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

[andrewgray]

Wow, I have a lot to cover.

 

Rodin (Graham),

 

Thanks for the kudos about "dismantling some of the standard model myth science".

That indeed was the intention. And yes, my Physics/Mathematics/ElectricalEngineering background

was indeed helpful and instrumental in figuring out the Nyquist frequency limit of accelerated

electron EM emissions (very similar concepts to digital processing of analog signals).

 

Now the Michelson-Morley-Experiment/Relativity discussion probably belongs in another thread. Let

me quickly say that I am deeply concerned with you and I have gained a deep understanding of SR and GR.

Here is one of my papers you should read about SR and the "twin paradox":

 

The Twin Paradox: A Detailed Study

 

This at least shows that SR is self-consistent even if one disagrees with Einstein's definition

of length and time. Perhaps you could start another thread and let me know. Why we need

  is in the same category. The short answer is simply because Maxwell's

Equations transform via the Lorentz transformations.

 

As for the "intersecting orbits" of the CH4 molecule, I understand what you are saying. The

difference here is that the electrons are repulsive to each other, and would tend to "get as

far apart from one another as they could" in their orbits. And of course, I have no evidence right now that

the CH4 molecule is exactly symmetrical and that the orbits actually overlap. This

Intermittent Electron Theory is so new that no one has been able to probe the molecules in

terms of this new understanding. Anyway, if the orbits actually did overlap, most

likely they would end up like the blades on a military helicopter because the

electrons repel each other.

 

Graham, for your next question, "who says that electrons cannot spin faster than lightspeed?",

I will comment further here, since it probably applies to this thread. In my studies of relativity

(I studied in graduate school under/with the now famous John Archibald Wheeler) I have concluded

that the velocity-limit of lightspeed simply comes from the way one defines time.

For example, if one strays from Einstein's definition, and goes out in the middle of interstellar

space and sets up a "space buoy" that transmits a "ticking EM pulse" every millisecond, then one

has a new definition of time. Anywhere one finds him/herself, one would set up a receiver,

sense the ticking EM pulses, and then one would know this "newly defined time". In this situation,

there would be no lightspeed limit. Things "could go faster than lightspeed" with this different

time definition. Understand?

 

Anyway, when I claim that electrons should not "spin faster than lightspeed", I am inherently

assuming that we are using Einstein's definition of time. That's all.

 

CraigD,

 

Yes, when you look at the literature, there are claims of double slit diffraction of all kinds of

particles. However, if you look very closely at the original papers, you will find that they

are not double slit experiments after all. For example, if one looks at "neutron interference"

experiments that claim to be "double slit" experiments, they are not. What one finds is that

neutron experiments are actually "preferred path-direction through metallic crystals". No

double slit comparison can be made. In neutron experiments, what is actually going on is that

the neutron also has pulsation (ON POSITIVE, OFF, ON NEGATIVE, etc.) The ON POSITIVE part is probably

most dominant. Then one must accelerate the neutrons in such a way that in general the ON POSITIVE

part actually "turns ON" in between the layers of atoms. Otherwise the neutrons will not make it

through. This is a preferred direction and is angular dependent in the very way that is seen

in the experimental data.

 

Craig, when you say that I am "looking for support of the idea that only photons are wave-like",

you are incorrect. What I am saying is that photons do not exist. Period.

 

So Craig, look very skeptically at papers that claim to double-slit-diffract molecules,

for example. You will find no reason to believe they are "double slit experiments".

They are always "preferred path-direction through crystals", which can be explained with

these new concepts.

 

MacPhee,

 

Yes, there will be some practical uses to this new Intermittent Electron Theory. The only one

that I have been able to come up with though, has to do with tunneling. There is electron tunneling

in this new theory. Here is the idea. In a tunnel diode, the electrons have an average acceleration

in the wire leading up to the thin barrier, and thus they have an average "OFF distance" and an average

"ON distance". When the voltage is increased, the accelerations increase, so these distances

decrease according to our modified De Broglie relation. That is, the "OFF distances" get shorter. When the

average "OFF distance" gets short enough so fewer electrons can be OFF while going across the

barrier, the current actually starts to decrease with increasing voltage! This is the negative

resistance region we see in tunnel diodes:

 

When the OFF distances become so short that no electrons can make it across the barrier without

resistive effects, then we get back to regular Ohmic behavior and the current starts to increase

with increasing voltage as normally according to Ohm's law. So here is the new idea. Build a new

kind of dual opposing tunnel diode such that there are two barriers separated by a thin semiconducting

layer. Then send electrons at each other with opposite direction across each barrier so that they

"meet in between in the middle region". Then if one can force the ON distances and OFF distances

of the opposing currents to correlate such that the electrons on average "go OFF" across the opposing

barriers and "go ON" in the separating semiconductor region in between, a battery might be created.

One can possible get a small battery effect from this scenario if the electrons can "get

close together while OFF", then suddenly come ON close together in the separating region. One would need

to get the correlation very good for this to work.

 

MacPhee, I am not sure a "universal clock" would come from these new concepts, because the pulsation

rates are variable according to a modified De Broglie law.

 

Thanks to everyone for their interest!

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray December 2011

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray

[dduckwessel]

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?

 

I know this is going to sound like a bad question and this is way above my head but I'm so curious that I just have to ask it. Are you speaking about pulsing as in sound (like you hear through a large audio speaker).

[rodin]

Hi Andrew

 

Just a quick partial reply as I am 'in the pub' @ the moment with like minds.

 

re CH4. Yes - like charges repel, but for most? of the time your charges are 'off'.

[rodin]

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

 

Second result Googling E-mc squared

 

Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of this century. One of his most well-known accomplishments is the formula

 

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html

[coldcreation]

Second result Googling E-mc squared

 

[sNIP]

 

I didn't need to read that text you linked.

 

After having opened it, I took one look at the second photo of Albert Einstein and understood the entire article. <_<

 

EDIT> But then I read it anyway and it supports not your chimerical "appropriation" claim.

 

 

PS. Sorry for the distraction Andrew. This will be my last post on the subject of Einstein's equation.

 

PSS. Though I haven't participated much in this thread I have been following it with interest. Nice work! <EDIT

 

 

CC

[andrewgray]

dduckwessel,

 

Are you speaking about pulsing as in sound (like you hear through a large audio speaker).

 

Yes, the analogy is quite good. If you took a speaker and pulsed it ON and OFF periodically, then the radial pressure fronts would propagate outward in a pulsed manner at the speed of sound. This is very similar to the pulsing of an electron's radial electric field. The radial electric field fronts (not waves!) travel outward at the speed of light.

 

 

 

Rodin (Graham),

 

Yes, the electrons in CH4 are OFF most of the time, so again, if their orbits nearly "cross each other", they would most likely be OFF, and cause no near "collision" (they would just whiz right by each other with no effect). If one or both of them were ON when they nearly "crossed each other" (less likely), then they would repel and cause the orbits to shift away from this scenario, and force them into a more stable situation (or ionize if the collision is close enough). A "real collision", of course, could not happen at these velocities.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

dduckwessel,

 

 

 

Yes, the analogy is quite good. If you took a speaker and pulsed it ON and OFF periodically, then the radial pressure fronts would propagate outward in a pulsed manner at the speed of sound. This is very similar to the pulsing of an electron's radial electric field. The radial electric field fronts (not waves!) travel outward at the speed of light.

 

 

 

Rodin (Graham),

 

Yes, the electrons in CH4 are OFF most of the time, so again, if their orbits nearly "cross each other", they would most likely be OFF, and cause no near "collision" (they would just whiz right by each other with no effect). If one or both of them were ON when they nearly "crossed each other" (less likely), then they would repel and cause the orbits to shift away from this scenario, and force them into a more stable situation (or ionize if the collision is close enough). A "real collision", of course, could not happen at these velocities.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

a) It strikes me your pulsed electric field is a wave - albeit radial and square in nature

 

B) Ionisation in extremis - nice idea. Have you mapped your model onto real chemical reactions to see if it makes sense?

[andrewgray]

a) It strikes me your pulsed electric field is a wave - albeit radial and square in nature

 

B) Ionisation in extremis - nice idea. Have you mapped your model onto real chemical reactions to see if it makes sense?

 

 

Rodin,

 

Yes, the pulsations are similar to a longitudinal wave (l-wave), however, in this theory they are not really a wave. An l-wave has oscillations (in both directions) along the direction of travel. The pulsations in this Intermittent Electron Theory are uni-directional. For example, for a positron, the electric force field would be outward or off, and not outward then inward. Just semantics though. No big deal.

 

And in reality, these pulsations would not be perfectly squared off. They would most likely have smooth transitions from OFF to ON, etc., and the squared diagrams that I have shown in this thread are a simplification for clarity.

 

As far as mapping this theory into real chemical reactions (possibly by computation), I have not. There is so much to do! Intermittent Electron Theory has just rewritten a 100 years of (not so) modern physics. I have many interests for the use of this new theory. I am currently working on the "origins of gravity" and redoing General Relativity. So much to do! (And not much help!)

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

Rodin,

 

Yes, the pulsations are similar to a longitudinal wave (l-wave), however, in this theory they are not really a wave. An l-wave has oscillations (in both directions) along the direction of travel. The pulsations in this Intermittent Electron Theory are uni-directional. For example, for a positron, the electric force field would be outward or off, and not outward then inward. Just semantics though. No big deal.

 

And in reality, these pulsations would not be perfectly squared off. They would most likely have smooth transitions from OFF to ON, etc., and the squared diagrams that I have shown in this thread are a simplification for clarity.

 

In other words the amplitude of the charge wave (from 'visible' to 'gravitationally bound a la black hole') would be sinusoidal-ish? I suppose you could argue the 'Schwarzchild radius' lay close to the tip of the 'up' oscillation... So you have a sequence of intermittent short duration peaks popping out of the charge black hole like the humps of some Loch Ness Monster...

 

 

I dunno. I love your debunking of the tenets of the standard model, not sure about your intermittent electron theory.

 

As far as mapping this theory into real chemical reactions (possibly by computation), I have not. There is so much to do! Intermittent Electron Theory has just rewritten a 100 years of (not so) modern physics. I have many interests for the use of this new theory. I am currently working on the "origins of gravity" and redoing General Relativity. So much to do! (And not much help!)

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

How is your work progressing?

[Blacksmith]

The thing is, there are no real definitive physics in quantum mechanics. The subatomic world follows a different set of physical laws then the ones that our multimolecular world obeys. We may eventually define the laws of physics on the subatomic level, but, for now, we need to stick to current theories, and either prove or disprove them over time. We may disavow certain theories that involve quantum mechanics, but we must never throw away quantum mechanics as a whole.

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

 

Well, I am indeed progressing. In a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" kind of way, I have been incessantly studying General Relativity to complete a foundation for my "micropulsars", or Intermittent Electron Theory, based on GR. Know what I found? I was wrong. I found a new non-problematic solution to gravitational collapse, and according to Albert Einstein's own field equations, [math]G=8 \pi T[/math], stationary black holes are not possible. This blows a hole in the very origins of my IET theory, and I am in the process of grabbing more tightly onto my own bootstraps, and using this new IE Theory to explain the origins of gravity!

 

Your Loch Ness Monster analogy is perhaps a good one. Even without a GR foundation to build from, the evidence for a pulsating charge is overwhelming.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited April 12, 2012 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

BlackSmith,

 

I agree with you, "There is no real definitive physics in quantum mechanics". Think about what you just said! But you are incorrect, the subatomic world follows the same logical set of physical laws that our common sense demands. As soon as the IET experiments are done by a new young physicist not trapped by Quantum Conformity, the QM world will come crashing down. In the mean time, We Are Wasting Time! But oh well, the NSF is writing grants to find WIMPS and we are claiming that particles travel through 300 kilometers of solid rock faster than lightspeed. Oh, the shame. But "grants are what makes the world go 'round". Truth does not Make the World Go 'Round (unless it can inspire grants from the NSF).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[rodin]

Rodin,

 

Well, I am indeed progressing. In a "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" kind of way, I have been incessantly studying General Relativity to complete a foundation for my "micropulsars", or Intermittent Electron Theory, based on GR. Know what I found? I was wrong. I found a new non-problematic solution to gravitational collapse, and according to Albert Einstein's own field equations, [math]G=8 \pi T[/math], stationary black holes are not possible. This blows a hole in the very origins of my IET theory, and I am in the process of grabbing more tightly onto my own bootstraps, and using this new IE Theory to explain the origins of gravity!

 

Your Loch Ness Monster analogy is perhaps a good one. Even without a GR foundation to build from, the evidence for a pulsating charge is overwhelming.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Anything not built on a GR foundation has at least a chance of getting to the truth IMO

 

Pulsars do pulse, claimed to be a manifestation of rotation

 

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

 

Of course one of the first things 'science' did with the discovery of the pulsar was to use it to 'verify' GR ....

 

Applications (Uses)

 

Relative position of the Sun to the center of the Galaxy and 14 pulsars with their periods denoted

The study of pulsars has resulted in many applications in physics and astronomy. Striking examples include the confirmation of the existence of gravitational radiation as predicted by general relativity and the first detection of an extrasolar planetary system.

The discovery of pulsars allowed astronomers to study an object never observed before, the neutron star. This kind of object is the only place where the behavior of matter at nuclear density can be observed (though not directly). Also, millisecond pulsars have allowed a test of general relativity in conditions of an intense gravitational field.

 

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

[rodin]

As soon as the IET experiments are done by a new young physicist not trapped by Quantum Conformity, the QM world will come crashing down.

 

I might know a couple of promising candidates. One would be starting his Phd in 3 years assuming contiguity. The other 6 years ditto...

 

Objective?

 

To dismantle Mythics altogether

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

 

That is good news about the up and coming physicists!

 

Meanwhile, more evidence has come in refuting Quantum Mechanics and "photons".

Rob Chaplinsky wrote to me and asked why his photovoltaic panels did not yield

maximum current pointing directly into the sun!

 

My experiment showed that the UV generated more power/current when my solar cell was 105 degrees

to the UV 15W light source compared to when it was less than 105 degrees.

Can you help me understand why?

 

Obviously, he was incredulous, since he was imagining "photons" knocking electrons across

layers of his photovoltaic panel. But there are no photons! This "photon" model indeed

incorrectly predicts maximum current when the light is normal to the surface.

But this is not true!

 

So I must politely remind QM'ers to stop saying that QM has not failed. QM has failed here.

The answer requires the Theory of Intermittent Electrons.

In this theory and (supporting papers) we learn that photoelectrons are accelerated "sideways"

perpendicular to the UV light and along the polarization of the light wave. Hence, when the light

directly hits the photovoltaic at 90^o, the electron accelerations are mostly "sideways"

and do not do as well generating voltage in the panel. It is only when one "tilts" the incoming

UV light to the "non-normal" direction that one gets the maximum current. This is because the

"sideways" direction relative to the lightwave obtains an acceleration component that is across

the layers! This gives more current than when the panel is pointing directly into the sun!

Who would have imagined this phenomenon if they believed in photons?

 

You QM'ers have a comment about this?

 

Indeed, if this new Theory of Intermittent Electrons generates a new innovative PhotoVoltaic

design, possibly with layers oriented vertically instead on horizontally, QM will be

history. Money trumps all.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited June 5, 2012 by andrewgray

[sigurdV]

So a new theory is proposed to explain why electrons does not fall into the nucleus?

Well that is how a layman like me may (mis?)understand the beginning of your interesting display.

 

At the moment I suppose you have had no time for doing a presentation/summary of your theory

(and its consequences) with non specialists (like philosophers) in mind ...

But, if and when you do, it will be appreciated :)

Edited May 25, 2012 by sigurdV

[andrewgray]

So a new theory is proposed to explain why electrons does not fall into the nucleus?

Well that is how a layman like me may (mis?)understand the beginning of your interesting display.

 

At the moment I suppose you have had no time for doing a presentation/summary of your theory

(and its consequences) with non specialists (like philosophers) in mind ...

But, if and when you do, it will be appreciated :)

SigurdV, Yes I should do a simplified presentation of this new theory for the "non-specialist".

I was actually thinking about making a movie, now that movie technology is not expensive.

This project is on my "to-do" "bucket list". Thanks for asking me! That improves my motivation.

The main idea of this new theory is that electrons are not static little charged balls. They cannot

be. Electrons are actually little charged pulsars. If one makes this assumption along with De Broglie's

hypothesis, then all of microscopic physics can be explained without the use of photons. This is really

a good thing for physics, because photons are paradoxical in magnitude like "time-travel-to-the-past".

(We have even seen time-travel-to-the-past discussed seriously in a popular U.S. science magazine.!)

We in physics need to get back on a footing based on pure logic.

Andrew Ancel Gray