Thanks Eric, I have replied there.
An interesting question about electron microscope has appeared there - it turns out they can reach resolution below 50pm: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab…03/PhysRevLett.102.096101
that's smaller than radius of most of atoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ly_measured_atomic_radius
So which of two natures such electron beam has? 
Don't fight for semantic details! Models are there for supporting the imagination of human brains.
These are not just some unimportant semantic details - being satisfied with magical explanations, like "shut up and calculate", "if you think you understand QM, means you don't understand QM", made up axioms and equations, is paralyzing for science - exactly like creationism.
Electron is at least:
- elementary charge (~singular configuration of electric field),
- magnetic dipole - tiny magnet (~singular configuration of magnetic field),
- behaves like a gyroscope - what means responses perpendicular to direction of spin and attached force,
- have an internal periodic process - de Broglie's clock/zitterbewegung - which is observed in experiments and creates coupled waves - described by QM,
- the charge cannot be a perfect point as it would lead to infinite energy of electric field - there is needed some additional complication: regularization (natural if seeing it as a soliton).
So electron is already an extremely complex entity.
But naive QM tries to say that if such free electron will get to a neighborhood of a proton (whatever it means??? - nobody even knows what are the conditions) ... it just becomes a huge uniform probability blob - loosing all these details, internal dynamics etc.
No, this is just our effective picture - we can and should ask questions about dynamics hidden, leading to this probability cloud.
Instead of using "it's quantum" as satisfying explanation, try to really understand what's happening there - go evolution, not the creationism way.
No I'm not ignoring the wave nature, I don't know where did you get it - from the beginning I write that experiments show that particles have both natures simultaneously: they are corpuscles (e.g. indivisible elementary charge) coupled with a wave. This coupled wave travels all paths in interference, affecting trajectory of the corpuscle. It has to find resonance in atoms - standing wave described by QM, to avoid synchrotron radiation.
Example of experiment showing that electron is practically a point is the one I have cited a few times here - limiting electron radius to 10^-22m in Penning trap: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/1988/T22/016/
Ok, let us focus on the Afshar experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment
There are two circular holes (not slits), the lens is focused such the two detectors can distinguish from which hole light is coming - if they cover one hole, only the corresponding detectors is activated.
The dark blue dots are vertical rods placed in dark spots of interference from two slits - they reduce intensity of light when only one hole is open, but it turns out that they don't reduce intensity when both holes are open.
So:
- detectors are activated by light from the corresponding hole - light travels through trajectories governed by optics - corpuscular nature,
- interference makes light omit the dark spots (rods) - wave nature.
Now please explain it with light having only one nature at the time, switching between them?
Again - what is the condition and mechanism for such switching?
Your agnosticism (analogue of intelligent design) says "I don't know" (maybe some magic is involved) and want to project it to "humanity can't know" ... while evolutionists have reached nearly complete self-consistent understanding, thanks to not giving up at the beginning.
We can and should ask questions about dynamics hidden behind the mystical quantum probability cloud - finally trying to get a complete self-consistent understanding ... not only being satisfied by "it's quantum" 'explanation' to difficult questions: e.g.
- charge quantization - can be mathematically explained by using topological charge, exactly like for fluxon/Abrikosov vortex,
- orbital quantization - as coupled wave finding resonance to avoid synchrotron radiation.
QuoteThis is one of the positions in the debate on what's going on under the hood in quantum mechanics. The position is one that is empirically unfalsifiable at this point, as are all of the several other positions that have survived. As such it cannot be ruled out, except perhaps on the basis of intuition/taste/Occam's razor. I do not personally find it all that likely. But I'm not willing to say that it's impossible. My position is one of agnosticism on this question.
I still don't see a tiniest real argument (based on experimental evidence) in your posts that elementary charge of electron can or should be objectively smeared over an atom (10^-10m, or even 10^-6m for Rydberg) - in opposite to all experiments showing that it is practically a point.
Also, you don't even propose any hypothetical conditions or mechanisms for switching between the wave and corpuscular nature you need ... for what you see as an "explanation" alternative to being simultaneously both wave and corpuscle, what
- is directly observed in experiments like Afshar's,
- allows to get a complete picture, get real answers,
- is natural for particle-like waves (solitons), for example breathers,
... and for which you haven't presented any real objections (based on experimental evidence).
Your "agnosticism" is exactly like between creationism and evolutionism - which some argue should be taught alongside in schools as just equivalent alternative "explanations".
The former has universal response to all difficult questions: "it's God/Quantum", is satisfied with them, you should just "shut up an feel/calculate", is based on philosophical/theological disputes using "human free will" and "it's God/Quantum" to "solve" any real problem.
In contrast, the latter is based on experimental evidence, is not satisfied with magical explanations, searches for real deep understanding, doesn't want to leave unanswered questions (like conditions and mechanisms for switching between natures, you need).
Sure, I cannot prove that creationists are wrong, nor that unicorns don't exist ... but for me it is not sufficient to treat their "explanations" seriously, e.g. due to Occam's razor.
Humans are unimaginably small part of time and space of the Universe, collections of atoms governed by the same laws - any "interpretation" basing on the nature of observer, his free will, takes us from science to theology.
Indeed the situation with publishers is a sad nightmare - usually the research is paid by citizens in taxes, publisher also usually don't even pay for the reviews - they nearly only collect money for work of others ... blocking the research, access to knowledge, and increasing economical discrimination.
Europe wants to change it till 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/sc…-access-scientific-papers
There are also interesting initiatives like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub
This is way outside my expertise, but what about the Millikan oil-drop experiments? Would a diffuse charge produce the same effects?
This is not sufficient - it only limits localization of electron to volume of oil-drop, while the main question here is if electron's elementary charge is objectively smeared inside an atom (~10^-10m ... ~10^-6m for Rydberg molecules).
But there are many others
- in Penning trap limited by 10^-22m: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…88/0031-8949/1988/T22/016
- in electron-position scattering by 10^-20m: http://gabrielse.physics.harva…ElectronSubstructure.html
- the above link says that theory limits by 10^-18m
- "classical electron radius" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius ) is 2.8 * 10^-15m
All of them are many orders of magnitude smaller than the size of electron (e.g. 10^-10m ... 10^-6 for Rydberg) ... and I haven't seen a single real argument (basing on experimental evidence) that elementary charge can be objectively smeared over such huge volumes ... or even much smaller ones (?).
You ask, “Elementary charge has ~1/r^2 electric field - how would you like to spread it?” One answer: however it is that it spreads; perhaps it is made of spreadable stuff.
I thought so.
QuoteYou mention that we can talk about the trajectory of a single electron traveling through space, and ask why it would all of a sudden become a wave once it becomes bound to a proton. I think talking about a trajectory of a point particle in the former case is an oversimplification of what we know about the macroscopic behavior of electrons. In experiments such as the double-slit experiment, the single electron appears to pass through both slits and interfere with itself, which is different than the behavior of a billiard ball. A question at issue in the present discussion is whether a further reply to this experimental situation that there is a pilot wave that is guiding the electron is sufficient to close the book on this topic. I’m saying it’s not sufficient, because there are other explanations that fit the evidence.
What other explanations? That we live in an multiverse splitting in every moment?
Your response to Afshar EXPERIMENT is "complementary principle" also made up by human philosophers - maybe let us ask the nature instead ... clearly saying something different.
If you believe there is only one nature at a time, I have asked you many times about conditions and mechanisms of switching between them - I don't see any answer (?)
QuoteSo I will invert the question you have repeatedly been asking me, and whose replies you haven’t appreciated: give me one single experiment that shows that the electron is a particle. I will bet that you cannot
give one single experiment that shows that the electron charge is not in reality spread out.
Here you have: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/1988/T22/016/ uses Penning trap to bound the size of electron's elementary charge by 10^-22m.
All experiment trying to determine size of electron can only say that they see it as a point.
What means: not being smeared over e.g. 10^10m size standard atom, or 10^-6m size Rydberg molecule.
Your question seems something like: if all experiments say that e.g. our Sun shines, it doesn't mean there is no experiment saying that our Sun doesn't shine.
Sure, you can even say that we live in a matrix and so we cannot be certain of anything.
QuoteYou ask whether I can point to an experiment that shows that particles have only one nature at a time—corpuscle or wave. I neither know of such an experiment nor see the need to produce such an experiment in order to maintain my agnosticism about the question of what is going on under the hood in quantum mechanics. From my earlier comment about it being simpler as a first approximation after observing the various evidence for wave-like behavior of the electron to assume that it is a wave, you ask me to explain why it would be simpler to assume wave-like behavior here and particle-like behavior there. My reply is that after getting past that first approximation that one might have started out with and seeking to further refine it, the problem does indeed become more subtle. This is why people have been arguing about quantum mechanics for decades. So the answer is that after a first approximation, it is not simpler to hold that view.
If you are taking seriously a possibility that particles have only one nature at the time (Afshar?), please at least make it self-consistent: propose conditions and mechanisms for switching between these natures?
QuoteYou write: “You have given interference (that particles have at least the wave nature) and scattering (which is better than QM modeled by Gryzinski's classical considerations) - you didn't explain how you conclude e.g. objective smearing of elementary charge from them?” You haven’t yet explained how we can conclude that an electron is single a point from the experiments you point to that show point-like behavior. Our situations are no different. One must work with seemingly incompatible evidence.
Hmmm ... maybe because all experiment trying to determine size of electron can only say that they see it as a point?
I totally agree that continuing this discussion leads nowhere - unless you provide a single real argument to support your faith:
- that there is an experiment, or even a tiniest piece of real argument (not just made up by human philosophers) to support your faith that elementary charge can be objectively smeared ... opposing all experiments verifying that it's practically a point,
- if you indeed believe that particles have only one nature at a time, please at least hypothesize a possibility of completing the picture: what are conditions and mechanisms for switching between wave and corpuscular nature? I would love to ridicule your proposition (e.g. Rydberg molecule).
For example for free electron traveling through vacuum (corpuscle) which finally meets a proton and form quantum orbital (wave) - when exactly this change of natures happens? What is the mechanism of such metamorphosis?
Opposite situation is in this photos of orbitals experiment ( http://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.165404 ) where they measure the final position of electron leaving the atom with subatomic precision.
... or could you elaborate on acrobatics in Afshar experiment with photons jumping between the two natures?
In the experiments where an electron has wavelike behavior, it is easy to understand it as a wave. A wave does not normally have all of its energy and other attributes localized in a single point; instead, they are spread out over the wave as a whole. If one sees wavelike behavior in the electron, it would be a natural to suspect that the elementary charge could be similarly spread out. It would certainly be simpler, as a first approximation, than positing a combination of a point particle and a guiding wavefunction. Is this a good and/or correct interpretation of the experimental evidence? I don't know for sure. I kind of see how it could be true.
Elementary charge has ~1/r^2 electric field - how would you like to spread it?
We can ask about trajectory of single electron traveling through empty space, e.g. as wavepacket/soliton ... but if it approaches proton, you say it just loses the corpuscular nature and smears its elementary charge into a cloud? When exactly does this 'switch of natures' happens?
In many experiments we observe the corpuscular part (elementary charge) of electron (e.g. scattering, Penning trap), in others we focus/observe its wave nature ... there are also experiments using both natures of particles simultaneously, like Afshar's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment ) ... and it works as expected:
So there are experiments focusing on corpuscular nature, ones focusing on wave natures and some directly using both natures at a time.
I see you cannot point any experiment showing that elementary charge is objectively smeared.
So can you point an experiment showing that particles have only one nature at the time: corpuscle or wave? What are the conditions for switching between these two natures?
If you cannot, please explain what problem with being simultaneously both do you see - you have finally given some argument here: "It would certainly be simpler, as a first approximation, than positing a combination of a point particle and a guiding wavefunction. Is this a good and/or correct interpretation of the experimental evidence?"
So your argument is simplicity - please explain how switching between two natures is simpler and what are conditions and mechanisms for this switching?
In contrast, the relatively trivial 1+1D Sine-Gordon model (phi_tt - phi_xx = sin(x)) has already breathers: solitions with internal periodic motion, which create coupled waves around - have both natures simultaneously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breather
QuoteYou did not have to wait long for me to provide you two examples where there’s reason to think that the elementary charge might be spread over the electron probability distribution; I gave them early on, and you simply failed to appreciate that I was answering your question. But I’ll give you a third reason: the electron orbitals in atoms give evidence of being standing waves. One simple approach here is to understand the electron as being the standing wave itself. We can then use the logic above to deduce that the elementary charge might be distributed over the volume of the standing wave.
You have given interference (that particles have at least the wave nature) and scattering (which is better than QM modeled by Gryzinski's classical considerations) - you didn't explain how you conclude e.g. objective smearing of elementary charge from them?
QuoteBut I'll repeat: here we're talking about interpretations of behavior described by QM.
Interpretations of QM is a bottomless swamp - the basic is "shut up and calculate", require human free will like theology, they don't care about e.g. energy conservation (like while measuring energy of superposition of two photons having different energy), many world is about splitting multiverses which is against everything like Lagrangian mechanics ...
Please let us stay away from subjective human theories and their interpretations - and focus on objective facts: experiments.
And models we are certain of - like Lagrangian mechanics we use from QED to GRT - which is deterministic by Euler-Lagrange equation, evading the Bell theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism ) ... even if it would hurt feelings of those believing they are more than a collection of atoms governed by the same rules as the rest of the Universe.
Experiments say particles are both simultaneously waves and corpuscles.
We can focus on the wave nature e.g. while interference or orbit quantization - standing wave for electron ... remembering that there is still a hidden trajectory of elementary charge behind it (corpuscle).
However, for non-equilibrium situations, we should shift our focus to the corpuscular nature - e.g. to understand scattering ... and fusion.
QuoteThere must be some kind of standing wave to explain the ordered nature of the orbitals.
As I have emphasized it many times here - yes, there is: the (Bohr-Sommerfeld) quantization condition - to get standing wave for the wave coupled to the elementary charge, to prevent the synchrotron radiation.
Stabilizing the trajectory - preventing chaos.
QuoteYou can have both QM and Gryzinsky in a sense; but when you’ve modified either QM or Gryzinsky, or both, you now no longer have what you started with, but something different. My points are about Gryzinsky, not some later correction of his work.
Both are approximations, especially:
- classical trajectories use the coupled wave only for quantization conditions. A better model would be using a field theory: electrons as (breather-like) solitons with coupled waves like in Couder's picture. But it seems a nightmare from numerical perspective (structure of soliton is ~10^5 times smaller than radius of atom),
- quantum describes the standing wave - equilibrium, what might have problem especially with non-equilibrium situations. Gryzinski points even more issues - beside scattering, there are also issues with predictions for screening coefficients, Stark effect, diamagnetic coefficient...
We need to understand well the limitations of both approximations - learn to combine them, get the best of both, choose the most appropriate perspective for different situations.
And fusion is highly non-equilibrium situation - we need to take a close look at trajectories there, not just being satisfied with explanation using tunneling/teleportation through energy barrier.
QuoteThe part I don’t understand about this sub-thread of tritium and fission is the reason for it being mentioned in the first place. What question or comment were you addressing when you mentioned that fission produces tritium?
Tritium release seems the best argument that CF is indeed happening in the nature (?) - if other sources are indeed insufficient (e.g. fission, electron capture from He3), it seems an evidence for CF ... requiring explanation and "because tunneling" is not sufficient - we should look at this non-equilibrium situation from the perspective of corpuscular nature also of electron - and its trajectory remaining between the collapsing nuclei, screening the Coulomb repulsion, seems the only reasonable explanation.
But I will try once more in the the hopes that we still might get there. My position is not that the elementary charge is smeared over the probability distribution. It is that the supposition that the electron is a particle riding on a pilot wave is one among several competing explanations for what underlies the experimental results explained by quantum mechanics, and a minority one at that
I am not asking about interpretations of our subjective theory (QM) ... often requiring human free will like in theology (humans are unimaginable small part of time and space of Universe),
only while there are plenty of experiments showing that elementary charge is practically a point (e.g. scattering, Penning trap), is there a single experiment showing or suggesting that elementary charge is objectively smeared?
After many threads you have finally given two such experiments ... but then didn't respond to my objections - why do you think they conclude objective smearing of elementary charge?
Quote
The main problem I see with Gryzinski's explanation has to do with the movement of the electrons around the nucleus, as we’ve already discussed. They’re like a planetary system, and a three-dimensional planetary system with many moving bodies will exhibit chaotic rather than ordered movement.
So your objection is possibility of chaos - could you elaborate why do you think it would be a problem?
I have two complementing views how quantum probability cloud emerges from trajectories:
1) Trajectories should be thermodynamically pertubed e.g. by interaction with neighboring atoms - thermodynamics says that we should assume Boltzmann distribution among possible paths, what from euclidean path integrals (/Maximal Entropy Random Walk) we know that leads to probability clouds from QM,
2) Everything is happening in a field, particle has to find resonance with: make it a standing wave to avoid synchrotron radiation - this standing wave is described by QM.
Locally 2) is crucial - staying at resonance (field) prevents local chaos ... but still there are some thermodynamical perturbations and after a long time probability distribution for finding particle averages to predicted by QM due to 1) .
QuoteBut you will have to choose either between pilot waves, which give predictions indistinguishable from other interpretations of quantum mechanics, and an approach that purportedly gives predictions that are better than quantum mechanics. You cannot have both.
Why we cannot have both - as two complementary perspectives on the same system?
For example imagine coupled pendula - you can describe evolution of their positions (classical), or go to normal modes - where you have exactly unitary evolution like in QM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…_mode#Coupled_oscillators
Now take a lattice of pendula (crystal) and its normal nodes are called phonons, directly used in QM description ... but you can still ask for classical evolution of atom position in this lattice - alternative, complementing perspective.
QuoteI don't know of anyone who has suggested that tritium, in LENR or anywhere else, comes from fission.
There are at least two ways to tritium from fission: through neutrons or direct: according to Wikipedia, in about 1:10000 fissions tritium is directly created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Fission
There are two experiments that I've given: (1) the electron interference experiments, and (2) the fact that electrons moving at different velocities interact with other objects at different orders of magnitude of extent. Both of these kinds of experiments give evidence of wave-like behavior, and not billiard-ball like behavior. I hope we can move beyond this request of yours, which has been duly answered several times now.
(1) electron interference experiment shows that electrons have at least the wave nature, but how do you conclude that it shows objective smearing of elementary charge? or that electron doesn't have both natures simultaneously?: like in Couder's interference, the elementary charge travels one trajectory, while its couples 'pilot' wave travels all trajectories, affecting trajectory of the charge.
(2) seems a general question of scattering, like the Ramsauer effect (increased cross-section for low energy), explained among others by Gryzinski (here using effective picture of atom as multipole + oscillating multipole): http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html
Please elaborate, explain your point - how do you conclude that elementary charge is objective smeared here?
Where do you see a problem with classical Gryzinski's calculations? - for scattering usually getting better agreement with experiment than quantum predictions.
QuoteThese are interesting details which go back to the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory. The pilot wave theory, I hope you'll agree, is speculative and not yet established by experiment.
dBB is just substituting psi = sqrt(rho) * exp(iS/hbar) to Schrodinger, getting continuity equation for density (rho) and Hamilton-Jacobi for the action (S), with additional interaction with what is called the 'pilot wave'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ion_for_a_single_particle
What is 'speculative' about such substitution?
What exactly has not yet been established by experiment here?
QuoteIf we do not allow pilot waves, which are speculative, there are the experiments in which wave-like behavior seen in connection with electrons must be explained. One possibility is that electrons are waves that deliver energy in discrete packets.
Sure, electrons have wave nature - we all agree on that.
Our disagreement is that you claim that they are not simultaneously corpuscles - that against many experiments, their elementary charge is objectively smeared over e.g. micrometer size Rydberg molecule.
Please finally give a single argument, experiment against the duality - against particles being simultaneously both corpuscles and coupled waves?
QuoteTunnelling is relevant to fission and alpha decay. Also, Gryziński's picture is an equilibrium one, by your own admission, so there's a question about whether insight can be gleaned from it for the dynamic situations we've been considering.
Sure Gryzinski considers dynamical equilibrium states (atoms) ... but often (mostly) as just a target for a particle (probe): in very non-equilibrium scattering scenarios - used to test the atomic model, because predictions are very dependent on the assumed model of target.
Specifically:
- as probability distribution of velocity of electron in the target (~1965 papers),
- as effective electric multipole seen by approaching particle (since 1970 Ramsauer paper),
- approaching low energy particle can modify trajectory of electron in the target (explanation of Helbig-Evenhart resonances)
QuoteYes, the 19 keV is unreachable for thermal electrons. But we have beta decay electrons.
Sure, but as I have written: the question is if such effect could have sufficient statistical importance to explain 10000x larger tritium release than from fission?
QuoteBy this hypothesis, there should be a store of 3He waiting to be released. I wonder whether there's a way to test it.
The He3/He4 ratio generally increases with depth, see e.g. http://www.mantleplumes.org/HeliumFundamentals.html
I think we're talking past one another to a certain extent. You've made the point that sometimes an electron behaves like a particle, a point that I've accepted from the start of our conversation. I made the further point that it behaves like a wave, one that you appear to accept. You have gone beyond this minimal picture and said that not only does the electron act like a particle sometimes, but also (1) it is a point particle, (2) its elementary charge cannot be smeared over the probability distribution. Both of these statements go beyond what I understand to be the experimental evidence into speculation about things that have not yet been determined for sure. This is natural enough, for you are seeking out a fundamental theory, one that looks behind the veil of quantum mechanics to try to understand things as they really are. I have responded by asking whether we know that the elementary charge cannot be smeared over the probability distribution. You have then responded by asking me to prove that it can. That discussion will get nowhere because we're talking about stuff that goes beyond the experimental evidence, and my position is not that the elementary charge is smeared over the probability distribution. How about we leave that discussion there, and revisit it once one of us has more details to add to that picture.
I am not saying that particles sometimes behave like corpuscles, but that they are always both corpuscles (e.g. elementary charge) and coupled waves.
There are plenty of experiments showing that elementary charge is practically a point, but you still didn't give a single experiment showing that elementary charge can be objectively smeared (?)
What is smeared is its coupled wave, but it doesn't mean that there is no hidden trajectory of the elementary charge behind.
There is this "quantum superstition" that elementary charge is also smeared, to project our effective model into the nature using argument "because QM works" ... like inferring from "because thermodynamics works" and it uses smooth density function, so atoms are uniformly smeared over the vacuum ...
It seems all dedicated experiments show that elementary charge is nearly a point, we also need its coupled "pilot" wave, described by QM.
You write like there is some freedom in interpreting the nature here, like saying that evolutionism and creationism are just alternative theories and so should be taught alongside in schools ... please point any evidence, especially experimental, showing that there is indeed an alternative explanation to that particles are simultaneously waves and corpuscles? What alternative?
QuoteBoth CF and fusion in the solar core have one very important thing in common: they are dynamic situations.
Indeed, QM is great at working with (dynamical) equilibrium situations, where resonance of the coupled wave is crucial e.g. to form an atom.
But if we want model non-equilibrium situations, like scattering or fusion, the influence of this wave nature (force from the pilot wave) becomes less important - in such situations the most crucial is the corpuscular nature of particles, we should focus on.
Quote3He + β → t + v - 19 keV
19keV seems completely unreachable for thermal electrons inside Earth, but high energy electrons indeed might come from some beta decay.
The question is if its rate could realistically help explaining the high release of tritium from volcanoes?
QuoteAssuming the helium does not escape, this question could devolve to whether minerals can originally have levels of alpha decaying isotopes at a level of 7% or more? i imagine the answer is yes. Another factor may be that some minerals may have a high capacity to sequester helium as it "passes thorugh".
Indeed filtering might be the answer - as helium (He4?) is the only element diffusing even through thick glass (better than hydrogen!, maybe because of helium being needle-like as Gryzinski claims: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor5ang.html ) ... so helium might be the only one percolating through some rocks.
Also, I think Gryzinski has written that it does not apply to He3 (interaction with spin of nucleus perturbs electron trajectories) - it might affect the He3/He4 concentration - I will think about it.
Returning to Earth, there is a nice paper saying that tritium production from volcanoes can be >10000x larger than estimation for fission: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEgeofusiona.pdf
I have just used it in discussion here: http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar…n-on-rising-helium-prices
This is a 2003 paper - does it still hold, especially the fission estimates?
Also, natural helium concentration in rocks can reach 7% ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium ) - is alpha decay sufficient to explain such huge concentrations?
My position is not that the elementary charge is smeared over the electron probability distribution. My position is one of agnosticism, which is to a large extent the mainstream position. You are the one seeking a fundamental theory of what is going on at a deeper level. You, then, assume the burden of showing that competing alternatives, such as the possibility that the elementary charge is smeared over the probability distribution, are at odds with the experimental data. What I take away from the experimental data you refer to is that the electron sometimes behaves like a particle, which was never in doubt.
As I have written, there are plenty of experiments directly testing that electron is practically a point - e.g. scattering, Penning trap ... is there a single one showing that this elementary charge is objectively smeared?
And I emphasize that electron not only behave like, but just objectively is simultaneously (wave-particle duality):
- a corpuscle (indivisible elementary charge) traveling through some complex trajectory (including interaction with the pilot wave), and
- a coupled wave, generated e.g. by some intrinsic periodic process (like in breathers), or maybe just precession of spin - behavior of this wave is directly described by QM.
How do you understand the wave-particle duality? Is particle switching between these two natures? Under what conditions?
Or maybe it is just simultaneously both - what means that there is still a hidden trajectory hidden behind quantum waves, probability clouds.
Quote
I find the de Broglie–Bohm theory interesting and thought-provoking. But on this topic, I would be interested in knowing how a particle with a pilot wave can explain the fact that the electron at slow speeds interacts with large targets and at higher speeds interacts with smaller targets. That does not sound like something a billiard ball would do.
You are now talking about scattering scenarios - Gryzinski was the master at, scattering has turned him away from quantum description as unsatisfactory for such dynamical situations - just see his papers: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski
I don't resemble he was using pilot wave in his scattering calculations (beside orbit quantization), still getting good agreement with experiment - even for small energy its influence is nearly negligible. Wave nature is crucial e.g. for interference, or to find equilibrium to form an atom: resonance of the wave nature (orbit quantization).
- for high energy scattering see his 1965 papers, this lecture: http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor3ang.html
- low energy scattering is more complex, e.g. incoming proton is modifying trajectory of electron of target hydrogen in Helbig-Evenhart resonances.
Generally Gryzinski uses effective picture of oscillating electric multipoles for atoms for low energy scattering, e.g. the Ramsauer effect - reduction of cross section for low energy scattering. See http://gryzinski.republika.pl/teor6ang.html
fig.4 there: "Cross section of Argon for small angle scattering of low energy electrons: points represent experimental data, solid lines are the
results of theoretical calculations at various assumptions on the character of the asymptotic form of the electrical potential of the
atom; n is the power with which electric field decreases with the distance from the atom. The observed decrease of the cross section
at very small electron velocities is a characteristic feature of the oscillatory interaction between the scattered particle and the scattering center.":
\
Regarding tunneling, the corpuscular part of the particle (shape-preserving construct of the field: a soliton) needs a concrete trajectory, forces - maybe the pilot wave could give it some extra kick counted as tunneling in solar core ... I don't know, but if one believes in CF, tunneling is definitely not sufficient.
QuoteI was not arguing that an electron does not exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior. My point was that even if one allows that electrons in the plasma at the solar core behave like a point charges, you will still have difficulties showing that they can produce screening through confinement along a one-dimensional path between two protons. This is because the solar core is a very dynamic, many-body system, and there will be plenty of other charged particles and photons to deflect the electron out of its putative confinement.
If we would like to explain CF, there is needed a mechanism requiring low temperatures - not to drastically change energy balance of the sun.
And stabilization of molecular bond (also possible with electron traveling on nearly a line joining two nuclei) seems such factor present while hypothetical CF, but not the solar core.
However, there are electrons flying everywhere in solar core, they are attracted by protons - it seems there is a non-negligible chance that it will accidentally find a trajectory between the two collapsing nuclei.
Just this probability is lower than for stabilized molecular bonds, however, less electron assistance is needed as the temperature is much larger.
Sure, there are needed solid calculations here - I would like to reach some day, but it's hard, not a one-man task ...
ps. picture from Gryzinski's book interpreting crystal as having tetrahedral electron trajectories:
You still need to show that the electron is best described as a point particle and has a hidden trajectory.
I gave you lots of arguments, like behavior in low and high energy scatterings, in Penning trap (low energy "classical atom") ... but you still didn't give a single one that this elementary charge is objectively smeared over e.g. a micrometer size Rydberg molecule.
That a feature of our (imperfect) model is indeed a fundamental feature of nature, like saying that thermodynamics works and it uses smooth rho(x) function so atoms are literally smeared into uniform density of vacuum. No, smoothing/averaging into densities is just what we often do in our effective models.
Regarding de Broglie's wavelength, it is the base of pilot wave view ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave ) which has classical (Couder's) analogues ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamic_quantum_analogs ) :
So it just says that the wave-particle duality does not mean magically switching between these two natures, but being both simultaneously: being a corpuscle with a coupled "pilot" wave.
The corpuscular part performs some complex trajectory - it is not just a classical trajectory as it is additionally affected by the pilot wave e.g. for interference or orbit quantization.
The coupled wave leads to wave-like behaviors, for example interference (corpuscle goes a single trajectory, its 'pilot' wave goes all trajectories - affecting path of the corpuscle), or orbit quantization (the coupled wave has to synchronize with the field to get standing wave to avoid synchrotron radiation).
Effectively, atom in equilibrium can be well described by QM wavefunction: as the standing wave or average over trajectories.
But there is still a hidden trajectory behind it, and there are many arguments that very low angular momentum trajectories are dominating (e.g. electron capture).
However, this QM picture requires stabilization to dynamical equilibrium, so it has a problem with dynamical situations like scatterings.
Here is a nice figure for approaching the (known!) experimental values with quantum approximations (year in a bracket) for kind of a simplest situation: cross-section for hydrogen ionization with low energy (<600eV) electrons from Gryzinski's book:
Another non-equilibrium situation is fusion ... sure we should remember that electrons still have wave natures there, but considering trajectories of their corpuscular nature drastically changes the situation: these trajectories can theoretically remain between the two collapsing nuclei - screening the Coulomb barrier, making possible fusion below GK (including our Sun - "because tunneling" is insufficient explanation for the corpuscular part).
QuoteBut there's still the other confounding factors, such as all of the other things going on in the solar core, where you have other sources of charge (positive and negative) that will deflect our electron, as well as photons zipping around and scattering.
Could you elaborate why there is a problem here with electron being simultaneously both wave and corpuscle?
Sure QM is a good model, nobody doubts it.
We can use e.g. Maximal Entropy Random Walk to derive its probability clouds as the safest assumption (maximizing entropy) - by using Boltzmann probability distribution among possible trajectories like in euclidean path integrals.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/MERWsem_AGH.pdf
What I am asking is if it is a fundamental model - if you can prove that there cannot be a hidden electron trajectory behind it?
Like in Couder's orbit quantization: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.full
Particle (with wave-particle duality) has to find a resonance with the field - to get a standing wave to avoid synchrotron radiation.
This standing wave is described by QM ... but additionally there is still also a trajectory of particle hidden behind it, leading to this standing wave created by particle's own wave nature.
Why there cannot be a hidden electron trajectory behind the quantum description?
Do you have any argument that electrons should be treated like tiny, localized billiard balls in the present context
Here are some:
- electron is elementary charge, what means it has electric field proportional to 1/r. Additionally, it is a magnetic dipole (tiny magnet), what also means singular configuration of magnetic field (idealized - it can be regularized),
- none scattering experiment can imply nonzero radius of electron (?),
- in Penning trap they have limited the radius of electron by 10^-22m : http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…88/0031-8949/1988/T22/016 ,
- if we know atom and time releasing electron and the same for the one absorbing atom, we can determine trajectory of this electron,
- because nothing fundamentally changes in vicinity of proton so that electron should loose trajectory to form e.g. orbital of Rydberg atom, we can perform e.g. e-p scattering and it is well described by classical considerations (see e.g. Gryzinski's paper with 1300 citations),
- because in the "photos of orbital" experiments they could measure the final positions of electrons leaving the atom.
Please give finally a single argument that this elementary charge is objectively smeared over a relatively huge volume, e.g. of micrometer size Rydberg molecule ( http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar…-are-the-size-of-bacteria ).
That quantum probability cloud is not just an effective description, average over time.
What is electric field (affecting surrounding particles) created by elementary charge smeared to micrometer size Rydberg molecule?
Regarding 135Xe, sure it is a complex problem, but I don't see it related to tunneling(?) - otherwise, neighboring nuclei would be also affected.
Regarding measuring electrons, in the above "photos of orbitals", they literally measure their positions before leaving the atom - with subatomic precision.
They know electric field, time and position of capturing the electron - they could write their trajectory x(t) with good precision.
But I am not talking about measuring these positions here, only that objectively electrons have positions/trajectories - hidden behind (averaging to) the quantum probability clouds. Elementary charge cannot be splitted - objectively smeared into a cloud.
You can argue that if we cannot directly measure these positions, there is no point to consider them - analogously you can say that if we cannot probe the center of Sun, we cannot model it.
No, we can model and test consequences of a model - not directly measure positions of electrons (probe solar core), but test their effective consequences - what Gryzinski does: e.g. with probability distributions for various scattering scenarios, diamagnetic coefficient, shifts in Stark effect, energy levels (energy of photons) and many others - sometimes getting even better agreement than QM (e.g. Stark).
It is about getting below effective quantum description.
Do you have any argument that electrons objectively don't have (lose) positions/trajectories in vicinity of proton (inside atom)?
Whether nucleons are properly solitons or not, they do in fact behave like delocalized waves. Consider the case of a neutron passing by a 135Xe nucleus, when the impact parameter b is large:
Indeed 135Xe has huge cross-section for neutron absorption: http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/06/20/neutron-poisons/
However, if you are saying that it's due to tunneling, so why it also doesn't apply to other similar nuclei ???
Tunneling is about crossing a barrier, while here it seems the nucleus just kind of swallowed.
So 135 for xenon is a large mass ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon ) - it has much more neutrons than it would like to have - it is believed that abundant neutrons can create kind of halo around the core of the nucleus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus ) - this seems a good candidate for looking for the explanation (better models of nuclei), while tunneling would also need neighboring nuclei to follow.
QuoteIn addition, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that you’ll have a really hard time confining those electrons to a one-dimensional path between two protons.
Heisenberg principle restricts measurement - that we cannot measure perfectly e.g. position and momentum.
For example because measurement is a very destructive process, it's idealization is Stern-Gerlach experiment, where incoming atoms have random spins, which became aligned along strong magnetic field (otherwise there would be precession radiating energy) - choosing parallel or anti-parallel alignment.
How do you imply from Heisenberg that electron objectively doesn't have a position in a given moment?
Nice experiment where they measure positions of electrons leaving atoms - these density clouds are averages: http://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.165404
We can ask about trajectory of electron flying through empty vacuum - if we know when electron was produced and absorbed a kilometer further, we can write equation for x(t).
... but we cannot when there is a proton nearby - when we have to start seeing it as an orbital.
So how far from proton electron has to be to stop having trajectory?
What about Rydberg atoms/molecules which can be 1000x larger?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar…-are-the-size-of-bacteria
Indeed, that's exacly my point: the qualitative difference between solids and liquids is stability of molecular bonds - electron dynamics.
From microscopic perspective, condensed matter means stable molecular bonds - electron dynamics, which could help fusion by remaining between nuclei.
In contrast, in sun these electrons just randomly jump between nuclei.
Eric,
Sure, particles are kind of waves ... but very special waves - not only massive, but also maintaining shape, e.g. charge is not splittable. So technically they are solitons.
Does soliton undergo tunneling?
I have just found one paper and it has negative answer: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9704208
And generally - what is wrong with electron trajectory between two nuclei - which could give a real explaination?
And if we want energy source, not relying on just decay or fission, we need fusion - crossing the Coulomb barrier ...
If one claims it is possible in 1000K, why it doesn't happen in entire volume of Sun? Or maybe someone has arguments that it happens?
