7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory

[andrewgray]

Watcher,

 

A couple of things. First, the electron velocity   is the normal velocity, not a phase velocity (which is associated with waves). The electron is not a wave. Here is a simple example. If an electron were pulsating at 1 Hz, and its pulsation length were 1 meter, it would definitely be moving with  . No "phase velocity complications" in this theory. Just normal particle velocities in the normal sense. No QM "uincertainty principle", either. The electron may "turn OFF" and be almost undetectable, but its position is still well defined. So perhaps we will grant Heisenberg and his QM cronies a "nice-try" and a "we-understand-why-you-did-it,-but-it's-wrong" award.

 

And yes, the electron "does not jump from one orbit to another" to generate radiation (no "quantum jumps"). Atomic radiation is generated by disturbing the orbits of electrons with resonant orbital frequencies. This is proven by the fact that hydrogen does not absorb UV light with frequencies just higher than the Lyman (1,∞) line. According to QM and Schrödinger, hydrogen should readily absorb all frequencies just above the Lyman (1,∞) line because "energy levels become continuous there". But it does not. This is because the light absorptions are not from Schrodinger-style quantum jumps, but are resonant absorptions of resonant frequencies in the style of this new theory. Here is another example where this new theory is correct and QM is wrong. The frequencies just above the Lyman (1,∞) line are simply not resonant orbital frequencies, simple as that.

 

 

Quote

1. am i correct to assume that the electron's pulse is the the same spherical field imagine by lorentz and einstein and that the only difference is that instead of a spherical continuous field , it pulses? to me this is a welcome development

Yes, and yay!

 

 

Quote

2. does this pulse of spherical wave obey's huygens principle of wave fronts? since you have associated electron's the pulse wave to de broglie wave, this is might be a inevitable conclusion since de brgolie waves is associated with standing waves

Yes, the pulses follows Huygen's principle within each pulse. Also, they follow Huygen's principle macroscopically, where trilliions of pulsed emissions sum to a smooth "normal" EM wave. And No, no electron standing waves. Electrons are particles.

 

 

Quote

3. why do you still use plancks constant in your equation? doesn't this imply wave particle duality?

Because Planck's constant appears in the photoelectric effect and the Bremsstrahlung cutoff experiment. Whether this constant is actually the same constant that appears in Planck's thermal radiation law is debatable. It was close enough, though, that Einstein used it to invent "photons" in 1921, even though Planck hypothesized absolutely nothing about "light particles" in his 1900 radiation law (matched to existing experimental data).

 

"Wave particle duality?" No, no, no, and an italicized bold CAPITALIZED WITH EXCLAMATION red NO! No wave-particle gobbledygook in this logical theory. No!

 

Quote

4, if the energy of the dissipating pulse is equal to that of the electron, why do you assume that the electron still exists when it is off pulse?

iow, is it also possible that the electron only appears as a pulse? so that in no pusle here is also no electron? thereby making the motion of electron discontinuous (jumpy)

Now this is a good question. Now we are getting down to the Nitty Gritty of our model for the structure of the pulsating electron. Yes, we assume that the electron exists while "it is OFF". It almost "disappears" in the sense that its charge "cannot get out" and would be almost undetectable in this state (kind of like detecting an ammonia molecule with a burglar alarm). But just because a detector can't detect it doesn't mean that it is not there.

 

"Jumpy?" I wouldn't say "jumpy", I would say intermittent.

 

If you are interested in the Nitty Gritty of our model for the structure of the pulsating electron, we can discuss it in the next round.

 

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray

[Qfwfq]

However, today we know that the electron is so small that is impossible for any electron structure to have this magnetic moment without the surface velocity exceeding the speed of light.

I thought we had already been through that.

 

How dumb is this?

Yeah, it's really dumb, isn't it, to call it spin when it can't be explained as a spinning little ball. :doh:

 

And yet there are reasons to keep on calling it spin. Further, quantum theory gives reasons why the charged fermion behaves as if it had the angular momentum and dipole moment in question. To understand these reasons you need solid grounding in the math of Lie groups and algebras. The PCT theorem even shows why there is a link between spin and statistics, as well as explaining antimatter phenomenology.

 

In addition, there are other Quantum Fudge Factors called "transition rules" that need to be added to make things work.

If you mean selection rules (for transitions) they have been explained quite well.

 

BTW, what do you think about Pauli's exclusion principle? Is it nothing more than a "fudge factor" to make the whole of chemistry possible?

[Farsight]

Perhaps I can contribute something of use here. See the wiki Stern-Gerlach article which says:

 

If the particles are classical, "spinning" particles, then the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors is taken to be truly random and each particle would be deflected up or down by a different amount...

 

The experiment shows that this doesn't happen, so we know the particles aren't spinning spheres. However the article, which is in line with the current consensus, goes on to say:

 

Electrons are spin-1⁄2 particles. These have only two possible spin angular momentum values, called spin-up and spin-down. The exact value in the z direction is +ħ/2 or −ħ/2. If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. The speed of rotation would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×108 m/s, and is thus impossible.

 

There's actually nothing wrong with that, but here comes the non-sequitur:

 

Thus, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation and is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is sometimes known as the "intrinsic angular momentum."

 

This is wrong I'm afraid. We've established that the particle isn't rotating like a planet, but why can't it be rotating in some other fashion? There is no justification here for asserting that spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation, particularly since the electron exhibits that magnetic dipole moment. And particularly since the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". IMHO it's fairly easy to see what's happening in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, especially if you've played football and practised your free kicks. Imagine a whole bunch of spheres, like this:

 

 

Now give them an earth-style spin to give yourself a set of "classical particles". Next, jumble them around so that the spin axes point in a variety of directions, then kick them through the inhomogeneous magnetic field. You'd see a line on the screen as per the classical prediction:

 

 

Now collect all your still-spinning particles together again, and set them down on the table like a bunch of spinning Earths. Now give them another spin. Spin the spin axis. You have two choices as regards this new spin direction, this way: ↓O↑, or that way: ↑O↓. Now kick them through the inhomogeneous magnetic field and ask yourself what you'd see. Two spots, because there are two chiralities to the two compound spins. Apart from that, you can't say which way they're spinning. Spin a glass clock like a coin, and the rotation of the hands is clockwise when its face-on, anticlockwise when its rear-on, clockwise when its face-on, and so on. It's spinning both clockwise and anticlockwise. Spin the glass clock with your other hand and the compound rotation is different, but you can only describe the difference by using terms like spin-up and spin-down. Spin 1/2 applies because you end up with a moebius-like rotation, wherein two rotations in one plane occur whilst one rotation in the other plane occurs, and only then do you return to the original location and orientation.

 

Of course the Stern-Gerlach experiment was done with silver atoms with a single outer-shell electron. It was repeated by Phipps and Taylor in 1927 using ground-state hydrogen, so it's actually more like two globes spinning round one another. But I hope you get the picture anyway. When it comes to a single electron, the electron itself doesn't spin, just as a whirlpool doesn't spin. Instead the water spins, and that's what makes it a whirlpool. Now ask yourself this: how big is a whirlpool?

[Qfwfq]

If the particles are classical, "spinning" particles, then the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors is taken to be truly random and each particle would be deflected up or down by a different amount...

 

The experiment shows that this doesn't happen, so we know the particles aren't spinning spheres.

Actually the distribution is not a difference between orbital and intrinsic angular momenta, which are quantized according to the same rules but with the possibility of semi-integer values.

 

However the article, which is in line with the current consensus, goes on to say:

 

Electrons are spin-1⁄2 particles. These have only two possible spin angular momentum values, called spin-up and spin-down. The exact value in the z direction is +ħ/2 or −ħ/2. If this value arises as a result of the particles rotating the way a planet rotates, then the individual particles would have to be spinning impossibly fast. The speed of rotation would be in excess of the speed of light, 2.998×108 m/s, and is thus impossible.

 

There's actually nothing wrong with that, but here comes the non-sequitur:

 

Thus, the spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation and is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. That is why it is sometimes known as the "intrinsic angular momentum."

 

This is wrong I'm afraid. We've established that the particle isn't rotating like a planet, but why can't it be rotating in some other fashion? There is no justification here for asserting that spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation, particularly since the electron exhibits that magnetic dipole moment.

Indeed it would be a gross overstatement that "spin angular momentum has nothing to do with rotation" as I have already said.

 

How odd though, Farsight, the wiki you appear to be quoting from has not been edited since August 22nd and yet the bit immediately following the first one you quote is:

 

Instead, the spin angular momentum is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon. Because its value is always the same, it is regarded as an intrinsic property of electrons, and is sometimes known as "intrinsic angular momentum" (to distinguish it from orbital angular momentum, which can vary and depends on the presence of other particles).

 

So, where did the words you posted come from? Not that I think the words I found put it all that much better; perhaps the reference to Tomonaga that they give would be better.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Qfwfq
clarity

[Farsight]

So, where did the words you posted come from? Not that I think the words I found put it all that much better; perhaps the reference to Tomonaga that they give would be better.

From a historic version of the article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment&oldid=344785070. It looks like Waleswatcher changed this on 16th April. It didn't occur to me that somebody would have changed it, apologies.

[Qfwfq]

It didn't occur to me that somebody would have changed it, apologies.

lol never trust Minitrue from one day to the next!

 

One day at lunch time the telescreen discretely announced that the ration of chocolate had to be reduced to 20g a week from 30. 24 hours later the telescreen showed crowds of people rejoicing, supposedly for the fact the Big Brother had raised the ration to 20g of chocolate a week.

:hihi:

[watcher]

Spin 1/2 applies because you end up with a moebius-like rotation, wherein two rotations in one plane occur whilst one rotation in the other plane occurs, and only then do you return to the original location and orientation.

 

this might interest you ...

 

 

 

source : metaparticle.com

 

 

Of course the Stern-Gerlach experiment was done with silver atoms with a single outer-shell electron. It was repeated by Phipps and Taylor in 1927 using ground-state hydrogen, so it's actually more like two globes spinning round one another. But I hope you get the picture anyway. When it comes to a single electron, the electron itself doesn't spin, just as a whirlpool doesn't spin. Instead the water spins, and that's what makes it a whirlpool. Now ask yourself this: how big is a whirlpool?

 

or ask ourselves, can a whirlpool be considered as a solid particle or a fluid like object that waves?

[Qfwfq]

Watcher and Farsight, I find these models are quite unrelated to the one under discussion, so it isn't really right to discuss them in the same thread. It would only make the discussion even more complicated when it is complicated enough.

[watcher]

A couple of things. First, the electron velocity [math]V_e=\lambda_e \nu_e[/math] is the normal velocity, not a phase velocity (which is associated with waves).

 

this is not the electron's velocity according to broglie. the de broglie wave relation is

 

and

the velocity of the electron is then associated with the de broglie wavelength and its mass. and not the product of freq and wavelength

 

The electron is not a wave. Here is a simple example. If an electron were pulsating at 1 Hz, and its pulsation length were 1 meter, it would definitely be moving with [math]V_e= 1 meter/second[/math]. No "phase velocity complications" in this theory. Just normal particle velocities in the normal sense.

 

if an electron is a particle, then there should be no frequency and wavelength associated with its velocity.

 

No QM "uincertainty principle", either. The electron may "turn OFF" and be almost undetectable, but its position is still well defined. So perhaps we will grant Heisenberg and his QM cronies a "nice-try" and a "we-understand-why-you-did-it,-but-it's-wrong" award.

 

there is no uncertainty? have anyone observed an electron traversing space from point A to B? all we got is an electron observed in point A. and them moments later it is observed at point B. the velocity is only deduced from measuring the distance of point A to B and divide by the time elapsed. the deduced velocity is a math construct and not an actual motion of the electron particle. so Heisenberg uncertainty stands, there is no velocity to measure while the particle position is known, we have to wait for the particles second position to calculate its velocity. velocity is a mental illusion

 

"Wave particle duality?" No, no, no, and an italicized bold CAPITALIZED WITH EXCLAMATION red NO! No wave-particle gobbledygook in this logical theory. No!

 

well logically, there is no logic in a particle that moves continuously is space. take for instance the Zeno's arrow paradox, there is no logical solution here for a continuous motion in space. for Zeno's paradox to be resolved, the arrow must have discrete or discontinuous motion.

 

 

Now this is a good question. Now we are getting down to the Nitty Gritty of our model for the structure of the pulsating electron. Yes, we assume that the electron exists while "it is OFF". It almost "disappears" in the sense that its charge "cannot get out" and would be almost undetectable in this state (kind of like detecting an ammonia molecule with a burglar alarm). But just because a detector can't detect it doesn't mean that it is not there.

 

that's an assumption.

if the detector designed to detect a particle and can't detect the particle, then there is no particle there.

there may be something undetectable there but it is not a particle.

 

"Jumpy?" I wouldn't say "jumpy", I would say intermittent.

 

what would be the difference? i mean if a point particle like an electron is the amplitude of the wave, isn't it also intermittent due to its cyclic appearance?

 

And yes, the electron "does not jump from one orbit to another" to generate radiation (no "quantum jumps"). Atomic radiation is generated by disturbing the orbits of electrons with resonant orbital frequencies. This is proven by the fact that hydrogen does not absorb UV light with frequencies just higher than the Lyman (1,∞) line. According to QM and Schrödinger, hydrogen should readily absorb all frequencies just above the Lyman (1,∞) line because "energy levels become continuous there". But it does not. This is because the light absorptions are not from Schrodinger-style quantum jumps, but are resonant absorptions of resonant frequencies in the style of this new theory. Here is another example where this new theory is correct and QM is wrong. The frequencies just above the Lyman (1,∞) line are simply not resonant orbital frequencies, simple as that. .

 

Or because beyond lyman line is the quark gluon field energy exchange mechanism?

And what do you mean by resonant orbital frequency in your model? Are you using bohr’s atom model here?

 

.

[andrewgray]

Quote

I thought we had already been through that. . . (electron spin impossible)

 

Qwfwq,

 

Yes, we did go over that, but sometimes it takes multiple times for concepts to sink in.

 

Qwfwq and Farsight,

 

For example, we went over how a charged particle cannot go through a Stern-Gerlach machine just a few posts ago. Yet Farsight still describes "spinning particles" being deflected by a Stern-Gerlach machine, which is impossible (he goes on to say that Stern & Gerlach used silver atoms, but that does not negate the misinformation). So it is worthwhile to go over things a few times.

Again,a reminder:

 

A charged particle cannot go through a Stern Gerlach machine.

 

If one tries to shoot a charged particle through a Stern Gerlach machine, here is the path that it would take:

 

It would simply spiral around until it slammed into the magnet. A charged particle just

cannot go through a Stern Gerlach machine, spinning or not. The    force is too great.

 

Quote

BTW, what do you think about Pauli's exclusion principle? Is it nothing more than a "fudge factor" to make the whole of chemistry possible?

 

Now, Qwfwq, you think that inventing a little after-the-fact rule and matching an already known periodic

table done by Mendeleev in 1869 is an accomplishment? Remember the Sommerfeld relativistic quantum theory

for hydrogen? He invented a little after-the-fact method to get relativistic Bohr orbits to match the

fine structure of hydrogen known in 1929, after the experimental measurements were already done.

In fact, he defined the fine structure constant with his gobbledygook theory. And his results precisely

agreed with the known experimental data extremely well! Impressed? Of course not. After-the-fact matching is easy.

You just do a little try-this-try-that approach until something matches. And if it doesn't use reality in the theory,

it is all the easier.

 

Qwfwq, after-the-fact results-matching does not impress me at all, especially when the so-called theory claims that it is not reality-based, and has no "local reality". In other words, it is easy to make up some gobbledygook that matches already given experimental data. That is why gobbledygook theories match experimental data so well. They were formulated after the data was taken! Hence we see that QM matches data extremely well because most of QM was done after the data was already taken. So it does not impress me that QM "matches experimental data extremely well". For example, I would have been impressed if QM neutrino theory had correctly predicted results of neutrino experiments at detectors far away. But it did not. So they modified the theory with "fudge factor neutrino oscillations". Now QM neutrino theory matches experiment very well! So what?

 

What impresses me is when a theory predicts something that has not already been measured. Like when Maxwell's equations predicted the speed of light prior to its measurement. That is why I am making new predictions with this new theory about things which have not been measured. I am betting, for example, that an electron beam generated by a cyclotron will not have the same Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency as one generated by a linear accelerator (with the same electron velocity). If this is true, QM will be done. If it is not true, then this new theory will be abandoned (I promise).

 

 

Farsight,

 

Back to your example. I see what you are saying, even though your example may be a little misleading with Stern-Gerlach. Your concept of angular momentum might be a little mistaken. Remember, an object with no torque, spinning in any way, conserves angular momentum. Even if the object has composite spins, its total angular momentum is conserved and well defined if there is no torque exerted on it. So you may need to go back and re-think this example. You can always define an object's total angular momentum if there is no torque exerted on it, and it remains conserved (even with composite spins).

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

P.S. I realize I have more to respond to. To be continued . . .

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Watcher,

 

You are correct. The "De Broglie-like" relation in this new theory is not the same as De Broglie's orginal relation. It is different. As you say, De Broglie's original was

 

The correct relation is

 

The relation f=E/h (v=E/h) is the QM relation for "photons" from Einstein, not from De Broglie.

 

Quote

if an electron is a particle, then there should be no frequency and wavelength associated with its velocity.

Correct. And that is exactly what I am saying. The electron is a pulsating particle. Nothing is "waving". There is no wavelength. There is a pulsation length, however. is the distance between pulsations, and not a wavelength. So for example, if an electron were pulsating every cm , and once every second, it would be moving at 1 cm/sec.

 

Quote

there is no uncertainty? have anyone observed an electron traversing space from point A to B? all we got is an electron observed in point A. and them moments later it is observed at point B. the velocity is only deduced from measuring the distance of point A to B and divide by the time elapsed. the deduced velocity is a math construct and not an actual motion of the electron particle. so Heisenberg uncertainty stands, there is no velocity to measure while the particle position is known, we have to wait for the particles second position to calculate its velocity. velocity is a mental illusion

 

Watcher, of course this is the position of the QM'ers. But open your mind to this analogy. Suppose we are observing an automobile in the distance at night. The driver is flashing his headlights (perhaps warning other drivers of a speed trap). Now, you can see him when his lights are ON. However, when his lights are OFF, you cannot see him. You can only observe him while his lights are ON. Does this mean that he does not exist while his lights are OFF? Of course not. Even though you cannot observe him, he is obviously still there while his lights are off and not detectable. Common sense dictates this conclusion. And this analogy applies directly to the pulsating electron. While the electron's electric field is OFF, the electron is still there. This new model still has a concentration of mass-energy that defines the electron's position and velocity (simultaneously) while it is undetectably OFF. This is different and contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainly principle.

 

Quote

that's an assumption. if the detector designed to detect a particle and can't detect the particle, then there is no particle there.

there may be something undetectable there but it is not a particle.

 

Watcher, now we are talking philosophy. In particular, the old adage:

Quote

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If you say "no it does not make a sound since no one heard it", then you will fit right into the QM camp. However, if you say that "it does make a sound independent of any observer", then you are a good fit for this new theory.

 

Moreover, if you say that "something is there but it not a particle while it is not detectable, then we are only talking about definitions and philosophy here (and not science). So OK. Define this "something" as as something else. OK with me. My mind still imagines that "something" is there.

 

 

Watcher,

 

OK, "jumpy" and "intermittent" are similar enough for me. I prefer "intermittent" though.

 

Quote

Or because beyond lyman line is the quark gluon field energy exchange mechanism?

Watcher, IMHO, "quarks" and "gluons" are QM gobbledygook.

 

Quote

And what do you mean by resonant orbital frequency in your model? Are you using Bohr's atomic model here?

No. This model is the opposite of both Bohr and Schrodinger. In both of these models, atomic emissions are from "quantum jumps" and the emission of "photons". There are neither in this new theory. In this new theory there are planetary orbits with orbital frequencies (e.g., the orbital frequency of the earth is approx 365 days). Atomic emissions are from disturbing these electron orbits. The emissions are thus at the same frequencies as the orbital frequencies of the electrons. Moreover, in this new theory, the smaller the orbit, the higher the frequency. In Bohr and Schrodinger's theories, the high frequency emissions are associated with a "quantum jump" from a very large orbit. This is incorrect.

 

By "resonant" orbital frequencies, I mean that if light is incident on the atom with the same frequency as the electron orbital frequency, there will be a resonance and light energy will be absorbed. In other words, since the Lyman frequencies are absorbed by hydrogen at room temperature, then these Lyman frequencies are "resonant orbital frequencies". In QM, typically there is nothing waving and nothing to be resonant with. The "s" states in QM have no dynamic at all. They are completely static. There are no "resonance frequencies" in QM. How can you have a resonance with something that isn't even moving? Common sense dictates that resonances occur between things that have the same frequencies.

 

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray

[watcher]

Watcher,

 

You are correct. The "De Broglie-like" relation in this new theory is not the same as De Broglie's orginal relation. It is different. As you say, De Broglie's original was

 

[math]\lambda_e=\frac{h}{p_e}[/math]

 

The correct relation is

 

[math]E_e \approx \frac{1}{2}h \nu _e [/math]

 

The relation f=E/h (v=E/h) is the QM relation for "photons" from Einstein, not from De Broglie.

 

Correct. And that is exactly what I am saying. The electron is a pulsating particle. Nothing is "waving". There is no wavelength. There is a pulsation length, however. [math]\lambda_e[/math] is the distance between pulsations, and not a waveliength. So for example, if an electron were pulsating every[math] cm[/math], and once every second, it would be moving at [math]1 cm/sec[/math].

 

from your animation, i don't understand why you would equate the pulse velocity (cm/sec) radiating out of a moving electron as the same as the particle's velocity specially in a orbit bound by the nucleus.

if the pulse is radiant energy then we associate its frequency with the electron orbital frequency , not velocity.

 

sorry if you find my understanding quite redundant, since i know that this is the very understanding you wanted to dispel, and to be honest i haven't really deeply considered your theory yet, i just thought that the word "abandoning QM" was just a little bit strong. hehe

 

Watcher, of course this is the position of the QM'ers. But open your mind to this analogy. Suppose we are observing an automobile in the distance at night. The driver is flashing his headlights (perhaps warning other drivers of a speed trap). Now, you can see him when his lights are ON. However, when his lights are OFF, you cannot see him. You can only observe him while his lights are ON. Does this mean that he does not exist while his lights are OFF? Of course not. Even though you cannot observe him, he is obviously still there while his lights are off and not detectable. Common sense dictates this conclusion. And this analogy applies directly to the pulsating electron. While the electron's electric field is OFF, the electron is still there. This new model still has a concentration of mass-energy that defines the electron's position and velocity (simultaneously) while it is undetectably OFF. This is different and contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainly principle.

 

then explain quantum tunneling.

also if two outer orbital shell of 2 atoms shared one same electron, which nucleus will the electron orbits?

that's impossible right? for this to be possible, the orbital of the two atoms must be in perfect phase with one another.

iow words, they must be in resonance. partic'es do not resonate this way. only waves do.

 

Watcher, now we are talking philosophy. In particular, the old adage:

 

If you say "no it does not make a sound since no one heard it", then you will fit right into the QM camp. However, if you say that "it does make a sound independent of any observer", then you are a good fit for this new theory.

 

let's use the word detector instead of an observer. all detectors even our naked eyes use the electron photon interaction.

since a particle is only detected ( i although i prefer to use the word formed) when say a particular orbit was hit by a photon, at best, that that particle orbits an electron is assumed.

what is not assumed is that if we know the wave function of the orbit, we can predict the particle's properties.

 

so independent of the observer, an electron exist most likely as an orbiting wave system, the same way sound waves exist and becomes a "sound" when interact with the ears. where the "sound" is the metaphor for a particle.

 

Moreover, if you say that "something is there but it not a particle while it is not detectable, then we are only talking about definitions and philosophy here (and not science). So OK. Define this "something" as as something else. OK with me. My mind still imagines that "something" is there.

 

okay einstein define a particle as a spatial extension.

while born made a comment that the rigidity of a leaf spring is the rigidity of space.

so i suppose i have no problem imagining an electron as a spinning revolving particle around the nucleus.

although this can't be something absolutely a particle in the sense we understand what a particle means.

and also if you decided to model an electron as a particle, some rules need to be change.

but does doesn't mean that QM is wrong, it simply is using different rules.

so imho. a good particle theory must be reconcilable with QM. and not dismissive of it

 

Watcher,

 

OK, "jumpy" and "intermittent" are similar enough for me. I prefer "intermittent" though.

 

the word intermittent gives me the shivers by imagining an electron traversing an empty absolute nothingness SPACE. hehe

 

a particle is only as good as the spacetime interval it occupies.

iow, at superluminal speed, particles cease to be particles and converted to radiant wave energy.

 

 

 

Watcher, IMHO, "quarks" and "gluons" are QM gobbledygook.

 

so what are they in plain words? a particle with an attitude?

 

No. This model is the opposite of both Bohr and Schrodinger. In both of these models, atomic emissions are from "quantum jumps" and the emission of "photons". There are neither in this new theory. In this new theory there are planetary orbits with orbital frequencies (e.g., the orbital frequency of the earth is approx 365 days). Atomic emissions are from disturbing these electron orbits. The emissions are thus at the same frequencies as the orbital frequencies of the electrons. Moreover, in this new theory, the smaller the orbit, the higher the frequency. In Bohr and Schrodinger's theories, the high frequency emissions are associated with a "quantum jump" from a very large orbit. This is incorrect.

 

By "resonant" orbital frequencies, I mean that if light is incident on the atom with the same frequency as the electron orbital frequency, there will be a resonance and light energy will be absorbed. In other words, since the Lyman frequencies are absorbed by hydrogen at room temperature, then these Lyman frequencies are "resonant orbital frequencies". .

 

i do not see why this new theory is not the same as QM uses in chunky energy exchanges .

 

In QM, typically there is nothing waving and nothing to be resonant with. The "s" states in QM have no dynamic at all. They are completely static. There are no "resonance frequencies" in QM. How can you have a resonance with something that isn't even moving? Common sense dictates that resonances occur between things that have the same frequencies

 

first you must be referring to the standard model. ( ironically its as particle model of fermions and bosons less the motion) which have chosen pure geometry as the vehicle of expression. according to feyman some things cannot be understood in terms of motion like say gravity. do you know why?

 

second - resonance is represented in standard model as gauge rules.

 

third - string theory is QM derived yet they see everything as vibrations (multidimensional). a kind of motion. scalar motion i think.

 

 

,

[Qfwfq]

I realize I have more to respond to. To be continued . . .

Nope, don't bother, as long as you are only evading points and neglecting the nexus between them.

 

Your model would have to match up with all phenomenology that is already known, including the periodic table.

[Little Bang]

And the standard model doesn't evade points? Yeah!

[Qfwfq]

And the standard model doesn't evade points? Yeah!

Cough up a better model that matches up with at least as much observed stuff.

[andrewgray]

Your model would have to match up with all phenomenology that is already known. . .

 

Cough up a better model that matches up. . .

 

This brings us back to the point that was being made:

 

It is easy to make up stuff and experiment-match.

It is much harder to predict things that have not been measured yet.

 

You know that it is human nature to be clever and match given experimental data with hypothesis.

We can take that for granted. However, if one "makes up stuff" not based in reality, one gets into

trouble further down the road, and a "scientific dead-end" is reached. This is where we are with QM.

Physics is now officially "dead". Look in Science Magazine. It's all about biology. There is rarely an

article on quantum gobbledygook anymore. We had promising "Spintronics", and "Quantum Computers".

Where are they? In NeverLand. Because there is no electron spin, so we don't have "Spintronics". And we

don't have "Quantum Computers" because QM is just a statistical theory that has no basis in reality. Thus,

QM cannot make predictions about things that have not already been done. It is a statistical framework

that predicts how known experiments will give results based on already-done experiments similar in nature.

 

Nope, don't bother, as long as you are only evading points and neglecting the nexus between them.

My apologies, Qwfwq. I realize I have left points hanging that you have made. You guys are just quicker than

me. So luckily, you have left me a window to go back and recover some of these.

 

Let me go back to your mention of "the fine structure of hydrogen". (I have not "experiment-matched" my theory

to this phenomenon yet). A review for those of you who do not recall about the fine structure of hydrogen is in order.

The resonance frequencies of those seen in atomic spectra typically are close "doublets" and "triplets" rather than a

single frequency:

 

 

Here is a historical review about them taken from Acosta's Essentials of Modern Physics page 288:

 

Today we know that the electron is too small to have a "rotational motion about an axis within itself".

(Yes, we have already gone over that. Repetition. Repetition.) But another degree of freedom was required to

experiment-match the closely spaced "doublet" frequencies associated with each resonant line in the hydrogen spectrum.

Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck made up electron spin to experiment-match the current QM theory with known and

already-measured "fine structure" experimental data.

 

 

Let's look at this more closely.

 

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

continued . . .

[andrewgray]

So let's take a closer look at hydrogen fine structure. First, hydrogen exists as a diatomic

molecule at room temperature. The dissociation constant of diatomic hydrogen is unimaginably small.

Take a look how small these dissociations are:

 

And these are at 2000^oK, not at room temperature, where they are probably orders of magnitude smaller!

These are unimaginably small! In other words, atomic hydrogen does not exist in hydrogen gas

at room temperature! It is all molecular hydrogen!

 

So therefore, according to QM, since atomic hydrogen does not exist in hydrogen gas at room termperature, the

absorption spectra of Schrodinger's hydrogen lines at room temperature should not be there!

 

But it's there!

 

The Lyman series is readily absorbed by diatomic hydrogen gas at room temperature.

 

See how experiment-matching does not take into account reality data found almost a hundred years later? The QM'ers have "forgotten"

about this, and really don't want me to mention it. I will repeat it for emphasis:

 

Quote

Since atomic hydrogen does not exist at room termperature, the QM spectral lines for atomic hydrogen should not be absorbed. But they are.

 

Again, this means that QM is wrong, and does not match experimental data. Qwfwq, are you taking note?

Please explain. Please concentrate on this point and don't be "evading points and neglecting the

nexus between them."

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray