How Quantum Mechanics and Classic Mechanics Interrelate With One Another
Written and Edited by Artificial Intelligence
The relationship between quantum mechanics (QM) and classical mechanics represents a fundamental aspect of our understanding of the universe, spanning the macroscopic realms of relativity and classical physics to the microscopic domains governed by QM. Despite their foundational role in physics, these two frameworks present a conceptual divergence, with their underlying equations and principles appearing incompatible.
This conceptual gap is likened to the historical transition from the geocentric Ptolemaic system to the heliocentric Copernican model, underscoring a shift from practical applicability to a more accurate representation of celestial mechanics. Similarly, while QM provides precise predictions within particle physics, its mathematical models may not fully capture the three-dimensional reality of the subatomic phenomena. This situation suggests that a reinterpretation of QM, incorporating elements of the ether and classical mechanics, could yield significant scientific breakthroughs and practical applications, much like the Copernican revolution facilitated advancements in physics.
QM successfully predicts the outcome of particle physics and subatomic physics with extreme precession and underpins numerous modern technological advancements. However, it primarily describes the micro-world's functionality in mathematical terms without providing a structural or three-dimensional understanding. This limitation can be likened to analyzing an enzyme's function without knowledge of its three-dimensional structure; understanding its actions becomes clearer once its shape is visualized. This approach has proven valuable in various industries, leading to practical applications and increased profits. The author suggests that this same philosophy should be applied to the realm of quantum mechanics.
The challenge of reconciling the physical reality with mathematical models in physics is not new. Many physicists rely on mathematical descriptions for complex theories like QM, often finding direct translation into verbal or visual representations difficult. While essential for making accurate predictions, mathematics may not always mirror the physical world's tangible realities.
Consider the Uncertainty Principle, central to QM, as explained through Schrödinger's equations.
The principle assumes the following: the electron as a part of the atom, moreover, with reference to its equilibrium state, (fields) orbits the nucleus at an extremely high velocity in a random manner (orbital shell). Therefore, given the limitations with our experimental measuring equipment, all we can do is calculate a probability of the electron’s velocity (QM). And second, since it exists as a volume (field), not a point particle (quantum field theory), all we can do is calculate only a probability of its location/position (QM). As a result, together over time, we perceive this as the probability cloud. Furthermore, given the same reasons mathematically, using Schrodinger’s wave equation, one cannot simultaneously determine the exact position and the exact velocity (momentum) of the orbiting electron (QM).
The Uncertainty Principle from a Classical Mechanics Standpoint
The author seeks to describe the Schrödinger wave function equation using three-dimensional real-world imagery, moving beyond the pure mathematics of classical quantum mechanics.
It is posited by the author that an electron in atomic orbit possesses a three-dimensional field configuration (electric and magnetic), similar to when it moves through empty space outside the confines of an atom. Under the new concept, the three-dimensional structure of the electron (fields) in motion remains consistent as it orbits the nucleus. The notion of an electron transitioning from linear to orbital motion, transforming from a spherical electric field with a perpendicular magnetic field into a physical cloud, is less convincing (and more complex) than if it retained its three-dimensional structure throughout the transition (simpler). Hence, the author suggests that despite Schrödinger's purely mathematical waveform equation, the electron maintains a three-dimensional, rapidly moving field structure during its orbital journey.
The challenge with this concept is that such a multifaceted process cannot be fully described by classical Newtonian physics alone—it's too complex. The only feasible description comes from the equations of quantum mechanics, which paradoxically clash with the intuitive world of classical mechanics.
To conclude and revisit key points, the electron exists as purely a three-dimensional field with extreme random orbital motion about the nucleus. However, we cannot interpret this 3D concept using the mathematics of classic Newtonian physics. Alternatively, we can describe it with the use of Schrödinger’s wave form equation, even though it does not represent the true 3D reality at the subatomic level. The waveform equation does describe the function of the microworld, but not the physical structure of the microworld. Since the waveform equation is so successful in predicting outcomes, we presume it is more than just a mathematic construct; what is more, it depicts some sort of counterintuitive three-dimensional reality. In other words, we relate the equation to the macroworld of classic physics, which often makes no pictorial sense.
Conversely, given the assumptions as just presented, the author argues that both the macro-world and the micro-world can be pictured three-dimensionally, therefore intuitively uniting both words. Such a unified approach underscores the potential for a more comprehensive understanding of the universe, where the seemingly divergent realms of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics can be harmonized. By envisioning both the macroscopic and microscopic worlds in three dimensions, we can aspire to a physics that is not only predictive but also intuitively graspable, facilitating deeper insights into the nature of reality.
Comments