I mean something that really does make calculations valid. as an example i have mentioned the electron spin. if ,classically , electron was a revolvong sphere it will have to move much faster than the speed of light to give the observable results but another approach is to think of it as a torus which doesn't violate the calculation (i want the sources that address these types of issues (electron being a torus as example))f95toli said:By "classical analogy" do you mean "aid to understanding"? Or something that can actually be used for calculations?
An example of the first would be the Bloch sphere;. An example of the 2nd case (I guess) could be using imaginary time when dealing with tunnelling.
Where? Please give specific references.mohamed_a said:I have read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamic_quantum_analogsmohamed_a said:Could you recommend websites , sources or books that give good classical analogy to quantum mechanics
yes something like that i thought that there might be a book or refrence discussing this issue in details with several trial to each and every quantum phenomena (electron spin = toroidal electron model, wave-particle duality = pilot wave theory, etc).Demystifier said:
Toroidal electron modelPeterDonis said:Where? Please give specific references.
This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper; it's in an "open" journal that, as far as I can tell, allows submissions without any kind of review. That makes it questionable.mohamed_a said:
I am just looking for attempts to model quantum phenomena and not 100% valid ideas or approachesPeterDonis said:This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper; it's in an "open" journal that, as far as I can tell, allows submissions without any kind of review. That makes it questionable.
First, PF's rules about valid sources are what they are regardless of what you are looking for.mohamed_a said:I am just looking for attempts to model quantum phenomena and not 100% valid ideas or approaches
As far as I can tell, it's not peer-reviewed. It also looks questionable to me for a number of reasons.Klystron said:Requesting @PeterDonis or another mentor to determine if this is a valid peer reviewed source.
If this is an actual area of research, you should be able to find a reference that's better than the one you gave. The physics of radar has been well studied for decades and there should be plenty of peer-reviewed references for any "torus shaped models" that are useful in that regard.Klystron said:Torus shaped models describe certain aspects of electromagnetic (EM) fields such as those generated by radar transmitters.
It's crackpot nonsense.PeterDonis said:This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper
There is this information on the website: https://www.scirp.org/journal/peer-review.aspxPeterDonis said:This does not look like a peer-reviewed paper; it's in an "open" journal that, as far as I can tell, allows submissions without any kind of review. That makes it questionable.
Keyword "potentially"caz said:I think it is more important that scirp (the publisher) appears here
https://beallslist.net/#update
Yes, I expected to find several valid papers on topological models applicable to radar science. Twenty years ago a similar Google search returned useful information with minimal froth. Today I found an utter deluge of popular torus nonsense and DIY electromagnets even when including search terms such as 'dielectric' and 'radar science'.PeterDonis said:As far as I can tell, it's not peer-reviewed. It also looks questionable to me for a number of reasons.If this is an actual area of research, you should be able to find a reference that's better than the one you gave. The physics of radar has been well studied for decades and there should be plenty of peer-reviewed references for any "torus shaped models" that are useful in that regard.
...
Yes, please do that.Klystron said:Perhaps I should open a separate thread after searching Insights and historical threads.
I meant to just add a qualifier but ended up deleting; my original post was contained in a reply. I know nothing about arxiv reliability. Tori effectively model EM Fields under certain conditions even ignoring fractal geometry. Topological knot theory does apply to many aspects of electronics, for instance twisted pair conductors, some polarization methods and waveguide couplers.caz said:The arxiv page that you deleted said that it was eventually published in Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical by IOP Publishing which I thought was an acceptable journal. Or am I misunderstanding the information on arxiv?
If there are other valid models of the atom or electron they would probably be more famous and accepted , the standard model is still the most successful in explaining practical phenomena. So, what I am looking for is "attempts" or theories that explain quantum outcomes from a different prespective. For example, the pilot wave theory makes it more intuitive to understand quantum outcomes and it is indeed valid to some extent.PeterDonis said:First, PF's rules about valid sources are what they are regardless of what you are looking for.
Second, if you're going to allow "attempts" that make predictions that contradict experiments, what's the point?
I think you need to give more details about exactly what you are looking for and why.
From this description, what you are looking for is interpretations of QM. (The pilot wave is one such interpretation.) That is off topic for this forum; it should be discussed in the QM interpretations subforum. But before starting a new thread in that forum, you should look through existing threads and should also take some time to look through the existing literature on QM interpretations; just asking "what QM interpretations are there" is too broad a question.mohamed_a said:what I am looking for is "attempts" or theories that explain quantum outcomes from a different prespective. For example, the pilot wave theory makes it more intuitive to understand quantum outcomes and it is indeed valid to some extent.
The classical analogy approach to quantum mechanics is a theoretical framework that attempts to explain the behavior of quantum systems by drawing analogies to classical physics. It assumes that certain properties of classical systems can be applied to quantum systems, allowing for a more intuitive understanding of quantum phenomena.
The classical analogy approach differs from other interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation or the many-worlds interpretation, in that it does not view quantum systems as fundamentally different from classical systems. Instead, it seeks to bridge the gap between classical and quantum physics by drawing parallels between the two.
While the classical analogy approach can provide a useful framework for understanding certain aspects of quantum mechanics, it has its limitations. It is unable to fully explain some of the more counterintuitive and non-classical behaviors of quantum systems, such as superposition and entanglement.
The classical analogy approach has been used in various practical applications, such as in the development of quantum computing algorithms and in the study of quantum entanglement. It has also been applied in the field of quantum chemistry to aid in the understanding of molecular structures and chemical reactions.
One criticism of the classical analogy approach is that it may oversimplify the complexities of quantum mechanics and lead to misunderstandings or incorrect interpretations. It also does not fully capture the probabilistic nature of quantum systems, as classical systems are deterministic. Additionally, some argue that the classical analogy approach may hinder the development of new and more accurate theories of quantum mechanics.