Quantum Mechanics is Falsifiable.

One concept which exists in Science, is that certain theories are Falsifiable. This means that a given hypothesis will predict some sort of experimental outcome, which other theories would not predict, and then an experiment can be performed to test whether this outcome is according to the theory. If it is not, then this test will break the theory, and will thus falsify it.

Quantum Mechanics is often Falsifiable. If the reader thinks it is not, then maybe the reader is confusing Quantum Mechanics with String Theory, which is supposedly not falsifiable? And thinking that String Theory is just the same thing as Quantum-Mechanics, is a bit like thinking that Cosmology is just the same thing as Astronomy.

According to Quantum Mechanics, light can be polarized, just as it can according to the classical, wave-based theory of light. Only, because according to Quantum-Mechanics light is driven by particles – by photons – its explanation of polarization is quite different from polarized light, according to the classical, electrodynamic explanation.

According to wave-based light, plane-polarized light is the primary phenomenon, and circular-polarized light is secondary. Circular-polarized light would follow, when waves of light are polarized in two planes at right-angles to each other, but when these waves also have a 90⁰ phase-shift.

According to Quantum-Mechanics, the photon is in itself a circular-polarized quantum of light, of which there can trivially be left- and right-handed examples. According to Quantum-Mechanics, plane-polarized light forms, when left- and right-handed photons pair up, so that their electrostatic components form constructive interference in one plane, while canceling at right-angles to that plane.

From a thermodynamic point of view, there is little reason to doubt that photons could do this, since the particles which make up matter are always agitated, and since the photons in an original light-source also have some random basis. So a conventional plane-polarizing filter, of the kind that we used to attach to our film-cameras, would not be so hard to explain. It would just need to phase-shift the present left-handed photons in one way, while phase-shifting the present right-handed ones oppositely, until they line up.

But there exists one area in which the predictions of Quantum-Mechanics do not match those of classical wave-mechanics. If we are given a digital camera that accepts lens-attachments, we will want to attach circular polarizing filters, instead of plane-polarizing filters. And the classical explanation of what a circular polarizer does, is first to act as a plane-polarizer, which thereby selects a plane of polarization which we want our camera to be sensitive to, but the output of which is next circularly-polarized, so that light reaches the autofocus mechanism of the camera, which is still not plane-polarized. Apparently, fully plane-polarized light will cause the autofocus to fail.

This behavior of a polarizer is easily explained according to Quantum-Mechanics. The plane-polarized light which is at first admitted by our filter, already possesses left- and right-handed photons. After that, we could visualize sorting out the photons that are circular-polarized in the wrong direction.

But the opposite behavior of a filter would not be predicted by Quantum-Mechanics. According to that, if we first pass randomly-polarized light through a circular polarizer, and if we then pass the resulting beam into a plane-polarizer, we should not be able to obtain plane-polarized output from the last polarizer.

According to the classical explanation of light, this should still be an easy thing to do. Our circularly-polarized light is supposed to have two components at right-angles, and our plane-polarizer should only allow vibration in one plane. But according to Quantum-Mechanics, if the incident beam is already circularly-polarized, it should only consist of either left-handed or right-handed photons, and then a simple filter should not be able to conjure photons that are not present in the original beam. And so our circularly-polarized light should not be convertible into plane-polarized light.

Continue reading Quantum Mechanics is Falsifiable.

About Why the output of a Laser is so Wavelike

The subject of wave-particle duality continues to mystify commoners, while the ultimate explanation given by experts, who need to be schooled in Quantum-Mechanics for years, before they are exposed to these secrets, seem to defy some common-sense reasoning. More specifically, the way in which Quantum-Mechanics mainly explains it, is that the wave-phenomena, specifically those that take place in a vacuum, only exist as being secondary to the existence of particles. We think we can see many examples in our practical world, where waves ‘seem real’.

One such example is the beam of light output by a Laser, that is both monochromatic and coherent, that is highly parallel, and that only seems to make its wave-nature obvious. It is this ultra-high consistency of the wave-nature of a Laser-beam, that also makes it useful for creating holograms – aside from the fact that the beams output from these devices have many more uses today.

But in a way that might disappoint some skeptical thinkers, this nature of the light output from a Laser is actually predicted by Quantum-Mechanics, and fails to provide a contradiction to it. And I will explain why.

Quantum Mechanics is largely built around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, although Heisenberg did not dare to assign complex numbers to his probability clouds yet. Those probability clouds are supposed to represent the superposed states of a particle, with the additional detail that they can be phase-shifted according to understanding today, which means that they seem to conserve a two-component number – i.e. a complex number.

What the uncertainty principle seems to state, is that the precision with which the position of a particle can be known, is inversely proportional to the precision with which its momentum-vector can be known, and vice-versa.

Photons are understood to have momentum vectors, even though when the photon-energy is low, such as for visible light, that momentum-vector also has low magnitudes. But the momentum-vector of a photon is supposed to follow entirely from the direction-vector it is traveling with, as well as being inversely proportional in magnitude, to its wavelength. The energy of the photon is also inversely proportional to its wavelength.

Because of the nature of the light output by a Laser, all the variables needed to know the momentum-vector of its photons are known – and are exactly equal. So the precision of their momentum-vectors is actually zero – i.e. their momentum vectors should have a variance of zero, based on the fact that they are parallel and fully monochromatic.

And so it would only seem to follow from the Uncertainty Principle, that the variance with which their position-vectors should be knowable, should be off-the-scale. By that logic, the position-vector of any one photon in the beam, cannot be knowable.

And so we seem to obtain a beam of light, only the wave-nature of which is knowable.

Dirk

 

About Massive Bosons

Most Bosons do not have mass. Photons are an example of that. But in some cases they do. For example, nuclei are thought to consist of quarks, which cannot exist as singletons. But quarks are thought to be held together by gluons, which are thought to be Bosons that have mass.

When they have non-zero rest-mass, Bosons actually resemble matter, more than Bosons do with zero rest-mass. Helium-4 is the Bose particle, that gives rise to the best-known example of a superfluid. Helium-3 is the corresponding Fermi particle, that gives rise to Thermal Superconductivity, which contrasts sharply with that Helium-4 does at cryogenic temperatures.

Dirk

 

How Chemistry Narrowly Avoids Negating Quantum-Mechanics

According to Quantum-Mechanics, the ultimate solution to the question, of Wave-Particle Duality, no matter how deeply this solution is buried, lies in the idea, that Particles cause Waves. Hence, the particles are more-ultimately real, and waves are not. In certain cases such as phonons, this even extends beyond waves-in-a-vacuum, to sound waves, that can be modeled as quasi-particles.

One rule which this evokes is the notion, that if (A) causes (B) with certainty, then it cannot be true that (B) causes (A). And to my mind, this has presented the greatest challenge with Chemistry.

The way Chemistry is understood to work today, the electrons that were loosely stated to be orbiting the nucleus, are actually occupying Quantum-Mechanical states around the nucleus, thus merely being attached to the nucleus, and they occupy shells, which are subdivided into orbitals. Further, these orbitals have known wave-functions, that follow from QM. Hence, the s2 -orbitals are spherical, the p6 -orbitals are perpendicular, and the d10 and f14 -orbitals have the more-complex geometries, which are possible modes of resonance. If all the orbitals belonging to a shell are filled, then indeed the shell becomes spherical itself, and this is best exhibited with inert gasses, which therefore also have ideal cancellation of the nuclear charge at close distance, and which therefore also lack electronegativity. (:1)

The main point of confusion which is possible here, is in the fact that these orbitals and their wave-functions seemingly define the chemical and physical properties of the element, except for anything related to its mass. The suggestion follows, that since the electrical field of the nucleus is strong enough to manipulate the wave-functions, it can also end up displacing where the particle ultimately occurs. In so doing, this action on the orbital would seem to suggest that the wave-function can also be said to change the particle-parameters, thereby creating a contradiction with the way in which QM is currently taught.

There is a specific observation which we can make about this subject, which causes Chemistry to avoid contradicting QM by the width of a hair.

These s, p, d and f -orbital geometries are only thought to exist, if their electrons are unpaired. Each orbital is capable of holding up to 2 electrons, and an orbital which only holds 1 electron is said to be “half-filled”. It has these formally-defined properties when half-filled.

There has never been a precedence in Chemistry, in which a half-filled orbital can be shared by two atoms. But some sort of entity needs to be shared between 2 or 3 atoms, in order actually to form a bond, and in order to change position around either atom. (:2)

When orbitals are filled by 2 electrons each, these two electrons perform a dance which electrons are already famous for, in which both their spin-vector and their magnetic dipole moment pair up, to cancel out. This is also known as “spin-spin decoupling”, and causes the electron to resemble a Fermion less, resulting in some quasi-particle that resembles a fluid more – i.e. a massive Bose particle.

The same affinity causes electron-pairs to form Cooper Pairs, which ultimately result in superconductivity. But in Chemistry, it forms charge-droplets, which are able to change position on an atom or molecule, and which can be shared between 2 or 3 atoms, thus forming either the sigma-bond or the pi-bond known.

The important fact to understand, is that This quasi-particle does not represent a wave-function, and so its mutability also does not represent the mutability of a wave-function. This charge-droplet has mass.

Continue reading How Chemistry Narrowly Avoids Negating Quantum-Mechanics