of his model compared with SFT.
again when he says "The Grand Unification Mass-Energy, m_u , can be
expressed in terms of Planck's constant" this ( i think) is propagating
the quantum mechanical view that there is a quantum nature behind all
physics which SFT does NOT see. in SFT Planck's constant is NOT a
constant but a variable of motion.
again "Spacetime has an intrinsic impedance of =CE=B7. It provides a
limiting speed of c for the propagation of any wave, including
gravitational and electromagnetic waves."
SFT does NOT agree with einstein's constraint on c except as
experimentally observed in our part of the universe. at the edges of
the universe SFT sees light having slowed right down so that BECs
condensate out and 'strings' or other exotic arrays appear and may
connect us to other universes.
"Matter/energy are interchangeable and are, in essence, the same entity
with different
boundary values imposed by spacetime where the matter/energy has a
reaction effect onspacetime. The intricacy of the action/reaction is
evident in that all matter/energy obeys the four-dimensional wave
equation, and the magnetic, electric, photonic, and gravitational
fields can be derived as boundary value problems of the wave equation
of spacetime where space provides the respective force fields for the
matter/energy." yes i can agree with his mathematical approach to
separate physics out into spherical compartments while disagreeing with
his unifed physics. sft sees all forces as linked via an infinite
series of forces that are related as differentials or integrals
depending which way, bigger to smaller, or smaller to bigger we go in
the series. so we see a unified vision of matter, no compartmets.
like what i've been saying though. QM, QFT and SFT are all related as
in finite element method vs a finite difference method. i think in this
regard CQM is a finite element approach (boundary value problem)
although i need to examine it closer to make sure of my opinion.
let me answer your hartree-fock questions 'on notice' (i'll answer you
tomorrow when i have more time.(i'm acting as a carer at the moment for
my elderly father so i'm doing about 100kms a day running around
hospitals etc).
BUT in general there is a more 'correct' version of quantum mechanics
that doesn't have the erroneous wave-particle duality at its core. the
spinorial model of actual motions is the most primitive model that i
know of including dr mill's fine efforts.
best wishes Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
25 Apr 2006 11:08:41 PM |
|
|
just to make bilge happy, we need to solve the Bohr magneton problem
not magetron, otherwise he will spit the dummyat me!! LOL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
25 Apr 2006 11:08:50 PM |
|
|
just to make bilge happy, we need to solve the Bohr magneton problem
not magetron, otherwise he will spit the dummyat me!! LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: QM an overconstrained problem |
22 Apr 2006 09:53:56 PM |
|
|
Good Josef, yes would agree about where SFT is at, more hands to the
pumps needed.
I am aware too that SFT is the 'finite difference approach' while QFT
is the 'finite element approach'. so SFT approaches the problem from
the partial differential equations and using appropriate trial
functions solves the problem as a system of equations at ehse points.
QFT uses lagrangians and constrains the equations over volumes
(integrals).
Those QM wave functions too are defined out to infinity rather than
just existing INSIDE the atom (for example) So if we were to define a
NEW system of wave functions that are more like 'strings' or streams
(instead of a function that applies over all space) we would end up
with a NEW QM much akin to SFT.
so in THIS regard too QM is incorrect in how it sees the fields.
cheers Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
