The overriding problem in theoretical physics is the inability to determine the nature of physical reality [1]. We show in the following discussion that the source of the problem lies at the very beginning of quantum mechanics a hundred years ago when its founding principles were derived. The use of mathematical equations as a substitute for physical reality caused a premature, hastily conceived disassociation from classical models. Using methods accessible to all, irrespective of educational background, we restore a connection to classical physics by demonstrating that quantum mechanics as currently interpreted violates the conservation of energy. References may be found in first year university physics textbooks or by conducting internet searches of individual terms throughout the manuscript.
The overriding problem in theoretical physics is the inability to determine the nature of physical reality [1]. We show in the following discussion that the source of the problem lies at the very beginning of quantum mechanics a hundred years ago when its founding principles were derived. The use of mathematical equations as a substitute for physical reality caused a premature, hastily conceived disassociation from classical models. Using methods accessible to all, irrespective of educational background, we restore a connection to classical physics by demonstrating that quantum mechanics as currently interpreted violates the conservation of energy. References may be found in first year university physics textbooks or by conducting internet searches of individual terms throughout the manuscript.
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 mechanics, one of the most successful theories in the history of science, was created to account for physical systems not describable by classical physics. Though it is consistent with all experiments conducted thus far, many of its core concepts (amplitudes, global phases, etc.) can not be directly accessed and its interpretation is still the subject of intense debate, more than 100 years since it was introduced. So, a fundamental question is why this particular mathematical model is the one that nature chooses, if indeed it is the correct model. In the past two decades there has been a renewed effort to determine what physical or informational principles define quantum mechanics. In this paper, recent attempts at establishing reasonable physical principles are reviewed and their degree of success is tabulated. An alternative approach using joint quasi-probability distributions is shown to provide a common basis of representing most of the proposed principles. It is argued that having a common representation of the principles can provide intuition and guidance to relate current principles or advance new principles. The current state of affairs, along with some alternative views are discussed.
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}
Concepts of QUANTUM MECHANICS is one of the most fundamental and intellectually profound branches of modern physics. It provides the theoretical framework for understanding the behavior of matter and energy at atomic and subatomic scales and forms the basis for numerous advancements in science and technology, including semiconductor devices, lasers, nanotechnology, quantum computing, and quantum communication. Despite its abstract nature, concepts of QUANTUM MECHANICS remains indispensable for explaining physical phenomena that cannot be addressed by classical physics. This book, Concepts of QUANTUM MECHANICS, has been written with the primary objective of presenting the subject in a clear, logical, and student-friendly manner, while maintaining the necessary mathematical rigor and conceptual depth. The text is designed to bridge the gap between classical physics and quantum theory, guiding readers through the evolution of ideas that led to the development of concepts of QUANTUM MECHANICS and its modern interpretations. The book begins with an introduction to the historical background and foundational principles of quantum theory, highlighting the limitations of classical mechanics and the emergence of quantum concepts such as wave–particle duality and quantization. It then systematically develops the mathematical framework of concepts of QUANTUM MECHANICS, including the Schrödinger equation, wave functions, operators, eigenvalue problems, and measurement theory. Key quantum systems and applications are discussed with careful attention to physical interpretation and problem-solving strategies. Special emphasis has been placed on clarity of explanation, step-by-step derivations, and the use of illustrative examples to help students develop a strong conceptual understanding. Each chapter is organized in a structured manner to support effective learning and includes solved problems and exercises that reinforce theoretical concepts and analytical skills. This book is intended for undergraduate and postgraduate students of physics, engineering, and allied disciplines, and it will also serve as a useful reference for educators and researchers. The content has been aligned with standard university curricula and is suitable for both classroom instruction and self-study. It is the author’s sincere hope that this book will make the study of concepts of QUANTUM MECHANICS more accessible and intellectually rewarding, encouraging readers to develop a deeper appreciation for the quantum nature of the physical world. Constructive feedback and suggestions from readers are welcome and will be valuable for improving future editions of this book.
We reexamine the original derivations of quantum mechanics, published 100 years ago, to test the accuracy of the formulations and the logic underlying them, and we find that attempts were not made to describe atomic processes continuously in time. To correct this omission we show that matrix mechanics clearly describes the continuous absorption of thermal energy that causes the hydrogen line spectra, where energy and cause follow the same path. When the same methods are used to inspect the emission process as determined by the wave function we find that energy and cause do not follow the same path. We conclude that failure to follow strict causality is the reason that the wave function is neither physical nor real. Energy-cause superposition is hypothesized to be a universal principle of nature, true not only for atomic systems but for material systems throughout the cosmos and for life as well. It is also equivalent to the action principle, ∫Ldt, which is fundamental to all of physics.