I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it.
Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not "questioning it".
|||
Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:18 AM
I am not the arbiter, but have the right to question it.
Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not "questioning it".
Posted 26 July 2014 - 03:32 AM
Just insisting that it is wrong, while providing no evidence to support that (and ignoring all the other evidence) is not "questioning it".
I would insist what is right deduction by classical theory, and reject to the misunderstanding about the great theory.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:38 AM
I would insist what is right deduction by classical theory, and reject to the misunderstanding about the great theory.
I would insist that what is "right" (i.e. works) is what matches observation and evidence. Classical theory doesn't.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 12:40 PM
I would insist that what is "right" (i.e. works) is what matches observation and evidence. Classical theory doesn't.
A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory,
Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!!
Edited by Jeremy0922, 26 July 2014 - 12:41 PM.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 12:47 PM
A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory,
Only if you treat it as a classical object.
Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!!
There are dozens of interpretations. Take your pick.
http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics
I am not going to recommend one because I don't really like any of them. They are just stories (fairy tales, lies) to try and make reality fit our expectations. That is your problem; you want the universe to act as you think it should based on your intuition and expectations as a highly evolved ape. There is absolutely no reason to think that the universe should be comprehensible in those terms.
Edited by Strange, 26 July 2014 - 12:49 PM.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:08 PM
Only if you treat it as a classical object.
There are dozens of interpretations. Take your pick.
http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics
I am not going to recommend one because I don't really like any of them. They are just stories (fairy tales, lies) to try and make reality fit our expectations. That is your problem; you want the universe to act as you think it should based on your intuition and expectations as a highly evolved ape. There is absolutely no reason to think that the universe should be comprehensible in those terms.
1. You think Lorentz force is wong, don't it?
2. and deny an electron could moves along a trajectory!!!
Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:52 PM
1. You think Lorentz force is wong, don't it?
2. and deny an electron could moves along a trajectory!!!
I never said either of those things.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:12 PM
I never said either of those things.
Then you explain the fact that an electron could moves along a trajectory by QM.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:14 PM
A simple fact, an electron which is moving in a electromagnetic field is controlled by Lorentz force and will go along a trajectory,
Please give me a reliable interpretation by quantum mechanics!!!
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^
I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.
My SFN blog: Swans on Tea
Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:18 PM
Then you explain the fact that an electron could moves along a trajectory by QM.
It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:23 PM
It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works.
If QM can not explain the fact above, We have the right to question QM!!!
Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:43 PM
If QM can not explain the fact above, We have the right to question QM!!!
QM does not explain evolution, planetary orbits or the tides. That has nothing to do with the correctness of QM, it has to do with the limits of applicability of QM.
It is up to you to show that a classical model of the atom works.
I second this, and also point out that the rules demand it.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^
I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.
My SFN blog: Swans on Tea
Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:59 PM
QM does not explain evolution, planetary orbits or the tides. That has nothing to do with the correctness of QM, it has to do with the limits of applicability of QM.
I second this, and also point out that the rules demand it.
But we are discussing the electron moves in the electromagnetic field.
By my opnion, if we consider the mathematical methods in QM is effective to treat the resonace of the elctron orbit in the atom, almost problem would be settled.
Edited by Jeremy0922, 26 July 2014 - 03:01 PM.
Posted 26 July 2014 - 05:05 PM
But we are discussing the electron moves in the electromagnetic field.
By my opnion, if we consider the mathematical methods in QM is effective to treat the resonace of the elctron orbit in the atom, almost problem would be settled.
I thought you were discussing QM.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^
I am not a minimum-wage government shill. Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.
My SFN blog: Swans on Tea
Posted 27 July 2014 - 12:39 AM
I thought you were discussing QM.
Generally, there are several mathematical method for solving a physical problem, Schrödinger equation and E=hv were deduced from resonace model by classical theory. I think the mathematical method to solve Schrödinger equation in QM might to be introduced, to solve the resonance problem, or we could select a new method to do that.
Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )
GMT+8, 2024-9-27 06:36
Powered by ScienceNet.cn
Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社