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

[Erasmus00]

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

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

 

Quantum mechanics made the most bold prediction in the history of science- the existence of anti-matter!

[andrewgray]

Erasmus,

 

I would have been impressed if Dirac had not used relativistic negative energy states to "predict" antimatter. Relativity expressions are inherently equations of squares. So the negative square root solution appears in lots of relativistic equations. There is nothing "negative" about a positron. Its charge is positive, its mass is positive, its energy is positive, etc. Negative relativistic energy is silly, so not impressed.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Erasmus00]

I would have been impressed if Dirac had not used relativistic negative energy states to "predict" antimatter. Relativity expressions are inherently equations of squares. So the negative square root solution appears in lots of relativistic equations. There is nothing "negative" about a positron. Its charge is positive, its mass is positive, its energy is positive, etc. Negative relativistic energy is silly, so not impressed.

 

I don't think you understand how the derivation works. Yes, its related to the negative square root, but its more broad then that. Quantum mechanics needs a complete set of states, in the Dirac equation some of these states turn out to have opposite charge. It is a legitimate prediction of quantum mechanics that is certainly the most bold prediction I know of. How does your theory explain anti-matter?

[Qfwfq]

Relativity expressions are inherently equations of squares. So the negative square root solution appears in lots of relativistic equations. There is nothing "negative" about a positron. Its charge is positive, its mass is positive, its energy is positive, etc.

Red Herring.

 

You simply fail to understand how the whole thing works. And I don't mean just the hole thing :lol: because there is the PCT thing too which is much better. Also, when you here them say things like antiparticles "go backward in time" that's an erroneous account too.

 

It would be a good idea to get it straight before criticizing it. I made this attempt with your model, before deciding I don't find it interesting.

[andrewgray]

Erasmus and Qwfwq,

 

It sticks out like a sore thumb that you evaded my point about molecular hydrogen. So I just want to take a moment to rub salt into the gaping QM wound here. So the point is that at room temperature, hydrogen is all molecules, and no atomic hydrogen. The average kinetic energy of a hydrogen molecule at room temperature would be about 5/2kT, or about .06 eV. That's 6/100's of an eV. Not nearly enough to break it apart. So again, it's all molecules. The dissociation constant at 2000^o K is approx 10^-21 and at 1500^o K is approx 10^-25. So if we extrapolate to 300^o K we get a dissociation constant of roughly 10^-33. Almost unimaginably small. So again, the direct question:

 

 

How does QM explain that molecular hydrogen absorbs the Lyman series at room temperature when there is no atomic hydrogen?

 

 

Young minds: take note how they answer (or ignore).

 

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Qfwfq]

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

If you mean that it displays absorption bands that include those of the hydrogen atom, that seems odd. Is this the actual meaning? Do you have a link, to see exactly what it says?

[andrewgray]

OK, Qwfwq. No Problem.

 

What I know comes from Eisberg's Fundamentals of Modern Physics (1961), page 113.

 

Notice that Eisberg claims that "the glass walled cell contains a monatomic gas". But for

hydrogen gas in the laboratory, we have seen that this is impossible. Notice also that

Eisberg claims that the Balmer Series appears when hydrogen gas is at very high temperatures

(implying again that normally in the lab it is not).

 

Again, for those of you not intimately familiar with absorption spectra, hydrogen absorbs the

Lyman series (discovered experimentally by Theodore Lyman in 1906-1914). The problem for

QM is that there are no atomic hydrogen atoms there in the gas at laboratory temperatures.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is the molecular hydrogen that has the Lyman

resonant frequencies, and not atomic hydrogen. This is a big problem for QM

in my opinion.

 

This is the direction that this new theory will go, as molecular hydrogen allows plenty of

"degrees of freedom" (to experiment match and) to get the fine structure and other

finely detailed characteristics in a logical way. (Perhaps I won't do it myself, but I know

others will).

 

We can finally drop Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck's made-up (and impossible) "electron spin"

hypothesis because we now have many other degrees of freedom to get fine structure.

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[Qfwfq]

Notice that Eisberg claims that "the glass walled cell contains a monatomic gas". But for hydrogen gas in the laboratory, we have seen that this is impossible.

In essence you are saying that Eisberg's claim of the hydrogen being monoatomic is wrong. Given this, how do you interpret the fact that the Lyman series does appear, despite the hydrogen being molecular? Weird isn't it? Actually though, I'm not a spectrographist myself and I don't even know, quantitavely, how much the QM energy levels differ between monoatomic and molecular hydrogen.

 

It looks as if, in order to uphold your model against QM, you would have to use it to either:

1. Show why and how molecular hydrogen behaves so.
   
2. Reinterpret the grounds on which the hydrogen would seem not to be (sufficiently) atomic.
   

If you do the first, you would also need to question any test by which they believed the hydrogen to be (sufficiently) atomic. The second, OTOH, would mean questioning the figures you had quoted for dissociation and/or discussing exactly which conditions the gas is tested in, which Eisberg doesn't specify to be room temperature and pressure; the only hint is that the surface of a star is hotter but that meand several thousand kelvin. Write Eisberg and ask him.

[Little Bang]

In essence you are saying that Eisberg's claim of the hydrogen being monoatomic is wrong. Given this, how do you interpret the fact that the Lyman series does appear, despite the hydrogen being molecular? Weird isn't it? Actually though, I'm not a spectrographist myself and I don't even know, quantitavely, how much the QM energy levels differ between monoatomic and molecular hydrogen.

 

It looks as if, in order to uphold your model against QM, you would have to use it to either:

1. Show why and how molecular hydrogen behaves so.
   
2. Reinterpret the grounds on which the hydrogen would seem not to be (sufficiently) atomic.
   

If you do the first, you would also need to question any test by which they believed the hydrogen to be (sufficiently) atomic. The second, OTOH, would mean questioning the figures you had quoted for dissociation and/or discussing exactly which conditions the gas is tested in, which Eisberg doesn't specify to be room temperature and pressure; the only hint is that the surface of a star is hotter but that meand several thousand kelvin. Write Eisberg and ask him.

[Little Bang]

The matter of speculation is science. We come up with theories that get as close as possible to explaining observation. The truth will explain all observations. If we are a group truly interested in truth then we must question every theory until it yields the truth or the questions produce something better. How long do we flog our own horse because it seems to work pretty good but never wins the race? The Lyman series, Schrodinger and Feynman did a marvelous job but do not explain why. Suppose that the electron and proton, which have the wave/particle duality, were never a particle but always a wave? If we look at the idea why couldn't it be possible that all the energy levels could be due to resonance levels between the waves?

[Little Bang]

I'll give a possible example. Suppose the electron looked like a spinning doughnut, the proton would be a doughnut the size of a dot at the axis of the electron doughnut. An energy increase of the electron would shrink the doughnut diameter to the next resonant frequency. If you look at this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_transitions.svg . Looking at the electron with my possible idea the drawing is backwards where the ground state would be at N6 not N1. N1 would be the highest energy state.

[jakuta]

Can you show the math for 1) The Photoelectric Paradox.

 

Thanks.

[watcher]

I'll give a possible example. Suppose the electron looked like a spinning doughnut, the proton would be a doughnut the size of a dot at the axis of the electron doughnut. An energy increase of the electron would shrink the doughnut diameter to the next resonant frequency. If you look at this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_transitions.svg . Looking at the electron with my possible idea the drawing is backwards where the ground state would be at N6 not N1. N1 would be the highest energy state

 

in standard model, energy scale is always higher as the electron closes the core.

say the ground state of an electron is the harmonic resonance of the nucleus.

N1 orbit is energetic in the sense that its frequency and wavelength are higher and smaller relative to n2,n3 etc

but lower and longer relative to the nucleus since the nucleus binding energy is much much larger.

 

when a nearby electron gives off energy and absorbed by the ground state electron,

it goes to the next orbit because the energy absorbs expands the wavelength and lowers the frequency.

but the overall energy in the atom is increased thus said to be in a higher energy state

 

isn't this how it works?

 

.

[Little Bang]

in standard model, energy scale is always higher as the electron closes the core.

say the ground state of an electron is the harmonic resonance of the nucleus.

N1 orbit is energetic in the sense that its frequency and wavelength are higher and smaller relative to n2,n3 etc

but lower and longer relative to the nucleus since the nucleus binding energy is much much larger.

 

when a nearby electron gives off energy and absorbed by the ground state electron,

it goes to the next orbit because the energy absorbs expands the wavelength and lowers the frequency.

but the overall energy in the atom is increased thus said to be in a higher energy state

 

isn't this how it works?

 

.

 

Yes according to the standard model but the purpose of this thread is to look for something that does answer all the questions.

[Erasmus00]

The matter of speculation is science. We come up with theories that get as close as possible to explaining observation. The truth will explain all observations. If we are a group truly interested in truth then we must question every theory until it yields the truth or the questions produce something better. How long do we flog our own horse because it seems to work pretty good but never wins the race? The Lyman series, Schrodinger and Feynman did a marvelous job but do not explain why. Suppose that the electron and proton, which have the wave/particle duality, were never a particle but always a wave? If we look at the idea why couldn't it be possible that all the energy levels could be due to resonance levels between the waves?

 

It explains a lot of things such as energy levels, but fails completely with why electrons are always detected in lumps.

[andrewgray]

Qwfwq,

 

I thought that room temperature absorption of Lyman lines in hydrogen gas was common knowledge. If you google

 

"room temperature" Lyman Series Absorption

 

You get 5000 hits. Here is another textbook Thermal Plasmas by Boulos that talks about it:

 

Hydrogen Absorption Spectrum

 

Here is the key point:

 

Now let me make an appeal to the young minds out there. Hydrogen is mostly diatomic molecules at room

temperature (300^o K). Hydrogen gas at room temperature is

 

99.99. . . % Diatomic molecular hydrogen. (99.9999999%? 99.9999999999999%? who knows?)

00.00. . . % Atomic (monatomic) hydrogen. (0.00000001%? 0.00000000000001%? who knows?)

 

So if one shines UV light through hydrogen gas at room temperature, and it absorbs the Lyman frequencies,

which one do you think absorbed it? Molecular or atomic? Of course, the betting man (woman) would place

a bet on molecular hydrogen, right? That's what I am betting on with my logic. So the real scenario for the

hydrogen spectrum and structure would probably be that of a diatomic molecule consisting of 2 protons and

2 electrons and the orbitals would look like this:

 

Of course the electrons and protons would be pulsating in such a way so that there would be no

radiation, and the protons must have a "small" harmonic motion along the axis of the molecule.

This leaves us many options to "experiment-match" our results to the fine structure of hydrogen.

For example, perhaps the doublets seen in the fine structure depend on the "small" harmonic motion of

the two protons. There may be two common frequencies, causing a slight variation in the orbital

frequency of the electrons, etc...

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

jakuta,

 

OK, the math for the photoelectric paradox.

 

Well, if you look at the very first page of this thread, I show how a 10 eV UV "photon"

would have an energy (if it existed) of

 

So since for light, p=E/c, then the "photon" supposedly has a momentum of

 

Now, for the ejected electron, we have that

 

So since E_e = ½ m V_e² = p_e²/2m , we have that the momentum of the ejected electron is:

 

So we have that

 

which seems odd, since the electron supposedly "absorbed" the "photon".

 

We should have p_e ≈ p_uv, but we do not.

 

Also, it is odd that it is ejected "sideways", since one would logically

think that such an absorption would "kick the electron out in the forward

direction". It does not.

 

Also, the fact that the electron is ejected along the polarization

of the light wave is another QM paradox. QM treats the

"photon" as a particle, and not a wave at the same time.

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

I hope this answers your question.

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray