[andrewgray]

Quote

But there is such a thing as coherent linear superposition. QM does not say that the field can only be circularly polarized.

Yes, QM can "make" vertically polarized light by "adding" clockwise and a counterclockwise "photons" together. However, Bohr's principle comes into play. QM says that the photoejection is a particle interaction with max energy hν-Ф, not 2hν-Ф, implying interaction with one photon. One photon does not vertical polarized light make.

QM theory needs to hypothesize the "particle" nature of light to get the hν energy limit. This New Theory does not. This clearly is an advantage, as we then can restore the reality-based transverse E field ejections, just like the obvious microwave example above. One final comment. Did you ever think that a "particle" collision (hypothesized as an absorption) would have the tendency to "knock" the ejected electrons forward instead of sideways? Did you wonder how the metal plate was also "knocked" sideways? If the electron was "bound" to the metal plate, and the the electron was "knocked" sideways, wouldn't it pull the plate along with it (instead of having it go off in the opposite direction?)



The above diagram is according to QM. This New Theory has non-acceleration resonance instead of "photons". None of the above paradoxes apply. That is, when the pulsation frequency of the ejected photoelectron just matches the peaks of the incident wave, the electron simply moves up and down in the comoving inertial frame, going nowhere. The acceleration is over. That leaves us free to consider the incoming light as a wave, as it clearly should be. The plate does not have to recoil, as this New Theory describes the photoejection simply as a transverse electrical force on the electron, and not as a collision.

Andrew A. Gray

[andrewgray]

Erasmus said:

We know from deep scattering that the neutron is not a proton and electron but rather seems to be made of 3 point like fractional charged objects.

Qfwfq said:

Actually much more than three. The quarks usually mentioned for a given hadron are the overall net of quarks and antiquarks.

Aunt Mary has some pain in her abdomen, so the doctors want to probe her to find out what's inside. To do this they drop a hydrogen bomb on her, and watch what comes out. "Oh, she has a tumor on her diaphram", the doctors exclaim. Pretty far fetched, right? No one would believe that watching Aunt Mary's pieces come out would reveal anything about her current abdominal condition. Blasting her apart only reveals that she can be blasted apart.

So why the surprise to find my skepticism when you probe a neutron or a proton by annihilating it with anti-protons with a GaZeV (gazillion eV's)? We see some pieces come out after the anti-proton "atomic bomb" is dropped on it, but so what? In the same way with Aunt Mary, this does not give a picture of how it was before the bomb. So how do you know that a neutron wasn't a proton and an electron if you blasted it into pieces, and you saw "some stuff" come out? You don't.

Blasting protons and neutrons into pieces and categorizing the pieces (and giving Nobels for the predictions) is all well and good, don't get me wrong. But studying the properties of the blasted neutron bits doesn't reveal that much about the original particle, in my opinion, just like blasting apart Aunt Mary with a nuke doesn't tell a psychologist much about her personality.

I am much more interested in getting nanoscale science correct at this point. Nanoscale physics is not that "mysterious" anymore, as we are starting to be able to "see" things at this dimension. In my opinion, we must get nanoscale physics correct before we can get femtoscale physics correct. And I do not believe that we have nanoscale physics correct yet. That's why the New Theory.

Qfwfq said:

So weak interactions and QCD are BS too? Gosh I knew some of the people on both the Delphi and the SLAC groups and I won't believe they were lying about the top quark events that were recorded.

See above.

Andrew A. Gray

[andrewgray]

DryLab said:

I like your theory; I've followed here and on other forums.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Quote

I've always thought of an electron as a photon trapped in a repeating pattern, maybe circular.

DryLab, it seems that this New Theory does not include "photons".

Andrew A. Gray

[Qfwfq]

First of all a clarification for Will: My remark about "more than three" was not meant to contradict the point that DIS shows charges being in thirds of e. It took me a while to figure that you must have meant your reply only in this sense.

What it does mean however is that the picture is even more complicated than three quarks just sitting there, hadroninc matter could hardly be described without RQFT. And, Andrew, DIS doesn't necessarily blow the hadron apart. In order to extract information about the electric charge of single quarks, it is enough to consider the data of events for which the lepton's interaction was hard enough (and if you don't know what that means, look it up) and that's pretty much what the "deeply inelastic" in DIS means.

andrewgray said:

Yes, QM can "make" vertically polarized light by "adding" clockwise and a counterclockwise "photons" together. However, Bohr's principle comes into play. QM says that the photoejection is a particle interaction with max energy h?-?, not 2h?-?, implying interaction with one photon. One photon does not vertical polarized light make.

And where did I mention two photons rather than a single one? You don't appear to be understanding the quantum formalism, which you are presuming to not only criticize but even refute. Not all observables are compatible, otherwise there wouldn't be Heisenberg's principle. If an interaction makes it sensible to say what the direction of the electric field vector was, then certainly it couldn't have also observed angular momentum. Those who know me well enough around here know I use different attitudes with people that are asking for help about things that are hard to understand (including QM which is freakin' wierd) and those who think they can prove something is BS, only because they know little about it. So, before trying to knock down QM, get a better understanding of it.

andrewgray said:

However, this New Theory seems promising, and the purely logical mind would at least look at the possibility that we do not have pure microscopic conservation of energy and momentum due to tunneling. The neutrino hypotheses are still hazy enough to just let go of them.

What do you mean by "pure microscopic"? What do you mean by "non strict"? Without either the neutrino or some other garbage bin, we'd have to conclude that energy is consistently disappearing. Not even average conservation.

andrewgray said:

You guys are faster than me.

Actually, I'd say I'm pretty darn slow, due to having other fish to fry, so you should be feeling lucky.

[andrewgray]

Erasmus said:

Which stat-mech book are you using,btw?

Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/0070518009 , by Frederick Reif.

Qfwfq said:

So, what about polarization dependence? I remember a basic exercise in my RQFT course, which explains it fine for the Compton effect.

Qfwfq,

I am not familiar with a QM polarization explanation in the Compton Effect. Do you have a reference or do you care to explain? How does the Compton effect vary with polarization? I have made some predictions about this and it would be very interesting to see if they are true.

Here is how this New Theory explains the Compton Effect for changed x-ray wavelengths at different angles:



This New Theory predicts that the most likely ejection angle for the Compton electrons would be at 90^o. However, since the Compton experiment uses a solid metal plate as the target, 90^o ejections would be impossible (a metal vapor would be better, allowing transverse ejections). The forward direction would be the most unlikely for ejection, as the transverse E field would again tend to eject the electrons sideways. Hence, the most likely ejection direction for a solid plate experiment would be somewhere in between 0^o and 90^o.

The maximum velocity would again be dependent on a non-acceleration resonance, just like in the photoelectric effect. The maximum energy might not go as hν, as higher harmonic resonances are probable, reducing the velocity. However, once this velocity is known, then the change in x-ray wavelength would simply be due to a Doppler shift, as the receding electrons reflect the incident x-rays, shifting the frequency towards the red.

Let's try this out and see how this works. The max ejection velocities are known. The max velocity found for ejected electrons is approximately .07c for Compton's Experiment. (See Recoil Electrons From Aluminum). We will take the average velocity to be approximately .05c, for a rough estimate. Also as a rough estimate to see if we are in the ballpark, we will try 45^o as the most likely ejection angle.

We wish to find the resulting retransmitted wavelength using the Doppler formula:



Now the electron would continuously Doppler-shift the incident wave, from no frequency shift at the beginning of its acceleration, to a maximum shift in frequency at its final velocity (at the end of its acceleration). Thus, the retransmitted wave’s frequency shift would be a broadened spike. The center of the spike would be associated with some electron velocity in between its initial and final velocity, and not the electron’s final velocity. We will make the reasonable assumption that the average retransmission velocity of the pulsating electron is ½ its average final velocity (again for a rough estimate).

So finally, we have a rough estimate for the Doppler shifted wavelengths:



Not a bad rough estimate (obviously, we could change our very rough assumptions to match the data. We will avoid this, as to not be hypocritical, but some combinations give exact results.)

However, if one changes to a metal vapor target, instead of a metal plate target, things would really change. This would allow transverse ejections, changing the character of the Doppler Shift. It would be very interesting to redo this experiment with a vapor target to see if the Compton wavelengths change. The QM prediction would stay the same.

In addition, polarizations could be considered. For Compton's experiment, if the x-rays were vertically polarized, then the ejections would no longer be in the Compton plane. This would change things. It would be easy to make predictions on how this would change things with this New Theory.

For horizontal polarizations, the ejections would tend to stay in the Compton plane. It would be interesting to do an electron velocity distribution experiment for the Compton electrons to verify these polarization predictions. QM would not make such electron velocity distribution predictions, because QM treats this phenomena as a collision instead of a transverse force ejection. Here, Qfwfq, is where I would like to see your QM Compton polarization results.


Andrew A. Gray

[Qfwfq]

andrewgray said:

I am not familiar with a QM polarization explanation in the Compton Effect. Do you have a reference or do you care to explain? How does the Compton effect vary with polarization? I have made some predictions about this and it would be very interesting to see if they are true.

Look up the Klein-Nishina formula for Compton scattering and, if you're interested in the matter of polarization, you might like to go through these search results. It can be derived from a simple, loopless Feynman diagram which makes it a comparatively simple, and certainly trouble-free, computation and you can find it done in detail in Itzykson-Zuber, Quantum Field Theory 5-2-1 (Elementary Processes) with a discussion of how it relates to the non-relativistic formula, the unpolarized case and Thomson scattering.

[andrewgray]

Qfwfq said:

What do you mean by "pure microscopic"? What do you mean by "non strict" [conservation of energy]? Without either the neutrino or some other garbage bin, we'd have to conclude that energy is consistently disappearing. Not even average conservation.

Qfwfq,

By "pure microscopic" I mean that strict conservation of energy would be a "macroscopic" law. Microscopically, in my opinion, tunneling allows the law of energy conservation to be cheated sometimes. That is, when charges have correlations in their pulsations, they can escape from one another without strict conservation of energy (beta decay, for example).

By "non-strict", I mean that usually, microscopic charges do not have pulsation correlations, and usually conservation of energy holds on the time average.

Energy would not necessarily be "consistently disappearing", since reverse tunneling would also be possible. That is, sometimes microscopic charges could escape from each other with more energy than expected due to a more favorable correlation in their pulsations. So on the average, energy still would tend to be conserved.

Andrew A. Gray

[Qfwfq]

You would have to explain how energy would be conserved on the average in beta decay. The outcooming particles excluding the neutrino never total more than the incoming energy.

andrewgray said:

Microscopically, in my opinion, tunneling allows the law of energy conservation to be cheated sometimes. That is, when charges have correlations in their pulsations, they can escape from one another without strict conservation of energy (beta decay, for example).

By "in my opinion" you apparently mean according to your theory, but initially you seemed to be upholding tunnelling as a justification for it. Isn't it becoming somewhat bootstrap here?

[arkain101]

I would be interested to see how or where this theory attempts an explanation to what 'fundamental' objects are.

What are these things made of? Light, electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.

Is the universe a physical machine like place (fundamental material forming the reality) in the view of this theory...

or..

Is every small object considered a interpratation reflected on the macroscopic knowings of things.

Let me try to ask a little more clearer.

In the view of the theory...

What is the source (small quantum/atomic world) of existence made of?

[andrewgray]

Qfwfq said:

You would have to explain how energy would be conserved on the average in beta decay. The outcooming particles excluding the neutrino never total more than the incoming energy.

That is correct. Beta decay would tend to be energy deficient. This is one choice.

The second choice is to hypothesize an almost massless particle that moves at lightspeed, that can traverse 150 miles of solid rock without much of an interaction, and needs to magically change into something else to match reasonable QM theoretical predictions.

This choice, the neutrino hypothesis, is not very good science, it seems to me. The first choice, this New Theory's tunneling, though unpalatable, seems more promising. Especially since it explains why the tunneling is energy deficient.

Qfwfq said:

By "in my opinion" you apparently mean according to your theory, but initially you seemed to be upholding tunnelling as a justification for it. Isn't it becoming somewhat bootstrap here?

Apologies if unclear expression. Yes, by "in my opinion", I mean "my interpretation of this New Theory".

And "Yes", this New Theory will have to be bootstrapped. This is because we are changing the very foundations of physics in this New Theory. These foundations are changing:

1) Charge. Electric charge is no longer believed to be static.
2) Light. Light is no longer believed to have a particle nature.
3) Particles. Particles are no longer believed to have a wave nature. Only pulsating pseudo-waves.

With these changes, isn't it reasonable that one would have to go back and bootstrap the New Theory from scratch?


Andrew A. Gray

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

[andrewgray]

arkain said:

I would be interested to see how or where this theory attempts an explanation to what 'fundamental' objects are.
What are these things made of? Light, electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.
What is the source of existence made of?

Arkain,

According to this theory, there is electrical influence and gravity.

Light is the rippling of accelerated electrical force centers (charge).
Electrons are pulsating electrical influence. The same for protons. Neutrons are probably bound protons and electrons, as a neutron decays into a proton and an electron after a few seconds. (Qfwfq of course disagrees, as he says that DIS shows that there are 3 charges in a neutron. I would like to see this evidence).


The source of existence is electrical influence bound together by gravity. This is possible since the mass function for pulsating charges oscillates between positive and negative. So even though the time average for gravity forces is extremely weak, the amplitude of the gravity force can be huge. It must only time-average to small to agree with reality.


Andrew A. Gray

[Qfwfq]

andrewgray said:

and needs to magically change into something else to match reasonable QM theoretical predictions.

Magically? The conjecture is that a neutrino changes from one flavour to another, and I believe it contemplates the same basic mechanism of RQFT as for other phenomenology. The only trouble conceptually is that of supposing a particle to be not perfectly massless while it is known to be chiral. Personally, I've thought of my own Alternative Theory to that and it would seem much more reasonable, but I won't discuss it here and probably no time soon.

andrewgray said:

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

lol that's a good one!!!

You'll be needing to hire Michelangelo, Tiziano, Raffaello, Dalì, Picasso, Van Gough, Vermeer, Klee, Mirò, Kandinsky... the whole works of them!

[arkain101]

Quote

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

Ah, but what if the picture is already painted and the painting is lost when one attempts to see how the strokes of the brush were layed...

I suppose I will start a new topic based upon this philisophical and theoretical view of my own.

[andrewgray]

Qfwfq said:

You'll be needing to hire Michelangelo, Tiziano, Raffaello, Dalì, Picasso, Van Gough, Vermeer, Klee, Mirò, Kandinsky... the whole works of them!

You are correct. Rewriting Modern Physics will be a big job. Hopefully, there will be some "artists" who are still living working on the project.

So we wish to continue with our painting of "The Whole Picture". The next most important foundation of physics that we wish to cover is Thermal Radiation, commonly misnamed Blackbody Radiation.

To review, Planck's Blackbody Radiation formula started it all. Raleigh-Jeans had first devised a theory that counted standing waves in a cubical "blackbody cavity". This theory made the silly prediction that small wavelength energy would be infinite in the cavity since there are an infinite number of ways to put smaller and smaller wavelengths in the cavity. Planck saw the data, so he decided to "quantize" the harmonic oscillators in the walls to justify changing Rayleigh-Jeans' infinite integral into a convergent sum. Then he experiment-matched his famous "Planck's Constant" to the data. The rest is history.

However, now that we have "the whole picture", we believe that Thermal Radiation has nothing to do with counting standing wave modes in a cubical blackbody cavity.

1) Take a chunk of steel (without a cavity) at room temperature. See that it emits InfraRed Radiation.

2) Take a torch and heat this steel and watch it as it glows Red ("red hot").

3) Continue to heat the steel and watch it as it starts to glow white ("white hot").

4) The steel melts before it can become "UV hot".

So what is happening here? Clearly, this is an example of "thermal radiation", and clearly it has nothing to do with black coatings or cavities of any kind.

So what is happening here? Well, when we discussed hydrogen, we saw that as the orbital radius became larger, the frequency became lower:



So consider a solid's crystalline lattice at room temperature. The atoms have an average vibrational amplitude:



This makes their outer electron orbitals overlap. At room temperature, these affected orbitals are the outer InfraRed frequencied orbitals, so these are the orbitals that are disturbed and radiate. Thus, we see InfraRed radiation at room temperature.

Next, as one heats the solid to a higher temperature, the amplitude of the thermal vibrations increases:



Thus, the next layer of orbitals are disturbed. These would be the ones that have low visible frequencies. Thus the thermal radiation becomes visible Red.

As the lattice is heated to an even higher temperature, the deeper orbitals that have higher visible frequencies are seen. The solid becomes "white hot".

If one heats the object further, typically it melts. However, if it did not, then it would become "UV hot".

In my opinion, this explanation is the reality-based physics that we need to explain thermal radiation, and is superior to counting standing wave modes in cubical blackbody cavities. That is, thermal radiation has nothing to do with cubical cavities, and nothing to do with black coatings. Thermal radiation is caused by thermal vibrations disturbing deeper and deeper orbitals that have higher and higher frequencies.

Andrew A. Gray

[Erasmus00]

andrewgray said:

In my opinion, this explanation is the reality-based physics that we need to explain thermal radiation, and is superior to counting standing wave modes in cubical blackbody cavities. That is, thermal radiation has nothing to do with cubical cavities, and nothing to do with black coatings.

I think you misunderstand the typical blackbody derivation- the reason you assume a "black" body is so that you don't have to deal with reflected light, only emitted. If you wish to only consider thermal radiation, you had better be experimenting with something "black" in the frequency regions you are considering.

As to the cavity you put the object into, while its a convenient visualization technique, its unnecessary to the derivation. It merely supplies the boundary conditions for your light, and the cavity can be "removed" merely by taking the limit that the volume of the cavity goes off to infinity.

Also, what you are suggesting is a model of continuum electromagnetic radiation interacting with a "quantized" electron/atom. This is well developed, and I'm sure you can find some information by google-ing around. I think its a rather hard theory to hold on to in light of recent quantum optics research.
-Will

Edit:Afterthought- care must be taken to interpret the limit of your cavity as the walls go to infinity. Statistical mechanics only applies to equilibrium/steady state situations. Just clearing up a subtlety.