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

[andrewgray]

How does your theory explain anti-matter?

 

Erasmus,

 

Sorry it took so long to answer this question. You guys are quicker than me.

 

A positron, for example, would be identical to an electron in every way except the pulsating

charge would be of the opposite sign.

 

Matter-Antimatter formation by shining gamma radiation through a heavy nucleus does remain complicated,

now doesn't it? One would expect the real world to be extremely complicated. Do you want me to

to speculate how this new theory would handle this? Is this what you are asking me?

 

And while we are on the subject of antimatter, do you honestly believe that we can tell that the

Andromeda Galaxy is definitely matter and not anti-matter?

 

If so, explain how.

 

Here are some comments:

 

Suppose Andromeda is anti-matter.

 

1) Anti-Hydrogen and Hydrogen would give off the same spectrum.

One could not tell from seeing any spectrum.

2) The cross section for anti-proton/proton annihilation in between

the two galaxies would be minuscule. An anti-proton from Andrema would have to get

within about 10^-13 cm of a proton from Milky Way for an annihilation to occur.

The density of protons/anti-protons would be so low and the relative velocity so high that it

would hardly ever happen.

3) There is probably more evidence that matter and anti-matter are balanced than

there is evidence that the universe is mostly matter. This evidence includes the fact

that matter and anti-matter are ALWAYS created in pairs (always balanced).

4) QGG that claims more matter than anti-matter probably is more evidence that

QM is incorrect.

 

 

 

Erasmus, you have been surprisingly quiet while I have been meting out punishment to Quantum Mechanics.

Am I swaying you in the least in this direction, or are you still staunchly behind QM?

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

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.

 

Qwfwq,

 

In all fairness I must admit that the dissociation constants given in that Chemistry journal were probably derived using quantum mechanics. Therefore, I am skeptical of these results too. So let's just say that the average K.E. for hydrogen at room temperature would be given by Boltzman as 5/2kT, or .06 eV. This would surely be too small to break molecular hydrogen apart appreciably. And let's say that I would be skeptical of any dissociation constant given today under the QM conditions that we face.

 

So my question to you is this: Suppose that hydrogen gas is 99% molecular, and 1% atomic hydrogen at room temperature (my worst case scenario). Would you expect the 1% to do the absorbing of the Lyman frequencies?

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Qfwfq]

Why not suppose they are talking about nascent hydrogen, or that they make it monoatomic by electric discharge just prior to film exposure? At low density and temperature the recombination might not be too quick and maybe the arrangement has a steady flow through the bulb to give enough exposure time. If they say that the bulb contains monoatomaic gas, I think they were making sure of that and at low density Avogadro is more of a help than QM for checking this out.

 

You have it somewhat backwards about other galaxies in the universe; I don't see why a balanced scenario would support your model more than QM.

[andrewgray]

Qwfwq,

 

Well it took a while, but I finally found the Lyman absorption experiment:

 

Lyman Absorption Experiment

 

Here is the setup for the Lyman Absorption Experiment:

 

Here is a zoomed in view of the apparatus:

 

To me it is not clear just exactly how they are generating UV light. I guess with a

spark? Is the spark surrounded by hydrogen gas? If so, then this makes no sense.

 

I guess I will have to go down to the UT physics library and look this one up.

 

Perhaps there is a more modern setup. Anyone know?

 

I guess they are heating the hydrogen to Doppler-broaden the spectrum?

 

Also note that in the abstract they say:

Quote

The heat of dissociation of the hydrogen molecule is found by two independent methods to be 4.34 and 4.38 volts, respectively.

This is much lower than the .06 Volts obtained from 5/2kT, which would be the average KE of the molecules,

implying that not much dissociation would be occurring at room temperature.

 

Also, notice they say that a spectrum was obtained "without heating the coil", implying room temperature.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Qwfwq: Why not suppose they are talking about nascent hydrogen, or that they make it monoatomic by electric discharge just prior to film exposure?

 

Well, from reading this article it is clear that Dieke and Hopfield used discharges inside the vessel for the emission spectra, and discharges outside the vessel for absorption spectra.

 

This experiment was done in 1927. There were no fast electronic controls of any type during this era. So "electric discharge just prior to film exposure" was impossible, Qwfwq. So it is clear that a discharge was set outside the vessel containing room-temperature hydrogen, and this room temperature hydrogen (probably molecular hydrogen) absorbed the Lyman series. No "nascent hydrogen" seems possible for this experiment.

 

Wouldn't it be entertaining if it was indeed molecular hydrogen absorbing the Lyman Series after 100 years of QM hubbub?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Next: The Compton Effect

[Qfwfq]

Wouldn't it be entertaining if it was indeed molecular hydrogen absorbing the Lyman Series after 100 years of QM hubbub?

Yes it would be entertaining. Know why? It would be entertaining to think that the folks involved in this type of research were all convinced of the gas being monoatomic and. despite the great pains they presumably were taking to know it, it turns out that it was molecular after all.

 

One thing about the scientific method is, if you doubt the validity of that experiment done back in 1927, you could always undertake to perform it today in 2010 and check if molecular hydrogen really does exhibit the phenomenon which is attributed to monoatomic hydrogen. If you can really demonstrate that the hydrogen which absorbs that spectrum is molecular, you'll no doubt have a lot of folks racking their brains to figure out why it does so. No doubt they would be willing to consider any explanation you proposed. Let us know when you have actually accomplished this.

[andrewgray]

One thing about the scientific method is, if you doubt the validity of that experiment done back in 1927, you could always undertake to perform it today in 2010 and check if molecular hydrogen really does exhibit the phenomenon which is attributed to monoatomic hydrogen.

Qfwfq,

 

These are good points that you make. However, I do not doubt the validity of the experiment.

 

I doubt the validity of QM Theory.

 

There is a big difference. If I performed this experiment again in my basement, I would probably find out that room temperature hydrogen absorbs the Lyman Series, as expected. This would tell me nothing about whether the ~99% molecular hydrogen absorbed it (likely), or the <1% monoatomic hydrogen absorbed it (not likely). This proof, it seems to me, would end up being like the theist-agnostic-atheist argument. That's because it is most probable that the molecular hydrogen absorbed it, but "one must really be agnostic about it", as it is very difficult to prove a negative.

 

The only thing that one could do is build up a mountain of evidence from other more obvious experiments. Then the Lyman Series absorption would then become obviously molecular.

 

No doubt they would be willing to consider any explanation you proposed.

That's what I am doing! That's what I am doing! Consider! Consider! :)

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Still Coming: the Compton Effect

[Qfwfq]

You have ignored my actual point, as usual:

I do not doubt the validity of the experiment.

But you are doubting that the gas was monoatomic.

 

Andrew, if you conduct the experiment with a gauge on pressure and temperature, knowing the mass of pure hydrogen in the vessel of known volume, you can work out what percentage is monoatomic and assess its partial density, hence the opacity it ought to offer to a given wavelength. Any extra opacity would be mysteriously due to the molecular fraction. What's the problem with that?

 

This proof, it seems to me, would end up being like the theist-agnostic-atheist argument. That's because it is most probable that the molecular hydrogen absorbed it, but "one must really be agnostic about it", as it is very difficult to prove a negative.

This seems to apply to this whole discussion.

 

That's what I am doing! That's what I am doing! Consider! Consider!

There was in if that came before my sentence. Edited December 22, 2010 by Qfwfq
slight addition

[andrewgray]

Andrew, if you conduct the experiment with a gauge on pressure and temperature, knowing the mass of pure hydrogen in the vessel of known volume, you can work out what percentage is monoatomic and assess its partial density, hence the opacity it ought to offer to a given wavelength. Any extra opacity would be mysteriously due to the molecular fraction. What's the problem with that?

Qwfwq,

 

I do not understand this. OK, suppose that the hydrogen vapor is at 300^o Kelvin (room temperature) and at a pressure of 2 atmospheres in a 1.0 Liter container.

 

Check.

 

Now how do we directly measure the mass of the hydrogen vapor in the container? Molecular Hydrogen and Atomic Hydrogen have different characteristics, and with an unknown ratio, direct measurement of its mass seems impossible. (??)

 

Further (for the sake of discussion) suppose the we could somehow determine the mass and then we could somehow determine that there was 99.10125% H₂ and 0.89875% atomic hydrogen. I "claim" that the 99.10125% H₂ absorbed the Lyman UV radiation, and you "claim" the 0.89875% atomic H absorbed it. How are we going to deduce which one actually did the absorbing? (??)

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Qfwfq]

Now how do we directly measure the mass of the hydrogen vapor in the container?

When I said "knowing the mass of pure hydrogen in the vessel of known volume" I meant that you know how much of the stuf you put into it.

 

For the rest, I think you did not read my post properly.

[andrewgray]

hence the opacity it ought to offer to a given wavelength. Any extra opacity would be mysteriously due to the molecular fraction. What's the problem with that?

I read it, but I did not understand, that is all. I was not trying to be cute. So let's assume we know the mass,volume, and ratio of the H₂ to H. How do we know the "opacity it ought to offer to a given wavelength" without using some theory to imply it (which we do not agree upon)?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Qfwfq]

without using some theory to imply it (which we do not agree upon)?

Digging back into my fading memories, it seems I was referring to your criticism of one that others agree upon and the alternative one you propose. Therefore, I must have meant that you could work it out according to the usual one and see if there is any discrepancy to raise up a stir about, and at that point you could deftly slip your own into the right place at the right time to solve the problem...

 

Of course, if your measurements don't find the usual one to be inadequate as you've been claiming, you wouldn't have much of a case.

[andrewgray]

Ok, Qwfwq, got it. But now it is time to cover

 

Compton Scattering

 

As a review to readers of this thread, Compton Scattering of x-rays from graphite reveals two frequencies. The original frequency is still scattered of course. But a slightly lower frequency than the original x-rays also appears.

 

This new theory uses a Doppler Shift from bound inner orbital electrons to explain this phenomenon. QM uses an "electron-photon elastic collision" (from free conduction electrons) to explain it. So I got to thinking about it, and I almost abandoned this new theory because it would depend on the particular material for the scattering. But QM'ers were claiming material independence. So back to the experiments I went. Here is the scenario for Compton Scattering:

 

Material Independence ==> QM Correct

Material Dependence ==> This New Theory Correct

 

I looked up the experimental evidence, and I was flabbergasted. Sit down for the tale of scientific misconduct by Author Compton. So here goes the tale. The first "red flag" that I got was finding the Compton Scattering Data for copper, which should have plenty of "free electrons". Here it is: (http://www.accessscience.com/popup.aspx?figID=153600FG0010&id=153600&name=figure)

 

 

This scenario is seen over and over in the scientific literature. Here is a paper by Clark, Duane, and Stifler:

Secondary and Tertiary Rays from Chemical...

Here is their data:

 

Posted Image

 

Here we see three (tertiary) frequecies in the data. And look what Clark (et al) say about Lithium, a good conductor of electricity with plenty of "free" conduction electrons:

 

Posted Image

 

It looks like the scattering of x-rays is dependent on material! But after this article was published, Compton and his graduate student "retaliated":

 

The WaveLength of ... when scattered by light elements

 

Here is their data:

 

Posted Image

 

Looks pretty convincing at first glance doesn't it? But LOOK! The horizontal scales don't line up!

And they have "conveniently" left out labeling the horizontal scales of most of the graphs!

If you look much closer it is not so convincing:

 

Posted Image

 

 

His graduate student, Y. H. Woo goes on to publish these results, leaving out ALL horizontal labels.

He actually FALSIFIES the horizontal scale for Aluminum and "cuts off" the all peaks heading to the left:

Compton Effect and Tertiary Radiation

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/11/2/123.full.pdf

 

QM'ers, I am disappointed that I have to go back and correct all your "bads". Anyway, it is clear that we

have a lot of Quantum Fudging going on here and that Compton Scattering depends on material.

 

Hurray! That means that this New Theory is right and the QM'ers are wrong once again!

Here we see how QM matches up so well with experimental data:

 

"Just move the data over until it matches up!"

 

Next: How this New Theory explains all this mess.

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray

[Qfwfq]

As usual Andrew, your images are troublesome. They seem to be 16 by 16 white pixels each.

 

The horizontal scales don't line up!

On what grounds do you say so?

 

 

His graduate student, Y. H. Woo goes on to publish these results, leaving out ALL horizontal labels.

He actually FALSIFIES the horizontal scale for Aluminum and "cuts off" the all peaks heading to the left:

Note that Woo is publishing results from a further experiment in which greater care is taken to eliminate the extraneous effects.

 

The horizontal scales are obviously understood to be the same for all layers of graph in each of the two papers.

[andrewgray]

Qwfwq,

 

I put some smaller images up there. Can you see them now?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Qfwfq]

Can you see them now?

They're OK now.

 

Still, if you read the material properly, that you provided, you should see there is no real trickery on the part of Compton and Woo, they simply improved the experiment for the second paper. It is explained well enough in detail that a good lab physicist should be able to repeat the same measurements, so you don't need to take their word for it in blind faith...:shrug:

[andrewgray]

Qwfwq,

 

However, since Compton and Woo Falsified the Aluminum scale in the

first paper presented, they have lost all credibility. And upon closer inspection,

look at this:

 

 

Not only is Aluminum falsified, it appears that Magnesium and Lithium

are also falsified, since the scales look different. Clark

confirms that Lithium was falsified. If Lithium is not falsified,

then there clearly is a "short wavelenght-side" peak. Clark mentions

"short wavelenght-side" peaks, which he says appear in some of his data.

However, I agree that these experiments should be re-done to confirm.

 

All this fits right in with this New Theory, as we shall soon see.

 

In addition, the copper scattering spectrum shown above, which was done with

modern equipment, clearly shows that

 

Compton Scattering is indeed dependent on material.

 

I see no logical way around this.

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray