We present a particle model which was developed to explain special relativity by classical means. This model is also able to account for physical processes that are normally attributed to quantum mechanics. The model is able to describe several well-known QM processes by means of classical calculations, making them accessible to the imagination. An essential difference compared with the Standard Model of present-day particle physics is the fact that, in the model presented, particles are viewed as being extended rather than point-like. In addition, the strong force is shown to be the universal force operating in all particles. Also, the photon, which quantum mechanics views as being nothing but a quantum of energy, can be understood to have an internal structure. The model presented here is not merely a different way of explaining physics with similar results; in contrast to quantum mechanics, it has the ability to provide deeper insights into physical processes.
We present a particle model which was developed to explain special relativity by classical means. This model is also able to account for physical processes that are normally attributed to quantum mechanics. The model is able to describe several well-known QM processes by means of classical calculations, making them accessible to the imagination. An essential difference compared with the Standard Model of present-day particle physics is the fact that, in the model presented, particles are viewed as being extended rather than point-like. In addition, the strong force is shown to be the universal force operating in all particles. Also, the photon, which quantum mechanics views as being nothing but a quantum of energy, can be understood to have an internal structure. The model presented here is not merely a different way of explaining physics with similar results; in contrast to quantum mechanics, it has the ability to provide deeper insights into physical processes.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
Quantum theory is the most successful physical theory ever.About one third of the gross national product in the developed countries results from its applications.These applications range from nuclear power to most of the high-tech tools for computing, laser, solar cells and so on.No limit for its range of validity has been found up to now.Quantum theory has a clear mathematical structure, so a physics student can learn it in a short time.However, very often quantum theory is considered as being "crazy" or "not understandable".Such a stance appears reasonable as long as quantum theory is seen primarily as a theory of small particles and the forces between them.However, if quantum theory is understood more deeply, namely as a general theory of structures, not only the range is widely expanded, but it also becomes more comprehensible (T.Görnitz, 1999).Quantum structures can be material, like atoms, electrons and so on.They can also be energetic, like photons, and finally they can be mere structures, such as quantum bits.Keeping this in mind it becomes apprehensible that quantum theory has two not easily reconcilable aspects: on the one hand, it possesses a clear mathematical structure, on the other hand, it accounts for well-known experiences of everyday life: e.g. a whole is often more than the sum of its parts, and not only the facts but also the possibilities can be effective.If henadic and future structures (i.e.structures which are related to unity [Greek "hen"] and to future) become important in scientific analysis, then the viewable facts in real life differ from the calculated results of models of classical physics, which suppose elementary distinctions between matter and motion, material and force, localization and extension, fullness and emptiness and which describe any process as a succession of facts.From quantum theory one can learn two elementary insights:1.Not only facts but also possibilities can influence the way in which material objects behave.2. The elementary distinctions made in classical models are often useful, but not fundamental.Quantum theory shows that there are equivalences between the concepts of matter and motion, material and force, localization and extension, fullness and emptiness, and so on, www.intechopen.com How to referenceIn order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to
Quantum Mechanics is being included in numerous school programmes as part of the curriculum. Most modern textbooks introduce it emphasising its strange or, at least uncommon, somewhat paradoxical, character. We argue that such an approach is wrong because rather than attracting the interest of students toward the topic, it makes quantum mechanics almost unbelievable and artificial. The resulting perception is that quantum mechanics is in fact not understood at all and that we need a new theory that eventually will supersede it. In contrast, we propose a new approach on classical physics that, stressing the role of the measurements in physics, introduces the concept of state very early in the curriculum. Such a concept is reviewed on each classical physics topic and the concept of force as a vector is almost abandoned for the concept of interaction defined as something that change the state. In this way it is possible to introduce quantum mechanics without violating any conviction the students acquired learning classical physics. In other words quantum mechanics appears to be as natural as classical physics, at least from the point of view of the results of the experiments.
Since the very first development of Quantum Mechanics there are many scientists who, despite the fact that everything seems to work perfectly and the experimental results verify the theoretical predictions, do not understand what is really going on. That is why there are many different interpretations of this subject nowadays. This paper provides a new interpretation, aiming to illustrate the fact that Quantum Mechanics is actually an extension of Classical Physics, and in contrast to other interpretations we illustrate a possible experimental verification of theoretical wording.
Quantum mechanics was developed as a response to the inability of the classical theories of mechanics and electromagnetism to provide a satisfactory explanation of some of the properties of electromagnetic radiation and of atomic structure. As a result, a theory has emerged whose basic principles can be used to explain not only the structure and properties of atoms, molecules and solids, but also those of nuclei and of “elementary” particles such as the proton and neutron. Although there are still many features of the physics of such systems that are not fully understood, there are presently no indications that the fundamental ideas of quantum mechanics are incorrect. In order to achieve this success, quantum mechanics has been built on a foundation that contains a number of concepts that are fundamentally different from those of classical physics and which have radically altered our view of the way the physical universe operates. This book aims to elucidate and discuss the conceptual basis of the subject as well as explaining its success in describing the behaviour of atomic and subatomic systems.