Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: feuerbac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 23 Aug 2005 03:27:30 -0700
This is *yet again* you, Qion etc., right?
flames wrote:
[snip]
> A mathematical 'genius' called Dr. Fleming
Who says that he is a mathematical genius?
And what field is his doctorate in? What are his qualifications
to talk about physics?
> has spent over
> 30 years (that is.. he started the study even before
> you were born) researching about Quantum Field Theory, QCD,
> QM, etc. He finally understood how they were 'wrong' and
> will publish the 'corrected' enhanced version in Physics
> Essays to stun the world of physics.
If he writes nonsense like the one below, he won't be able to
get this published.
> He explained it thus
> (has your lab informed you about it in advanced already?):
>
> The terminology of quantum field theory (QFT) is misleading; the
> 'field' referred to is not a field, not the measureable kind of
> E- or H-field at any rate, but it is defined as a field while in
> reality related to classical 4-potentials, i.e. voltages.
Wow. Nonsense already in the very first sentence. A hint to Dr.
Fleming: potentials are also fields. He should learn what "field"
actually means in physics before claiming that QFT is wrong!
BTW: voltages are generally understood to be potential *differences*,
not the potentials themselves. Additionally, one usually only talks
about voltage when referring to the *scalar* potential, not to the
4-potential.
> When compared to SFT, a true 'field' theory, we need to examine what a
> field is at the atomic level compared to dipole and coil
> measurements.
Word salad.
> It is instructive to survey the main equations used
> by physicists since Maxwell's equations
> <http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquations.html>
> were formulated in 1873. They describe the macroscopic E- and
> H-fields, and their associated charges and currents measured in
> experiments by Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere, Biot, and Savart from
> 1785 onwards. Several EM wave equations
> <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html> were
> derived including decoupled forms where the E- or H-fields appear
> in isolation; Maxwell's equations were specialized to various
> applications <http://hypertextbook.com/physics/elec
> tricity/em-waves/> e.g. for quasistationary or radiation
> conditions. Hertz
> <http://dibinst.mit.edu/DIBNER/DIConferences/OldConferences/Sloan/reflecti.htm>'s
> potentials <http://www.andrijar.com/phipps/> introduced a
> mixed-field substitution in terms of a Lagrangian or energy
> density for solving via integrals over radiation surfaces where
> infinite regions needed to be considered; these are known as the
> Hertzian vector and scalar potential wave equations.
Indeed. What Dr. Fleming seems to miss is stuff like the Aharonov-Bohm
effect, which can only properly be understood by using the potentials,
not the E- and H-fields themselves.
> Following theoretical and experimental demonstrations by Planck
> and Einstein of the existence of a quantum physics,
Ouch. In principle right, but so awkwardly expressed that it hurts.
This Dr. Fleming is not a physicist, right? Looking up his website (see
below), he has a PhD in "computational bioelectromagnetics". Why he
thinks this makes him qualified to talk about quantum physics is beyond
me.
> there was a
> failure by physicists to find a mathematics based directly on
> Maxwell's equations that applied to the electron's motion in the
> atom. In 1926 Schr"dinger
> <http://www.missioncollege.org/depts/physics/P4poe/P4D/Schrodinger.htm>
> used energy conservation to obtain a quantum mechanical equation
Only vaguely right. Actually, the Schroedinger equation has not so much
to do with the *conservation* of energy. More with simply writing
down the equation *describing* the energy of the electron and applying
de Broglie's ideas to this equation, leading to a dispersion relation
for a wave, and subsequently to a differential equation describing that
wave.
> in a variable called the wave function
Calling the wave function the "variable" of the Schroedinger equation
is yet again quite strange terminology.
> that accurately described
> single-electron states such as the hydrogen atom. The wave
> function depended on a Hamiltonian function
Actually, a Hamilton *operator*. And "depend on" is yet again strange
terminology here.
> and the total energy of an atomic system,
Duh. The Hamiltonian *is* the total energy, so why does he feel the
need to mention this separately?
> and was compatible with Hertz's potential formulation.
Huh?
> The wave function depends on the sum of the squares
> of E- and H-fields as is seen by examining the energy density
> function of the electromagnetic field
> <http://patsy.hunter.cuny.edu/CORE/CORE4/LectureNotes/Mwaves/magwaves3.htm>.
Huh????? That is the energy density of the electromagnetic field,
right. What what on earth does this have to do with the wave function
of the H atom, in Dr. Fleming's opinion???
Yes, he *definitely* has no clue what he is talking about!
> In 1928 Dirac realising the wave functions were not relativistic
Duh. Even Schroedinger realised this already.
> sought a set of equations incorporating Einstein's relativity.
This was already achieved by the Klein-Gordon equation. So Dr. Fleming
also has no clue of the historical development, and what Dirac's
achievement really was.
> Dirac's equations
> <http://www.physics.orst.edu/~allenlw/Ph65456/Media/PDFs/QM656.24.Dirac(3).pdf>
> were described in terms of two 'fields', the so-called Dirac
> fields, and were described as 'field equations of motion'.
As were already lots of equations in the decades before. Dr. Fleming's
point is here exactly what?
> The term "Dirac's two wave equations" was also used. Like
> Schr"dinger's equation, there was a mathematical smearing of the
> SFT fields as we shall see.
What is "mathematical smearing" supposed to mean?
> The problem was now 'wave-like'
Huh???
> instead of two uncluttered fields
Huh???
Is Dr. Fleming unaware that a wave *is* a (special type of) field?
> and Heisenberg formulated the uncertainty principle
> <http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html>. The
> underlying SFT centre-of-motion fields had been lost in the
> potential equations.
Huh???
> By the time the equations governing the weak
> and strong nuclear forces were found using modern versions of
> QFT, quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics
> (QCD),
Neither QED nor QCD are about the weak force, and QCD is not about the
strong *nuclear* force.
> any fields, macroscopic or atomic, were a long-forgotten
> reality.
Utter nonsense.
> But why can't the potentials give us a correct picture of the E-
> and H-fields at atomic levels? After all we have Hertz's
> potential equations that give a correspondence between classical
> potentials and fields? The question is: do Maxwell's E- and
> H-fields determined between point-charges exist within the
> nanoscopic domain of the atom?
Both E- and H-fields and potentials are mathematical descriptions of
reality. If they "exist" or not is not a question of physics, but of
metaphysics.
> Recently it has been demonstrated by EMSFT for the hydrogen atom
> <http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf>
> that these E- and H-field forms are not applicable to sub-atomic
> charges.
Oh, finally a link to a page written by this crank.
And as most cranks, he does not understand the difference between
"demonstrated" and "asserted".
Quote: "Despite intensive investigation, this same period saw a
complete failure to find any way in which atomic physics could be based
on electromagnetic (EM) theory."
Hogwash. The Schroedinger equation for the H atom incorporates the
electrostatic potential, hence it *is* based on electromagnetic theory.
Apparently Dr. Fleming thinks that if the E- and H-fields
themselves do not appear, but only the potentials, this somehow means
that it is *not* based on electromagnetic theory! Balderdash.
Another quote: "In this paper an EM self-field theory (EMSFT) yields
analytical solutions to the electron's motion in the hydrogen atom
including Rydberg's number and the Balmer formula."
Since there is abundant evidence that the electron does *not* move on a
classical orbit in the atom, EMSFT is already disproven by experiment.
> Why? The analytic solutions obtained from EMSFT for the
> hydrogen atom are validated by the known spectroscopy where we
> determine the atomic fields between centres of motion and not
> between charge points.
Word salad.
> This issue is at the crux of why classical
> vector and scalar potentials cannot obtain the correct solution;
> the macroscopic fields of Coulomb and Biot-Savart do not hold at
> atomic dimensions;
What on earth has the first part of the sentence to do with the second,
and what on earth has this to do with atomic physics?
> the fields caused by the motions of the photons
> inside the atom
Huh?????
> are not correctly formulated point-charge
> to point-charge. The classical potentials cannot give us the
> correct answer, because the classical field theory as we have
> long known is wrong.
Duh. That's why we have QED now!
> The potential solution was in a sense
> chasing its tail; the classical fields and potentials are
> incorrect over atomic dimensions as Heisenberg had correctly
> determined.
A misrepresentation of what Heisenberg actually said.
> Coulomb's, and Biot's and
> Savart's famous E- and H-field forms apply to macroscopic
> phenomena not to atomic systems.
Unsupported assertion.
And I don't know what he means with "forms" here.
> The photons inside atoms in fact
> stream between electrons and nucleons. These photonic streams are
> not ubiquitous nor continuous, they are discrete and
> discontinuous.
This is not too much different from what QED says.
> They behave like Dirac delta functions
> <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DeltaFunction.html>,
In what way do they "behave like Dirac delta functions"?
> an interesting
> fact in terms of their role in solving Maxwell's equations for
> self fields (see below on numerical methods FEM vs FDM).
>
> Another term needs clarification: spinor.
This term has a clear definition, so why does it need clarification?
Because Dr. Fleming does not like the definition and prefers to make up
his own, right?
> In Dirac's formulation
> the resulting complex matrices were capable of synthesis into
> various Dirac "bispinors".
Again, a *very* strange formulation.
> These are adjointly coupled 2 x 2
> 'unit' spinors (determinant = 1)
Huh??? A spinor does not have a determinant!
> that have a left- or
> right-handed helicity associated with them. In the chiral
> representation of Dirac's equation, the terms are 4 x 4 matrices
> comprised of Pauli spinors.
Balderdash. The spinors are 4-tuples, not 4 x 4 matrices!
> In SFT, the term 'spinor' is used for
> the motions of the E- and H-fields,
See? Exactly as I predicted.
As usual for cranks, he uses a well-defined term with a *complete*
different, totally nonsensical meaning.
"motions of the E- and H-fields"? That makes no sense! Fields don't
move!!! Again, he demonstrates that the does not know what "field"
actually means in physics.
> and for the motions of the
> particles, such as the electron or proton. Everything in the
> mathematics of SFT, both particles and their (particulate)
> fields, move as rotating vectors;
Word salad.
> like QFT for the atom there are two spinors,
> or four variables per subatomic particle.
That has little to do with QFT.
> In the
> following, the terms 'wave equation' and 'vector and scalar
> potentials' are applied to all quantum field theories that follow
> the heritage of Dirac's wave equations up to and including
> today's standard model. In this aspect SFT is indeed the only
> true 'field' theory, not only because it uses the term 'field' in
> an historically correct sense
Balderdash.
> but further it applies these fields
> not between charge points, but (instantaneous) centres of motion.
Word salad.
> MATHEMATICS OF SFT AND QFT
>
> The mathematics of self-field theory (SFT) and quantum field
> theory (QFT) are very different.
Duh.
> In SFT the eigenvalue nature of
> the hydrogen atom system of equations fits the concept of a
> quantized physics; in QFT it is mandated apriori as part of
> quantum mechanics.
Word salad.
> Hence in SFT quantization is a consquence of
> the mathematics and in QFT it is an artifice, inserted by Planck
> to solve the analytic problem of blackbody radiation.
Plain utter *nonsense*. Quantization in QFT is *not* simply inserted
artificially; it follows mathematically from the basic commutation
relations.
> The fields
> in SFT are seen as streams of discrete photon interchanges
> between atomic sub-particles; in QFT the fields are considered
> continuous and ubiquitous, operating over all solid angles,
> similar to the classical fields of the macroscopic world
> discovered by Coulomb and Biot-Savart.
Actually, the QFT description is somehow intermediate between the QFT
description he claims here and the SFT description he describes.
> Feynmann glimpsed the
> physics of the quantum world without realising the difficulties
> presented by the potential theory associated with the classical
> wave equations, the basis of the Standard Model. In today's QCD,
> the wave functions are modelled by lattices instead of continuous
> functions <http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/QCD_lattice_model>
> and so are discrete in a numerical sense.
Wow. What a nonsense. So he also has not the faintest clue of what
lattice QCD actually is, and why and for what purposes it is actually
used in many applications.
> But in its analytic
> eigenvalue solutions to the hydrogen atom, SFT provides a natural
> basis for quantum physics. Differences between SFT and QFT are
> fundamental as to how we view quantum physics; either as a
> 'strange, bizarre' world at the tiny atomic and nuclear
> dimensions, or a natural view fitting the long-term mathematical
> framework built up over preceding centuries and millenia
> <http://www-groups.dcs st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistT
> opics/Matrices_and_determinants.html>. The Sturm-Liouville
> problem
> <http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Sturm.html>,
> an eigenvalue problem in 2nd order odes, was solved in 1836-37.
And the relevance of that is precisely what?
[snip a bit]
> The major difference between these analytic formulations lies in
> the integrals associated with the scalar and vector potentials of
> QFT
Huh? What integrals is he talking about?
> compared with the direct substitution for the E- and H-field
> forms into the partial differential equations by SFT. In QFT we
> do in fact require some form of numerical method to solve the
> wave equations.
In QFT, no wave equations are solved in general. What is he talking
about?
> The
> analytic difficulties of the wave equation are exacerbated by the
> second order of the two wave equations and their associated gauge
> conditions compared with the four first order Maxwell equations.
>
> Of course the self-field solution has only been available for the
> past few years.
Well, if it existed for several years already, why has no physicist
accepted it in the meantime? Why wasn't this big news?
> The vector and scalar potential solution
> incoprorated inside quantum mechanics was the only method known
> to solve non-radiating atomic systems. The self-field requires
> the special boundary condition that it be confined within a
> finite region of space without radiation out to infinity.
What is "it" here?
> This is
> not a closed or bounded problem such as a waveguide. Rather it is
> an open problem, akin to a non-radiating antenna, somewhat a
> semantic tortology. Yet there is such an antenna. We can arrange
> for the (two) feeds on an antenna to provide no net radiation.
> It isn't very practical in terms of radiation, but it may well be
> of practical use as a means of preventing radiation leaking into
> regions where it is not desired. Thus the groups known as SU(2)
> and SU(3) and their space-time inverses re candidate solution
> forms for the self-fields due to wave equations and
> 'Maxwell-like' equations.
Totally nonsensical word salad.
What on earth is "their space-time inverses" supposed to mean?
And what on earth do these groups have to do with "preventing
radiation"???
> Such forms are well known to
> mathematicians, scientists, and engineers seeking general
> solutions to sets of homogeneous partial differential equations
> <http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/math/mat10/start.htm>.
Again: "forms"?
> As we
> should expect, the spinors of SFT are closely related to the
> groups within QCD, and QED. In fact apart from the fact that QCD
> and QED use such exponential forms
"exponential forms"???
> as unit 'bispinors' and 'trispinors',
???
Does he perhaps mean dublets and triplets???
> and have a variable magnitude within SFT,
?????
> there is
> no difference. We shall see that there is a family of
> 'Maxwell-like' equations for both electromagnetic (EM) and other
> fields that give rise to weak and strong nuclear forces.
He is free to explain all the available evidence for QCD and the
electroweak force using these equations...
> The
> self-field solution is indeed a novel mathematical solution that
> allows 'dirac delta' particles to move in a field (consisting of
> tiny 'dirac delta' particles) such that they do not emit
> radiation (no photons escape into he outside world).
Then this "self-field solution" contradicts Maxwell's equations,
although he claims it is based on them.
> In comparing the numbers of unknown variables in QFT and SFT, we
> first must specify the application. In atomic physics, there are
> in quantum electrodynamics (QED) the vector and scalar
> potentials, four per particle altogether.
Calling these "unknown variables" is yet again strange terminology.
And why he thinks that these potentials have to be counted "per
particle" is beyond me.
> In SFT after specifying the
> fields using the two divergence equations,
Huh? A divergence equation does not uniquely specify a field.
> the remaining two
> Maxwell curl equations provide only three scalar equations;
???
> we need a fourth equation per particle. This is supplied for the
> case of the atomic EM self-fields as a balance of the Lorentz
> forces between any two charged particles and this converts into a
> pair of virial equations where the magnetic and electric forces
> are in dynamic balance. Note that the four variables per particle
> within QED, the potential and vector potentials, require
> conversion to the E- and H-fields post-solution (Electromagnetic
> Analysis System EMAS
> <http://www.diel.univaq.it/research/?id_area=10 &id_subarea=43 >
> for example does this for the EM fields having solved for the
> potentials).
Word salad.
> In nuclear physics, the strong nuclear interaction requires the
> mathematics of QCD to solve for particle states.
Word salad. And yet again, he confuses QCD with the *nuclear* strong
force.
> Like QED, the solution is given as a probability density.
Vaguely right.
> These solutions are governed by the uncertainty principle.
Vaguely right.
> We can view the
> uncertainty principle as nothing more than a criterion of
> accuracy due to the quantum mechanical method of solution and
> that classical fields are used at atomic dimensions.
Balderdash. He should read up on Bell's inequality.
> Part of the
> procedure of QFT is a 'coupling' of the centre-of-motion field
> variables that are decoupled in Maxwell's classical equations.
???
> This 'smears' the field solution; the centre-of-motion E- and
> H-fields being intertwined numerically.
Centre of motion of fields??? Utter nonsense.
> So with high-energy
> physics, as with QED, the probability densities are as good as we
> can get;
Wrong, we can get a lot more things.
> our 'observables' are unable to untangle the true atomic
> fields.
Balderdash.
> As with QED, the computations require lengthy 'random
> walk' simulations on large supercomputers.
In some applications, yes. In a lot of others, wrong.
> A discretized version
> of QCD suitable for numerical calculations is called Lattice QCD
> <h ttp://www.unifiedph
> ysics.com/The%20discretized%20version%20of%20QCD%20is%20called%20Lattice%20QCD.>.
> This lattice numerically seeks the energy profile that constrains
> our equations to obey the known laws governing them including
> gauge symmetries that apply.
Ouch. Yet again, a totally nonsensical formulation.
> "It took nearly a year to do the calculations, but when the
> computer finally disgorged the numbers, physicists had for the
> first time extracted from theory predictions of the ratios of the
> masses of eight subatomic particles. These computed,
> theoretically derived ratios differ from experimentally observed
> values by less than 6 percent." Ivars Peterson
> <http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/q1/quantumch.asp>
And how does Dr. Fleming explains this success, if QCD is wrong?
Is he able to do this, too? I sincerely doubt that.
> In SFT we do
> NOT assume anything apart from the spinorial (rotating vector)
> forms for the motion of the fields; the positions and velocities
> of the interacting photons also have the shape of a spinor
> (rotating vector). These periodically rotating fields are assumed
> since the solution must be a self-field and self-propagating.
> The fields in SFT cause the motions of the particles which in turn
> cause the field motions; any two particles and their interacting
> fields are thus joined 'at the hip' so to speak. The
> (mathematical) trick is to suggest a field form suitable for the
> observed forces.
Word salad.
> In strong nuclear SFT it is observed to be six
> variables or 'flavours' of quark: up, down, charm, strange, top
> and bottom; while the gluon fields have three 'colours': red,
> green, and blue.
Wow, what a nonsense. He is free to explain confinement, breaking of
Bjorken scaling, three-jet events etc. based on this.
> It is found that the six variables are
> consistent with there being three spinorial motions per
> sub-nuclear particle, and not two as with the EM forces, while
> there are now three types of interactions possible correlating to
> the two types of elemental charge, positive and negative,
> associated with the EM forces.
Word salad.
> DIRAC DELTA FUNCTIONS
>
> One final point: the mathematical procedures of SFT can be
> applied as a form of potential theory that incorporates the
> centre of motion fields; a modern form of quantum field theory
> that in principle goes 'beyond quantum'. As we already have a
> simpler solution procedure this method's day has not yet arrived,
> but indubitably it will come in due time.
Word salad.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: tfleming1
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: Schoenfeld
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- References:
- why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: flames
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: Bjoern Feuerbacher
- Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- From: flames
- why can't fields be quantized too?
- Prev by Date: Re: Thermal Inductance
- Next by Date: Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- Previous by thread: Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- Next by thread: Re: why can't fields be quantized too?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
