No, but I know the Bell inequalities. That is the real question.

---

No, but I know the Bell inequalities. That is the real question.

Ok, don't worry about it.

John.

---

Johnney, excuse me, but you said you don't understand equations. This is your real problem. Quantum mechanics cannot be understood without its equations. The rest is Talmud, that is comment.
Tullio

---

Johnney, excuse me, but you said you don't understand equations. This is your real problem. Quantum mechanics cannot be understood without its equations. The rest is Talmud, that is comment.
Tullio

An analogy Tullio;
An architect designs tall sky scrapers. He sits in his office for many months or years and does all the design, stress calculations and maths needed to build the sky scraper. But the architect never lifts a single concrete block during the construction of the building.

Its the builders and construction engineers that physically build the sky scraper.

Both the architect, and all the builders need to understand everything about the sky scraper to erect the building. You don't need to be an architect to understand how to put up the building.

Its a bit like that with me Tullio. I'm like the engineer that physically builds the building. Just because i didn't sit in an office for months on end doing the mathematical calculations, does not mean that i don't understand how it works. And in many cases in real life, its the builders that physically put up the building that have to make corrections where the architect has made a mistake.

Just because a mathematician, computer scientist or quantum chemist plotted the atomic orbitals of the electrons that surround an atom, does not mean that i don't understand how it works. And just like my analogy of building sky scrapers, in this case with the orbital plots of electrons, its me, the person observing the end result that really see's what i know to be an error.

John.

---

If quantum mechanics were mistaken no laser would work. Yet they work and provide tools to scientific research. Same for particle accelerators, atomic clocks, quantum computers etc. So it can't be wrong.It is only its philosophical meaning that is being discussed, as it seems that the Copenhagen interpretation cannot explain the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox of 1935 and the following apparent transmission of information at a speed greater that the speed of light. This has nothing to to with the representation of molecular orbitals and you seem to ignore all this.
Tullio

---

If quantum mechanics were mistaken no laser would work. Yet they work and provide tools to scientific research. Same for particle accelerators, atomic clocks, quantum computers etc. So it can't be wrong.It is only its philosophical meaning that is being discussed, as it seems that the Copenhagen interpretation cannot explain the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox of 1935 and the following apparent transmission of information at a speed greater that the speed of light. This has nothing to to with the representation of molecular orbitals and you seem to ignore all this.
Tullio

Tullio,
No, i agree with you. Quantum mechanics works, its real, it accurately describes how things work at the atomic level.

All i'm saying is that there is a little small mistake still remaining in the maths of quantum mechanics. Its this little small mistake, this little small error that is causing the remainder of the problems and paradoxes. And what i am saying to you is that the plots of atomic orbitals, if you understand why they only plot 90% of the orbital, then you should be able to "see" the error with your own eyes!

Tullio i "see" the error in the orbital plots because i know what the other 10% is. This critical 10% of the plot they leave out is what is holding the whole thing together. I don't know why you can't see it in your mind. Do you want me to draw a picture to explain what it is that i am seeing?

John.

---

Well, draw a picture if you want. Another aspect of quantum mechanics I was interested in is the possibility that the human brain is a macroscopic quantum object. I even wrote a paper on this subject, titled "The coherent brain" but I kept it in my drawers because I thought nobody would publish it. Then I read a book by prof.Roger Penrose of Oxford University titled "The emperor's new mind", which said almost the same thing. I was brave enough to send my draft paper to Penrose and he replied in a week, saying that it was "Highly interesting" and advising me to read another book of his, "Shadows of the mind". I then sent my paper to 2 Italian professors who knew me and they never bothered to reply even to tell me I was a fool. My paper was dated 1980, the Penrose first book is dated around 1990, so I could not have read it.
Tullio

---

... if you understand why they only plot 90% of the orbital, then you should be able to "see" the error with your own eyes!

Tullio i "see" the error in the orbital plots because i know what the other 10% is. This critical 10% of the plot they leave out is what is holding the whole thing together. ...

How so?

One way to have an 'executive view' of the orbital probability plot is to view that you are seeing a 10% wide 'line' of 'all' possibilities. You could plot a so called "0%" but that would suggest an infinitely thin line that cannot be seen because you then 'exclude all possibility'...


It's just a question of how much you want to 'see' for that particular way of 'seeing'...


Keep searchin',
Martin


(Apologies for the inevitable puns ;-) )

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

BBC News; Heisenberg uncertainty principle stressed in new test
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19489385

John.

---

BBC News; Heisenberg uncertainty principle stressed in new test
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19489385

Compare that with a more understandable report on:

Weak measurements show quantum uncertainty is inherent

Result clarifies role of measurement in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle


So why does (most of) the media have to befuddle Science so badly?!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

BBC News; Heisenberg uncertainty principle stressed in new test
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19489385

Compare that with a more understandable report on:

Weak measurements show quantum uncertainty is inherent

Result clarifies role of measurement in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle


So why does (most of) the media have to befuddle Science so badly?!

Keep searchin',
Martin

Martin,
I will be very frank with you here. Maybe Mr. Heisenberg was uncertain about what he was measuring, but i'm not.

I have zero uncertainty about how quantum mechanics works. In my mind, its completely clear. I'm not confused or uncertain about any part of quantum mechanics. But i do understand why other very clever physicists are unclear about how it works. I understand why they are being tripped up in their maths.

John.

---

I have zero uncertainty about how quantum mechanics works. In my mind, its completely clear. I'm not confused or uncertain about any part of quantum mechanics.

Wow! You must be stark ravin' Alice-in-Wonderland mad-hatter mad!...

Or...

But i do understand why other very clever physicists are unclear about how it works. I understand why they are being tripped up in their maths.

That's it... It is you after all... No question about it. Complete certainty. Dead cert!!...


It is you!

Oh my God!


Please have mercy?

Only a few beers please??


Cheers,
Martin



Or... Please explain further?

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Cheers,
Martin



Or... Please explain further?

Martin,
There are almost 200 messages posted in this thread so far. Contained in some of the messages i have posted, are the solutions to some of the greatest problems in physics today. Some of the information i posted in the messages is potentially worth a lot of money.

Martin if you never read another physics book in your life, but instead you studied what i have written in this thread, you could be a very rich man.

So no, i won't repeat the information again. I discuss scientific problems on this forum with a view to actually solving the problem. Once i have solved the problem, i don't really need to discuss it any more. In very plain english, i have already posted the solution needed to solve the problems in quantum mechanics.

John.

---

... could be a very rich man.

Hey! You need to write the first of your books. I'd be happy with just a few 'beers' for proof reading them for you ;-)

So no, i won't repeat the information again. I discuss scientific problems on this forum with a view to actually solving the problem. Once i have solved the problem, i don't really need to discuss it any more.

Not even a succinct summary?... Not even just one quantum bauble/bubble?

In very plain english, i have already posted the solution needed to solve the problems in quantum mechanics.

Oh... So you're using Roman numerals to ignore the divide-by-zero uncertainty?

I guess the ancients did have a few tricks in their stones after all...


Or... You're still giggling all the way to the pub! ;-)

Or... You're in the middle of your pub quiz already? :-)


(I guess even Ireland gets WiFi eventually...)

Cheers,
Martin


;-)

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Ok, Martin,
I'm copying and pasting the content of one of my previous messages, a discussion between me and Tullio. This contains the solution to the problems in quantum mechanics. But i warn you, you will need a good understanding of quantum mechanics to "extract" the solution;

This is the page you need to read, and understand! - Atomic orbitals;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

My discussion with Tullio;

Tullio,
I don't understand, why you don't see the error?

The electron orbital plots are 90% of the wave function! We can't plot 100% of the wave function because the answer has nothing to "hold it together". So, quantum chemists are just happy and content to plot 90% of the wave function because it works! They are happy because they really don't care, they just want to draw the pictures of the molecules or whatever work they are doing.

Tullio what about the other 10%? Is it right to just simply ignore this other 10% and throw it away in the bin and not worry about it?

Its the left over 10% that tells you what is wrong!

We plot 90% of the wave function of an electron. But something has to be holding it together Tullio. This is not magic, its physics! Its real and its mathematical. You can't throw 10% into the bin and not worry about it. The 10% you throw away is what is holding the electron together. Consider the 10% as a type of "pressure" from the outside holding the electron together.

In the real world, atoms with protons, neutrons and electrons don't just come apart by themselves. Something is holding them together Tullio. Its the 10% that we throw away when we plot the wave function is what is holding the electron together.

Do you understand this much?

John.

John.

---

And here is a recent physical tracing of the bonds ('extended orbitals') between carbon atoms using a carbon monoxide molecule to trace the structure of the forces:

Atomic bond types discernible in single-molecule images

A pioneering team from IBM in Zurich has published single-molecule images so detailed that the type of atomic bonds between their atoms can be discerned...


I'm still fascinated by all the complexity from merely the permutations possible from a small set of forces.


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

As i wrote elsewhere, the simplest method of obtaining a molecular orbital is that of building a linear combination of atomic orbitals, with weighted coefficients. But this is still an approximate model, with many empirical parameters which must be tested against experimental data. The n-body problem is not analytically solvable for n>2 and thus requires a great use of computing power and maybe the use of quantum computers, when they arrive. The approximate methods so far used are the Hartree-Fock, the density functional theory and the MonteCarlo method used at QMC@home.
Tullio

---

What holds it all together is defined as the London dispersion forces (LDF) which are part of the van der Waals forces. No-one is throwing away 10%!

London Force

I'm afraid not Chris,
But nice try my friend. When quantum chemists plot those electron orbitals, as i said, they throw 10% into the bin. No, they do not take London dispersion forces into account. No, as i said, they are happy chemists just throwing 10% of the electron into the bin. Why? - Because this allows the computer to plot the orbitals. And the guy doing the plot doesn't care so long as it works.

Imagine if you had 100$, and i took 10$ off you and threw it into the bin. I bet you would be upset.

John.

---

And here is a recent physical tracing of the bonds ('extended orbitals') between carbon atoms using a carbon monoxide molecule to trace the structure of the forces:

Atomic bond types discernible in single-molecule images

A pioneering team from IBM in Zurich has published single-molecule images so detailed that the type of atomic bonds between their atoms can be discerned...


I'm still fascinated by all the complexity from merely the permutations possible from a small set of forces.


Keep searchin',
Martin

Cool picture Martin,
But this is "imaging". Its attempts to directly image atoms and molecules. You can't directly "image" the electron orbitals of atoms because, well...... Your using light, or electrons to look at other electrons.

You can only "plot" the orbitals.

John.

---

As i wrote elsewhere, the simplest method of obtaining a molecular orbital is that of building a linear combination of atomic orbitals, with weighted coefficients. But this is still an approximate model, with many empirical parameters which must be tested against experimental data. The n-body problem is not analytically solvable for n>2 and thus requires a great use of computing power and maybe the use of quantum computers, when they arrive. The approximate methods so far used are the Hartree-Fock, the density functional theory and the MonteCarlo method used at QMC@home.
Tullio

Tullio,
Yes, we both know the mathematical methods they use to plot orbitals. But in the end, they all do the same thing to complete the calculation - They fumble the maths in one way or another to allow the calculation to work. Just like i say, dumping 10% of the electron into the bin to force the calculation to work.

John.

---