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

[Little Bang]

Andrew, did you ever consider trying to explain how Bremsstrahlung radiation produces both a positive and negative going wave? What interaction does an accelerated charged particle have with space that produces them?

[andrewgray]

On 5/28/2012 at 1:01 PM, Little Bang said:

Andrew, did you ever consider trying to explain how Bremsstrahlung radiation produces both a positive and negative going wave? What interaction does an accelerated charged particle have with space that produces them?

 

Little Bang,

 

Sure, we can explain that. Any electromagnetic radiation is caused by an acceleration of a charge.

J.J. Thompson envisioned this the best. Suppose we take a positron initially at rest.

(we use a positron for simplicity, the electric field points outward from a positron, easier to imagine)

Then we accelerate it for a short time downward, then accelerate a short time upwards:

 

In 1), the field tries to adjust itself to the new position at the speed of light.

This "acceleration field" in between the two radial fields is what causes the radiation. Since the

positron was accelerated downwards, we can see that the radiation must point upwards.

 

In 2), the positron is accelerated upwards, so the radiation must point downwards.

 

So in Bremsstrahlung Radiation, all that is required is for the electrons to have accelerations in two

opposite directions, and you get a positive and negative going wave. Now since Bremsstrahlung radiation

is "slowing down radiation", one would think that the accelerations would tend to only be in one direction.

This "slowing down" acceleration would produce the EM amplitude in one direction, and then one would need a

"speeding up" acceleration to produce an EM amplitude in the other direction. OK. But the Bremsstrahlung

electron probably experiences millions of accelerations when it enters the aluminum plate in an X-ray

machine. It can probably have accelerations in all directions. For example, it is slowed down as it

nears another electron, but then it "speeds up" as it gets away from it. Or, it speeds up as it goes

toward a nucleus, and "slows down" as it passes it. This gives examples how both directions of acceleration

could be possible. The electron only slows down a bit with each interaction, probably taking millions

of interactions to be nearly stopped (contradicting QM, where all the energy is converted in one interaction).

 

Also, since the electron is pulsating while it is experiencing accelerations, it only radiates if it is

"ON" while accelerated. Thus the radiation has a Nyquist Frequency Limit!

 

 

On 5/28/2012 at 1:01 PM, Little Bang said:

What interaction does an accelerated charged particle have with space that produces them?

Little Bang, In this Theory of Intermittent Electrons, "space" is treated as a vacuum (or nothingness) and thus any

interaction with it is undefined. There are no "vacuum fluctuations" or "vacuum energies" in this theory!!!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[sigurdV]

Hi Andrew!

 

I think your effect on Reality would be stronger if you cared more about the laymen

and gave them an (extremely)short presentation.

So far your theory (it seems)has survived scrutiny from your peers :)

 

But... they have nothing to gain from spreading the news!

The layman on the other hand is happy to do so...

Provided he understands the news!!

 

I surely dont...I got tired of waiting... So I slaughtered your first post in order to get an overview.

I did not add anything, nor had I the heart to compress it further but it still is much too long.

The layman must be able to carry it in detail in his memory! Impressing his friends...

 

When your peers begin to feel pressure from laymen wanting info on Andrew Gray you will (I predict) notice a change ;)

 

ACT NOW! (Er...Please?)

 

Here are the biggest problems with QM as I see it

1) The Photoelectric effect

 

2) The Bremsstrahlung Paradox.

 

3) Electron Spin

 

A point particle just cannot have "something spinning", and a point particle cannot have a "moment" of any kind.

 

4) Wave Particle Duality

 

Questions:

 

1) How can the "photon" know about the other slit if it goes through just one?

 

2) How can the "photon" interfere with itself it if it just goes through one slit?

 

The first myth that needs to be cleared up is cleared up with the following statement:

 

One film dot ≠ One photon detection.

 

These one-particle-at-a-time claims are not realistic.

 

QM is not needed to explain wave particle duality

 

5) Quantum Entanglement.

 

Since Bell's inequality is violated, then local reality is impossible.

 

The Photon Hypothesis needs to be abandoned.

 

6) Renormalization.

 

The electron's mass-energy is roughly 1/2 MeV. This mass-energy is the amount contained in a static electric field emanating from a charge with a radius roughly

 

rc = 2x10-13 cm

 

An electron, however, is known to be more like

 

 

re = 2x10-15 cm

 

or smaller. The electric field energy from such a small particle is roughly 50 MeV. This is troublesome to say the least. If the resultant mass-energy of the electron is indeed just 1/2 MeV, then the mass function for a static electron must go negative below this "classical electron radius".

 

 

So once again we have a logical contradiction:

 

A static electron's actual size < minimum permitted size

 

 

The static electron viewpoint must be abandoned.

 

7) A better theory is now possible.

 

the fundamental criteria for the new theory.

 

1) The electron's structure must be dynamic.

 

2) It must cover the photoelectric effect.

 

3) It must cover the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.

 

4) It must have stable, nonradiating atoms

 

5) It must allow for electron interference.

 

6) It must allow for Compton Scattering, Hydrogen Spectra, etc. . .

 

The first four fundamental criteria give us no choice but to insist that an electron be a pulsating particle.

 

That is, an electron turns its electric field ON and OFF.

The faster an electron in accelerated, the faster it pulsates:

 

When the electron is ON, it is susceptible to a greater force in an electric field than when it is off. )

 

This pulsating particle scenario allows for a stable, nonradiating atom:

 

Why does this atom not radiate? Because radiation comes from accelerating charges.

 

The electron is only accelerated while it is OFF. When it is ON, it travels in a straight line. Hence, this atom will not radiate.

 

 

Now for the fascinating parts.

 

 

 

1The photoelectric effect.

 

Consider a free electron in a metal, pulsating with a certain frequency. When visible light is incident on the electron, what does it do?

 

Remember this: If an electron is static, then when an oscillating electric force hits the electron, it simply moves up and down going nowhere.

 

However, this is not true if the electron is pulsating. If the electron is pulsating just right, it might take off either up or down. This depends on the correlation of electron pulsation frequency with the light. If the electron is ON in phase with the peaks of the light wave, then the electron ill simply go UP and DOWN, also going nowhere. However, if the electron is ON only during the UP part of the light wave, and OFF during the DOWN part of the light wave, then the electron will move upwards very rapidly. It is influenced less by the down part of the light wave, since the electron is OFF! So the electron is accelerated upwards.

 

Now the electron pulsations start to quicken according to De Broglie:

 

(the factor of ½ will become clear later) The electron starts to pulsate faster and faster until it no longer is in phase with just the UP part of the light wave. When it becomes fast enough so that the electron is ON in phase with both

 

peaks of the wave, the acceleration is over. The electron returns to just going UP and DOWN in its co-moving inertial frame. A non-acceleration resonance has occurred! This resonance occurs at the moment that ½ the electron's De Broglie frequency reaches the frequency of the light wave. The electron stops accelerating when

 

or when

 

Stop and imagine this for a moment. Packets of energy hνlight given to a charged particle without photons! No momentum considerations!

 

And finally take note: This pulsating theory succeeds in explaining the vectorial photoelectric effect while Quantum Mechanics fails.

 

Next, the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.

 

 

 

Imagine that a 25 KeV electron collides with a metal plate and goes through the following motion:

 

You want a 25 keV electron to radiate at a certain frequency below the limit? Well, just move it back and forth at a lower frequency, and it must radiate at this frequency. No way around it.

 

 

So the question again becomes:

 

 

If the electron gets moved back and forth at a frequency higher than the limit, then why doesn't it radiate at this frequency?

 

 

The answer is the Nyquist Frequency Limit.

 

 

 

 

The Hydrogen Spectra

 

Recall that this new theory has allowed us to have stable, nonradiating electron orbits.

 

These orbits do not radiate because the electron is not accelerated while it is ON. We must conclude that the requirement that the electron only be ON while the proton is OFF establishes only certain allowed orbits. If the electron deviates from these allowed orbits, then it will be ON while the proton is ON, and in this case, it will radiate energy. This radiation friction and the huge increase in the force between them will disrupt the trajectory until the electron returns to an allowed orbit.

 

 

The advantage of this pulsating model for the hydrogen atom is that the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation actually exists within the atom. In all physical systems, the system’s resonant frequencies actually exist within the system!

 

 

 

Orbital Electron Frequencies = Hydrogen Spectrum Frequencies

 

So if you heat hydrogen gas, or run a current through it, these orbits will be perturbed. These perturbations will disturb the orbits so that the electrons are accelerated while ON, and hence they will start to radiate at their natural frequencies!

 

 

It cannot be stressed enough here. These natural frequencies exist within the atom and these natural frequencies are stimulated by perturbations, just like all physical systems with resonances.

 

 

 

 

The Hydrogen Molecule and the Reality-Based Covalent Bond

 

 

 

It is now much easier to understand the hydrogen molecule. Hydrogen is a magnetic dipole. It is attracted to other hydrogen atom like two magnets are attracted to each other. From a distance, the hydrogen atom appears electrically neutral. The magnetic forces still exist, though. Thus, two hydrogen atoms would be pulled towards each other with a relatively small magnetic force until the Coulomb forces come into play. If a collision occurs with a small enough separation distance, an H2 molecule is formed by Coulomb forces.

 

Energy conservation is fascinating in this pulsating theory. On the macroscopic level, all the pulsations of gazillions of particles time-average to Coulomb's Law, and everything is as expected. But on the microscopic level we have tunneling in this theory! Suppose the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is momentarily OFF. Then at that moment, the electron can be quickly moved to a higher orbit without much energy being expended. The electron can "tunnel" to a higher orbit while the nucleus is OFF! So, for example, during collisions with spectrometer current-electrons, the hydrogen's electrons can be moved to different orbits sometimes without having to fight the full centripetal nuclear Coulomb forces.

 

 

And when a spectrometer electron collides with the hydrogen electrons, the electrons become "out of sync" with the nuclei, and radiation results. This radiation is at the frequency of electron revolution. This radiation causes "radiation friction". This friction cannot last forever, as the electrons start to feel the nuclear forces while they are ON. Something will change. The orbits will either change or the electrons will decay into the nuclei. Since we do not see spontaneous neutron production, it is safe to assume that the orbitals change back to stable orbits, with or without tunneling.

 

Electron Interference

 

This pulsating model for electrons allows a more reasonable picture for electron interference. Here is the setup:

 

We have already discussed how high voltage cross-the-gap-currents tend to surge. So a pulse of

 

coherent electrons emerges from the tip of the electron gun. They make their way towards the positively charge

 

filament, pulsating in unison since they are coherent. Now when they are bent around the filament, the two sides will

 

cross in only one place. If the electrons are ON when they cross, a tremendous repulsive force will keep them from

 

continuing on their way, and they will not strike the film on their original path (a minimum). If the electrons are OFF

 

when they cross, they will continue on to the screen and hit the film on their original path (a maximum).

[andrewgray]

OK, SigurdV,

 

We can have a layman's discussion here. I will need your help to regulate

how slow or fast that the discussion goes? Deal?

 

OK, let's start with the basics. In this Intermittent Electron Theory we have

that a charge pulsates radially. That is, it turns its electric field ON and OFF

analogous to turning a light-bulb ON and OFF with a switch on the wall. Like this:

 

 

The radial electric force emanating from the charge "turns on" and then travels radially outward at

the speed of light. Then it turns off again. Then it turns on again, and so on.

This is the fundamental hypothesis of this new theory. Actually, the animation is not 100% correct.

After each pulse turns ON and starts traveling outward, it keeps on going all the way out.

In the animation, it was easier to just show the pulse turning on near the charge

(animations are time consuming to produce, let me tell you!) So think of

each pulse turning on and then traveling all the way out to infinity.

 

If another electron were in the vicinity, it would feel a pulsed electrical force of repulsion,

and not a steady force of repulsion as we thought about in the past. An analogy would be like

taking a hammer and striking a basketball over and over again (pulsed force). Contrast this

with pulling on the ball constantly with a rubber band tied around the ball (steady force).

 

We have pulsed electrical forces in this new theory, not constant ones.

 

Are you with me?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited June 15, 2012 by andrewgray

[Djames]

Hi Andrewgray,

 

I have to say that this is one of the most impressive posts that I have seen, not only because it goes directly against established science, which is normally frowned on in most forums and often ruthlessly eliminated but also because of the amount of interest that it has generated. It is heartening to think that so many people are interested in improving their understanding of physics. I have to congratulate the hypography team on their huge levels of tolerance, of which I have seen repeated instances in many of the forums and also on the general levels of courtesy that are observed throughout the forum, a laudable effort. In the meantime I myself have posted a new theory in the Alternative Theories forum called Gestalt Theory. I hope you will find time to go through it and, if possible, leave a comment.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2012 by McQueen

[andrewgray]

Hi Andrewgray,

I have to say that this is one of the most impressive posts that I have seen ...

 

McQueen,

 

Thanks for the kudos. They are appreciated. And yes, kudos to hypography for creating the Alternative Theories section of Physical Sciences, and tolerating logical dissent. When my thread went viral over at physicsforum.com, I was kicked out. So I am glad that you had the chance to read my post!

 

However, after reading your Gestalt Theory, I must say that I disagree with the whole concept of photons. When you really get down to the raw logic, there is no evidence for photons, and there is a mountain of evidence against them (as laid out in this thread). For example, in the photoelectric effect (the experiment that caused Einstein to invent photons), the electrons are ejected "sideways" and backwards, and they are ejected along the polarization of the incoming light wave! This is clearly a wave-particle reaction and not a particle-particle interaction. That is, the photoelectric effect now does not support photons!

 

So I am afraid you lost me as soon as you turned to "photons" for your explanations. Sorry, my friend. But thanks again for the kudos.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Djames]

So I am afraid you lost me as soon as you turned to "photons" for your explanations. Sorry, my friend. But thanks again for the kudos.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

No problem, its just a question of a difference of opinion. I maybe mistaken but I think that you missed the key point in Gestalt theory namely that a photon is simultaneously both a particle and a wave. This is something that is expressly forbidden by the 'Complementarity' rule introduced in QM, that states that a photon has both wave and particle properties but can never possess both of these properties simultaneously.

How can a photon have a frequency? It all comes down to the introduction of planck's constant into the equations and the fact that frequency of a 'particle' type photon, is in reality the frequency with which it is emitted by an excited atom. The frequency of light has been accurately measured, so there can be no doubt in this regard.

There are 4 ways in which high energy photons interact with matter:

1)Coherent scattering in which the incident photon undergoes a change in direction without any change in energy. Gestalt Theory would assume that the photon has been absorbed and re-emitted with the same energy.

2)Disintegration, where a high energy gamma radiation, results in its complete absorption by the nucleus and ejection of a neutron, proton or alpha particle from the nucleus.

3) Photo-electric effect, in which the photon is absorbed by the electron resulting in its ejection from the atom.

4)Compton scattering in which the energy of the incident high energy photon (x-ray) is different from the energy of the emitted lower energy photon, but in this case :

 

E_i = E_s (E_b + E_ke)

 

where E_i = energy of the incident x-ray,E_s = energy of the scattered x-ray, E_b = electron binding energy, and E_ke = kinetic energy of the electron.

In each of these cases Gestalt Theory gives a plausible explanation. So I think I will go with my theory for the moment. Thanks.

Edited September 3, 2012 by McQueen

[Djames]

Sorry duplicate post !

Edited September 3, 2012 by McQueen

[andrewgray]

1)Coherent scattering....... (photon this)

2)Disintegration............ (photon that)

3)Photo-electric effect. ........."

4)Compton scattering........ (photon the other)

 

McQueen,

 

Yes, a difference of opinion. Again, no problem. However, I did not misunderstand what

you were proposing. I just do not believe that there is any justification for photons (of any type).

There are too many paradoxes, and reality does not have paradoxes. So, for your given examples,

here is my difference of opinion without the use of photons.

 

1) Coherent Scattering. Coherent scattering is simply electromagnetic waves reflecting off

of atoms, mostly by bound electrons. The electrons are bound, so there is no Doppler Shift,

and hence the reflected wave's frequency remains the same. How does a wave reflect off of

a bound electron? Well, an EM wave hits the atomic electrons. They are accelerated by

the wave at that frequency (with a phase shift). This acceleration causes radiation in

all directions, but mostly perpendicular to the acceleration with the same frequency.

 

2) Disintegration. Disintegration emits gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is simply

an electromagnetic wave at about 300 quadrillion Hz.

 

3) Photo-electric Effect. This is the most obvious counter-example against photons.

The electrons are ejected "sideways" along the wave polarization. If "photons" were responsible, the electrons

would be ejected in the forward direction, and the wave polarization would not come into play. They are not

ejected forwards (mostly sideways), and the wave polarization does comes into play. Sorry, my

friend, but photons are not likely here.

 

4) Compton Scattering. Compton scattering is when x-rays change frequency when reflected from a target material.

If one assumes that the target electrons have a frequency resonance with the incoming x-rays (in different

portions of their quasi-circular orbits), then one can assume that the x-rays are reflected from electrons with

velocity, and are Doppler shifted. If one makes this calculation (which I have done earlier in this thread)

with an average electron velocity, then the Compton Doppler Shift calculation matches directly with Compton's

experimental data. I repeat, a Doppler shift calculation explains Compton's data. No photons are needed. In

addition, there are several experimental papers in the literature (which I have cited in this thread) that

disagree with Compton's x-ray photon formula. Some of the x-rays increase frequency!.

The Theory of Intermittent Electrons is needed to explain this!

 

The bottom line is, we do not need photons anymore, so if they are paradoxical, then logically, we can

throw them away.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 4, 2012 by andrewgray

[rodin]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1061069355&postcount=30

[rodin]

Actually the link I posted earlier supported an argument contrary to one I was making about the nature of the 'single photon/electron' double slit experiment. I found a video of the experiment I thought was in real time. I was expecting to find a few dots appearing (as screen crystals became saturated) followed by a much more rapid accumulation, approximating I guess to a Gaussian. This would support your debunking of single photon/electron measurements on momentum grounds. However, someone had played with the timebase, and, long story short, after analysis I saw the accumulation of dots was approximately linear with time.

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

 

Very interesting concept. However, no matter. The "one-whatever_on-at-a-time" experiment now seems a little far-fetched now that the intensity numbers have been run, and we see that one "dot" on the film corresponds to quadrillions of "photons-worth" of energy. Seems a little silly to claim that (one dot)=(one whatever_on), yeah?

It would be like a giant alien watching a 100 ton meteor shower and seeing blips on his detector for each 100 ton meteor. Then he claims, "Look, one sand grain at a time." "I have discovered sandons".

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Aethelwulf]

 

 

Many 1st year QM students do this calculation. But there is another problem with electron spin that has surfaced. Recall that magnetic moments precess in a magnetic field. There are many instances in modern physics where this is used. However, it is known that a precessing magnetic moment would radiate. Whenever there are time dependent fields, there is radiation. Whenever there is an acceleration involving charges, there is radiation. Precessing magnetic moments radiate, that's all there is to it. But atomic electrons do not radiate in a magnetic field. Hence, it seems to me that electrons probably do not have a magnetic moment, and hence do not have angular momentum. So we now have two oxymorons:

 

 

 

 

"Electron spin is not something spinning".

 

"Electron magnet moment is not a moment."

 

 

 

 

A point particle just cannot have "something spinning", and a point particle cannot have a "moment" of any kind.

 

 

This is just not acceptable to the purely logical mind, and if you will open it, you will see that this New Theory is much better.

 

 

I have a few questions about this Andrew, and no I am not going to be hostile :)

 

Yes, you are right a point particle cannot spin because it would need to make a 720 degree turn instead of your usual 360 orientation turn. I do personally however have a problem with the idea that electrons and indeed any particle which acts like a point like particle in our experiments, are in fact truly point like. Ok, we may not be talking about a classical sphere [math]\frac{e^2}{Mc^2}[/math] but some kind of geometry inside a particle which is like a very small sphere.

 

The statement

 

"Electron spin is not something spinning"

 

Is true within what current mainstream physics believes, but the honest truth is we don't actually know. We only know that it behaves like a point like interaction to a certain scale - and that it behaves with a dimension of 1/r. Anyway, I am struggling to find your argument sound enough. The acceleration of charge is given by the expression

 

[math]\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^2}{c^2}a^3[/math]

 

via the Larmor formula. This is the amount of radiation a particle gives up when it accelerates in the electromagnetic field, as I am sure you are aware. However, there is more to it than just a ''precessing magnetic moment gives up radiation.'' You say it as though it is as simple as that, but I am under the impression the electron is not just the magnetic moment, but we consider it as a moving charge. See the difference? Anyway, this is almost beside the point, my largest concern with your argument(s) it this:

 

''But atomic electrons do not radiate in a magnetic field. Hence, it seems to me that electrons probably do not have a magnetic moment, and hence do not have angular momentum.''

 

There is a reason why electrons do not radiate in atoms. Atoms would drastically give up their energy in the universe if this was the case and the reason why atomic electrons don't do this is because of the uncertainty principle. The electron is not accelerating inside an atom - it is smeared inside the atom. It does not move like a classical system so there is actually... no oxymoron as you claim there to be.

 

Therefore your hypothesis is inherently flawed if you based this idea and summarizing that electrons do not actually rotate or possess an angular momentum.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

Again, I am not going to be hostile :)

 

Don't let your ego overpower not answering me back. I enjoy a good theory, just like anyone else. Your theory has had a lot of thought put into it, and I am not ignorant of that, but if you can, in your own time, please question me. Science is not about being ''right'' all the time, we need to sometimes learn and have an open discussion.

[andrewgray]

On 10/17/2012 at 3:31 PM, Aethelwulf said:

Again, I am not going to be hostile 🙂

 

Don't let your ego overpower not answering me back. I enjoy a good theory, just like anyone else. Your theory has had a lot of thought put into it, and I am not ignorant of that, but if you can, in your own time, please question me. Science is not about being ''right'' all the time, we need to sometimes learn and have an open discussion.

 

Aethelwulf,

 

Sorry for not getting back sooner. You see, this thread has been around for a while, and they have updated the ScienceForums software. Since this has happened, I no longer get email notifications that someone has written a comment. So I just check this forum from time to time (on my own) depending on how busy I am. . .

 

So I will comment on your comments the best I can. First, the "point-like particle" aspect of the electron. I actually agree with you that the electron is not a point. The electron actually has spatial dimensions in my opinion. In this new Intermittent Electron Theory, one way to get a limit on the electron's size would be to imagine an electron-positron pair in a circular orbit just before annihilating themselves and giving off centripetal gamma radiation (~200 Quintillion Hertz). If we plug into a simplified circular orbit Coulomb force equation, we get

 

or

 

or

 

This is very approximate, however it gives us an idea. If the actual maximum gamma frequencies are higher, then the radius limit will be smaller.

 

 

Next, your comments about a precessing magnetic moment. If one probes a precessing magnetic dipole, one obviously finds a nonzero

 

Therefore, from Maxwells equations dB/dt = -curl(E) one has no choice but to have a non-zero

 

Which means a nonzero and changing E field, since the magnetic dipole is moving around.

To me, this is an obvious result, but if you still need more details, let me know.

 

The other Maxwell equation also leads to a nonzero

 

So, since we have nonzero   and  , then we have radiation! The changing electric and magnetic fields go out and adjust themselves at the speed of light as the magnetic dipole precesses around.

 

 

Aethelwulf, we must get something straight even though we may not agree :). In this new Intermittent Electron Theory

 

1) there is no uncertainty principle

 

and there is

 

2) no "smeared atomic electron probability cloud".

 

Aethelwulf, I have studied the QM model of the atom extensively, and I have personally rejected QM. QM has too many paradoxes (that I have laid out here in this thread). The most glaring QM paradox is the photo-electric effect which has the electrons being ejected "sideways" and "backwards", and not necessarily in the forward direction as one would expect from "photon absorption". Also, the photo-electrons are ejected along the polarization of the light wave (note:light wave!), which QM has no way of explaining.

 

The reason that atomic electrons (in vapor) do not radiate in this theory (and IMHO) is because the electrons are "OFF" while they are accelerated by the nucleus which is "ON" (and vice versa).

 

So let me summarize: If one has a changing magnetic dipole, Maxwells equations demand radiation at infinity, no way around it. We do not see this radiation at infinity, so I doubt an electron has a magnetic moment.

 

In this Intermittent Electron Theory "light particles" are not necessary, and "matter waves" are not necessary. This theory has electrons only as particles and light only as waves. Nothing else seems necessary.

 

Thanks for commenting. Let me know what you think.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray

[Aethelwulf]

 

Aethelwulf, we must get something straight even though we may not agree :). In this new Intermittent Electron Theory

 

1) there is no uncertainty principle

 

and there is

 

2) no "smeared atomic electron probability cloud".

 

Aethelwulf, I have studied the QM model of the atom extensively, and I have personally rejected QM. QM has too many paradoxes (that I have laid out here in this thread). The most glaring QM paradox is the photo-electric effect which has the electrons being ejected "sideways" and "backwards", and not necessarily in the forward direction as one would expect from "photon absorption". Also, the photo-electrons are ejected along the polarization of the light wave (note:light wave!), which QM has no way of explaining.

 

The reason that atomic electrons (in vapor) do not radiate in this theory (and IMHO) is because the electrons are "OFF" while they are accelerated by the nucleus which is "ON" (and vice versa).

 

So let me summarize: If one has a changing magnetic dipole, Maxwells equations demand radiation at infinity, no way around it. We do not see this radiation at infinity, so I doubt an electron has a magnetic moment.

 

In this Intermittent Electron Theory "light particles" are not necessary, and "matter waves" are not necessary. This theory has electrons only as particles and light only as waves. Nothing else seems necessary.

 

Thanks for commenting. Let me know what you think.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

Well, let's begin here because I certainly don't have any ''quarrels'' as such with the previous commentary.

 

Are you however, saying to me that the uncertainty principle does not exist? Can you perhaps, for the sake of simplicity, explain to me why you would think this? You see... The Uncertainty Principle is very well tested phenomenon and throwing it away... well... would require an extraordinary proposal; with that said, the proposal needs to make sense first.

 

So what you say, why is the uncertainty principle not real, in the most simplest way you can... I like math as well, so if you can, involve that as well so I can mull over it.

[Aethelwulf]

And it's just a personal opinion at the moment, you state that QM's has too many paradoxes, but I could potentially see much more coming from statements like... ''there are no light particles.''

 

Is this a comment on the old debate whether a particle is a wave or not?

 

A particle you know, is both a wave and a particle depending on how it is affected by it's environment.