Slashdot Mirror
50 Year Old Quantum Physics Problem Solved
notsosilentbob writes "This story about a 50 year old unsolved Quantum Physics problem at Eurekalert.org is interesting, if just for the discussion about the computing power required (SGI/Cray machines).
Unlike the blowhard from BlacklightPower, this sounds like an important breakthrough. " The problem solved is that of the scattering effects of three charged particles. This is important, as this event occurs in everything from fluorescent lights to the ion etching of silicon chips.
Plenty of people out there would cheer this breakthrough, not for its obvious worth as a furthering of scientific thought, but as a further entrenchment of quantum physics as a dominant theory for the mechanations of the universe, because frankly, it suits their personal philosophies of how the universe should remain somehow mystical.
Newtonian physics and its euclidean geometries is far too cold, too exact, too exacting. Bring on the theories that tell us we live in worlds of probabilities: I want to win the lottery, dammit. My ancestors read the tea leaves before me, and soon I'll have a nice quantum computer in a cup of coffee. How much can anyone truly know for sure? Certainly I don't know much, so give me a theory that says no one else can be much more certain. Now that appeals to my insecurities and warms my cockles.
It's quite fitting that such breakthroughs be made on the threshhold of a new era of unprecedented cultural return to mysticism. I'm still betting in science's corner, myself.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
http://www.sciam.com/1998/ 0698issue/0698gershenfeld.html a good scientific america article, basically a quantum particle can exist in more than one state at once (based on its probability of being in a certain state). the state is a way of saying that there are finite energy levels a particle (electron) can have, these can each represent a state. it also talks about action at a distance. all of this is interesting but unfortunately very hard to understand. its based on wacky math and probability functions. the ones and zeros are basically the same thing...a high level and low level of energy. this is just on a smaller level
I am trying to understand the importance of this discovery. Although the article mention the ionization process that lead to the grow of the flourenscent tubes, to the engraving of silicon chips, we have done all that WITHOUT understanding exactly how these things are done.
Can anyone tell me what this discovery for the "scattering problem" may yield, that is, apart from the Quantum Physics discipline?
Thanks in advance for any pointer.
Merry Christmas !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Quantum particles used to store information ("Qubits") can be either on, off, or they can be in superposition between on and off. It's sort of hard to explain, but what it basically means is it's BOTH on AND off at the same time. Not sorta anything. Very weird stuff. I like to believe the Universe is a little more organized than that, but who knows...
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
Hemos didn't say that, the person who submitted the story did.
This result is interesting because previously this problem has been treated by using approximations. The many different "solutions" given by wildly differing methods did not agree - and the errors introduced by the approximations also were impossible to find.
Numerical methods are very good in that you know the degree of error. Increase the number of grid points, and the error will decrease... (but the computation time will increase accordingly.) This one fact means that the results produced are meaningful - they can be compared with experiment.
Now why are these scattering events interesting? Well there is a slightly more complicated collision where the incoming electron knocks out an electron - leaving the atom in an excited state. The excited atom then de-excites itself by emitting yet another electron. (Auger emission.) You can't do this with hydrogen (not enough electrons.) - However, the nobel gases work well...
This second type of collision is very interesting, in that the distribution of outgoing electrons is related to the Fourier transform of the wavefunctions of the electrons in the atom... You can "map" the distribution of an electron in an orbital with this technique. This in turn provides tests on the quantum theory...
This also happens in ionisation events that form Aurora.
"Would you like a cold drink with that Sir? Yes, yes, for the sake, of the future, of all mankind, I will have, a sm
Oops, my bad. Apologies to Hemos. Mild rebuke to notsosilentbob instead.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Salesman, bullshit. The guy came up with a theory that predicted experimental results that were confirmed by experimental data from independent labs. That, my boy, is sterling science.
No one accepts his theory yet but at least the guy has gone out of his way to attempt to get independent experimental confirmation.
Getting 25 million out of conservative utilities and retired investment bankers from Morgan Stanley is gonna take a *little* more than a nice smile and shiney shoes.
Except that it tends to break down within schwartzchild singularities, and that problem's being worked on by people much smarter than I. My previous comment was much more facetious than others seem to recognize.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Sorry, QM is successful because of its breathtaking predictive power. And if you're familiar with experimental results like the Aspect Experiment, it should be clear to you that no theory with the "common sense" deterministic appeal of Newtonian Mechanics can correctly mirror reality. Your social scientific explanations for theories confirmed again and again by empirical results are, as US people like to say, way off base.
--
Xenu loves you!
A better grasp of math, physics, and chemistry indeed. Can you find a single PhD physicist, chemist, or mathematician who thinks Mills is up to snuff ? ? ?
;o). Complex theories generally don't emerge fully formed, they often need a little massage after feedback has been obtained.
The academic establishment tends to make things very difficult for anyone who breaks ranks. Sensible scientists will keep quiet until there is irrefutable evidence to support Mills' theory.
He is basically a very obsessed individual who went WAY off track a long time ago. If he were properly schooled in mathematics, physics, or chemistry he would have been a handful to get back on track.
This is pure speculation.
Instead, look at what he is proposing. He is reinventing particle physics, without advanced training in particle physics.
So? Chemists need to know quite a bit of physics (especially including quantum physics). They can't even win their degree without it. Ditto higher maths. Quantum physics itself isn't particularly difficult to master anyway, its certainly no harder than any other branch of chemistry. Particle physics today is just tedious (it's like zoology) and is still 90% speculation.
He is reinventing single hydrogen chemistry, without substantial training in hydrogen chemistry.
Well, he is trained as a chemist, and so am I. Are you? What is "hydrogen chemistry"? anyway? As far as the mainstream is concerned, "hydrogen chemistry" is very straightforward, hardly deserving of a whole branch of chemistry all to itself. It's only got one damn electron for heaven's sake! It's the only element for which solutions have been found to its wave equations.
What's more, your remarks suggest strongly that you haven't even read his published work, from which it's abundantly clear that he does have a very good grasp of "hydrogen chemistry" as it's generally understood. He just happens to have something new to add to it.
And the comments of at least one mathematics professor (see book comments at Amazon) indicate his mathematics is merely good enough to prevent his investors from personally double checking him.
I read Ulrich Gerlach's assassination piece too. His criticisms deserve serious consideration. I'm not really able to assess the criticisms about the maths as it'd take more time than I have. But some of it may well be a failure of interpretation. Both holes in the maths and misinterpretation are likely to occur at this stage as it's a new theory and it hasn't even been submitted to referees yet. The criticisms may not be wholly significant; they don't necessarily kill the theory even if they're valid. If they did, then quantum mechanics, supersymmetry, string theory and inflation theory would never have got past first base (and the Linux kernel would never have got past version 0.1 either
Michio Kaku doesn't swallow Mills' theory either, and I respect Kaku (I have a couple of his books). But even eminent scientists are sometimes wrong, especially when defending something. And Kaku doesn't attack the maths. I'd be surprised if he's even bothered to look.
BTW, there's another comment there now written by former Assistant Secretary of Energy Shelby T Brewer, who is also now involved with BlackLight Power. It lists Mills' impressive credentials as a scientist which must be genuine whatever you think of Brewer's objectivity.
If Mills turns out to be right it will set the whole of 20th Century physics and chemistry on its head. It would mean that people like Kaku have been wrong all their lives. So you have to expect that the establishment would fight it anyway.
Remember that Einstein wasn't believed either until he had verified experimental results.
One thing is clear - he is one heck of a salesman. Persons which such personalities can often convince large groups of relatively uneducated people to follow them. He smells just like a snake oil salesman to me.
I might believe you if Mills showed signs of raking in all the cash he could before someone exposed him. But he's not, he's just taken enough to fund the business. This suggests he expects to make money out of his discovery in a more conventional manner.
Also note that the some of the scientists who've criticised his theory have gone out of their way to state that they believe he is sincere, just misguided. Scientists generally don't do that if they think someone is a fraud, they tend to come out and say so or else just leave it unsaid.
PT Barnum was right.
From the sublime to the ridiculous. Perhaps you understand Barnum's theory better than you understand Mills' theory and thus place more faith in it. Personally I don't think its valid to compare Mills with Barnum.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I give ALL consideration within reason to all sorts of hypotheses. If I think something is at ALL possible I will let it alone and see how it develops. I would NEVER attack something from my field in public if there were even a remote chance it was correct. My livelihood is my reputation amongst my peers.
That's what I meant when I said: Sensible scientists will keep quiet until there is irrefutable evidence to support Mills' theory.
Or irrefutable evidence that he's wrong. I don't think there's either, yet.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I can follow the math. It is poorly written and makes leaps and bounds far over and beyond those pointed out by Gerlach. It is either obtuse INTENTIONALLY, or because Mills never understood the necessity for others to follow his work in order for it to be accepted. Or because there are misconceptions embodied within it that Mills himself is missing.
Can you be more explicit? Or am I just supposed to believe an AC who may or may not be able to follow the maths?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction