#21  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:29 PM
bgilbert (Barry gilbert)
barryg

bgilbert is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: tamworth
Posts: 64
G'day Ray

Quote:
I think that about a century of history stands against any argument that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed as a predictive/explanatory mechanism. QM was developed after classical approaches (partly based on Maxwell's equations) failed spectacularly in explaining blackbody radiation and atomic structure https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0101077.pdf. Since then, QM has been very successful - even Einstein (who disliked it and thought it incomplete) described it in 1931 as "The last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum-mechanics".
https://www.informationphilosopher.c..._Influence.pdf
As usual, you have left me with a lot of ground to cover. I'll cover one topic mentioned in the first link by Tegmark and Wheeler, it was also one of Feynman's favorites.

The "hydrogen catastrophe", why the electron orbiting the hydrogen nucleus in the ground state does not radiate away its energy in about 5ns as Maxwell would predict? A single hydrogen atom in the universe probably would radiate its energy in 5ns, but there are approx 10^80 hydrogen atoms trying to do the same thing. The second law of thermodynamics kicks in saying you cant radiate into a heat bath of the same temperature. Maxwell agrees, saying, the real part of the radiation resistance goes to zero in a 3-dimensional array of like radiators. We now have a sea of energy in equilibrium with all the hydrogen atoms in their ground state. This energy is the zero-point energy (ZPE) or zero-point radiation (ZPR). Quantum mechanics (QM's) call it quantum noise and claim it's only a virtual energy sea, some classical folk say that it's real and it's Lorentz invariant but I don't agree because that leads to another form of the ultraviolet catastrophe. There are measurable effects of the ZPR, one of them is called the Casimir effect. It's interesting to note that the mean value of the equilibrium sea is equal to half of Plank's constant this leads to some folk saying that that with a little work that a Maxwellian derivation of Plank's constant is possible. Prof. Timothy Boyer claims to have already achieved this.

Cheers
Barry

PS. This is a "spectacular failure of physicists" of the standings of Feynman to understand the power and reach of Maxwell's equations
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-06-2020, 11:24 PM
bgilbert (Barry gilbert)
barryg

bgilbert is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: tamworth
Posts: 64
G'day Ray

How strange it is that Maxwell is accused of not predicting black body radiation, it is also true that no quantum mechanic (QM) predicted black body radiation either. The fact is there is still no satisfactory explanation by anyone. Planck in desperation tried something that worked, he did not believe it at first and never found a successful explanation. Einstein and Planck disagreed on whether quantization was just in the atomic material or in the field, I believe that it has not been resolved to this day. Black body radiation in no way is at odds with Maxwell. Physicists have spectacularly failed to predict black body radiation, particularly using the equipartition theorem. Classical physicists are at least trying to resolve the mystery,
Prof. Timothy Boyer and other proponents of stochastic electrodynamics (SED) claim to be able to derive Planck's constant classically. QM’s do not understand why the electron orbiting the proton does not crash into the proton in about 5ns. Surprisingly Maxwellian mechanics do. There are several interpretations of SED just as there are for QM. My money is on SED without Lorentz invariance, it is my theory as far as I can tell at the moment and is as yet unpublished.

Cheers
Barry
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14-06-2020, 05:52 PM
bgilbert (Barry gilbert)
barryg

bgilbert is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: tamworth
Posts: 64
G'day Ray

Quote:
yes, maybe we are wasting our time
the links to the two blogs were included as a courtesy, because they give some useful background when reading the main paper linked to in post#10. This is a peer reviewed paper published in the journal Nature and dealing with the attainment of quantum supremacy by the Google computer. The leader of the team is a distinguished 62 yo scientist "Dr. Martinis was a NIST Fellow, and is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. At the University of California, Santa Barbara he currently holds the Wooster Chair in experimental physics". This is serious work by serious people and it is perhaps excessively dismissive to characterize it as "crap" and "a lot of acneyed gamers, ...getting their rocks off" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ntum-supremacy

Cheers
Barry
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 14-06-2020, 08:02 PM
Shiraz's Avatar
Shiraz (Ray)
Registered User

Shiraz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ardrossan south australia
Posts: 4,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgilbert View Post
Hi Barry

A version of the Google paper was prematurely put up on the NASA website and then taken down. There has since been full publication in the journal "Nature", as linked to above
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5.pdf

Cheers Ray

Last edited by Shiraz; 14-06-2020 at 08:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 14-06-2020, 08:52 PM
bgilbert (Barry gilbert)
barryg

bgilbert is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: tamworth
Posts: 64
G'day Ray

Quote:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949.pdf Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km 2015

https://physics.aps.org/featured-art...ett.115.250401 Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons 2015

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstrac...ett.117.210502 Experimental Ten-Photon Entanglement 2016

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep30289 Loophole-free Bell test using electron spins in diamond: second experiment and additional analysis 2016

https://www.osapublishing.org/optica...optica-4-4-388 Xianxin Guo et al, Testing the Bell inequality on frequency-bin entangled photon pairs using time-resolved detection, Optica (2017).

https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for...ett.121.220404 Synopsis: Quantum Entanglement With 10 Billion Atoms, November 29, 2018

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.04431.pdf Challenging local realism with human choices The BIG Bell Test Collaboration† Nov2018

and for some pictures of entangled photons,
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw2563 Imaging Bell-type nonlocal behavior 2019
The devil is in the detail. The following paper is old but still relevant, why do they continue to do these expensive experiments? "They protest too much"? Maybe they are trying to convince themselves? Anyway, the final test of entanglement will be the quantum computer being supreme over an analog computer similar to a lens performing a 3d Fourier transform at light speed (ns), consuming no power, at ambient temp., Your telescope performs these transforms continuously?

https://jumpshare.com/v/HlqWkdLlG4TGeY4KQ9N7

Cheers
Barry
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-07-2021, 12:41 AM
bgilbert (Barry gilbert)
barryg

bgilbert is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: tamworth
Posts: 64
Do radio frequency photons exist? And if so how are they measured ?

Barry
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement