THE "OLD" QUANTUM MECHANICS (OQM) 

Below is a paper outlining my attempt to replace the Old Quantum Mechanics

(OQM) with an improved Classical Physics. A look at the statement of Stephen Weinberg (below) indicates that he, at least, thinks that it is impossible to modify Quantum Mechanics.

OQM is based on the second order partial differential equations of E. Schrödinger. Remember that any continuous, differentiable function or combination thereof can be solutions of a partial differential equation, particularly a second order equation. Even with this latitude, the quantum mechanicists are only able to give a qualitative picture of atomic phenomena, with "probability magnitudes" indicating where the particles are, where "spins" aren’t really spins but some sort of half-integer properties of particles, and where immense nuclear forces between protons are mediated by "virtual mesons" that disappear at each mediation. It is my contention that all these phenomena can be explained by a physics based on Newton’s Laws and Weber (or Gaussian) Electrodynamics.

Several of my papers are referenced. I will send copies of them upon request, by e-mail or snail mail if necessary. I think they go a long way in explaining why the basis of OQM is fatally flawed. If OQM is brought down, QED and Strings have no basis.

Remember Wieinberg’s quote.

A CRITICAL LOOK AT THE BASIS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

                                     

                                      Clarence L. Dulaney

Abstract: The "old’ quantum mechanics is based primarily on M. Planck’s theory of "black body" radiation which was given credence by A. Einstein’s explanation of the photoelectric effect, and by the Compton effect, and secondarily by the Rutherford concept of an extremely small atomic nucleus, followed by N. Bohr’s "solar" hydrogen atom where the electrons rotate in "quantum allowed" orbits. The latter, along with L. de Broglie’s concept of matter waves led to Schrödinger’s Wave Mechanics.

Several papers are referenced indicating that these basic precepts are subject to alternate interpretations.

THE "OLD’ QUANTUM THEORY

            This paper considers the beginnings of the "old" quantum mechanics (OQM), that is "wave" (or "matrix") mechanics and why it was able to supplant "classical" physics in approximately 30 years1

            The period started at the turn of the century. Probably the beginning was the discovery of the electron in 18972, although the statistical theories of L. Boltzmann and J. Maxwell of the 1870’s were a basic explanation of the properties of ideal gases, and had had some success in explaining even entropy thereof. Molecules (atoms) of ideal gases were considered to be undistinguishable, undeformable spheres.

            The classic theory of light considered it to be uniformly distributed in frequency. There was no agreement as to whether light was wavelike as postulated by Huygens and Young, or corpuscular as claimed by Newton.

BLACK BODY RADIATION AND PLANCK’S CONSTANT

            In 1901, Planck3 introduced his "quantum" hypothesis to explain the energy of ‘black-body" radiation. The explanation he gave was that, if light was considered as made up from statistical "particles", they must be distinguishable and have energies hf where f is the frequency and h a constant equal to 6.624 x 10-27 erg sec.

            Planck’s idea was slow in being accepted. The 1905 paper of A. Einstein concerning the photoelectric effect4 was a major step in the process of approval of Planck’s concept. Einstein stated that the "instantaneous" production of photoelectrons indicates that light must be made up of quantum particles, (later called photons) which knock the electrons out of the metal surface.

NUCLEAR SIZE AND BOHR’S "SOLAR" ATOM

Rutherford and his students in 19115 passed a-particles through thin gold films. They found that about 1 in 20,000 of the particles were deflected at angles greater than 90°. It was reasoned that the anomalously deflected particles passed close to the nuclei of gold atoms, and were affected by the electrostatic field of the positive nucleus. By a relatively simple calculartion based on Coulomb’s Law, they determined that the gold nuclei must be on the order of 10-12cm in diameter.

            The small nucleus concept essentially led directly to the "solar" atom hypothesis for the hydrogen atom propounded by N. Bohr6. Bohr reasoned that electrons would not continuously radiate energy if they rotated in orbits in which their angular momentum varied as an integral multiple of h/2p.

BOHR IN COPENHAGEN

            In 1920 Bohr became head of the Danish Institute of Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen. He was able to attract many brilliant, mostly young, physicists who helped him give birth to the OQM, particularly the Matrix Mechanics of W. Heisenberg, and the "Copenhagen Interpretation". See Gamow’s book, p-52 for a listing of the "Copenhagen physicists".

DE BROGLIE AND WAVE MECHANICS

            In 1925, L. de Broglie7 presented a doctoral thesis to the Sorbonne in which he outlined his theory of matter waves (this was primarily an amplification of Bohr’s theory of the electron orbits for the hydrogen atom.)

            Building on de Broglie’s idea, E. Schrödinger8 in 1926 developed his theory of "Wave Mechanics". Almost simultaneously, Heisenberg9 published his (non-commuting) theory of Matrix Mechanics, which was later shown to be "equivalent" to wave mechanics.

            There are other aspects of OQM, such as the Pauli exclusion principle, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Particle Spin to name only a few, but Wave (Matrix) Mechanics is undoubtedly the basis.

QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS AND STRINGS

            Suffice to say that present day quantum physics has become extremely abstruse, requiring faith similar to that of an Eastern Religion. See for example the "Tao of Physics"10. However, this paper deals only with OQM.

            All the university physics departments and physics journals are manned by Quantum Mechanicists and Relativists. and no papers submitted to the journals that are markedly critical of quantum mechanics are even read. If a paper perchance should get by the editor, the system of secret referees is designed by its nature to protect the system from contamination by new or different ideas.

There are some questions among the establishment (professors with tenure), but they concern only alterations of the theory. Two that come to mind are "Quantum Uncertainties"11 and "The Meaning of Quantum Theory"12

SHIFTING SANDS

            It is the contention of this paper that OQM is flawed at is basis, both in Bohr’s theory of the "solar" hydrogen atom, and in the interpretation of Planck’s hypothesis. See the paper "Planck’s Constant and the Energy of Radiation"13. It is shown that it is not necessary to have "particles" of radiation. In the paper "The Stationary Hydrogen Atom"14 it is explained how wavelets of light are formed by electron transitions in atoms. It is further demonstrated how electrodynamics operates to produce electromagnetic radiation in the paper "Why ‘C”"15

            The Planck paper shows that "photons" are not necessary to explain the photoelectric effect or the Compton effect. As the latter two effects, and particularly the Debye theory of specific heats of solids illustrate, Planck’s constant is a universal constant for all atomic scale processes involving vibration. The energy of the vibration is given by hf, where f is the frequency involved,

            The timing of Rutherford’s paper on nuclear size was unfortunate, as indicated by the paper "Nuclear Size"16.. If the experiment had been run 10 years later, the "anomalous" effect undoubtedly would have been interpreted as being due to a transmutation reaction involving production of an electron17. Thus, the nuclear diameter may be much nearer the kinetic theory size (and electrons may be able to exist in nuclei). See the paper "What is an Atom"18 as to why there is no such thing as a neutron.

            "The Stationary Hydrogen Atom" along with "Charge vs Speed"19 shows why Bohr’s hydrogen atom theory was flawed electrically, mechanically and energetically.

THE NEW CLASSICAL PHYSICS

            The OQM is only able to give a semi-quantitative picture of atomic and molecular phenomena, since all the wave mechanics is based on after-the-fact data. Whenever anomalies crop up, concepts such as "quantum tunneling" are invented. It should definitely be possible to develop at least as good classically based theories, without all the mumbo-jumbo involved in OQM. The basic concept that will simplify explanation of atomic phenomena is that of charge decrease with speed.

EPILOGUE

            A quote from S. Weinberg20, " I simply do not know how to change quantum mechanics by a small amount without wrecking it altogether."

 

REFERENCES

1. G. Gamow, "Thirty Years That Shook Physics", Doubleday, NY, (1966)

2. E. Davis and I. Falconer, "J. J. Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron", Taylor

and Francis, London, (1997)

3. M. Planck, Ann. der Physik, 4, 553 (1901)

4. A. Einstein, Ann. der Physik, 17, 132, (1905)

5. E. Rutherford, Phil Mag. 21, 669 (1911)

6. N. Bohr, Phil. Mag. 26, 1 and 857 (1913)

7. L. de Broglie and L. Brillioun, "Selected Papers on Wave Mechanics", Blackie,

London (1928)

8. E. Schrödinger, Ann. der Physik, 79, 361, (1926)

9. W. Heisenberg, Zeit für Physik, 43, 172 (1927)

10. F. Capra, "The Tao of Physics", Shambhala, Boston, (1991)

11. "Quantum Uncertanties" edited by W. Honig, D. Kraft, and E. Panarella, Plenum, NY

(1989)

12, J. Baggott, The Meaning of Quantum Theory", Oxford, NY (1992)

13. C. Dulaney, "Planck’s Constant and the Energy of Radiation", ………………………..

http://sites.netscape.net/clarencedulaney/homepage

14. C. Dulaney, "The Stationary Hydrogen Atom",………………………………………….. http://sites.netscape.com/clarencedulaney/index.html

15. C. Dulaney, "Why ‘C’”, http://sites.netscape.com/clarencedulaney/index.html  

16. C. Dulaney, "The Size of the Nucleus", http://sites.netscape.com/clarencedulaney/index.html

17. E. Rutherford, Phil Mag., 31, 581 (1919)

18. C. Dulaney, "What is an Atom", http://sites.netscape.com/clarencedulaney/index.html

19. C. Dulaney, "Charge vs Speed”, ibid

20. S. Weinberg, "Dreams of a Final Theory", Pantheon, NY, (1992), p-88

Note:  All references http://sites.netscape.net/clarencedulaney/homepage have been changed after 12/12/01 to http://mywebpage.netscape.com/clarencedulaney/index.html

© 7/2002

Clarence L. Dulaney