Ignazio,
Quantum mechanics says that an electron does not simultaneously have an exact position and an exact momentum. The uncertainties in position times the uncertainty in momentum is (at least) hbar. So you could prepare an electron in a state that has a precise momentum but an uncertain location, or a precise location but an uncertain momentum.
There is more to it than that. The dimensions x,y,z are independent, so that the uncertainty in x-momentum times the uncertainty in the x-dimension is hbar; simultaneously the uncertainty in y-momentum times the uncertainty in the y-dimension is hbar, and the same for z. BUT: these are independent, so you could prepare an electron with a precise x-location and a precise y-momentum.
In addition, the same relationship holds between energy and time. Relativity tells us that time is like a dimension of space -- space and time are the same kind of thing, they are interchangeable -- so we can think of energy as a kind of momentum. So we have four coordinates, and four conserved quantities, and each coordinate is "conjugate to" a conserved quantity. (Incidentally, you could say the same about angular position and angular momentum, or you could just derive that fact from xyz.) It all fits together very neatly.
I phrased it "electrons do not simultaneously have an exact position and an exact momentum." Textbooks don't say it this way, they are more conservative and say they cannot simultaneously be measured. This is because of the history of quantum mechanics and how it was developed.
So if you're telling me that quantum mechanics is wrong on this point, and that electrons really do have a precise location and momentum, you have a HUGE burden to overcome, because this is very well established. It seems that maybe you dislike uncertainty. Then you need to work on your likes and dislikes, instead of trying to change the theory.
Circuit theory -- voltage, current, capacitance, inductance, resistance -- can certainly be applied at atomic scales, as long as you are careful. I cannot say that circuit theory should be applied "INSTEAD of" quantum mechanics, this doesn't make sense to me. The two theories should be consistent. If they are inconsistent then circuit theory needs to be adapted to fit quantum mechanics, because QM describes small things and circuit theory was developed to describe large things.
I looked over your DNTH webpage but I did not see where it explains what your theory is.
Topic Author
