In the present work shown are contradiction between beliefs about space movement of physical objects in classical and quantum mechanics. A theory that resolves the known Zenonaporiasand removes this contradiction is suggested. The basic assumption is the atemporal nature of the basic movements of quantum micro-objects (including atoms) in continuous space. In our previous papers we suggested the principle of atemporality: certain parameters of a quantum micro-object, including coordinates in space, change atemporarily. Indeed, the Heisenberg relation of uncertainty shows that the presence of coordinates of a quantum particle is incompatible with the presence of its velocity. The Schrodinger equation describes probabilistically exactly that, which objectively and actually takes place in reality. It is also permissible to treat this equation in favor of atemporality: even within an indefinitely small period of time there is some probability that a particle is present in certain volume, and in the next indefinitely small period of time there is some probability that the same particle is absent in the same volume. It is shown that a set of sequential extra-temporal teleportations of atoms constituting a macro-bodyresults in its temporal movement.
In the present work shown are contradiction between beliefs about space movement of physical objects in classical and quantum mechanics. A theory that resolves the known Zenonaporiasand removes this contradiction is suggested. The basic assumption is the atemporal nature of the basic movements of quantum micro-objects (including atoms) in continuous space. In our previous papers we suggested the principle of atemporality: certain parameters of a quantum micro-object, including coordinates in space, change atemporarily. Indeed, the Heisenberg relation of uncertainty shows that the presence of coordinates of a quantum particle is incompatible with the presence of its velocity. The Schrodinger equation describes probabilistically exactly that, which objectively and actually takes place in reality. It is also permissible to treat this equation in favor of atemporality: even within an indefinitely small period of time there is some probability that a particle is present in certain volume, and in the next indefinitely small period of time there is some probability that the same particle is absent in the same volume. It is shown that a set of sequential extra-temporal teleportations of atoms constituting a macro-bodyresults in its temporal movement.
The theory of determined infinity resolves through extra-temporal teleportation of a micro-object the well-known Zenon's papyri, related to paradoxicality of transportation via infinite sequence of sections of the path. The impossibility to give its description with the help of the microscopic Newton's equation and Schrodinger's equation points at an elementary atemporal microscopic transportation. The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows the presence of a micro-object's coordinates which are indefinite in the arbitrarily near future. It is also known that extra-temporal teleportation of states is realized in the micro-world. All mentioned factors give rise to the principle of atemporality: certain parameters of a quantum micro-object (for example, its coordinates in space or direction of polarization) change atemporally.
Statistical classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are developed and well-known theories that represent a basis for modern physics. Statistical classical mechanics enable the derivation of the properties of large bodies by investigating the movements of small atoms and molecules which comprise these bodies using Newton's classical laws. Quantum mechanics defines the laws of movement of small particles at small atomic distances by considering them as probability waves. The laws of quantum mechanics are described by the Schrödinger equation. The laws of such movements are significantly different from the laws of movement of large bodies, such as planets or stones. The two described theories are well known and have been well studied. As these theories contain numerous paradoxes, many scientists doubt their internal consistencies. However, these paradoxes can be resolved within the framework of the existing physics without the introduction of new laws. To clarify the paper for the inexperienced reader, we include certain necessary basic concepts of statistical physics and quantum mechanics in this paper without the use of formulas. Exact formulas and explanations are included in the Appendices. The text is supplemented by illustrations to enhance the understanding of the paper. The paradoxes underlying thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are also discussed. The approaches to the solutions of these paradoxes are suggested. The first approach is dependent on the influence of the external observer (environment), which disrupts the correlations in the system. The second approach is based on the limits of the self-knowledge of the system for the case in which both the external observer and the environment are included in the considered system. The concepts of observable dynamics, ideal dynamics, and unpredictable dynamics are introduced. The phenomenon of complex (living) systems is contemplated from the point of view of these dynamics.
Broadening the Schrödinger equation by removing the limitations imposed by the formalism of Hamilton, based on which this equation received is submitted. These limitations pre- clude the use of the Schrödinger equation to describe the dynamical symmetry violation. The expan- sion of the Schrödinger equation is realized based on the principle of duality symmetry. According to this principle the dynamic of the systems determined by the symmetry of the system and space. The extended Schrödinger equation was obtained from the dual expression of energy, represented in operator form. The independent micro and macro variables that determine respectively the dynamics of micro-particle quantum system relative to its center of mass and the movement of the center of mass in space are used. The problems of quantum mechanics, due to the structural change of micro particles and the internal energy of the strong interactions are discussed. Keywords: Schrödinger equation, the principle of duality symmetries, dual coordinate system.
Classical mechanics traces a particle’s movement through space and time through x(t). For example, one may consider the case of a particle moving at constant speed (momentum p) in one direction or a particle bouncing back and forth at constant speed in a box. These problems are described in time and have direction and position associated with time etc. It is possible to define a probability P(x,t) in the classical picture based on delta time, the amount of time a particle spends in a little region of space dx. P(x,t), by itself, loses much relevant information present in the x(t) scenario because a particle moving to the right, or to the left, or bouncing back and forth all have the same probability, 1/L, where L is length. Furthermore, this probability is the same for all p (momentum) values. Thus a probability description, without extra information, is a subset of the relevant information in the problem. As a result, to describe the classical picture fully, one might say that a particle has a probability of 1/L, but also a mass mo and velocity +v (i.e. momentum mov nonrelativistically). For the particle bouncing back and forth in a box with constant p, one needs to give the initial position at time=0 and then a subsequent time (as well as the initial velocity and mo) in order to fully describe the problem, even though probability = 1/L. In the literature (see (1)), there have been many attempts to derive the quantum Schrodinger equation from a classical Fockker-Planck equation or a continuity equation (which follows from the Fokker-Planck equation as shown in (1)). The continuity equation contains a probability P(x,t) and a velocity(x,t) and is generally argued to represent classical physics. It does, if one retains appropriate classical conditions such as the discontinuity of density for a particle in a box (i.e. density=0 outside the box, but 1/L inside) and the notion of differing directions within the box. In fact, one may write density=W*(x,t)W(x,t) where W(x,t) is an ad hoc complex function and still retain compatibility with classical physics. If one does not, however, retain the classical conditions completely, nonclassical physics is introduced, even if density(x,t)=1/L. For example, in quantum mechanics density(x) is considered to be continuous in all x. Thus for a particle moving in a box, density outside the box is 0 so at the box wall it must also be 0. In the classical case, the density is 1 inside the box and 0 outside. There is a discontinuity classically and this cannot be changed and this contradicts the quantum mechanical picture. Thus quantum mechanics does not follow form classical Fokker-Planck or continuity equations which retain classical conditions.. Furthermore, because time is completely removed in the FP-continuity approach as applied to quantum mechanics, one cannot distinguish between forwards and backwards motion. As seen by the velocity field given in (1), v is zero for a bound particle which completely removes the sense of time and violates the classical physics conditions. It is, however, not zero for a particle moving in one direction. Thus there seems to be no issue in describing a Fokker-Planck-continuity equation as describing classical physics. One may even introduce density(x,t)= W*(x,t)W(x,t) provided one retains classical conditions allowing for discontinuity in density and different W(x,t) values at different times i.e. a discontinuity in W(x,t) at a box wall. If these conditions, however, are not met, then one no longer describes classical physics, but a new kind of physics (quantum physics). Thus one cannot argue that quantum mechanics follows from classical statistical Fokker-Planck-continuity equations. It may follow from these if one adds a set of extra conditions. Given these extra conditions, however, one could derive quantum mechanics without starting with classical density.
This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}
The results of Bohr model can be used to explain the motion of macroscopic objects or big objects (like orbiting planets and sun, falling stone etc.). These macroscopic objects have essentially a particle nature and Newtonian laws of motion can be applied on them. But it fails when applied to explain the motion of microscopic objects or small objects (like electrons, atoms, molecules etc.). This is because: According to Bohr model, an orbit is a well-defined path and this path can completely be defined only if both the position and velocity of the electron are known exactly at the same time. But this is not possible according to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Thus, Bohr model contradicts the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle . According to Bohr model, an electron is regarded as a charged particle moving in well-defined circular orbits concentric about the nucleus. The wave character of the electron is not considered. Thus, Bohr model ignores the de-Broglie dual nature of matter .