The Quantum Classical Theory

Over a period of fifty years, the quantum-classical or semi-classical theories have been among the most popular for calculations of rates and.
Table of contents

More complex systems 6. Conclusion Appendices Bibliography Index. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Academic Skip to main content.

Choose your country or region Close. Ebook This title is available as an ebook. To purchase, visit your preferred ebook provider. Overview Description Table of Contents. Atkins and Ronald S. Essential Quantum Mechanics Gary Bowman. Dark matter and dark energy?? This very closely resembles science fiction, but definitely not science.

All three concepts require the laws of chemistry and physics to breakdown. None have been observed or experimentally confirmed. Don't even consider they make no sense at all. Yet here we have them as near gospels of the standard model. The one that says gravity is the driving force for planet, star and galaxy formation. Perhaps another vantage point might allow us to employ reason, common sense and still preserve the known laws of physics and chemistry.

Electromagnetic forces have the necessary power to drive galaxy, star and planet formation without crazy math constructs. Besides, new radio telescope data is supporting their models. Perhaps there are two or more "parts" to the universe and a single "Theory of Everything" is simply unachievable. That is, quantum theory best addresses stuff matter, energy, forces, etc.

Perhaps the two concepts are just that fundamentally different? I believe Gregory Chaitin has seriously considered the possibility of non-intersecting islands of mathematics. I'm not sure how far he took it but it is similar to what you are considering. Wouldn't it be a gas if they are unable to bring quantum mechanics and general relativity together because they aren't together and you just can't get there from here.

Condensed Matter > Other Condensed Matter

There is a reason the standard model fails so routinely. Even Einstein had great misgivings about relativity. The "spooky actions at a distance" troubled him until his death. He knew that this implied a speed faster than light and this would invalidate the theory. Tesla knew it too, referring to relativity as "a beggar in a purple robe". The problem with these concepts is that they require the known laws of physics and chemistry to break down.

Until these concepts can be observed or experimentally confirmed I think it is unwise to accept them. Cosmology has become a reality produced by mathematics, invisible and unconfirmable. And it goes against all common sense as well. How about a new vantage point? Gravity just doesn't get the job done. The electric models of cosmology are worth considering. I must be missing a point or two.

In the article ' Independence means that the outcome does not depend on the specific experimental setting Isn't this a bit like saying 'If we knew everything about something then we wouldn't need to experiment but because we don't the result could be surprising and not what we THINK the outcome will be. Doesn't that go for just about any topic? Newton's "action at a distance" is just as magical as his prediction that according to the Bible the world will end in Leibniz had him dead to rights when he criticized him as believing God was a mere watch maker, impotent to change anything, including the end times voodoo he believed in.

Yes, but that's a whole other topic. You're really talking about things like the Heisenberg uncertainty pricinple. The chaos theory in itself does not imply that things do not have exact states. The inability to measure the state does not mean it cannot be exact.


  1. Related Stories.
  2. Hearing Gods Voice For Yourself:A Beginners Guide.
  3. The Quantum Classical Theory - Gert D. Billing - Oxford University Press?

For example, suppose that there are no particles at all - only waves - but when we constrain the wave in our three four dimensions to measure it as a particle, the energy of the wave is pushed into yet another dimension that our experiment does not measure or can not measure. Some of the properties of the "particle" elude us, so we falsely conclude that it doesn't have an exact state, whereas if we knew to measure the extra dimension, we could see that the wave has a definite shape, location and energy there.

Planck's Quantum Theory was based on classical theory, electromagnetics, chemistry, thermodynamics and probability theory. Quantum events are both electromagnetic and can be described within a small physical volume. Planck based his theory on an electronic model of the atom and stated that the model could just as well be mechanical.

The "quantum wave" can be constrained to a small dimension in the same sense that a radar wave, although the dimensions are much smaller. The Heisenberg Principle is well known and exemplary in the field of electronics, in which any measurement produces an error. This error can be compensated for through the process of "characterization". Therefore, Heisenberg was quite incorrect. Sadly, the above something of a "word salad" of misunderstood, misrepresented and incorrect concepts.

The HUP is completely independent of any "measurement error". Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory? See Einstien's nobel re the photoelectric effect, the precursor of which is when an electron drops back to a lower level in its orbital that delta energy is released as a photon AND on a null geodesic, that and its maxwell eqn aspect show its not anything like U imagine eg Time for the photon does NOT matter - basic relativity It seems to me that the headline of this story. The article actually seems to be contrasting hidden variable theory with usually-accepted ideas about quantum systems.

But hidden-variable theory is not quite the same as "classical theory," even though it is true that hidden-variable theories try to explain quantum phenomena with explanations that can be worked out by way of classical mechanics.

Recommended for you

After all, hidden variables exist to try to explain quantum phenomena in terms we are used to. Newtonian mechanics, on the other hand, never even contemplated such odd experiments or their even odder results. It would also go along way to explaining the "Wave" functions of a photon. No, it would not. A single photon is the quantum of energy which is emitted by a transmitting particle to be absorbed by an adjacent particle and so on in the transmitting medium until they reach absorption by the retina where the energy is converted into bio-electric signals which travel via the optic nerve to the occipital lobe to be processed for the mind to perceive imagery.

A single photon cannot exhibit a wave property any more than a single molecule of water can exhibit a water wave. You need a medium for the propagation of photonic waves and water to make water waves. As a matter of fact, cathodes in old vacuum tubes were once coated with sodium because this element readily surrenders an electron when an electronic potential is applied. Metals, which is what sodium is, are defined as nuclei in a sea of electrons. You do remember that electricity is measured in coulombs of electrons, where, according to Wikipedia, one coulomb is equal to 6.

When you make disparaging remarks, you should back them up. This is simply "name-calling". There was no name calling, I used accurate descriptions of the content of your post. I can back up all of my comments If you want I'll go back and parse your original post, but the biggest offender was your astoundingly arrogant claim that "Heisenberg was wrong", made all the more egregious by this statement below: ALL single measurements are subject to error. That is the basis of the Heisenberg Principle.

Measurement precision has nothing to do with the HUP. The HUP essentially says that the information we can get about a quantum system is intrinsically limited. WH deduced this from the non-commutativity of matrices he was using to represent x and p in his calculations. Even infinitely precise measurements will reflect the intrinsic uncertainty quantified in the HUP.

A single photon is the quantum of energy which is emitted by a transmitting particle to be absorbed by an adjacent particle and so on in the transmitting medium What medium? Also, what's in between your putative "absorbing particles"? How does the quantum of energy propagate across the gaps? I just found, that the Aharamov-Bohm effect has been modeled with water surface before thirty-five years already. It would mean, that some aspects of hydrodynamics were revealed after these ones of vacuum. BloodyOrphan, think you misunderstood me I was asking a genuine question. The grav form is slightly different in hyperdimensional space if such exists and Coulombs Law is expected to change similarly.

As a layman, I have only a basic idea of what might be involved and if you have other ideas I'd be interested. Please note that I'm considering macro N d Tesseract, Glome etc. Thanks for the chance to 'chat' anyway. Why make a fuss? Probability theory is a well-developed theory. Its consistency is proved centuries of experience. This theory is multifaceted - some parts describe probabilities of events of the insurance business, the other - probabilities of events of artillery, others - probabilities of events card games, etc.

FACULTY RESEARCH

So, it turns out [2. No, your meandering to try to counter my critique shows U don't understand basics OR can't articulate correctly. I'm not saying its not helpful to have a stable orbit but, that idea is also probabilistic in any case unless u are close to absolute zero. Your Sodium lamp comment is fine but, doesn't counter or refute my statement ie Try again.

The Quantum Classical Theory

BloodyOrphan Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts. I'm not sure where I stand these days with theories one way then another but I am a person who prefers situations that I can feel confident with and so that really puts in the Stanard Models camp I think, ha! SString is interesting math wise and some are still not satisfied with a constraint of 11D. If higher dimensions exist then I wonder if a photon travels into or along the surface of a hypercube or etc. If anyone is interested the article can be gotten at arxiv presumably a close match to the actual print version http: Well, as they say in software development: The only 'real' proviso they have in there as far as I can see is that they assume superluminal information exchange is not possible.

I should hope so I guess I'll have to read the paper, even though it sounds more like philosophy than physics to me. BloodyOrphan, yes I understand I don't like the definitions given. Like, for one possibility, a vibrating string. And their definition of "determinism" sounded like a characterization of predictability. For events to be determined is for an earlier state of being not state of information to permit only one possible later state of being not state of information.

Classical vs Quantum

There is an argument that "classical" theory has already dropped the objective requirement in many arenas. If you take something like conservation of momentum for instance, we have empirical evidence dating back forever that this phenomenon exists and is an intrinsic property of our space-time. Yet we still have no real explanation as to why this happens.

Conservation of linear momentum arises from the fundamental translational symmetry of space, according to Noether's theorem which says that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system gives rise to a corresponding conservation law. Basically, the momentum is a constant of the motion along the path of least action.

This can be extended to relativistic space-time i. For angular momentum, it is rotational symmetry that gives rise to the conservation law. DarkLordKelvin Here's another one, We know that photons transmitted from extremely distant sources cool down over time. This implies they are expressing heat in the form of smaller particles as they travel. Yet this mass depletion doesn't affect the speed of the photon by any discernible amount. This flies in the face of energy conservation.

The language you have used there seems very confused, in proper physics terms anyway, but I suppose you are trying to ask about the "redshift paradox".. The answer is that energy is only conserved within a given reference frame; since the observer and source are in different inertial frames, it is allowable for the energy of the photon to be measured differently.

Photons don't "cool" or otherwise lose energy "in transit", and certainly not by particle emission. DarkLordKelvin Those are very accurate ways of describing it, without a doubt. They are more than that; they also provide rigorous definitions for, and explanations for the existence of, various types of momentum conservation. But they don't give us any understanding of what's actually happening in the space-time. Not sure who you mean by "us" there Noether's theorem gives physicists an understanding of what's actually happening, so that "we" can accurately predict classical trajectories, for example, and also derive momentum conservation laws for other cases, such as fields, and quantum mechanical systems.

It's even possible that this fundamental law we live by will cease to exist outside our known particle flooded Universe. That statement is pretty much meaningless, since our physical laws are deduced from and anchored to phenomena in the universe we observe. Whydening Gyre BloodyOrphan, yes I understand While it is good to have 'standard models' to guide us they shouldn't leave us 'blinkered' DarkLordKelvin No I'm not talking about redshift, I'm talking about the supercooled telescopes used to detect the redshift. The same core phenomenon i described is at work there. The reason for this is that the distant galaxies are moving away so fast that their photons are redshifted to very long wavelengths, so their photon energies are so low that they'd be lost in thermal noise at higher temps.

It's obvious I'm not getting through to you regarding the assumptions we have made, albeit very well researched ones, they are still assumptions. You don't seem to understand what an "assumption" is in science.. Can you be more specific about what you are calling "assumptions" here? Is the principle of relativity an assumption? The statement "Kinetic Energy Conservation is a function of the space-time continuum" is obviously not something you feel deserves more study, yet it is this study that will bring quantum sciences and classical sciences back into agreement.

Submission history

You can string together whatever words you like.. There is no "kinetic energy conservation" in any valid physical theory I am aware of, except in the experimentally unrealizable case of perfectly elastic collisions TOTAL energy is conserved within a given inertial frame though. The term "space-time continuum" is going to be problematic in any theory that incorporates quantum mechanics, since you're gonna lose the "continuum" part. We live in the world that will remain forever partially unknowable to us and to save us permanent wandering on the border between science and mysticism, God explained the basis of things and gave us laws to follow.

But the ego, the desire to surpass a higher than us and thirst for sensationalism born speculative attitudes in academia. The result is a touching comic. Who talk to you for religion? Religion is human invention. Fate in God is essential for life and basis for true honest science. They are programmed in this way.


  • Crossing Dimensions A Collection of Science Fiction and Fantasy Short Stories;
  • Searching for Paradise in Parker, PA: A Novel.
  • An Introduction to the Unitarian and Universalist Traditions (Introduction to Religion).
  • The Left Palm: And Other Halloween Tales of the Supernatural.
  • Work From Your Dorm: Getting Started (Getting Started Book 1).
  • Celtic Spells;

    • They deny the truth because if recognize it will lose its status in the community. And this obviously food ego. Such is the life of the apologists of modern mythology whose speculative theories would have replaced faith in God with faith in their authority and that of their sponsors. And the worship of God with worship to the idols. Nothing new which has not happened in the human history. BloodyOrphan The reason for this is that the distant galaxies are moving away so fast that their photons are redshifted to very long wavelengths, so their photon energies are so low that they'd be lost in thermal noise at higher temps.

    Of course the speed of the source moving away from us will be a factor as well, but the far distant sources we see today are billions of years old and not likely to be moving at anywhere near the speed of light.. These 2 comments seem to be opposite. The latter seems to ignore possibilities which have to yet to be proved one way or or another.

    Increased v due to DE and the large z figures of some distant objects for example. Perhaps you could clarify for me. Space is geometric concept. Not physical and can not expand for this reason. Vacuum of cosmic space if physical object and also can not expand because it must suport its phisical characteristisc intact. Time is mesure that give to us the idea for the speed of phisical interactions in the vacuum of space. The consept space - time makes no sense exsept to serve a modern mythology. Wow, how many times can you jump from wave terminology to particle terminology?

    Wavelength and energy are both well-defined properties of photons.. The distance between each photon group increases with the space-time expansion lowering the photonic frequency. Look, this is basic stuff, simple laws of physics. What do you think a "photon group" is, and what is it's relevance here? What is your basis for that statement? The super cooled telescopes are cooled so the photons aren't destroyed by the detectors. A photon cannot be detected non-destructively And I understand English very well my friend. I never implied you didn't.. DarkLordKelvin Now you are just playing semantic games, a prisoner of your own semantic conventions.

    Or, you just have no idea what you are talking about.. Conservation of momentum is what makes our orbit so persistent. Ok, now you are utterly lost.. How will you know if you don't understand the physics used in the explanations?

    Mixed Quantum/Classical Theory

    Which particle has the bigger mass? If you mean rest mass, then the electron, clearly, since the rest mass of a photon is zero. However, if you are talking about mass as defined in special relativity, i. It's easier to do the comparison in units of energy electron volts, eV, are the conventional units here http: An electron at rest has a relativistic total energy of keV, so a "gamma ray" photon with more energy than that in the same reference frame would likewise have a higher "mass", in this context. Here's another question DLK, how do you calculate the frequency of xrays emited from a quasar?

    I really don't know anything about the physics of quasars, so I can't answer. I presume that there is an empirical relation that was derived from decades of observations, but I don't know what it is. There may be a theory that tells how to do it as well. Unlike coventional RF on earth it can't be an alternating current wave form, so how do they calculate the frequency? No idea what you are getting at here.. As such, the X-rays emitted by quasars aren't "special".. I initially thought you were asking about internal "structure" of quasars..

    What force s are in play when an electron recaptures a photon in QED renormalisation? Not sure why you specifically bring up renormalization, but if you have an electron interacting with a photon, that will always be through the electromagnetic force.. Your reply to BloodyOrphan: You imply that SR factor ie, relative 'motion of separation' is responsible for CMB photons redshift. But Standard Cosmology theory says "intervening expanding spacetime stretches photons after emission", as 'expansion theory' interprets far distant galaxies "moving-with" local spacetime, not "moving-through", it.

    Hence standard 'model' on cosmological scales treats SR 'relative motion 'through-spacetime' as 'minor' contributor to observed CMB 'net shifts'. I see your point.. I'll appeal to the char limit, as well as not knowing how much of the expanding space-time detail would be appreciated by the asker. I'll also point out that the true source of the redshift is largely irrelevant to the question I was asked i.