Comment Re:Classical quantum absorption (Score 1) 405
I was going to reply point by point, but I really must do something else with my Sunday.
"I am not aware of any relativistic QM theory. In fact, I believe that to be one of the things most actively sought in modern physics."
General Relativity is the problem. Resolving Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity (i.e. everything except gravity) has been done. It's called Quantum Field Theory. (Specifically Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED, for all things relating to the Coloumb force.) A lot has been done since the 1920s. I'd be surprised if you could get any useful molecular results from the Schrodinger equation.
`Particle in a box` is a toy problem, designed to introduce the student to the idea of boundary conditions. Imagine a guitar string, fixed at both ends, and that's your physical model. The `wave` isn't electromagnetic, gravitational or the like; it is a description of probability amplitudes, the square of which corresponds to probability (in the generally used interpretation).
The particle doesn't bounce off the walls. It is spread out, and doesn't rattle around like a classical ball. (If it did, you could measure the recoil as it hit the walls!)
As for quantisation emerging: the postulates do not include discrete eigenvalues. Read them again. Preferably from a better text book. It only emerges when you apply quantum mechanics to a a specific situation.
"...2+2=5..." The maths of QM isn't as hard as for number theory. And is certainly a lot more interesting.
"Physics courses in college take the same path." [They state unjustified assumptions.]
Have you taken one? Depending on the university, students are introduced the the subject in a bit of a rush, and only later (often in an optional course) come back to carefully examine the postulates.
Sure, assumptions are necessary to simulate a real situation (like a molecule). Maybe it's not a clean theory. Or maybe we just don't know how to frame the maths to do it efficiently on a computer. Eitehr way, just because we have to simplfy it for a specific situation does not render the whole approach invalid.
I stand by my comment that you know too little (you don't need years of study) to say it's wrong. As far as I can tell, it's not classical, so it doen't make sense/feel right, so you conclude it must be wrong. A lot of work has gone in to trying to reporoduce results with classical mechanics only, and we'd all embrace it, if only it would work.
"I am not aware of any relativistic QM theory. In fact, I believe that to be one of the things most actively sought in modern physics."
General Relativity is the problem. Resolving Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity (i.e. everything except gravity) has been done. It's called Quantum Field Theory. (Specifically Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED, for all things relating to the Coloumb force.) A lot has been done since the 1920s. I'd be surprised if you could get any useful molecular results from the Schrodinger equation.
`Particle in a box` is a toy problem, designed to introduce the student to the idea of boundary conditions. Imagine a guitar string, fixed at both ends, and that's your physical model. The `wave` isn't electromagnetic, gravitational or the like; it is a description of probability amplitudes, the square of which corresponds to probability (in the generally used interpretation).
The particle doesn't bounce off the walls. It is spread out, and doesn't rattle around like a classical ball. (If it did, you could measure the recoil as it hit the walls!)
As for quantisation emerging: the postulates do not include discrete eigenvalues. Read them again. Preferably from a better text book. It only emerges when you apply quantum mechanics to a a specific situation.
"...2+2=5..." The maths of QM isn't as hard as for number theory. And is certainly a lot more interesting.
"Physics courses in college take the same path." [They state unjustified assumptions.]
Have you taken one? Depending on the university, students are introduced the the subject in a bit of a rush, and only later (often in an optional course) come back to carefully examine the postulates.
Sure, assumptions are necessary to simulate a real situation (like a molecule). Maybe it's not a clean theory. Or maybe we just don't know how to frame the maths to do it efficiently on a computer. Eitehr way, just because we have to simplfy it for a specific situation does not render the whole approach invalid.
I stand by my comment that you know too little (you don't need years of study) to say it's wrong. As far as I can tell, it's not classical, so it doen't make sense/feel right, so you conclude it must be wrong. A lot of work has gone in to trying to reporoduce results with classical mechanics only, and we'd all embrace it, if only it would work.
