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

[Erasmus00]

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

first paper presented, they have lost all credibility.

 

I am confused- what evidence do you have that these plots were falsified? Keep in mind that, according to the paper, they adjusted the experiment (increasing the slit width from 0.1 to 0.2 mm to increase the intensity) before aluminum and magnesium, which moves the expected 0 point.

[andrewgray]

Ok Qwfwq,

 

I see now that they covered their bases OK in the text.

 

I do not see how increasing the slit width changed the

frequency, and since Clark and Compton's claims are in conflict,

I do not know what to think. I would have liked to see the

new [math]K_\alpha[/math] line by itself so we would know that

they weren't fudging.

 

Also, there is definitely a short wavelength-side peak in

the Lithium data (conflicting again with Clark), so I am very

skeptical here about "confirmation bias" running rampant.

Especially since it was their own theory that they were trying

to confirm. And after seeing the modern copper data, I doubt

seriously that Compton Scattering is material independent.

 

You still make this claim?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Erasmus00]

Ok Qwfwq,

 

I see now that they covered their bases OK in the text.

 

I do not see how increasing the slit width changed the

frequency, and since Clark and Compton's claims are in conflict,

I do not know what to think. I would have liked to see the

new [math]K_\alpha[/math] line by itself so we would know that

they weren't fudging.

 

Also, there is definitely a short wavelength-side peak in

the Lithium data (conflicting again with Clark), so I am very

skeptical here about "confirmation bias" running rampant.

Especially since it was their own theory that they were trying

to confirm. And after seeing the modern copper data, I doubt

seriously that Compton Scattering is material independent.

 

You still make this claim?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Do you have context for the copper data you present above? What was their setup like? What was the x-ray source? To test compton scattering, it should be important to look at different scattering angles (since the energy shift should be angle dependent.)

 

Also, changing the experimental setup above doesn't change the frequency, it changes the scattering angle you'd expect for the [imath] K_\alpha [/imath] line, which is the natural zero point of the data. Finally, compton scattering has been verified hundreds of thousands of times since its discovery. Its a workhorse in radiation therapy/radiobiology.

[andrewgray]

Erasmus,

 

These Compton spectral images come from MacGraw-Hill Access Science:

 

 

Click Here

 

The Copper and Polyethylene (i.e. CH2) scattering spectra can be obtained by clicking on the first in the list of "IMAGES" at the bottom of the link. This spectra was taken at 170^o.

 

However, let's look at these images more closely. Notice that they are presented with increasing frequency (i.e. decreasing wavelength). This is opposite the traditional presentation of Compton data. Why would they do this? Let's mirror these images and look at them in terms of increasing wavelength:

 

 

With this traditional "increasing wavelength" view, we see that there is a short wavelength-side scatter in the Copper data, just like Clark claims he sees in his paper. It seems "suspicious" to me that they would plot these spectral scatterings with decreasing wavelength so that all scatters would "appear" on the right (like QM requires when plotted traditionally!) Even I did not notice this at first! They almost put one past me!

 

But the presence of a "short-wavelength-side-scatter" denies the QM photon hypothesis, because "a photon cannot elastically scatter from a free electron and emerge with more energy than it started with". And since this data denies QM, it is very suspicious that they would turn it around and plot it with increasing frequency so that all scatters appear on the right. Ooooooo, don't rock the boat! "Let's call them Rayleigh Scattering so we don't rock the boat!". What a bunch of weenies. They should have said that this copper data denies QM and Compton Scattering so let's move on to something else.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

P.S. I promise that I will get to explaining how Doppler shifts and resonances explain this data in terms of this new theory. But first, we must get Erasmus and Qwfwq to the point where they are at least open to a new explanation!

[Erasmus00]

And since this data denies QM, it is very suspicious that they would turn it around and plot it with increasing frequency so that all scatters appear on the right. Ooooooo, don't rock the boat! "Let's call them Rayleigh Scattering so we don't rock the boat!". What a bunch of weenies. They should have said that this copper data denies QM and Compton Scattering so let's move on to something else.

 

You know that Rayleigh scattering is something that can be calculated, and is an effect whose discovery predates Compton scattering right?

 

To test compton scattering, you need a range of scattering angles.

 

Also,

 

But the presence of a "short-wavelength-side-scatter" denies the QM photon hypothesis, because "a photon cannot elastically scatter from a free electron and emerge with more energy than it started with"

 

What was the energy of the x-rays from the silver source? What was their setup like? You need to answer these questions before you can determine anything.

[andrewgray]

Erasmus,

 

All that you say is true. But let's look at the score. All three sets of data confirm that K x-rays scatter off carbon like Compton's theory claims. So for Carbon Scattering we have 3-0 in favor of Compton. So I believe that Compton's description of x-rays scattering off carbon is correct.

 

However, all three sets of data show "short-wavelength-side data" for non-carbon. Clark's data show short-wavelength-side scattering, the McGraw-Hill plot shows short-wavelegth-side scattering, and Compton's own data show short-wavelength-side scattering (he truncates such data in a later paper). So it is 0-3 against Compton for this phenomena. So I believe in short-wavelength-scattering from non-carbon, contradicting Compton and QM.

 

Now, Rayleigh scattering, as you say was done "pre-Compton". However, Rayleigh scattering has no mechanism in it for increasing the frequency of the scattered EM radiation, as seen in the short-wavelength-side data. This labeling of short-wavelength-side scattering as "Rayleigh Scattering" is a cop-out for not knowing what the @#%$ is going on.

 

And yes, as you say, we need to see the copper data for more angles. If I had a Bragg spectrometer, I surely would do so. But in the high tech sector, we do not have them. However, since I have a competing theory to QM, my own measurements probably should not be trusted because of confirmation bias (like Compton's own bias supposedly verifying his own theory).

 

And I would agree with you that Compton Scattering is a "a workhorse in radiation therapy/radiobiology." This is because Compton Scattering is actually Carbon Scattering, as there is always carbon present in organic tissue. (There probably were organic contaminants in many of Compton's supposedly non-carbon experiments.)

 

However, from the evidence that I have seen and from what my new promising theory is telling me, I believe that X-ray Scattering is clearly material dependent, and it probably is frequency dependent. It surely has to do with resonances and Doppler shifts. I think that I have made my case at least "for doubting Compton", and after reading Thomas Kuhn's book, I see that QM'ers will surely defend their faith in QM all the way up to the day that a new theory takes its place. OK, so defend away. Kuhn-style "anomalies" are staring you in the face. A Kuhn-style scientific crisis is coming. Delay it as long as possible. That is Kuhn's prediction.

 

So, with that said, I continue with this new explanation for X-ray Scattering (no longer shall I call it "Compton Scattering") and frequency changes. Let's first consider this copper scattering data presented by McGraw Hill, then let's consider Carbon Scattering in light of this new theory.

 

Consider a copper atom in a solid lattice with several inner electron orbitals (near the nucleus) with xray-frequency-range pulsation frequencies in their electrons. This is shown here schematically:

 

 

We see two typical electrons in a 5-step time lapse sequence. They are being struck by x-rays in an acceleration resonance (i.e. the electrons pulse ON when the x-ray peaks arrive, they have the same frequency, not the same lengths, i.e. [math] \lambda_e << \lambda_{xray} [/math]). In one case, the acceleration resonance happens to an orbital when the electron is "receding" from the source, and in the other, the acceleration resonance happens when the electron is "approaching" the source. In the receding case, the x-rays will be shifted "to the red", and longer wavelength x-rays will emerge (like Compton saw for carbon). For the approaching case, the x-rays will be shifted "towards the blue", and shorter wavelength x-rays will emerge (like seen in the copper data, Clark's data, and in Compton's own data). Notice that this theory uses bound electrons for the explanation, and QM/Compton use "free" electrons for their explanation. These are clearly different scenarios and can be tested. Compton's theory should quickly ionize the carbon, giving the material a net positive charge (whereas this theory will not necessarily do so). And Compton's theory cannot begin to handle frequency increases.

 

Now let us numerically consider Carbon Scattering and see if it is numerically compatible with a Doppler shift for different angles. That is, if we consider that there is a particular velocity for the receding electron orbital that is causing the red shift from carbon, is it compatible with the Doppler formula for all observed frequencies that Compton observed at different angles?

 

OK, well the Doppler shift formula is:

 

But we must be careful here. There is actually a double shift involved. First, in the co-moving frame of the receding electron, the frequency is lower because of a co-linear Doppler shift [math](\theta=0)\;[/math]. Then second, the electron re-transmits the x-ray radiation at different angles to an observer who is receding from it at different angles. This then gives the final formula as:

 

So

 

If we select the "red" scenario as seen in the drawing and let  , then the Doppler agreement with Compton's Carbon data is almost perfect:

 

Posted Image

 

This Doppler explanation then becomes the competing explanation for X-ray Scattering. Let us make some observations. Compton's formula is both frequency and material independent. This new theory expects both frequency and material dependence. Thus, it should be easy to go back and in a non-biased way (making sure that there are no organic contaminants) and see which one is correct by investigating different materials and using different x-ray frequencies. Since just one counter-example can prove a theory wrong, it looks bad for Compton, in my opinion. This new theory can accommodate both short and long-side wavelength shifts of different degrees depending on the acceleration resonance.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray

[Erasmus00]

Now, Rayleigh scattering, as you say was done "pre-Compton". However, Rayleigh scattering has no mechanism in it for increasing the frequency of the scattered EM radiation, as seen in the short-wavelength-side data.

 

Thats not actually what your plots show, you are misinterpreting the plots. None of the plots have the energy of the incident radiation listed, so what are you comparing to? How do you know that any of this radiation is at a higher frequency than the incident radiation? Which K line of silver was used in the scattering? Since there are two peaks marked Rayleigh scattering, I'd guess there are two frequencies ranges of incident radiation. To me, it looks like their incidents were probably K_alpha and K_beta lines centered around 22 KeV and 25 KeV respectively. Looking at the NIST data for silver (http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/XrayTrans/search.pl?element=Ag&trans=All&lower=&upper=&units=eV) , this seems right. The peaks you are thinking of as "side-scattering" are actually at the frequency of the incident radiation.

 

This labeling of short-wavelength-side scattering as "Rayleigh Scattering" is a cop-out for not knowing what the @#%$ is going on.

 

Rayleigh scattering has an exact angular dependence (1+ cos^2 theta). I can only assume the peaks labeled as Rayleigh scattering followed the formula, but I can't know, because you only have plots for a single angle, which is worthless for what you are trying to claim.

 

These anomalies you are suggesting may exist, but nothing you have shown demonstrates them.

[andrewgray]

Erasmus,

 

Yes, I agree that the data is incomplete. But it seems as if it is getting harder and harder for QM to ad hoc out of the predicament. OK, suppose the unshifted 22 and 25 KeV K-beta x-rays are present and they scatter unshifted from the Copper. On the surface, this seems reasonable. But then, other questions soon arise. If the unshifted K-beta x-rays are incident on the Copper, then why aren't they "Compton Shifted"? Compton's theory uses "free conduction electrons" to have "billiard-ball-like collisions" with the x-rays. Surely, there are free conduction electrons in Copper. This would be pure silliness if one says that incident K-beta x-rays cannot have "billiard-ball-collisions" with Copper "free electrons".

 

 

It would also be "very curious" that there is absolutely no trace of the K-beta in the Carbon data.

 

But while we're at it, let's look at the silliness of EM radiation having "billiard-ball", "bounce-off-of" collisions with electrons. Step back a minute and imagine what this would entail. Some sort of hard shell would need to surround the "EM particle". Seems silly to me. Now that it is possible to imagine a scenario that allows a Doppler Shift, step back for a minute and ponder: "Shifted radiation from Doppler Effect, or Shifted radiation from colliding EM billiard balls?"

 

If is fascinating that Thomas Kuhn writes:

 

Though a generation is sometimes required to effect the [scientific] change, scientific communities have again and again been converted to new paradigms. Furthermore, these conversions occur not despite the fact that scientists are human but because they are. Though some scientists, particularly the older and more experienced ones, may resist indefinitely, most of them can be reached in one way or another. Conversions will occur a few at a time until, after the last holdouts have died, the whole profession will again be practicing under a single, but now a different, paradigm. We must therefore ask how conversion is induced and how resisted.

[Erasmus00]

Yes, I agree that the data is incomplete. But it seems as if it is getting harder and harder for QM to ad hoc out of the predicament. OK, suppose the unshifted 22 and 25 KeV K-beta x-rays are present and they scatter unshifted from the Copper. On the surface, this seems reasonable. But then, other questions soon arise. If the unshifted K-beta x-rays are incident on the Copper, then why aren't they "Compton Shifted"? Compton's theory uses "free conduction electrons" to have "billiard-ball-like collisions" with the x-rays. Surely, there are free conduction electrons in Copper. This would be pure silliness if one says that incident K-beta x-rays cannot have "billiard-ball-collisions" with Copper "free electrons".

 

There are Compton shifted peaks. The short peak at B is the shifted peak corresponding to the unshifted peak at D. Similarly, the peak at A is the shifted peak corresponding to the unshifted peak at C. Its a small side peak, but it is there. There is both elastic and inelastic scattering happening.

 

As to the polyethylene scattering, we can conclude for whatever reason that it doesn't have much elastic scattering (there are small shoulders at 22 and 25 KeV, but they are dwarfed by the inelastic compton scattering). I'm not a materials scientist, so this is basically a wild guess, but maybe polyethylene has a low polarizability? That would explain the lack of rayleigh scattering.

 

BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THIS IS ALL CONJECTURE- without details of the experimental setup, neither you nor I can make confident assertions about the plots. My assumptions that they allowed K_alpha and K_beta lines of the silver source does reproduce the features of the data, but it is simply a guess. To discuss any anomalies in present understanding, you first need to present useful data.

 

It would also be "very curious" that there is absolutely no trace of the K-beta in the Carbon data.

 

Which Carbon data? Compton may very well have used a different x-ray source, or designed his experiment to use a single energy of incident x-ray. Without knowing crucial details of the setup, you simply cannot compare different data.

 

But while we're at it, let's look at the silliness of EM radiation having "billiard-ball", "bounce-off-of" collisions with electrons. Step back a minute and imagine what this would entail. Some sort of hard shell would need to surround the "EM particle". Seems silly to me

 

Its silly because its a misrepresentation. The only things that matter for Compton's derivation are conservation of momentum and conservation of energy- the actual details of the collision are totally unimportant. Thats why its such a universal result- any theory that properly conserves energy and momentum should yield identical results.

[Qfwfq]

"Shifted radiation from Doppler Effect, or Shifted radiation from colliding EM billiard balls?"

If you like, you can even think of it as Doppler shift, even though it isn't quite that simple. But... do you really think that QM describes it in the second manner and not at all in the first?

[andrewgray]

Erasmus & Qfwfq,

 

Yes, data that contradicts the current paradigm is typically suppressed. Yes, we need more (perhaps contradictory and previously suppressed) ethical data. But, for now, this is all we have. We can still see a few more things though.

 

 

No, Erasmus. According to the graph, peaks A and C do not correspond according to Compton. As a matter of fact, it appears that peak C has no Compton partner, proving that X-ray Scattering (again, I will not call it Compton Scattering anymore, since it is not) is frequency and material dependent. This is what I was trying to stress in the first place. So I say it again. Peak C obviously has no Compton partner, any way you look at it. You keep trying to wiggle your way out by saying A corresponds to peak C. Look at the graph, Erasmus. It does not. Let's at least be honest here. Peak A does not correspond as peak C's Compton partner. I will not let you "wiggle" out of this one, Erasmus. Come on, Erasmus. If you are an honest scientist, you must say that there is no corresponding Compton peak for peak C. Let me go on about this once again, so the young minds are very clear. When faced with contradictory evidence, notice how Erasmus tries to "wiggle" and diminish this evidence. Erasmus, peak C has no corresponding Compton companion. The graph is clear. I'll say it once again, so if you continue to wiggle, it might look a little silly. Peak C has no Compton partner, and QM is failing here.

 

Again, to the young minds out there: Now there exists what is called Monochromatic x-ray machines which obtain x-rays by Doppler shifting visible light off near-lightspeed-electrons. So armed with only one x-ray frequency, and perhaps one x-ray polarization, the potential for disproving Compton's "photon explanation" is higher than ever. One must simply obtain access to such a machine, get a Bragg x-ray spectrometer, clear out all the stray carbon, and go to work. There can be no K beta arguments, etc. It will be clear that x-ray scattering is a Doppler effect with resonance frequency decreases as well as increases. So get to work. Erasmus wants a complete set of data to be convinced. Get to work! We want complete angular data for the frequency shown for peak C on copper. (There are no photons, so the horizontal KeV graph is oxymoronic. The horizontal scale will be in Hertz.)

 

 

While you are at it, you can prove that x-rays are waves (and not particles) by looking at how polarized x-rays scatter from copper. Polarized x-ray waves would not scatter at all in the 90^o direction, pointed to by the wave's electric vector. This would prove that x-rays scatter as waves, and only as waves (because "photon scattering" could not take this wave characteristic into account).

 

 

Qwfwq,

 

This new theory is clearly different from QM because this new theory allows for x-ray frequency increases. A "photon" striking a "free electron" could not theoretically increase its frequency. So no, I do not believe that QM theory has anything to do with Doppler shifts.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Erasmus00]

No, Erasmus. According to the graph, peaks A and C do not correspond according to Compton. As a matter of fact, it appears that peak C has no Compton partner, proving that X-ray Scattering (again, I will not call it Compton Scattering anymore, since it is not) is frequency and material dependent.

 

Why not? Compton tell us

 

[math] \frac{1}{E} - \frac{1}{E'} = \frac{1}{m_e c^2}(1-cos \theta) [/math]

 

Using this, we expect a line at 22 KeV to have a compton partner near 20.2 KeV, for a scattering angle of 170 degrees. Using a mass of 500 KeV for the electron:

 

We predict a line at 25 KeV to have a partner at 22.8 KeV. Someone should verify these numbers, its late and I don't have a calculator.

 

Now, look at the graph- this is exactly what we see. Peak C at 22 has its partner A at 20.2. Peak D at 25 has its partner at B around 23.

 

This is what I was trying to stress in the first place. So I say it again. Peak C obviously has no Compton partner, any way you look at it.

 

Why not? Where is it on the graph you think the Compton partner to C's unshifted peak should be? Why?

 

So armed with only one x-ray frequency, and perhaps one x-ray polarization, the potential for disproving Compton's "photon explanation" is higher than ever. One must simply obtain access to such a machine, get a Bragg x-ray spectrometer, clear out all the stray carbon, and go to work. There can be no K beta arguments, etc.

 

There are way easier ways to eliminate K-beta effects- design your experiment so you don't use them. This data already exists- Compton took some of it himself.

[andrewgray]

Wow, Erasmus,

 

If what you say is true, and Compton-Correspondence is between Peaks A and C instead of Peaks A and B like the McGraw-Hill researchers imply, then there is misunderstanding all over the place (including my own for not checking this numerically myself. Mea Culpa). However, this does not get QM off the hook. Now it would be the CH₂ data that is anti-Compton. So we had better whip out Mathematica and check this more closely. Erasmus' Compton expression is handy. For 22.1 KeV [sic] x-rays (correct is 5.34 ExaHertz x-rays since there are no photons), Compton's hypothetical expression would be

 

[math]\frac{1}{E}-\frac{1}{22.1 \; KeV}= \frac{1}{511 \; KeV}(1-\cos \theta)[/math]

 

This yields these Compton pairs: (22.1 KeV, 20.4 KeV) (25, 22.8)

Similarly, we get this Compton pair: (22.8,20.9)

 

So from this calculation, it looks like copper has dodged the contradictions but that the CH₂ is anti-Compton. We carefully plot the (22.8 KeV, 20.9 KeV) (22.8 KeV,25 KeV) [sic] Compton data for CH₂:

 

 

So QMer's will undoubtably argue that B's Compton CH₂ partner would be an "invisible" peak D which is not there, the unshifted frequency. But then one would have to make arguments why this frequency is not there. This argument would require some kind of wave resonance phenomenon (this new theory has it, QM does not). After all, if x-rays were "billiard balls", they would "tend to collide with everything", and according to QM, they should be there.

 

This data remains compatible with this new theory. X-rays are waves, not EM billiard balls. And they are scattered when they have a resonance and are frequency shifted by the Doppler effect from the electron's motion.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Erasmus00]

So from this calculation, it looks like copper has dodged the contradictions but that the CH₂ is anti-Compton. We carefully plot the (22.8 KeV, 20.9 KeV) (22.8 KeV,25 KeV) [sic] Compton data for CH₂

 

The CH_2 data is taken using the same source as the copper data. Since, as we said, A and B are related to Compton scattering, we observe that CH_2 IS compton scattering.

 

However, the peaks at C and D are missing- i.e. CH_2 is not ELASTICALLY (rayleigh) scattering. To me, this suggests that CH_2 has a low polarizability, but I am not a materials scientist. But the Compton peaks are there.

[Qfwfq]

X-rays are waves, not EM billiard balls.

Have you ever studied second quantization?

 

It's also known as quantum field theory. A "quantized field" is the best mathematical model of how these thingies can exhibit aspects of both kinds. Sure they aren't billiard balls. Neither are they waves in an ordinary sense, they are a propagation of simple harmonic oscillator states through space and time, via couplings. A frikkin' wierd model, but it works well enough.

[andrewgray]

Erasmus and Qwfwq,

 

I will comment in a moment, but first some good news. Introducing the

 

Theory of Intermittent Electrons

 

published in the peer reviewed journal Physics Essays: Volume 24, March 2011 issue.

 

Here is the abstract:

 

 

This is indeed encouraging news in the march towards sanity during this Dark Age of Physics. For all of you rational minds out there, I want to encourage you to read this paper and give feedback. And come to think of it, now that this theory is officially published in a peer reviewed physics journal, we are no longer banished to the "Alternative Theories" thread!

 

Perhaps I will start a new thread called "The Theory of Intermittent Electrons" in the main physics area of this site. Or, perhaps "Intermittent Electron Theory". Administrators, you OK with this?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray!

[joekgamer]

It's still a non-mainstream theory, so it does belong in the Alternative Theories catagory.