Well, according to QM that would need to be the case.

If it's not the case, or can be shown to not be the case, then we have an example where QM fails and we should look into it more closely.

That's all I know to say.

But this is the crux of it Jeremy.

This is the eye of the quantum dragon.

You're doing the same thing that Metalwing was trying to do"



He's trying to avert the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

"close quantum wave interaction (call it glancing blows)"

Close, but not quite, quantum interactions?

Heisenberg would say, "What?"

All that would be is a violation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

A close quantum wave interaction where information has been exchange (i.e. an observable measurable difference has taken place), but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has been violated!

It wasn't a "Full-fledge" quantum of interaction?

That violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!

That would be a 'quantum interaction' that's not a "FULL-BLOWN" quantum interaction as per what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle demands.

That's a violation of HUP, and therefore a violation of QM.

So why are you done?

Do you not accept QM?

May I please ask a very genuine heartfelt question?

If these 'less than full-blown' "glancing blows" of interaction can have observed effects on things like light and other forms of radiation, don't you guys think that scientists would have observed these violations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in some of the experiments that they do in all their particle accelerators?

Would anyone like to answer to this very sincere question?

I'd really like to know. Then maybe I could better understand where all this hope comes from.

It's too bad... this had the makings of a good thread.

I have cleaned up this thread, as best i could.

Guys, you are all very intelligent, i'm sure you can discuss this without the personal attacks.

Please return to the topic,

Thanks.

From wiki on x rays.



I am going to explain why I have bolded each of these parts of the description.

#1- through --When a gamma ray is sent toward an object not all of the quanta of light necessarily interact with the object, some pass right through with no effect at all, they are very small and some literally fit through the gaps between atoms.

#2 Transferred --When a gamma ray interacts with the electron of an atom, how much energy is absorbed is dependent on the electron level of the atom and how direct the impact of the gamma ray. Enough energy will ionize the electron, that is what is being described here.

#3 Electron --Here is explains that when the energy absorbed is enough to knock the electron out of orbit its the electron, and NOT the photon that is emitted from the atom . . .

#4 & #5passing & interferes this part is illustrating when a near miss occurs how the interactions with the electromagnetic field still create a disturbance with the electrons. The passing of the gamma ray is slowed, but its not an absorption/emission, its passing by the atom, but really closely. Its like a piece of metal passing closely to a magnet, not close enough for them to pull together, but enough attract and to slow the passing gamma ray.

#6Heat I am not going to go back, but somewhere abra claimed becuase the Schrodinger wave equation had nothing for heat, that heat is not a property in these quantum interactions . . . pure blather.

#7 two ways --Here it makes clear that more then one type of interaction occurs, thus the only real complaint with abra's initial description is paralleled here (I am not going to go into all his other straw man arguments it really is a waste of time), So abra explained vaguely one part of photon/matter interactions when clearly there is more kinds. We also have the near misses and the complete misses, do remember. So we have 4 separate possible things happening when light goes through matter.

#8 and #9 All This is an example where all of the energy is absorbed but a photon IS NOT emitted, becuase the energy was TOO MUCH, instead it ionizes the atom when the electron fly's off on its own. This is the photoelectric effect which is used in modern electronics.

#10 The important thing to take away from #10 is that energy conservation is true at all levels, and that when more energy is available then imparted to the electron another photon will emerge at lesser energy to make up the difference, this is the principle behind scattering.

#11 -- Again here we see conservation of energy, these free electrons fly off and have a direct impact on there environment which is probably surrounded by more atoms, so electrons strike the outer shell in other electron and if they are moving with a great enough energy more get knocked free, if an atom can hold another electron then it will grab it even if its unstable and releases it again later. This has all to do with the energy levels of the interacting electrons and is the basis of modern chemistry.

#12 -- I asked abra a trick question earlier, I asked him: "When light passes through a material is the phenomena always an absorbsion/ emission interaction? Is it ALWAYS in this way? For every material?" Its a trick questions becuase I knew of everyday examples of some photons of any given x ray exposure passing all the way through without interacting at all, on a photographic plate the exposure index of a dark spot that matches the frequency of the original x ray means that this photon did not interact with the matter AT ALL, it missed entirely flew straight through the patient and hit the photo plate at full energy, this is the darkest spots on the image and it depends on how hot they shoot there techniques, if they use longer exposure time, but less energetic x rays then far fewer photons pass through (more interact due to a longer wavelength), but for large subjects not enough energy means you do not get enough penetrating photons to create the needed contrast and so have to increase the energy and reduce the time to keep the overall exposure a low enough dose for the FDA's requirements. Too little energy and you do not have enough contrast becuase you have no photons sticking the plate you get a white image, too much and the image is all black becuase high energy photons can even make it through bone. The best films have all three, photons not going through at all, photons going through and loosing energy, and photons going through that loose little or no energy, this gives you lots of grey scale to view the tiniest of medical issues both in some of the more interacting soft tissues and in the bone, but some tissues DO NOT INTERACT and thus do not show up at all, these parts are black with an equal exposure index to the energy and frequency of the original x ray.

Ok so now that we have described specific examples of light passing through an object with 3 different types of interactions and a type of non interaction due to complete misses of individual photons we can safely say that abortion and emission with delays is not the best way to describe the phenomena.

In fact a delay from absorption and transmission is not the reason photons slow down at all (in the example of light through glass), if that where the case how many atoms a photon is absorbed into and emitted out of would determine the amount the photon slows down (or it would be probabilistic based on when the atom "decides" to emit the photon), but its not. The density of electrons in the material does. Its a direct relationship. The electrons interfere with the photons regardless of direct absorptions and emissions, even in near misses.

You're absolutely right.

It was indeed a 'trick' question. And one that doesn't violate what I had said. Because in all of my discussion of QM I've demanded that if an observable change had been made that a quantum event must have occured.

Nowhere did I ever demand that radiation could not pass through a material without ever have interacted at all. On the contrary I had clearly allowed for that possiblily. But that particular radition would not have slowed down because that would require an interaction.

To be perfectly honest fellas, I'm not interesting in being the Quantum Punching Bag here.

I have no interest in trying to share my knowledge of QM with a bunch of hostile people.

If you guys want to believe that classical explanations can be given for these things then be my guest and believe it.

I'll leave you with my previous sincere question and you can deal with it on your own.

~~~

May I please ask a very genuine heartfelt question?

If these 'less than full-blown' "glancing blows" of interaction can have observed effects on things like light and other forms of radiation, don't you guys think that scientists would have observed these violations of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in some of the experiments that they do in all their particle accelerators?

Would anyone like to answer to this very sincere question?

I'd really like to know. Then maybe I could better understand where all this hope comes from.

~~~

If you guys want to reject QM be my quest.

By the way, this is just yet more hostility aimed at me in an to claim that I'm full of "pure blather" as the charge is stated.

But this is totally false.

The original topic was about how photos could be propagated through a perfectly transparent substance.

But in the example of creating an x-ray image some of the radition is not being transmitted because the human body isn't entirely transparent to the radiation. In fact this is the only reason we can use x-rays to produce an image. Because some of the radition is absorbed rather than being tranmitted through.

So this is an entirely different situation.

Also the "Heat" doesn't come from the Schodinger Wave Equation.

It comes from the fact that some of the photos of x-ray radiation are being 'absorbed' by the atoms and not re-released. That's why they are blocked and not transmitted throught a transparent medium.

So this is a totally different topic. The first topic was how photos could be passed through a transparent material and now we're talking about how photons are absorbed by a material.

Of course there's going to be heat generated in that process because the system is gaining energy and all the photons aren't passing through.

Again, I'm not going to be the Quantum Punching Bag here with all these tricks to try to 'prove' that I'm mistaken.

This is a hostile environment when it comes down to just trying to "trip up Abra".

You never going to do that fellas. The only reason I hold my ground on this topic is because I truly do know what I'm talking about on this topic. I've studied QM my entire life. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to QM.

Believe it or not.

And I think I explained in good detail 3 REAL LIFE examples of interactions, of which 1 does cause the photon to loose energy even though it does not cause an electron to jump energy levels and emit a photon. Yes jumping energy levels is a discrete deal, it happens or it does not, but a near miss does cause a photon to slow down without the atom emitting a photon.

So when I asked if under all circumstances an absorption/emission was taking place it WAS a trick in the sense that I KNEW you would get it wrong, but not becuase it was not a valid question any graduate physics student is expected to know. Quantum interactions are all quantized and conserved, but that does not mean when an electromagnetic wave gets close enough to a negative charge that it will not effect it and lose energy without absorption and re-emission.

The atom can eject photons, electrons, and or gain kinetic energy from direct strikes, glancing blows, and near misses all dependent on energy levels of outershell electrons, the energy and frequency of the photon and the angle of the invent in question based on the geometry of the electron configuration. THIS ALL ACTUALLY HAPPENS and is explained with quantum mechanics.

No arguments, just what is. I am not even calling anyone wrong, just me doing my thing , its ok to not get questions meanings, dam language , yea yea blame that.

What are you calling a 'near miss'?

I never said anything about any electrons jumping any orbitals.

If an electron cloud in a material can absorb a quantum of energy and re-emit it how does that qualify as a "near miss"?

A quantum of energy was aborbed and re-emitted.

Where do come up with this term "Near Miss"?

Is that a scientific term? What does "near miss" mean?

If it satisfies the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, then what does it mean to call it a 'near miss'?

What did it nearly miss?

The examples where meaningful to all matter light interactions based on the lattice structure of the material, the electron configurations and the energy and frequency of the light involved.

All materials are transparent to powerful enough gamma rays. Light is light, just of different energy/frequency.

A photon nearly misses an electron. The uncertainty principle deals with what we can know about the system abra . . so what is your problem exactly?

Please no rant, cite some papers, quote some pro's do something other then be offended, where I can read rigorous explanations.

These are tuff topics that stretch my knowledge, and I do enjoy to understand this stuff, so please be clear concise and cite.

I don't know what to tell you on that. I wish I had keep a journal of how I came by all of my knowledge. Unfortunately I didn't keep good records.

A lot of my knowledge also came from personal experiences and through conversations I've had with other people. Especially back when I was working in R&D.

I can share the following though.

1. It helped me tremendously when I truly 'accepted' QM.

By that I mean, when I genuinely accepted that the world is discrete and not based on a continuum. Truly accepting that insight made a world of difference for how I approached things after that.

2. My experience in electronics was also quite helpful.

If you are familiar with op-amps and how they can be made into integrators, or differentiators, that might be truly helpful. It was for me.

The Schrodinger Wave Equation is a differential equation. It works just like a differential op-amp. You put a waveform in the input then at the output you get the differentiated waveform.

Now if you're familiar with electronics you know that the next thing to do, if you really want to make things interesting, you stick the output back into the input. (This is called a feeback loop)

In fact, the particular electronics that I specialized in is known as "Closed-loop servo systems". This was for robotics, automation and inertial guidance systems.

The whole profession is basically focused on finding interesting ways to set up the feedback loops. And it doesn't stop with just one op-amp. Whole systems of op-amps become involved. Some integrators, and some differentiators.

Well, for me, this was an eye-opener for QM. Because the Schrodinger Equations is a differential equation and it's just describing the interaction between various energy systems.

The INPUT wave is the current "macro world situation". Don't think of this as mathematicians doing math. Think of this in terms of the real world.

The macro world situation is the INPUT wave.

So as soon as the INPUT wave is put into the Schrodinger equation what does it do? It generates and OUTPUT wave.

What does that mean in 'reality'?

There is no Schrodinger Equation in 'reality'!

In 'reality' what actually happens is that the INPUT wave becomes the OUTPUT wave.

But what know?

Now the OUTPUT wave is the the new 'reality'.

But what does that mean? That means that the OUTPUT wave is now the INPUT wave, and the process is instantly repeated! Only this time the environment has change and the INPUT wave is different so you get yet a different OUTPUT wave which instantly becomes the next new INPUT wave and so on.

There is no "Schrodinger Equation" in reality. All that's happening in reality is that the enviroment is changing constantly in accordance with this mathematical relationship.

It's like a closed-loop op-amp system where the output is tied right back into the input.

For me, this was a huge revelation. But I've never read that in any book. That was just an insight I gained from recognizing that op-amps and differential equations are the same thing.

Now Bosons actually act more like integrators!

3. Bosons are in LOVE with each other!

This is common knowledge, but I've never really seen this information used well in a physics book.

Bosons tend to be 'groupies'. They are followers! They are in love with socialism.

Fermions are like hermits, but Bosons are like hippies.

Why is this important?

Well, to the topic at hand it's actually quite important.

Almost all of the discussion in this thread has been focused on 'boson-fermion' interactions.

But bosons can and do interact with each other too!

That was a part of this discussion we never even got into.

In fact Bosons love to follow the group!

So even if a boson (a photon is a boson I'm sure you know), had been interferred with by a fermion (an atom or hadron), and had become totally disoriented as to what it had been doing prior to that event, it could still be 'washed along' by the main stream of bosons and 'interact' with them to have its original properties (or the original properties of the stream) restored to it.

In fact, this would even happen if a brand new photon had been created via and emission event. That new photon would then tend to do what all the other photons near it are doing becasue that's what bosons do. They follow the lead of the 'crowd'.

So those are just some insights that I can share with you. I'm afraid that I can't really point to books that make these things clear because for the most part I didn't learn this from books. I learned most of the things that I know from putting together many different pieces of information and experiences thoughout my life.

I only wish I had kept a journal. Unfortunately I didn't. My brain is my only journal and I fear that it's starting to fail me.

Anyway I just share these insights for whatever they are worth.

If you think they're just so much blather, then just disregard them.

I think this was a far better post then any of your reactions to other members posts.

Thank you.

For those following along:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron

James, I think the main difference now is in the example used, not in any arguments. So good post to lead us away from the previous train wreck.

Lets just try to add information to the topic. I think that is best served by us pointing out what we find to be accurate in others posts, and ignoring what we find inaccurate unless we are going to cite a source.

If too lazy search and to cite, then too lazy to argue please. PLEASE seriously everyone!!???!!?? I agree!! Ill do et!

That would rock.

Nice change. I agree.

There is an interesting book called Entanglement by Amir D. Aczel that discusses some of these ideas. It is a good read.

Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field. This is an important thing to remember.

Light is the electromagnetic spectrum waving.

If you jiggle an electron it jiggles the electromagnetic spectrum and produces a wave.

If two particles collide and heat up, the heat is released as thermal radiation in the infra red spectrum: Light!

All these cool interactions occur and light is involved ALL over the place, its truly amazing.

Well, for whatever it's worth I felt that I got hit by a train in this thread.

All I did originally was try to suggest that the explanations that were being given were classical and not quantum explanations.

The next thing I know I'm being burned at the stake as a science heretic.

I love science! I just happen to accept QM.

That's my only sin.

And I refuse to repent for it.

Not even close, but lets NOT go backward we are making progress. Stay to QM phenomena and away from judging others posts without citations.

Micheal has agreed, I have agreed, please! please! abra, agree.

I dont have the time to dig up citations either so this will level our playing field and make this more of a friendly environment for the interested parties.

Its win win, becuase if someone does dig up citations, then we all get to read it and ohh and ahh, it will be fun.

What I would like to know is why Quantum Mechanics would get rejected in the first place by anyone if some of the top scientists that existed at one time has shown it had worked before?

What am I missing here?


I want to believe that perhaps quantum mechanics has different methods of use and I think this is maybe the reason why there where misunderstandings from this train wreck.


Always keep an open mind regardless if it sounds ridiculous at first.


To tell you the truth, it is highly interesting to read up on probably some of the smartest people on Mingle on their conclusions and understandings of quantum mechanics, but I got to tell you learning Mandarin is much easier

At least for me it is.


I hope for what it is worth, I think everyone can agree, that we can have healthy debates in here if we truly want it.

When I watched a special one time on Albert Einstein who was born only 50 kilometers from where I was born they showed how no one wanted to converse with him because of his new discovery on relativity. Not a single scientist or professor wanted to try his new invention. Luckily one of course a professors helper of somekind, I would have to go look back for the name, was fascinated with Einstein and did want to help out. They had to wait for a solar eclipse so they can prove Einstein's theory would be correct.


That was his break through back then that got him going later on with other idealogies.

I mention this story because the oddest things can be discovered that sound utterly like nonsense, but later proven one day that it works.

The reason why I say keep an open mind.