Re: QM will not Answer a Simple Question

"Steve Bell" <sb635@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:7e7a0$4a648af7$944e5322$30129@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Whoever" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:00802ba5$0$9700$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Bell wrote on Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:15:20 -0600:
I got tired of the crap on the other thread. Obviously, due to the
complete lack of following of the scientific method for all these years

It seems to be doing the right thing .. hypothesis developed, predictions made, experiments carried out. All above-board.

by QM, it will not address a serious inaccuracy of one of its
predictions.

What prediction would that be?



I say QED makes an inaccurate prediction of simple hydrogen's ground state binding energy. And yes, I understand the apparent absurdity of this statement.


> Ok, so I'll show how ambiguous and vague QM can be by

It can indeed appear ambiguous and vague .. but that's because nature appears ambiguous and vague when we look at things at the level that QM does. Also QM is not just one single theory, its an area of physics where there are numerous theories being developed and tested, each with differing areas of applicability.

asking a simple question. At the instant an electron's position is
measured, is it an actual particle, whose mass is all "in" a dot in
space?

You mean is it a point particle? AFAIK It has no internal structure, so yes. As much as things are points or particles in QM :)



I want you to see how much is directly implied by the words you use. You say "it has no internal structure." I can immediately think you believe that an electron has an existence of its own that has nothing to do with observing anything,

I don't see why you think an electron would be observing anything

and this physical entity has no internal structure.


Also, AFIAK, when you measure an electrons position, its wave function collapses and you can know its position, but not its momentum.


You use the words "its position." I take that to mean you think an electron can in fact have a definite position at a point time.

Can

Otherwise, what is this "its position" you refer to? You are also implying that at the same time, it has a definite momentum,

No .. it doesn't. My goodness, you have trouble comprehending simple statements

the "its momentum" in you statement. And it's just that we can't know these exact, definite time-concurrent physical quantities

What makes you think they are exact or definite. Only one of them can be at the quantum level. If you know one, you cannot know the other .. if you measure the electrons position, it doesn't have a definite momentum (and vice versa)

And in terms of whether or not an electron can have a definite location, I don't care if we can *never* know that. An electron *is* either a particle at a point in time or it is never a particle at any point in time,

Why?

and that has nothing to do with our knowledge of whether or not that is true.

Eh?

>>> I want those who follow this thread to watch how this question will
never be answered directly by QM.

Given this is a relativity group .. why do you expect answers from people who specialise in QM to be reading it?



Many people on this list obviously think they know everything about QM, and many people do know "the QM standard line." So I post here.

Well.. it seems rather pointless.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: QM and electron orbits
    ... why the electron does not radiate in this ground state. ... one would have to know the position as well as the momentum. ... one can regard *any* particle to be in a superposition ... *radius* of a classical orbits. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: QM and electron orbits
    ... why the electron does not radiate in this ground state. ... one would have to know the position as well as the momentum. ... one can regard *any* particle to be in a superposition ... *radius* of a classical orbits. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: QM will not Answer a Simple Question
    ... Also QM is not just one single theory, its an area of physics where there are numerous theories being ... You mean is it a point particle? ... I don't see why you think an electron would be observing anything ... It is completely logical for me to deduce you think there exists a definite momentum because you say "its momentum." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: QM will not Answer a Simple Question
    ... I can immediately think you believe that an electron has an existence of its own that has nothing to do with observing anything, ... Until it is observed it does not have a *definite* position and momentum. ... about "the position" of a particle being observed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: wavelength of a peaceful electron
    ... > electron has a Compton wavelength equal to hbar/mc, ... > to particle momentum under the uncertainty principle. ... way as it can borrow energy for a limited time. ...
    (sci.physics.research)