Nikolay NOSKOV
Translated from Russian by Jury SARYCHEV
The exciting pleasure of victories in discovery and becoming of a
quantum mechanics has passed. On the basis of research of radiation
spectrums and absorption of photons there was a powerful math-physical
formalism abounding with principles, guesses, postulates, interpretations,
models and mysterious formulas, which one, strangely enough, work.
All development of quantum mechanics and its broadest application in
practice displays, that the researchers have found out the very relevant
correlations of a material world, and also have learned to use them.
The quantum mechanics was formed as empirical science – on the basis of
observations, facts, experiments. Hardly we can assume other way of
development of science, as: observation, fact, experiment, empirical law,
check and refinement of the law, creation of the theory, check and
refinement of the theory.
However quantum mechanics was not lucky. It formed at once after a
special relativity theory and simultaneously with a general theory of
relativity. That was accompanied by a rebuff from ideals of a classic
mechanics, from its invariants, from ether, from the mechanical program,
which one most precisely was expressed by the Helmholtz [1]. "The problem
of physical sciences is to reduce all physical phenomena to forces of
attraction and repulsion, the value which one should depend on distance
between interacting points". This program was stated by Newton, Huygens,
Euler, Laplace,... Faraday, Maxwell, Hertz. But, taking into account
fallacy of the Helmholtz concerning the theory of a delayed potential of
Gauss, Weber, Gerber etc, it is possible now to see, that the mechanical
program of the Helmholtz requires of principle additions. It should look
so: "The problem of physical sciences is, that all physical phenomena to
reduce to attraction forces, repulsion and to radiation, the value which
one should depend on distance between interacting bodies, from their
charge, mass, velocity and acceleration".
Having refused from the mechanical program, the developers of a quantum
mechanics have appeared in a veryunpleasantsituation, when,
using the language, methods and analogies of a classic mechanics, they
persistently convinced themselves and other in impossibility of
fulfillment of its requirements. All hopes in creation any acceptable
theory was connected with a mathematical formalism, the program of which
most brightly was expressed by Feynman [2]: "...Probably, the best way of
creation of the new theory is to guess equations, not paying attention to
physical analogs or physical explanation". (Nobel lecture).
Thus, in development of a quantum mechanics the first part is made
only: creation of the empirical laws. The second part – creation of the
theory – has appeared simply impracticable, as the empirical laws are not
related to a physical reality and their causal essence is not
detected.
The approach of Bohr [3] has appeared most successful, as he used the
mechanism theory of a classic mechanics based on outcomes of experiments
of the Rutherford, and it was the most exact path. Why it was not a
success?
Five illogicalities are evident at the first acquaintance to the theory
of Bohr:
1) Deviation from classic principles in definition of a total energy of
an electron on orbit.
2) Error judgement that the electron at motion on orbit in accordance
with the laws of a classic electrodynamics should emit energy.
3) Allocation of steady stationary orbits of an electron not as a
problem of a mechanics, but as a problem of no emitted electron.
4) The frequency of radiation correlate with ΔE (not with
E + ΔE), i.e. only with additional disturbance, not with
full energy of an electron.
5) Steady orbits are considered equivalent, while the electron always,
eventually, returns to steady basic orbit.
How it can chow oneself, these illogicalities are connected with Nils
Bohr's bad knowledge of a classic mechanics. It (classic mechanics) has
failed in connection with conceiving of a relativity theory as it was
represented to everybody in that time. Probably, so it is possible to
explain a reason that he did not begin to coordinate advanced postulates
with mechanics of Galileo – Newton – Euler.
But, the reader will disagree, you see there is still common sense
based on logic, analysis, comparisons, analogies, approximating etc. To
confuse a common sense, relativists have added to it an epithet "narrow –
minded" and have declared war against it. And Bohr was among them.
Having ignored ideals of a classic mechanics and, first of all the
internal logic of nature and mechanical principle, Bohr has suffered a
defeat. His model hardly has described atom of hydrogen only. But he was
on right way, and all subsequent generations of the researchers, if do not
understand it, feel. The constant reference to Bohr's model at researches
of equations of Schrodinger and Dirac is the proof of this.
1. The correct definition of full, kinetic and potential energies of an
electron on orbit has the important significance for understanding of
essence of a phenomenon of radiation and quantitative solution of
equations of a quantum mechanics. I shall not set up reasoning and proof
that the potential energy can not be negative, since it is a scalar
quantity. It has only theoretical meaning, and for two bodies having a
volume, the full potential energy can be determined only by two integrals:
from infinity up to a contact of bodies and from a contact of bodies to
combination of centers of their gravity. The difference of potential
energies from infinity into given orbit, or from one orbit on other and
kinetic energy, which one is equal to half of full energy of an electron
on orbit and half of difference of potential energies from infinity into
given orbit have practical meaning.
2. Erroneous judgement that under the laws of a classic electrodynamics
the revolving electron should emit energy move from the monography to the
monography, from the tutorial to the tutorial, starting from Bohr and
Born, finishing modern transactions. The thoughtless copying of errors in
physics has resulted in pitiable outcomes. Physics has wallowed in
"guessing of equations".
Even such sensible reasoning that an electron moves on an equipotential
surface, not changing the energy, results in a conclusion that the
electron should not emit. However take a classic equation of an
electrodynamics of Weber and you will see that the second derivative of
distance between an electron and proton on a circular orbit in a term of
equation, accountable for radiation, is equal to zero. On what basis have
Bohr and Born declared, that there should be a radiation?!
3. And now we came to the most important illogicality in theory of
Bohr. This is the statement of existence of steady discrete orbits,
connected with non-emitting of an electron and not justified by mechanical
reasons. At first, obviously, that nonemitting of an electron can not
cause stability. Secondly, what does prevent an electron to fall on a
core, even discretely emitting?
Scarecrow from a fairy tale by Volkov "the Wizard of emerald city",
would reason so: "If I was a Newton or Laplace, I would think, that the
electron has steady discrete orbits due to a resonance of two oscillations
having different reasons. One of them is the cyclical frequency that can
be found from equilibrium of centrifugal and centripetal forces. But
other... Where to take other?"
Still Newton has noted that it is impossible to explain motion of
planets with existing laws of a classic mechanics, when a central body
(Sun) is in one of focal points of an ellipse. So, if the planet moved on
orbit under the already known laws of a mechanics, the central body would
be not in focal point, but in center of an ellipse. However he could not
find an answer to problem, and for the subsequent generations of the
researchers this problem has dropped out from a field of vision and as
though has ceased to exist.
Such motion of planets, and also electrons in atom, is explained only
in the event that a planet and electron experience longitudinal
oscillations, length which one is equal to length of orbit. However Born
in one of the philosophical articles has told approximately so: "the
quantum mechanics could be explained with longitudinal vibrations of
moving bodies, however laws of such motion do not follow from anywhere..."
But we see such motion of bodies on orbits, therefore, such laws should
exist.
The laws of such motion of bodies are obtained due to research of a
delayed potential [4]. Modeling process of arrival of a delayed potential
to a moving trial body in a field of forces, I have found out, that the
delayed potential reaches to a body non-uniformly, now it delays more, now
it delays less. It means, that the trial body moves with longitudinal
oscillations. Thus, the longitudinal oscillations of moving bodies in
fields of forces are the general law of the nature, and this law has
appeared possible to derive with the help of three variables: distance,
force of interaction and phase velocity. It looks so: length of
longitudinal oscillation of a moving body is directly proportional phase
velocity and is inversely proportional to distance between interacting
bodies and force of interaction. The derived law results in two
interesting formulas, which one already exist in physics, but are obtained
by a heuristic way, intuitively. First of them is law of radiation energy
of the Planck – Einstein; second is correlation of de Broglie lengths of
waves.
It is not necessary to explain the reader, that the derived formulas in
comparison with already existing have brand new sense. They describe
longitudinal – oscillatory (pulsatory) motion of bodies.
Thus, we can note, that de Broglie intuitively, by mysterious mode has
found that indispensable second oscillation, which one, adding with cycle
oscillation, will form stable motion of bodies on orbit at the moment of a
resonance with it.
So far as de Broglie [5] has found the law "by guessing of an
equation", naturally, it comprises discrepancies, which one have resulted
in its fancy explanation, such as "wave – particle". After a fifty years'
rough controversy in a scientific press and on conferences it "sounds" in
the modern reference books on physics as follows: "...According to
statistical interpretation the de Broglie's waves have the special
physical sense "of waves of probability". It were good, if the authors of
such formulation have explained: how does that "the statistical
interpretation" really diffract on crystal lattice?!
The de Broglie's is inaccurate because wave law should include a phase
velocity, instead of linear. By the way, physicists, transforming with the
help of the de Broglie formula frequency of oscillation of light in length
and on the contrary, use for this purpose by velocity of light as phase.
The inference of the de Broglie formula as outcome of delay of a potential
has shown, that the non-linear factor amending on velocity (such as
relativistic) should include in it. This factor has very significance for
exact finding of "a defect of mass" in nuclear physics.
What has taken place further? And further incredible events have begun.
Schroedinger [6] has written a not clear equation – riddle which one for
some reason scientists have begun assiduously to guess and to attempt to
find its solutions. It is unknown event in science.
If, as they assert in all books on a quantum mechanics "it is
impossible to deduce a wave equation strictly logically, then the formal
steps carrying on to it, are, as a matter of fact, only witty guesses"
(Born). What was his confidence in correctness grounded on?
Max Born [7] has found the solutions of the Schroedinger wave equation
with the help of statistical interpretation of a wave function, but thus
the quantum mechanics finally has gained a mystical view. Practically
simultaneously with Schroedinger Heisenberg [8] has opened new version of
a formalism of a quantum mechanics: with the help of a matrix analysis and
so-called "indeterminacy relations". Around of latter one have inflamed
philosophical passions, not calming down to this day.
If the researchers did not accuse continually classic mechanics in
insolvency, and have looked in it for analogies, at once they would see
that at any real oscillation of a rigid body there are same problems, as
in "indeterminacy relation" of Heisenberg. So if to define in some
instant, velocity and impulse of an oscillating body, then it is
impossible to define a full energy of oscillation. If we define energy,
then instantaneous velocity and impulse loses sense.
Nevertheless, Russian physicists Ternov and Sokolov [9] in 1969 have
found the logical inference of a Schroedinger equations. It turned out
that the Schroedinger equations are a system of three known equations. One
of them is ratio for lengths of de Broglie's waves. Second is energy
conservation law on orbit of Hamilton. Third one is general wave equation
of oscillation of medium deduced for a sound by Helmholtz and for light in
ether by Maxwell.
For a mathematical formalism there is no difference what equations are
joint in a system. But for physicists of a classic mechanics it is
completely unacceptable to solve a joint set of equations, one of which is
the law of motion of a rigid body and other is law of oscillation of
medium. Therefore equations of Schroedinger and Dirac cannot be considered
as physical. Any paradoxes, statistical solutions, "vagueness" of an
electron etc. occur from here.
From all above said follows, that the stable states of electrons on
orbit can be found from a resonance of two oscillations: cyclical, defined
from a balance of power on orbit and longitudinal, defined by the formula,
having form of de Broglie's expression. So far as the resonance of these
frequencies is possible only at total length of longitudinal oscillation,
from here the integer sequence of steady discrete orbits follows.
At definition of cyclical oscillation from a Newton's law of a balance
of power on orbit, at least, two fundamental conclusions follow some more.
At first, the constant of quantization (Planck) for an electrodynamics (in
atom) is less than a constant of quantization in gravitation (for
planetary systems) approximately in 1040 times. Secondly, the
centripetal force, especially in atom, depends on quantity of bodies
(electrons) on orbit and, the laws of delay of a potential can interfere
with their laws of motion.
The quantum mechanics can and should find the determined form of a
classic mechanics; for all that classic mechanics should include a delayed
potential.
The literature:
H. Helmholtz. Über die Erhaltung der Kraft. Leipzig, 1907,
s. 6.
R. Feynman. The Nobel lectures.
N. Bohr. The quantum mechanical description of a physical
reality.
N. Noskov. To a problem on limitation of a field of
application of a classic mechanics. SPE "Print" Institute of high-energy
physics, Academy of Sciences; Kaz. SSR, Alma-Ata, 1991.
L. de Broglie. The substantiation of quantum conditions of
the Bohr. Thesis. Ann. de Phys., v. 10, 1925, p. 22.
E. Schroedinger. Ann. Phys., Bd. 79, 1926, s.361, 489; Bd.
80, 1926, s. 437; Bd. 81, 1926, s. 109.
M. Born. Probabilistic interpretation of a wave function.
Zs. Phys., Bd. 37, 1926, s. 563; Bd. 38, 1926, s. 803.
W. Heisenberg. Zs. Phys., Bd. 33, 1925, s. 879
A.A. Sokolov, I.M. Ternov. A quantum mechanics and nuclear
physics. M.: Prosveshchenie, 1970, p. 39...40.
Is published earlier:
"Science of Kazakhstan", 1 (85), January 1...15,
1997.
Знаете ли Вы, что такое мысленный эксперимент, gedanken experiment? Это несуществующая практика, потусторонний опыт, воображение того, чего нет на самом деле. Мысленные эксперименты подобны снам наяву. Они рождают чудовищ. В отличие от физического эксперимента, который является опытной проверкой гипотез, "мысленный эксперимент" фокуснически подменяет экспериментальную проверку желаемыми, не проверенными на практике выводами, манипулируя логикообразными построениями, реально нарушающими саму логику путем использования недоказанных посылок в качестве доказанных, то есть путем подмены. Таким образом, основной задачей заявителей "мысленных экспериментов" является обман слушателя или читателя путем замены настоящего физического эксперимента его "куклой" - фиктивными рассуждениями под честное слово без самой физической проверки. Заполнение физики воображаемыми, "мысленными экспериментами" привело к возникновению абсурдной сюрреалистической, спутанно-запутанной картины мира. Настоящий исследователь должен отличать такие "фантики" от настоящих ценностей.
Релятивисты и позитивисты утверждают, что "мысленный эксперимент" весьма полезный интрумент для проверки теорий (также возникающих в нашем уме) на непротиворечивость. В этом они обманывают людей, так как любая проверка может осуществляться только независимым от объекта проверки источником. Сам заявитель гипотезы не может быть проверкой своего же заявления, так как причина самого этого заявления есть отсутствие видимых для заявителя противоречий в заявлении.
Это мы видим на примере СТО и ОТО, превратившихся в своеобразный вид религии, управляющей наукой и общественным мнением. Никакое количество фактов, противоречащих им, не может преодолеть формулу Эйнштейна: "Если факт не соответствует теории - измените факт" (В другом варианте " - Факт не соответствует теории? - Тем хуже для факта").
Максимально, на что может претендовать "мысленный эксперимент" - это только на внутреннюю непротиворечивость гипотезы в рамках собственной, часто отнюдь не истинной логики заявителя. Соответсвие практике это не проверяет. Настоящая проверка может состояться только в действительном физическом эксперименте.
Эксперимент на то и эксперимент, что он есть не изощрение мысли, а проверка мысли. Непротиворечивая внутри себя мысль не может сама себя проверить. Это доказано Куртом Гёделем.
Понятие "мысленный эксперимент" придумано специально спекулянтами - релятивистами для шулерской подмены реальной проверки мысли на практике (эксперимента) своим "честным словом". Подробнее читайте в FAQ по эфирной физике.
