Merged: Quantum Ring Theory: Evidence for photon and neutron models

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by ben m

Incorrect. "you cannot get its velocity" does not mean that you "interfered" with it. To pick a simple example: for a particle in a velocity eigenstate (a plane wave, for example), you can measure its velocity all you like, and it remains an un-interfered-with plane wave. (It's also true that this particle has an ill-determined position, but that was the case before you measured the velocity as well as afterwards.)

This is standard freshman/sophomore physics material. Your statements about QM suggest that you've learned it only from sort of pop-science books, not from academic textbooks, or (God forbid) from this Guglinski. Whatever the reason, you have the basics badly wrong.

Please try to learn some quantum mechanics from someone other than Guglinski.

everything you said is wrong
Go back to school

[MattusMaximus]

Before I chase pedrone down this rabbit hole, would someone care to provide me a link to Quantum Ring Theory? If QRT is physics-woo, then that pretty much kills the thread, imo. But I'm willing to look at it first, before I piss myself with laughter.

ETA: A quick Google search yields a lot of apparent connections to cold fusion. Hmm, this is not inspiring much confidence in me regarding QRT.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Guglinsk's "helical trajectory" has a "spiral radius" of R=0.26F.

WRONG.
The spiral radius is not constant.

The spiral radius increases with the decrease of the particle's velocity.

The spiral radius tends to infinite when the particle's velocity tends to zero.

This is calculated in the Claudio Nassif's Symmetric Special Relativity- SSR.


Nassif's first paper on his SSR was published in 2008 in the Journal Pramana

The second paper was published in 2010 in the International Journal of Modern Physics D


The Nassif's review on Quantum Ring Theory in Barnes & Noble, in 2008:

The successor of Quantum Mechanics
I am the author of Symmetrical Special Relativity, which first paper was published by the journal Pramanas in July 2008 under the title: 'Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications'. We, theoretical physicists, develop theories by using the mathematics, some theorems, many axioms, supporting fundamental principles, but there is not a physical reality underlying our theories. Actually one of achivements of the 20th Century is that a physical reality is unatainable in Modern Physics. But Guglinski's theory just supplies physical models to Theoretical Physics. In his theory are proposed physical models for the photon, the fermions, the neutron, the hydrogen atom, the nucleus, and the aether, and his QRT proposes the fundamental principles from which those physical models work. My SSR and Guglinski's QRT are complementary. A future consistent agglutination of SSR and QRT will perform a New Grand Unified Theory which, if confirmed by experiments, will constitute the New Physics of the 21th Century.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Guglinski named it The de Broglie Paradox:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/New_de_Broglie's_Paradox

Thank you for showing just how incompetent Guglinski is yet again .
The stupidity of a "Michelson-Morley experiment for protons" is obvious: the Michelson-Morley experiment was a test for the existence of an aether in which light travels. The null result from it was evidence that the aether did not exist.
Protons are not light despite the spelling of photon being close to that of proton. Protons do not traval in an aether.

But removing the "Michelson-Morley" bit of the title leads to an valid experiment which has does not seem to have been carried out (no citations to it in that crank's web site).

We have

• Protons with one velocity and so a given de Broglie wavelength.
• Protons with another slightly different velocity and so a slightly different de Broglie wavelength.
• If you get constructive interference from the first set of protons then you will not be able to get constructive interference from the second set of protons since Bragg's law will not be met.

No surprise there.
But then the author goes off the deep end: "But suppose that we make this Michelson-Morley experiment for protons, and we get a result showing that the speed 30km/s of the Earth does not have influence on the proton’s diffraction, no matter the direction of the flux of protons with regard to the Earth’s motion".

In other words he is saying: What is Newtonian mechanics is wrong, i.e. if we add a small velocity to another velocity then we get that velocity still.
The de Broglie wavelength depends on the velocitiy of the particle and constructive interference depends on the wavelength. So the only way that the constructive interference would re3main is if the addition of the 2 velocities did not change the original velocity.

He then gets the right picture - the veloctiy to consider is that between the proton and the diffraction crystal. He then sets this to zero and expects the proton to diffract! A small hint: A stationary proton never reaches the crystal !

If this web page is an accurate representation of Guglinski's book then Guglinski is shown to be even more ignorant than I thought.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

WRONG.
The spiral radius is not constant.

What is the spiral radius for a photon?
What is the spiral radius for an electron?
What is the spiral radius for a C60 molecule?

Now take that spiral radiius and see what it means for a typical double-slit experiment.

Whatever it is we can make the distance between the silts bigger than the radius. The particle will not know about the other slit. The interference pattern will

• do strange unspecified things when the distance is less than the spiral radius.
• do nothing (or even stranger unspecified things) the distance is greater than the spiral radius.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

everything you said is wrong
Go back to school

How childish and ignorant of you pedrone.

What ben m said is basic first year QM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben m
Incorrect. "you cannot get its velocity" does not mean that you "interfered" with it. To pick a simple example: for a particle in a velocity eigenstate (a plane wave, for example), you can measure its velocity all you like, and it remains an un-interfered-with plane wave. (It's also true that this particle has an ill-determined position, but that was the case before you measured the velocity as well as afterward.)

If you have a free particle with a specified velocity (an certain velocity eigenstate) then every time that you measure its velocity you get the same value. This free particle will also have an ill-determined position.
Thus every measurement results in a particle that has not been "interfered" with (same velocity).

"You can not measure a quantum particle without interfering with it" is too ambiguous, general and does not follow from the first 2 statements which are about comutting quantities.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

This is calculated in the Claudio Nassif's Symmetric Special Relativity- SSR.

Where was this spiral radius actually calculated in Claudio Nassif's papers?
Deformed Special Relativity with an energy barrier of a minimum speed

Originally Posted by pedrone

The Nassif's review on Quantum Ring Theory in Barnes & Noble, in 2008:

Citing a book review on a web site is dumb. It just makes Guglinski look even more like a crank and deos not inspire confidence in Claudio Nassif who cannot see the Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

http://peswiki.com/index.php/New_de_Broglie's_Paradox

That website yields more crackpottery: "The helical trajectory is known as zitterbewegung, which appears in the Dirac's equation of the electron."
Big problems with this: zitterbewegung

Quote:

The resulting expression consists of an initial position, a motion proportional to time, and an unexpected oscillation term with an amplitude equal to the Compton wavelength. That oscillation term is the so-called "Zitterbewegung."

The Compton wavelength is undefined for a photon.

The Compton wavelength is constant. So you must be lying whan you say that the spiral radius changes. Or maybe the web page author is lying?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Originally Posted by pedrone

Ok, let me prove it mathematically:


1- C is not equal to D

2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C

3 Steinberg experiment showed that A+B = D

4- Sol Invictus claimed that A+B= D is according to Quantum Mechanics.

5- Therefore, according to Sol Invictus, C= D


CONCLUSIONS:
a) Either the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong

b) or Sol Invictus is genius

Or, far more likely, you've completely misunderstood everything.

Evidently, but let’s just double check the mathematical work.

Originally Posted by pedrone

Ok, let me prove it mathematically:


1- C is not equal to D

OK, if that is a limitation you want to place on those two variables, then so be it.

Originally Posted by pedrone

2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C

Please show where “Quantum Mechanics” defines those “A”, “B” and “C” variables and ascribes such an “A+B = C” equality. Otherwise it is simply your own relation of your own variables “A” and “B” to your previously given variable “C”.

Originally Posted by pedrone

3 Steinberg experiment showed that A+B = D

Please show where the “Steinberg experiment” ” defines those “A”, “B” and “D” variables and ascribes such an “A+B = D” equality. Otherwise it is simply your own relation of your own variables “A” and “B” to your previously given variable “D”. Which now directly contradicts your previously given “1- C is not equal to D” limitation.

Originally Posted by pedrone

4- Sol Invictus claimed that A+B= D is according to Quantum Mechanics.

Nope, here again is specifically what Sol asserted…

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I have no idea what "quantum ring theory" is, but the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation.

We're waiting.

Have at it.

Originally Posted by pedrone

5- Therefore, according to Sol Invictus, C= D

Nope, again see above what Sol asserted. However, your algebraic assertions above clearly equate to “C= D” in direct contradiction with your own given limitation upon those variables.

Originally Posted by pedrone

CONCLUSIONS:
a) Either the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong

Unfortunately that ‘CONCLUSION’ simply doesn’t follow from the demonstrably (and most likely deliberately) poor and self-contradictory algebra as given above.

Originally Posted by pedrone

b) or Sol Invictus is genius

Well, perhaps only Sol’s ’hairdresser knows for sure’, but again, unfortunately, that ‘CONCLUSION’ also simply doesn’t follow from the demonstrably (and most likely deliberately) poor and self-contradictory algebra as given above.


About the only conclusion we can draw from the math above is that you are simply or just deliberately very poor at algebra.









The hypothesis is corroborated, Tubbythin, by the mathematical work shown.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by pedrone

WRONG.
The spiral radius is not constant.

The spiral radius increases with the decrease of the particle's velocity.

So that means the “spiral radius is” constant when the “the particle's velocity” is constant. Since a particle’s velocity is always constant in a co-moving reference frame then the “spiral radius” is also constant in that reference frame.

Originally Posted by pedrone

The spiral radius tends to infinite when the particle's velocity tends to zero.

Well then since a particle’s velocity is always zero, for say like an electron, in a co-moving reference frame then the particles “spiral radius” is infinite in that reference frame thus parallel (not any kind of “spiral” there).

Originally Posted by pedrone

This is calculated in the Claudio Nassif's Symmetric Special Relativity- SSR.

By all means, please, let us know when he has a ‘Symmetric General Relativity’.


Calculated at an infinite radius for a co-moving reference frame? You see the problem with tending “to zero” is that the velocity, for say like an electron, is, well, zero in a co-moving reference frame (that’s what makes it co-moving).

Originally Posted by pedrone

Nassif's first paper on his SSR was published in 2008 in the Journal Pramana

The second paper was published in 2010 in the International Journal of Modern Physics D


The Nassif's review on Quantum Ring Theory in Barnes & Noble, in 2008:

The successor of Quantum Mechanics
I am the author of Symmetrical Special Relativity, which first paper was published by the journal Pramanas in July 2008 under the title: 'Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications'. We, theoretical physicists, develop theories by using the mathematics, some theorems, many axioms, supporting fundamental principles, but there is not a physical reality underlying our theories. Actually one of achivements of the 20th Century is that a physical reality is unatainable in Modern Physics. But Guglinski's theory just supplies physical models to Theoretical Physics. In his theory are proposed physical models for the photon, the fermions, the neutron, the hydrogen atom, the nucleus, and the aether, and his QRT proposes the fundamental principles from which those physical models work. My SSR and Guglinski's QRT are complementary. A future consistent agglutination of SSR and QRT will perform a New Grand Unified Theory which, if confirmed by experiments, will constitute the New Physics of the 21th Century.

'Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications'? Oh, no doubt, deformed it so much that it was no longer “special relativity”.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by pedrone

The Nassif's review on Quantum Ring Theory in Barnes & Noble, in 2008:

The successor of Quantum Mechanics
I am the author of Symmetrical Special Relativity, which first paper was published by the journal Pramanas in July 2008 under the title: 'Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications'. We, theoretical physicists, develop theories by using the mathematics, some theorems, many axioms, supporting fundamental principles, but there is not a physical reality underlying our theories. Actually one of achivements of the 20th Century is that a physical reality is unatainable in Modern Physics. But Guglinski's theory just supplies physical models to Theoretical Physics. In his theory are proposed physical models for the photon, the fermions, the neutron, the hydrogen atom, the nucleus, and the aether, and his QRT proposes the fundamental principles from which those physical models work. My SSR and Guglinski's QRT are complementary. A future consistent agglutination of SSR and QRT will perform a New Grand Unified Theory which, if confirmed by experiments, will constitute the New Physics of the 21th Century.

Has Quantum Ring Theory been confirmed by experiment more completely than any other theory in history...you know, like quantum mechanics has been? I'm guessing no.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by pedrone

According to de Broglie concept of duality, the velocity of the Earth would have to influence the result of th Davison-Germer experiment

Nope. All that is of interest is the relative velocity of the particle with respect to the crystal lattice.

Quote:

It's a new version of the Michelson-Morley experiment proposed by Guglijnski, by changing the following:

- you replace the light by a flux of proton
- you replace the Michelson interferometer by a cristal

What? Why call it an new version of the MM experiment? It bares no relation to the MM experiment at all.

Quote:

Actually Michelson-Morley experiment for protons is the Davison-Germer experiment made with protons.

There is no MM experiment for protons.

Quote:

Michelson-Morley experiment for electrons have been already made worlwide: it is the Davison-Germer experiment.

No. The DG experiment is not the MM experiment for electrons.

Quote:

As each laboratory in the world (where the Davison-Germer experiment was made) has a different direction of the electron gun, then according to de Broglie theory each laboratory would have to get a different value of the electron wavelenght

Nope. It only depends on the relative velocity of crystal and lattice.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Thank you for showing just how incompetent Guglinski is yet again .
The stupidity of a "Michelson-Morley experiment for protons" is obvious: the Michelson-Morley experiment was a test for the existence of an aether in which light travels. The null result from it was evidence that the aether did not exist.
Protons are not light despite the spelling of photon being close to that of proton. Protons do not traval in an aether.

But removing the "Michelson-Morley" bit of the title leads to an valid experiment which has does not seem to have been carried out (no citations to it in that crank's web site).

We have

• Protons with one velocity and so a given de Broglie wavelength.
• Protons with another slightly different velocity and so a slightly different de Broglie wavelength.
• If you get constructive interference from the first set of protons then you will not be able to get constructive interference from the second set of protons since Bragg's law will not be met.

No surprise there.
But then the author goes off the deep end: "But suppose that we make this Michelson-Morley experiment for protons, and we get a result showing that the speed 30km/s of the Earth does not have influence on the proton’s diffraction, no matter the direction of the flux of protons with regard to the Earth’s motion".

In other words he is saying: What is Newtonian mechanics is wrong, i.e. if we add a small velocity to another velocity then we get that velocity still.
The de Broglie wavelength depends on the velocitiy of the particle and constructive interference depends on the wavelength. So the only way that the constructive interference would re3main is if the addition of the 2 velocities did not change the original velocity.

Reality Check
go back to school. You know nothing about physics.

1- Do you know the principle of addition of two velocities ?

Such is a fundamental principle of physics, applied to any body.


2- Do you know that a law of physics must be valid for any referential ?

So, take the Sun as a refential for the Davison-Germer experiment.

a) Consider a proton with velocity 32km/s

b) Consider the gun protons pointing out to the same direction of the Earth motion about the Sun. So the velocity of the protons is 32+32 = 64km/s

c) Consider the gun protons pointing out the the contrary diretion of the Earth motion about the Sun. So the velocity of the proton is 32-32 = 0.


Therefore the wavelength of the proton is different when we make the Davison-Germer experiment with different directions of the proton gun.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

He then gets the right picture - the veloctiy to consider is that between the proton and the diffraction crystal. He then sets this to zero and expects the proton to diffract! A small hint: A stationary proton never reaches the crystal !

again, Reality Check, I advise you go back to school.

The proton is not stationary regarding to the crystal.
The proton is stationary regarding to the Sun


CONCLUSION:

In other words: suppose that the Sun becomes cold, and you can go there, and repeat the Davison-Germer experiment in the surface of the Sun.

Well, in the Sun, according to de Broglie theory, the Davison-Germer experiment cannot work.

Therefore the de Broglie theory cannot be correct, since it is not valid in all places of the Universe.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by The Man

Deformed special relativity with an invariant minimum speed and its cosmological implications'? Oh, no doubt, deformed it so much that it was no longer “special relativity”.

The Man, you're the guy.

Why dont you go to work as a reviewer in the journal Pramana and in the International Journal of Modern Physics ?

Go there and teach the reviewers how to make a review in a paper

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Nope. All that is of interest is the relative velocity of the particle with respect to the crystal lattice.


What? Why call it an new version of the MM experiment? It bares no relation to the MM experiment at all.


There is no MM experiment for protons.


No. The DG experiment is not the MM experiment for electrons.


Nope. It only depends on the relative velocity of crystal and lattice.

DAVISON-GERMER EXPERIMENT MADE IN THE SUN

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Reality Check
go back to school. You know nothing about physics.

Well at least you haven't accused him of lying this time..

Quote:

1- Do you know the principle of addition of two velocities ?

Such is a fundamental principle of physics, applied to any body.

Please do tell us what you think this principle is.

Quote:

2- Do you know that a law of physics must be valid for any referential ?

The laws of physics are the same in any given reference frame.

Quote:

So, take the Sun as a refential for the Davison-Germer experiment.

I can take the rest frame of the Sun as the reference frame of choice if that's what you mean. If that's not what you mean then you need to start all over again.

Quote:

a) Consider a proton with velocity 32km/s

That is not a velocity. That is a speed. You need to give some kind of direction with that. Towards the Sun? Away from the Sun.

Quote:

b) Consider the gun protons pointing out to the same direction of the Earth motion about the Sun. So the velocity of the protons is 32+32 = 64km/s

Err. No. The Sun is at rest in its rest frame. So the velocity of the protons is 32 km/s in which ever direction you failed to mention in part a.

Quote:

c) Consider the gun protons pointing out the the contrary diretion of the Earth motion about the Sun. So the velocity of the proton is 32-32 = 0.

No, you already implicitly stated that the relative velocity of the proton is 32km/s with respect to the Sun in some direction.

Quote:

Therefore the wavelength of the proton is different when we make the Davison-Germer experiment with different directions of the proton gun.

Nope. The whole explanation of the experiment is defined in terms of the rest frame of the crystal. If you're not in the rest frame of the crystal you have a completely different equation for describing the peaks observed.

Quote:

again, Reality Check, I advise you go back to school.

I'd suggest the same to you.

Quote:

The proton is not stationary regarding to the crystal.
The proton is stationary regarding to the Sun

Pardon.

Quote:

CONCLUSION:

In other words: suppose that the Sun becomes cold, and you can go there, and repeat the Davison-Germer experiment in the surface of the Sun.

Well, in the Sun, according to de Broglie theory, the Davison-Germer experiment cannot work.

Of course it can.

Quote:

Therefore the de Broglie theory cannot be correct, since it is not valid in all places of the Universe.

Except it is. You're just incapable of doing co-ordinate transformations.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by pedrone

DAVISON-GERMER EXPERIMENT MADE IN THE SUN

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...8f4cecb982.png

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...8f56d0e311.png

Err? In the top frame the proton is moving towards the crystal at 30 km/s. In the bottom frame it is moving towards the crystal at 32 km/s. Did you mean that. And what these proton velocities measured relative to? The rest frame of the cart or the rest frame of the ground?

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by pedrone

The Man, you're the guy.

Why dont you go to work as a reviewer in the journal Pramana and in the International Journal of Modern Physics ?

Go there and teach the reviewers how to make a review in a paper

He probably has better things to do with his life.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Err? In the top frame the proton is moving towards the crystal at 30 km/s. In the bottom frame it is moving towards the crystal at 32 km/s. Did you mean that. And what these proton velocities measured relative to? The rest frame of the cart or the rest frame of the ground?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

1- Do you know the principle of addition of two velocities ?
...snipped display of ignorance...
Therefore the de Broglie theory cannot be correct, since it is not valid in all places of the Universe.

pedrone
go back to school. You know nothing about physics.

1- I know the classical and SR laws of addition of two velocities.

2- I know that a law of physics must be valid for any frame of reference is a postulate of relatifvity.

The de Broglie wavelength law is valid for any frame of reference.
It does not give the same value for every reference frame because every reference frame can have a different velocity. In the lab frame a proton has one wavelength. In the Sun frame it has another.

This relationship has been extensively tested and found to be correct for

Quote:

Elementary particles
In 1927 at Bell Labs, Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer fired slow-moving electrons at a crystalline nickel target. The angular dependence of the reflected electron intensity was measured, and was determined to have the same diffraction pattern as those predicted by Bragg for x-rays.
...
Neutral atoms
Experiments with Fresnel diffraction[3] and specular reflection[4][5] of neutral atoms confirm the application of the de Broglie hypothesis to atoms
...
Waves of molecules
Recent experiments even confirm the relations for molecules and even macromolecules, which are normally considered too large to undergo quantum mechanical effects. In 1999, a research team in Vienna demonstrated diffraction for molecules as large as fullerenes.[10] The researchers calculated a De Broglie wavelength of the most probable C60 velocity as 2.5 pm. More recent experiments proof the quantum nature of molecules with a mass up to 6910 amu.[11]

[MattusMaximus]

Okay, so multiple posts later no basic explanation of QRT for me to chew on from Pedrone, who I assume is the QRT champion here.

Ah well, moving on...

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by pedrone

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...90e3f84f19.png

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...90e5760ad8.png

And?

Edit: Ok, so I missed the labels underneath the first time. But please explain, what does this have to do with anything.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

pedrone
go back to school. You know nothing about physics.

1- I know the classical and SR laws of addition of two velocities.

2- I know that a law of physics must be valid for any frame of reference is a postulate of relatifvity.

Davison-Germer experiment with protons
made in the Earth
is equivalent to
the following Davison-Germer experiment
made in the Sun:

figure 1



figure 2



Interpretation of the Davison-Germer experiment made in the Sun:

1- De Broglie postulate does not state that wavelength L = h/mv depends on the relative velocity between the particle and the crystal

2- De Broglie interpretation states that duality wave-particle is a property of the matter.


Therefore (as according to de Broglie the duality is a property of the matter) then the wavelength must depend on the velocity v of the particle regarding to a refential.


So, consider the Sun as the referential.

CONCLUSION:
a) In the figure 1 the velocity of proton is zero

b) Therefore its wavelength is infinite

c) So, the proton cannot suffer difraction into the crystal

What is wrong with de Broglie postulate ?

De Broglie's postulate is wrong because it states that duality wave-particle is a property of the matter.

Duality wave-particle is NOT a property of the matter.

Actually the duality is a property of the helical trajectory of particles

We can continue to apply the de Broglie relation L = h/mv.
Such relation is NOT wrong.

What changes is the new interpretation for duality:

Duality wave-particle is NOT a property of the matter

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by pedrone

1- De Broglie postulate does not state that wavelength L = h/mv depends on the relative velocity between the particle and the crystal

The Bragg peaks relate the spacing in the crystal structure as seen by the crystal srtucture. Therefore the lamba in the equation is the wavelength as seen by the stationary crystal.

Quote:

2- De Broglie interpretation states that duality wave-particle is a property of the matter.

That is a nonsense sentence.

Quote:

Therefore (as according to de Broglie the duality is a property of the matter) then the wavelength must depend on the velocity v of the particle regarding to a refential.

Again. Another non-English sentence.

Quote:

So, consider the Sun as the referential.

That make no sense. Referential is an adjective. You might as well consider the Sun as a brown or as a wet or as a brightly.

Quote:

CONCLUSION:
a) In the figure 1 the velocity of proton is zero

As observed by somebody in the rest frame of the Sun.

Quote:

b) Therefore its wavelength is infinite

As above.

Quote:

c) So, the proton cannot suffer difraction into the crystal

Of course it can since it is the wavelength as seen by the crystal lattice that is important.

Quote:

What is wrong with de Broglie postulate ?

Nothing.

Quote:

De Broglie's postulate is wrong because it states that duality wave-particle is a property of the matter.

Another nonsensical statement.

Quote:

Duality wave-particle is NOT a property of the matter.

Duality wave-particle does not make any sense in the English language. You are talking complete gibberish.

Quote:

Actually the duality is a property of the helical trajectory of particles

Actually it isn't.

Quote:

We can continue to apply the de Broglie relation L = h/mv.
Such relation is NOT wrong.

It was never wrong.

Quote:

What changes is the new interpretation for duality:

Your original interpretation was nonsense. It did not conform to the rules of the English language.

Quote:

Duality wave-particle is NOT a property of the matter

Quote:

Quote:

Duality-wave particle does not mean anything in the English language.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

1- De Broglie postulate does not state that wavelength L = h/mv depends on the relative velocity between the particle and the crystal

Correct: The de Broglie wavelength law just has momentum in it.
But the de Broglie wavelength law does not have a proton or a crystal in it !
Where the relative velocity comes in is the Bragg condition for constructive interference. The wavelength that the crystal sees the particles as having is determined by the velocity of the particles relative to the crystal.

Originally Posted by pedrone

2- De Broglie interpretation states that duality wave-particle is a property of the matter.

Yes: The De Broglie interpretation states that duality wave-particle is a property of the matter.

Originally Posted by pedrone

Therefore (as according to de Broglie the duality is a property of the matter) then the wavelength must depend on the velocity v of the particle regarding to a refential.

Originally Posted by pedrone

And it does: de Broglie wavelength

Originally Posted by pedrone

What is wrong with de Broglie postulate ?

Nothing except you being unable to understand that

1. The de Broglie wavelength has actually been measured for elementary particles, neutral atoms and molecules.
2. The de Broglie wavelength and Bragg's law are two different things.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

CONCLUSION:
a) In the figure 1 the velocity of proton is zero

b) Therefore its wavelength is infinite

Firstly I will emphasis that it is not the Sun to which the Bragg law is being applied () - it is the crystal. It is the wavelength of the particle that the crystal sees that matters.

Secondly a nitpick: A velocity of zero (and so a momentum of zero) does not give an infinite wavelength. It gives an undefined wavelength. Division by zero has no meaning: "In ordinary (real number) arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (a≠0)."

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

The Bragg peaks relate the spacing in the crystal structure as seen by the crystal srtucture. Therefore the lamba in the equation is the wavelength as seen by the stationary crystal.


That is a nonsense sentence.


Again. Another non-English sentence.


That make no sense. Referential is an adjective. You might as well consider the Sun as a brown or as a wet or as a brightly.


As observed by somebody in the rest frame of the Sun.


As above.


Of course it can since it is the wavelength as seen by the crystal lattice that is important.


Nothing.


Another nonsensical statement.


Duality wave-particle does not make any sense in the English language. You are talking complete gibberish.


Actually it isn't.


It was never wrong.


Your original interpretation was nonsense. It did not conform to the rules of the English language.


Duality-wave particle does not mean anything in the English language.

Each one may get his own conclusions.
As shown herein, de Broglie's interpretation violates the principle which states that a law must be verified in any referential.

So, de Broglie's interpretation of duality is wrong. The duality cannot be a property of the matter.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Each one may get his own conclusions.
As shown herein, de Broglie's interpretation violates the principle which states that a law must be verified in any referential.

So, de Broglie's interpretation of duality is wrong. The duality cannot be a property of the matter.

Still wrong:
There is only one conclusion - de Broglie's interpretation is consistant with the principle which states that a law must be the same in any frame of reference.

There is no "principle which states that a law must be verified in any referential" because there is no such thing as a referential - the word is an adjective not a noun, an adjective describes something, a noun is something. Thus "blue duck" has adjective = blue, noun = "duck"
You probably mean a frame of reference.

The principle of relativity is that "The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other".

The de Broglie wavelength law does not describe how a system undergoes change. It is consistent with the principle of relativity because it appears the same in all frames of reference.

[Tim Thompson]

Originally Posted by pedrone

The new experiment also denies Quantum Mechanics.

Originally Posted by pedrone

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Really? What is it about this experimental result that cannot be explained using standard quantum physics?

One principle of Quantum Mechanics is the following:
- a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as particle at the same time
The new experiment made by Aephraim Steinberg has shown that such principle is wrong.

Originally Posted by pedrone

Guglinski's reply to Julian Brown, in the Andrea Rossi website:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physic...p=497#comments

To: Julian Brown
Dear Julian
One principle of Quantum Mechanics is the following:

- a quantum particle can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but it cannot behave as wave and as particle at the same time

Hah! Everything you & Guglinski say is wrong! Go back to school!

There is no such principle in quantum mechanics!

What you are trying to refer to is the principle of complementarity, but it does not mean what you or Guglinski think it means.

Here is what it really means (emphasis from the original, not me):

"Complementarity
It is impossible to perform a single experiment that will allow the position and momentum of a particle to be known simultaneously with an accuracy that violates (2.43), and yet one can perform certain experiments that make ∆x very small and others that do the same for ∆p. It is impossible to establish in a single experiment that something acts like both a wave and a particle, and yet each aspect has been carefully explored. We build up our picture of reality from experiments which do not duplicate each other but compliment each other. The resulting composite picture shows the world as classical physics sees it, but indeterminacy prevents us from using this picture to make definite predictions of physical phenomena. (In this sense it is often observed that causality is no longer strictly observed in quantum mechanics). On the other hand, the laws of quantum theory are perfectly definite, but because a quantum mechanical calculation analyzes the world only as revealed in some particular experiment, the calculation does not fully express our sense of reality as derived from many complementary experiments. Thus the classical view and the quantum view also stand in a complementary relation to each other. This relation was first pointed out by Bohr and called by him the principle of complementarity. Bohr has discussed a number of instances of complementarity outside of physics, for example, that which exists between the exact definition of a term and its use in creative thought, but in general its further implications remain relatively unexplored."

From the textbook Introduction to the Quantum Theory by David Park (2005 Dover reprint of McGraw Hill 3rd edition 1992; I used the 1964 first edition as an undergraduate student), pages 58-59 in section 2.7, "Particles and Waves". The reference to (2.43) is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Clearly there is no such principle as Pedrone & Guglinski claim, that something cannot behave as both a particle and a wave; of course it can, of course it will, and quantum mechanics requires that any quantum particle will in fact do exactly what Pedrone & Guglinski wrongly claim it cannot do. The correct claim is that no single experiment can reveal simultaneous particle and wave properties for any quantum particle.

Now fast forward to the experiment that Pedrone insanely claims falsifies quantum mechanics.

Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer
Sacha Kocsis, et al., Science 332(6034): 1170 (June 2011)
{Note that Steinberg is the last of 7 authors, so crediting him as having performed the experiment is a stretch at best}
Abstract: "A consequence of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle is that one may not discuss the path or “trajectory” that a quantum particle takes, because any measurement of position irrevocably disturbs the momentum, and vice versa. Using weak measurements, however, it is possible to operationally define a set of trajectories for an ensemble of quantum particles. We sent single photons emitted by a quantum dot through a double-slit interferometer and reconstructed these trajectories by performing a weak measurement of the photon momentum, postselected according to the result of a strong measurement of photon position in a series of planes. The results provide an observationally grounded description of the propagation of subensembles of quantum particles in a two-slit interferometer."

I first note that (1) the principle of complementarity does not restrict the behavior of a particle, but only our ability to measure particle properties, and (2) the principle of complementarity as put forth by Bohr specifically refers only to a single experiment. Now, that said, I point out from the abstract that this paper does not reference a single experiment, but rather a family of experiments. So the authors are using a family of experiments to derive average trajectories for a population of particles. Specifically, they do not actually measure the trajectory of any single particle. Hence, these experiments do not in any way violate the properly stated principle of complementarity.

Now, in the paper, pages 1170-1171 we find this:

"Particle-like trajectories and wavelike interference are 'complementary' aspects of the behavior of a quantum system, and an experiment designed to observe one necessarily gives up the option of observing the other. However, it is possible to 'weakly' measure a system, gaining some information about one property, without appreciably disturbing the future evolution; although the information obtained from any individual measurement is limited, averaging over many trials determines an accurate mean value for the observable of interest, even for subensembles defined by some subsequent selection (perhaps even on a complementary observable). It was recently pointed out that this provides a natural way to operationally define a set of particle trajectories: One can ascertain the mean momentum of the subensemble of particles that arrive at any given position, and, by thus determining the momentum at many positions in a series of planes, one can experimentally reconstruct a set of average trajectories. We use a modified version of this protocol to reconstruct the 'weak-valued trajectories' followed by single photons as they undergo two-slit interference. In the case of single-particle quantum mechanics, the trajectories measured in this fashion reproduce those predicted in the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation of quantum mechanics." {See original for citations in the text that I have not reproduced here - TT}

And finally, on page 1173 of the paper we find this:

"Controversy surrounding role of measurement in quantum mechanics is as old as the quantum theory itself, and nowhere have the paradoxes been thrown into such stark relief as in the context of the double slit experiment. Our experimentally observed trajectories provide an intuitive picture of the way in which a single particle interferes with itself. It is of course impossible to rigorously discuss the trajectory of an individual particle, but in a well defined operational sense we gain information about the average momentum of the particle at each position within the interferometer, leading to a set of 'average trajectories'."

I want to first comment on the loose language in the paper. While the intended target of professional scientists are supposed to get the point, others may well miss it. There are multiple references in the paper to "observed" and "experimental" trajectories. But the description of how the trajectories are obtained is explicit: The are reconstructed after the fact, based on other data, and are in fact only averages or statistical expectation values, not directly observed. Hence, the reference especially to "observed" trajectories is misleading. They are not observed, they are reconstructed; the authors do say that explicitly, and it's a point that must be kept up front.

My conclusions are thus:

• The claim made by Pedrone & Guglinski, that no particle can behave simultaneously as a particle and a wave, is overtly false, evidently based on a misunderstanding of the principle of complementarity in quantum mechanics. This by itself is sufficient to end the discussion on the point that their claims regarding this experiment stand falsified.
• There is nothing in the experiments as reported in the paper which "falsify" quantum mechanics, as claimed, although the reference to the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation appears to at least support a minority position against the more common Copenhagen interpretation.
• I would prefer more careful use of language in papers; things labeled "observed" should actually be observed, not reconstructed from observations after-the-fact.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I have no idea what "quantum ring theory" is, but the results of that experiment are perfectly consistent with standard QM. Anyone claiming otherwise must demonstrate mathematically that the results are inconsistent with the Schrodinger equation.

We're waiting.

Still waiting....

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Each one may get his own conclusions.

Yours just happen to be absurdly wrong. Which is hardly uncommon for you.

Quote:

As shown herein, de Broglie's interpretation violates the principle which states that a law must be verified in any referential.

That sentence doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You may mean that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frame. That is most certainly not violated here.

Quote:

So, de Broglie's interpretation of duality is wrong.

Nope

Quote:

The duality cannot be a property of the matter.

Quote:

That isn't really even a meaningful sentence.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Ok, let me prove it mathematically:


1- C is not equal to D

2-According to Quantum Mechanics, A+B = C

3 Steinberg experiment showed that A+B = D

4- Sol Invictus claimed that A+B= D is according to Quantum Mechanics.

5- Therefore, according to Sol Invictus, C= D


CONCLUSIONS:
a) Either the own Quantum Mechanics proves that Quantum Mechanics is wrong

b) or Sol Invictus is genius

Once again, you seem to have forgotten to include the mathematical proof.

Unless you think that the above actually constitutes the proof, which would just be sad. . .

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

He probably has better things to do with his life.

Well, that one didn't take much time at all, and I do have some spare time. I wonder how much they would pay?

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Hah! Everything you & Guglinski say is wrong! Go back to school!

There is no such principle in quantum mechanics!

Tell it to Aephraim Steinberg !

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Tell it to Aephraim Steinberg !

Considering the last time you misquoted a source for over a month and called people liars, because you were wrong, you may want to reconsider your phrasing there.

So where exactly do you have a quote of Aephraim Steinberg saying such a thing. A quote, meaning the words that he used, not the words of a reporter. theya re usually the ones that appear within " " marks and in research papers.

I looked at the article you cited Pedrone, the parts tahts eem significant to your argument, seem to be the words of the reporter not Aephraim Steinberg, so you are behaving in a very strange fashion.

So I will ask you again, which part's of Aephraim Steinberg's comments are the ones that contradict QM, exact words and sources, please make sure they are not conjecture by the reporter.

[Dancing David]

In fact pedrone here is the most likely source for the quotes that you have alleged

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...ferometer.html

Quote:

An international team of researchers, led by University of Toronto physicist Aephraim Steinberg of the Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control, have found a way to do just that by applying a modern measurement technique to the historic two-slit interferometer experiment in which a beam of light shone through two slits results in an interference pattern on a screen behind.

That famous experiment, and the 1927 Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein debates, seemed to establish that you could not watch a particle go through one of two slits without destroying the interference effect: you had to choose which phenomenon to look for.

"Quantum measurement has been the philosophical elephant in the room of quantum mechanics for the past century," says Steinberg, who is lead author of Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer, to be published in Science on June 2. "However, in the past 10 to 15 years, technology has reached the point where detailed experiments on individual quantum systems really can be done, with potential applications such as quantum cryptography and computation."

With this new experiment, the researchers have succeeded for the first time in experimentally reconstructing full trajectories which provide a description of how light particles move through the two slits and form an interference pattern. Their technique builds on a new theory of weak measurement that was developed by Yakir Aharonov's group at Tel Aviv University. Howard Wiseman of Griffith University proposed that it might be possible to measure the direction a photon (particle of light) was moving, conditioned upon where the photon is found. By combining information about the photon's direction at many different points, one could construct its entire flow pattern ie. the trajectories it takes to a screen.

"In our experiment, a new single-photon source developed at the National Institute for Standards and Technology in Colorado was used to send photons one by one into an interferometer constructed at Toronto. We then used a quartz calcite, which has an effect on light that depends on the direction the light is propagating, to measure the direction as a function of position. Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie," said Steinberg.

The original double-slit experiment played a central role in the early development of quantum mechanics, leading directly to Bohr's formulation of the principle of complementarity. Complementarity states that observing particle-like or wave-like behaviour in the double-slit experiment depends on the type of measurement made: the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously. Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this doesn't have to be the case: the system can behave as both.

"By applying a modern measurement technique to the historic double-slit experiment, we were able to observe the average particle trajectories undergoing wave-like interference, which is the first observation of its kind. This result should contribute to the ongoing debate over the various interpretations of quantum theory," said Steinberg. "It shows that long-neglected questions about the different types of measurement possible in quantum mechanics can finally be addressed in the lab, and weak measurements such as the sort we use in this work may prove crucial in studying all sorts of new phenomena.

"But mostly, we are all just thrilled to be able to see, in some sense, what a photon does as it goes through an interferometer, something all of our textbooks and professors had always told us was impossible."

Can you point to him contradicting QM here?

[pedrone]

CONCLUSIONS

1) There is a principle in Quantum Mechanics:

- a quantum particle can be either a particle or a wave, but it cannot be at the same time particle and wave.

The principle was considered untouchable along the 20th Century.

Such principle is consequence of de Broglie's interpretation on the duality wave-particle. Because according to his interpretation, the duality is a property of the matter.

Well, it makes no sense the matter to be particle and wave at the same time. That's why, according to de Broglie's interpretation, a quantum particle cannot be wave and particle at the same time.





2) In 2006 Guglinski published his book "Quantum Ring Theory-Foundations for Cold Fusion", in which he shows that de Broglie's interpretation violates a fundamental principle of Physics: a law must be valid in any referential.

Therefore, according to Guglinski de Broglie interpretation cannot be correct. In another words: the duality cannot be a property of matter.





3) Now in june-2011 Aephraim Steinberg published a new experiment where he showed that it's wrong that principle untouchable in the 20th Century:

Steinberg experiment shows that a quantum particle can be, at the same time, a wave and a particle.

As that principle of the 20th Century was based on the interpretation that duality is a property of the matter, then obviously Steinberg experiment implies that de Broglie's interpretation is wrong.

In another words: Steinberg's experiment implies that duality cannot be a property of matter.

So, Steinberg experiment reinforces Guglinski's argument that de Broglie interpretation is wrong.





4) David Bohm proposed a new interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. His theory suggests that Quantum Mechanics is just a tip of an enormous iceberg submerged under the water surface.


The rest of the iceberg, suggested by David Bohm, is unveiled by Guglinski's Quantum Ring Theory.


The 2011 Steinberg's experiment is showing that David Bohm was right: Quantum Mechanics is only a tip of an enourmous iceberg...





5) Now he need only to wait for more new experiments. They will show if Quantum Ring Theory is actually the rest of the iceberg suggested by David Bohm.

[Dancing David]

In the Google translation of your citation here are the actual quotes of Steinberg

Quote:

"In the last 10 or 15 years, technology has reached a point that allows the realization of detailed experiments on individual quantum systems [without interfering with them], with potential applications such as cryptography and quantum computing," says Steinberg.

Quote:

"We then use a quartz crystal called calcite, which has an effect on the light depends on the direction in which light is propagating to measure the direction as a function of position," he explains.

Quote:

"Under the usual interpretation of quantum mechanics, we can not put the question of what would have happened previously in time. But aa weak measurement allows us to do this," Steinberg concludes.

So where is Steinberg saying that he has contradicted QM?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by pedrone

CONCLUSIONS

1) There is a principle in Quantum Mechanics:

- a quantum particle can be either a particle or a wave, but it cannot be at the same time particle and wave.

The principle was considered untouchable along the 20th Century.

By who, when and where exactly?

You failed before, so maybe this time you can support your strawman before you attack it. So where are your quotes, especially from say things like modern textbooks, I read all of Helge Kragh: Quantum Generations. A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, so maybe I missed it but where was this enshrined anywhere as a principle of QM?

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

In fact pedrone here is the most likely source for the quotes that you have alleged

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...ferometer.html


An international team of researchers, led by University of Toronto physicist Aephraim Steinberg of the Centre for Quantum Information and Quantum Control, have found a way to do just that by applying a modern measurement technique to the historic two-slit interferometer experiment in which a beam of light shone through two slits results in an interference pattern on a screen behind.

That famous experiment, and the 1927 Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein debates, seemed to establish that you could not watch a particle go through one of two slits without destroying the interference effect: you had to choose which phenomenon to look for.

"Quantum measurement has been the philosophical elephant in the room of quantum mechanics for the past century," says Steinberg, who is lead author of Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer, to be published in Science on June 2. "However, in the past 10 to 15 years, technology has reached the point where detailed experiments on individual quantum systems really can be done, with potential applications such as quantum cryptography and computation."

With this new experiment, the researchers have succeeded for the first time in experimentally reconstructing full trajectories which provide a description of how light particles move through the two slits and form an interference pattern. Their technique builds on a new theory of weak measurement that was developed by Yakir Aharonov's group at Tel Aviv University. Howard Wiseman of Griffith University proposed that it might be possible to measure the direction a photon (particle of light) was moving, conditioned upon where the photon is found. By combining information about the photon's direction at many different points, one could construct its entire flow pattern ie. the trajectories it takes to a screen.

"In our experiment, a new single-photon source developed at the National Institute for Standards and Technology in Colorado was used to send photons one by one into an interferometer constructed at Toronto. We then used a quartz calcite, which has an effect on light that depends on the direction the light is propagating, to measure the direction as a function of position. Our measured trajectories are consistent, as Wiseman had predicted, with the realistic but unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics of such influential thinkers as David Bohm and Louis de Broglie," said Steinberg.

The original double-slit experiment played a central role in the early development of quantum mechanics, leading directly to Bohr's formulation of the principle of complementarity. Complementarity states that observing particle-like or wave-like behaviour in the double-slit experiment depends on the type of measurement made: the system cannot behave as both a particle and wave simultaneously. Steinberg's recent experiment suggests this doesn't have to be the case: the system can behave as both."By applying a modern measurement technique to the historic double-slit experiment, we were able to observe the average particle trajectories undergoing wave-like interference, which is the first observation of its kind. This result should contribute to the ongoing debate over the various interpretations of quantum theory," said Steinberg. "It shows that long-neglected questions about the different types of measurement possible in quantum mechanics can finally be addressed in the lab, and weak measurements such as the sort we use in this work may prove crucial in studying all sorts of new phenomena.

"But mostly, we are all just thrilled to be able to see, in some sense, what a photon does as it goes through an interferometer, something all of our textbooks and professors had always told us was impossible."



Can you point to him contradicting QM here?