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

[CraigD]

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.

Congratulations, Andrew! :thumbs_up

 

 

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?

It's always OK to post threads to the Physics forum - if we moderators think they're too weird, or getting too weird, we'll move them to strange claims, or wherever's fitting.

 

Follow the site rules about supporting claims with links and references, and all should be well. A bit of advice: stick to explaining the physics of your ideas in a way friendly to the wide, mostly non-specialist readership hypography caters toward, and all should be well.

 

Some helpfully-intended moderatorly advice: avoid editorializing with statements like "This is indeed encouraging news in the march towards sanity during this Dark Age of Physics". It's practically impossible to even define such a statement as a scientific hypothesis, and will almost inevitably invite acrimony from people, such as me, who are of the contrary opinion that we are not in a dark age of Physics, or hardly any other disciplines, because dark ages are essentially the result of restricted information flow, which our present time is certainly not - an age of chaos, perhaps, but not a dark one!

[andrewgray]

Congratulations, Andrew! :thumbs_up

Thanks, Craig. It is appreciated.

 

Yes, you have some good suggestions. My "sledge hammer" approach may or may

not be the correct route to getting to the goal of adopting "Intermittent Electrons.

I apologize if I have offended. So I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I understand

that diplomacy may win me more converts than "in-your-face-brutal-logic", and perhaps

people can relate better to a more polite approach.

 

On the other hand, I read things like this in Scientific American:

 

 

This kind of stuff drives me crazy, and as Ron White would say,

"This is 3rd Generation Dark". There is no shred of

evidence for quantum gravity anything, no shred of evidence for

virtual particles (by definition), and I doubt that anything

can go faster than the speed of light. (Thus 3rd generation Dark).

 

So now that my new theory has been at least recognized and published by

fellow physicists, perhaps I should tone things down a bit, and start

leading the way instead of nipping at the heels like some mad dog.

 

I realize that capitalistic physics does not allow theory vacuums to exist for long.

That is, if a new experimental phenomenon is found that is not explained, then some

explanation will soon emerge, right or wrong. It is just my opinion that the founding

fathers of QM did the best they could with what they knew and had, and did the best they

could to come up with something. But it was just all wrong. And all this wrong stuff

entrenched itself in the physics culture for over 100 years. Virtual gravitons?

Come on. Craig, surely you do not believe this stuff, eh? Are you going to defend

this stuff because SciAm is "in your tribe", and "on your side"?

 

So, I hereby make the resolution that I will tone things down a bit, and try to be more

amiable with my fellow scientists (since the beginnings have now been published),

and lead the way to reality-based physics.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

P.S. As a first gesture of a new leaf, I want to personally thank all of you who commented

in this thread and helped me through the analysis. It really is greatly appreciated, even

if we were not in agreement. It has been published! AAG

[rodin]

Very interesting thread. I harbour similar thoughts vis a vis the double slit experiment. I am guessing you are into digital sampling theory in some form from your introduction of the aliasing concept.

 

.....

 

The covalent bond is accomplished with purely Coulomb forces. The electrons are in-between the nuclei, generating an attractive force. The electrons are attracted to the nuclei, which generate the centripetal force needed for their quasi-circular motion. The electrons do not radiate (as explained previously) because they are synchronized so that they are only ON while the nucleus is OFF (and vice versa).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Re bold

 

How can this be so if the proton and electron charges are mutually exclusive as per your switching model?

[andrewgray]

Very interesting thread. I harbour similar thoughts vis a vis the double slit experiment. I am guessing you are into digital sampling theory in some form from your introduction of the aliasing concept. . .

How can this be so if the proton and electron charges are mutually exclusive as per your switching model?

 

Rodin,

 

Yes, I am now doing engineering in the high tech field, and digital sampling is on my list of things that I am proficient with. I have been away on other projects, and it is good that we get back to it.

 

Yes, the low intensity double slit experiment is definitely no longer a mystery and we can finally stop arguing about such silliness.

 

Yes, the proton and electron pulsate differently. The electron has much more experimental data associated with it than the proton, and the electron is much more definite with how it must be. Not so for protons. As far as I know, proton interference is still mysterious and has not yet been done experimentally (someone please correct me if I am incorrect here). And there is no definite Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency experiment for protons that I have seen, etc. So the proton does not act very much like a pseudo-wave like the electron does, and really, the proton always seems like a particle. So radiation from proton acceleration probably always seems like it is nothing but waves. I doubt that aliasing of proton acceleration radiation is easy to observe. One would need a proton Bremsstrahlung experiment to see it.

 

Is this what you are talking about?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

Rodin,

 

Yes, I am now doing engineering in the high tech field, and digital sampling is on my list of things that I am proficient with. I have been away on other projects, and it is good that we get back to it.

 

Yes, the low intensity double slit experiment is definitely no longer a mystery and we can finally stop arguing about such silliness.

 

Yes, the proton and electron pulsate differently. The electron has much more experimental data associated with it than the proton, and the electron is much more definite with how it must be. Not so for protons. As far as I know, proton interference is still mysterious and has not yet been done experimentally (someone please correct me if I am incorrect here). And there is no definite Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency experiment for protons that I have seen, etc. So the proton does not act very much like a pseudo-wave like the electron does, and really, the proton always seems like a particle. So radiation from proton acceleration probably always seems like it is nothing but waves. I doubt that aliasing of proton acceleration radiation is easy to observe. One would need a proton Bremsstrahlung experiment to see it.

 

Is this what you are talking about?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Hi Andrew.

 

My background was in sound engineering and music production; much, much earlier I read Chemistry at Edinburgh.

 

I must say I find your writing style to be highly entertaining and your 'outside the box' thinking and mathematical rigour refreshing. Usually those with the 'math' as you say in the Wild West are ardent supporters of orthodoxy.

 

To clarify - my question was about chemical bonding. If the bonding is due to coulomb forces, yet the nucleus and electrons are never on at the same time, how exactly does this work? I note in your model a +ve pulse from a proton alters the direction of travel of the electron but I am not sure how it is supposed to do this.

 

Secondly, if orbiting electrons are on and off then during the off phase there is nothing to stop them colliding.

 

How solid is the evidence for 90 degree emission during so called photoelectric effect? I really like this idea of absorbing energy waves until the electron has sufficient 'escape' velocity.

 

And talking about escape velocity, unless I err this is an observation I made.

 

The Electron

 

What happens when a neutron decays to form a proton and an electron? You get a Hydrogen atom. The electron goes into orbit after launch

 

The angular velocity of a hydrogen 1S electron = 3,320,000 m/s

 

Speed of light is about 100 times faster

 

Bohr (orbit) Diameter is about 10,000 times the diameter of a proton or neutron

 

Angular momentum varies with diameter

 

So if the electron was thrown off the equator of a spinning neutron by centrifugal force it must have had an angular launch velocity 100 times the speed of light in order to reach a stable orbit.

 

Best regards,

 

Graham

 

edit

 

As far as I know, proton interference is still mysterious and has not yet been done experimentally

 

I presume you are familiar with these?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_quadrupole_resonance

 

further edit

 

I see that you are suggesting the mass function is negative when the charge is OFF so that would answer my second point I guess.

[andrewgray]

Graham,

 

Thanks for the encouragement. Now to your questions.

 

To clarify - my question was about chemical bonding. If the bonding is due to coulomb forces, yet the nucleus and electrons are never on at the same time, how exactly does this work? I note in your model a +ve pulse from a proton alters the direction of travel of the electron but I am not sure how it is supposed to do this?

 

First, let me clarify your "never on at the same time statement". This is only true in vapors, where in general, the material in question does not radiate much EM energy. In solids, thermal disturbances (with orbital overlap) are radical in the outer orbits of the atoms, and they do radiate, and charges are ON at the same time (typically generating infra-red radiation at room temperature from the associated accelerations while the electrons are "ON").

 

This new Intermittent Electron Theory has the electron's charge turning its electric field "ON" and "OFF". However, the electron's susceptibility to acceleration from other charges is always active. How is this possible? Well, from relativity we know that acceleration can "stop EM influence from going somewhere" without stopping its arrival. This is how the model is built. When the electron is "OFF" for example, it still can be accelerated by the nuclear electric force that is "ON". In this case, the electron does not radiate while being accelerated in its quasi-circular orbit.

 

Does this answer your questions, or are you looking for more details of the model?

 

Secondly, if orbiting electrons are on and off then during the off phase there is nothing to stop them colliding.

 

Correct, nothing but the minute probability of this happening. It would be like saying that "if gravity turned off momentarily, then there would be nothing stopping Pluto from colliding with Haley's Comet".

 

How solid is the evidence for 90 degree emission during so called photoelectric effect? I really like this idea of absorbing energy waves until the electron has sufficient 'escape' velocity.

Undeniable.

 

See this paper:

 

Vectorial Photoelectric Effect in Copper

 

Here are the key quotes:

 

"The QE dependence on angle of incidence and light polarization is a long standing problem [4–8] that largely remains to be understood."

 

"A QE enhancement is found for light with electric field perpendicular to the sample’s surface, showing a vectorial photoelectric effect."

 

Obviously, the "vectorial" photoelectric effect is now well understood and the 90 degree emission is undeniable.

 

Next, Graham, when a neutron decays, it indeed results in an electron and a proton. It does not, however, form a hydrogen atom.

 

And finally: Yes, I am aware of the magnetic resonance absorption of the nucleus. This is simply the Larmor frequency for this particular charge/mass ratio and is a natural resonance frequency. No surprises here. This is very different than Nyquist limited emissions from nuclear material.

 

Again, thanks for the kudos.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

Graham,

 

Thanks for the encouragement. Now to your questions.

 

First, let me clarify your "never on at the same time statement". This is only true in vapors, where in general, the material in question does not radiate much EM energy. In solids, thermal disturbances (with orbital overlap) are radical in the outer orbits of the atoms, and they do radiate, and charges are ON at the same time (typically generating infra-red radiation at room temperature from the associated accelerations while the electrons are "ON").

 

Most vapours, or gases as we call them, are diatomic therefore do require Coulomb attraction - or something

 

This new Intermittent Electron Theory has the electron's charge turning its electric field "ON" and "OFF". However, the electron's susceptibility to acceleration from other charges is always active. How is this possible? Well, from relativity we know that acceleration can "stop EM influence from going somewhere" without stopping its arrival.

 

That would be the same relativity that has as its foundation the notion that time itself is velocity-variant? I do not accept this 'relativity'.

 

This is how the model is built. When the electron is "OFF" for example, it still can be accelerated by the nuclear electric force that is "ON". In this case, the electron does not radiate while being accelerated in its quasi-circular orbit.

 

Does this answer your questions, or are you looking for more details of the model?

 

I will re-read your hypothesis that the charges oscillate in and out of the Schwarzchild radii (if I remember you correctly).

 

Correct, nothing but the minute probability of this happening. It would be like saying that "if gravity turned off momentarily, then there would be nothing stopping Pluto from colliding with Haley's Comet".

 

For your metaphor to be valid gravity would have to have been switched on and off an infinite number of times. Now what is the probability of collision?

 

Undeniable.

 

See this paper:

 

Vectorial Photoelectric Effect in Copper

 

Here are the key quotes:

 

 

 

Obviously, the "vectorial" photoelectric effect is now well understood and the 90 degree emission is undeniable.

 

I read that before. It looks very encouraging. How much corroborating evidence is there from other sources?

 

Next, Graham, when a neutron decays, it indeed results in an electron and a proton. It does not, however, form a hydrogen atom.

 

If the electron acquires escape velocity its initial velocity must still be ca100C.

 

And finally: Yes, I am aware of the magnetic resonance absorption of the nucleus. This is simply the Larmor frequency for this particular charge/mass ratio and is a natural resonance frequency. No surprises here. This is very different than Nyquist limited emissions from nuclear material.

 

Again, thanks for the kudos.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

How is the peer reviewing going on the paper?

[andrewgray]

Graham,

 

Most vapours, or gases as we call them, are diatomic therefore do require Coulomb attraction - or something

Correct, I have shown how the hydrogen and methane molecules are held together with Coulomb forces in previous posts.

 

 

I do not accept this 'relativity'.

I understand your skepticism. You do realize that Maxwell's equations transform with the Lorentz transformations.(?)

 

 

For your metaphor to be valid gravity would have to have been switched on and off an infinite number of times. Now what is the probability of collision?

Graham, I think it would be a low probability.

 

 

I read that before. It looks very encouraging. How much corroborating evidence is there from other sources?

Graham, have you read this one?

 

The Angular Distribution of Photoelectrons Ejected by Polarized UV Light in Potassium Vapor

. . . the experiments were definite in establishing that the most probable direction of ejection is that of the electric vector and that the angular distribution varies as the square of the cosine of the angle between the electric vector and the direction in question.

 

How is the peer reviewing going on the paper?

The peer review process was a dichotomy. Some raved at the new ideas but many were hostile to them. The raves slightly outnumbered the hostiles and allowed the paper to be published.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

Hi Andrew. I hope to respond more fully later this weekend. Meanwhile it occurred to me that not only was your aliasing idea derived from digital processing of analogue signals, but the notion of the switching on-and-off of charge may also be a resonance of a deep knowledge of how computers work via binary logic gates...

 

I have to say I think you did a great job in dismantling some of the standard model myth science - especially the 'single -----on' double slit nonsense with its inherent paradox (a sure sign something is wrong) something that Einstein's Relativity has also...

 

I wish you could do the same for the MMX...

[rodin]

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

 

1) Charge. Electric charge is no longer believed to be static.

2) Light. Light is no longer believed to have a particle nature.

3) Particles. Particles are no longer believed to have a wave nature. Only pulsating pseudo-waves.

 

Can you explain then why we still need E=mc^2, and for that matter a theory of relativity, one that goes beyond the obvious vertical path of an object dropped inside a moving carriage?

[rodin]

 

 

This is the model I was thinking of when I asked my question re electron collisions. The orbits intersect. This is not the case with planets orbiting the Sun. For this model to be valid one would surely have to assume some synchronous motion whereby electrons could not collide, much as the rotors of this helicopter are geared so that blades do not meet?

 

[rodin]

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

 

This is a bit like the electron escape velocity problem vis a vis neutron decay.

 

Here is a new weapon, it can circumnavigate Earth in an hour.

 

 

Waves travelling in the same medium do so at about a tenth of that speed. The notion that lightspeed is a barrier to all motion may be false, drastically so when it comes to spin. Consider the fact that accelerated particles require more and more energy to be accelerated asymptopically towards light speed, never reaching same. Is this because mass is increasing, or is it for some other reason? Such as the accelerating force (magnetic/electric) has a lightspeed limit?

 

One might argue that cosmic particles do not exceed lightspeed, though they approach it, thus proving, or at least implying, an absolute limit, but then what is accelerating those particles to 'near lightspeed'?

 

Who says the electron cannot spin beyond lightspeed? Einstein, who appropriated the equation e=mc^2 to 'show' matter and energy are convertible. I refer you to the post I made earlier today quoting your 'changing foundations' of physics.

 

Funnily enough, no-one made the mass/energy conversion link from it's predecessor, KE=1/2mv^2.

[CraigD]

Apologies for such a late response to your more-than-one-month-old post, Andrew.

 

As far as I know, proton interference is still mysterious and has not yet been done experimentally (someone please correct me if I am incorrect here).

I was under the impression that the double-slit experiment had been carried out more than a decade ago with not only protons, but whole atoms and even more massive molecules. Searching for support for my impression, I found various papers, the best I think Quantum interference experiments with large molecules, Nairz, Arndt, and ZeilAm J Phy Oct 2003, which describes the experiment with C₆₀ molecules. It’s references include ones to the experiment done with electrons, neutrons, atoms, and molecules less massive than C₆₀. The wikipedia article give the year of the first detection of DS interference with C₆₀ as 1999.

 

For reasons mysterious to me, neither this not any other paper I was able to find documentation of the DS experiment done with protons. However, as I gather from your later posts in this thread you are looking for support of the idea that only photons are wave-like, demonstrating wave-like behavior with much more (over 720 times) massive (and thus shorter de Broglie wavelength) particles should be even more contradictory of your idea than for protons.

 

As these very tiny wavelengths result in very tiny diffraction patterns, their measurement seems much more involved than measuring patterns on photographic film, so with only a brief reading of the paper, and none of the papers it references, I don’t have a firm grasp of its details and possible pitfalls in light (pardon the pun) of your ideas, but I think the prediction that all bodies, even very macroscopic ones like 1000+ kg cars and trucks, can, in principle, exhibit wave-like phenomena like interference, is fairly well-supported. I mention cars and truck out of vague recollection of having calculated their diffraction patterns under various wildly impractical conditions in high school physics class, many decades ago.

[coldcreation]

[snip]

 

Who says the electron cannot spin beyond lightspeed? Einstein, who appropriated the equation e=mc^2 to 'show' matter and energy are convertible. [snip]

 

Einstein didn't "appropriate" the equation E = mc2.

 

 

 

CC

[Guest MacPhee]

The idea that electrons are pulsing "on" and "off", is very interesting. Could it lead to practical benefits - such as a universal clock?

 

I mean, electrons must all pulse at the same rate, with their pulses happening at the same time. All electrons in the universe are identical - so they must all be pulsing together, in synchronicity.

 

So if we can find out, what rate the electrons pulsate at - then won't we have a kind of "ultimate clock", to measure the passage of time throughout the universe?

[rodin]

Einstein didn't "appropriate" the equation E = mc2.

 

 

 

CC

 

The mass-energy relation E=mc2 has a dual origin, one grounded in the postulate of the existence of an aether made of "ultramondane particules" moving in space at the speed of light, c; the other, a consequence, first deduced by Henri Poincare, of John Poynting's electromagnetic Theorem.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608289

 

Ask any layman and 99% of scientists. Whose equation is e=mcsquared? What will their answer be?

[coldcreation]

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608289

 

Ask any layman and 99% of scientists. Whose equation is e=mcsquared? What will their answer be?

 

 

That's as ridiculous as saying that Pablo Picasso appropriated Cubism from Paul Cézanne.

 

Knowledge evolves, or progresses. Novelty very often, if not always, draws from the past. This is not called an "appropriation" as you incorrectly write.

 

 

Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"

 

No one else had done so prior to this paper. Jules Henri Poincaré and others contributed to the knowledge that would lead Einstein to such an equation.

 

 

Likewise, Cubsim was born not out of products of the past (Cézanne had not pushed the envelope so far) but through visions of the future. Clearly the work of Cézanne and African art were a source of inspiration to the Cubsists, and by combining the two something new was created, i.e., neither the Africans nor Cézanne had achieved the same pictorial language.

 

While he was not the first to have related energy with mass, Einstein was the first to have correctly deduced the mass–energy equivalence formula. Practically all previous authors thought that the energy which contributes to mass comes only from electromagnetic fields. It was Einstein who drew major conclusions that would rigorously transform our awareness of nature, specifically, with respect to the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed by his famous equation.

 

Get your history straight. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

EDIT> Off-topic, but for the record!!!!!!!

 

CC