|
|
36 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics, January 6, 2000
By A Customer
There are four aspects to the theoretical underpinning of this book, (i) philosophical, (ii) theoretically physical, (iii) experimentally physical and (iv) mathematical. The theoretical underpinning for this book are the six theory sections, which are also posted by the author on several of his web pages. My review is directed at these theoretical underpinnings. For the purpose of orientation, one may note that these six sections come as pdf files. Consequently, it is natural to label their pages in consecutive order. For example, the references would be on page 33. The ensuing seven remarks are labelled according to which of the above four aspects I am talking about.1.(iv) The expressions for the charge distribution given below Eq.(I.5), as well as those given by Eqs.(I.7) and (I.8) do not satisfy the author's wave equation, Eq.(I.6). 2.(iii) By an appropriate rotation of the laboratory, any linear combination of the angular eigenmodes having the same l-value will become independent of the azimuthal angle \phi, i.e. will become a pure m=0 mode having the same l-value. (This is a consequence of the familiar "addition theorem" for spherical harmonics.) According to the Mills theory, the oscillation frequency of the system will therefore have changed from a non-zero value to the value zero. Putting these two observations together, one has the result that, by merely changing the orientation with which one looks at the charge distribution, say, by tilting one's head, one can change the frequency with which the system vibrates. 3.(iii) The radial amplitude profiles given by Eqs.(I.25) and (I.26) are those of a hollow resonating sphere or those of empty spherically symmetric space. These profiles are not those that pertain to a system having a central charged nucleus, whose electrostatic potential U(r) is proportional to 1/r. As a consequence, vibrational frequencies (or energy levels) based on these (non-electrostatic) profiles are in conflict with the known levels of the hydrogen atom, the book's "alternative interpretation" on pages 11-13 notwithstanding. 4.(ii) The sweeping negative assessments (after Eq.(I.46) down to the middle of the next page) of (1) quantum mechanics (q.m.), of (2) the relation between Schrodinger's equation and spin and the Pauli principle, and of (3) the impuned "assumption" of q.m. visavis macroscopic objects are very strange by any standard. I am sure that had this book been cognizant of, for example, Feynman's (LECTURES ON PHYSICS, Volume III) exposition of quantum mechanics (but not necessarily ALL his philosophical comments), augmented by Wheeler's (Box 25.3 in "GRAVITATION" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler) exposition of the role of Hamilton-Jacobi theory in relating q.m. to Newtonian mechanics, then the book would have reached a diametrically opposite assessment. 5.(iii) The book claims that the hydrogen atom has energy levels below those already measured spectroscopically. It is claimed (e.g. on page 21) that these levels betray their existence only through atomic collisions. If that were indeed the case, then the atomic beam physicists would have seen these energy states a long time ago with the help of the Ramsauer effect. This effect is observed when electron having the right energy exhibit resonance scattering (only for the l=0 part of the electrons' angular momentum) when they scatter off a neutral atomic beam. Furthermore, these electrons would also reveal any "hydrino" states by the energy necessary to ionize the hydrogen atoms in these states. 6.(i) Above Eq.(I.22) the book makes the physically and philosphically incorrect claim that Schrodinger's boundary condition leads to a "purely" mathematical model of the electron [emphasis via quotes are mine]. The correct statement should have been something like: "Schrodinger's boundary condition expresses (or captures) the dynamical behaviour of a bound electron". Thus, first of all, Schrodinger's boundary condition makes no statement about the structure of the electron. Secondly, and more importantly, there is no breach (as introduced by Plato and formalized by Kant) between reason and reality as is implied by the dismissive and subjective descriptor `purely mathematical model'. The phrase `purely mathematical model' or its philosophic equivalent, `purely mental construct', is an attempt to drive a wedge between theoretical physics and that which is observed or perceived in experimental physics. Such attempts should, for obvious reasons, be guarded against with vigilance. A very informative discussion of this issue can be found in L. Peikoff's article "The analytic synthetic dichotomy" in A. Rand's "Introduction to objectivist epistemology". 7.(i) In several places the book refers to the "interpretation" of the wave function, or the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. This is bad physics and bad epistemology. Here again some philosophic detection is necessary. The underlying premise is the erroneous assumption that these concepts, or constellation of concepts, are a matter of revelation, and that our job is merely to "interpret" what they mean. The underlying premise consists of the assumption that (a) the concept `wave function' or (b) the constellation of concepts `quantum mechanics', both products of man's consciousness, are metaphysically prior or independent of existence. In fact, the opposite is the case. All products of our consciousness, including the above, are constructed by a mental process in which our consciousness digests the data and observations obtained through our senses. The fundamental aspects of this digestive process are in fact described in the above book by A. Rand Let me summarize this review by putting it into a wider perspective. As one can see from the issues I have pointed out, the work presented in this book is grossly deficient from (i) the philosophical, (ii) the theoretically physical, (iii) the experimentally physical and (iv) the mathematical point of view. The book presents a terribly misleading and confused picture about all these issues. I could cite additional instances, but I merely would be beating a dead horse. Based on the observations listed above, a more accurate assessment of the book is that it is an example of what, for good reasons, would give mathematicians, engineers, physicists, and philosophers a bad reputation in the eyes of prospective scientists or the public in general.
|
See all Editorial Reviews
