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

[andrewgray]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Very good, Aethelwulf. We will do the best to explain. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a mathematical necessity of Quantum Theory. If one abandons Quantum Theory, then the uncertainty principle's future is uncertain :). Seriously though, if one tries to make a wave out of an electron, then one is forced along Heisenberg's path. However, . . .

 

This new Intermittent Electron Theory shows that a group of electrons only acts like a "pseudo wave", and that electrons are actually just particles. Now these particles "blink on" and "blink off" in such a way that they fooled us into Schrödinger Theory. A group of particle-electrons interfere in such a way that they create a spotted interference pattern. A beam of particle-electrons blink through crystal layers mimicking pseudo waves (but they are just particles). These phenomena have been discussed previously in this thread. In other words, the position and momentum of the electron is well known in this theory, but when the electron's electric field is "OFF" it really has "disappeared" from detectors. But its path and velocity is well known since this theory is not attempting to describe electrons as any sort of wave. In summary, give up electron waves, then the uncertainty principle is certainly unnecessary and we are left with a "Certainty Principle" :).

 

 

Yes, Aethelwulf, we have come full circle in the old "light particle or not" photon debate. Yes, we hate to inform you, but this new theory shows very well that there indeed are no photons. Like we said in a previous message, the photoelectric effect itself rules out photons. Why in the world are the photo-electrons ejected "sideways"? One certainly would not expect this if there are light particles being absorbed. And why are the photo-electrons ejected along the polarization of the incident light? One would not expect a light-particle to have a wave characteristic of polarization. QM theory even says that light particles are NOT linearly polarized. And why are some of the photo-electrons ejected "backwards"? Hmmmm.... Well, the answer is that light is not particles, and the photoelectric effect is a transverse ejection of electrons by an EM wave that gives photo-electrons a non-acceleration resonance so that they acquire a max energy of hv along the transverse direction as expected by this new theory (QM fails here).

 

Further, we showed earlier in this thread that "one-spot-at-a-time" pictures of interference patterns linking each film spot with one light particle is nonsense. As we showed earlier, if one considers threshold intensity for film, then one finds that several Quadrillion(!) "photons-worth" of energy can strike a cm² of film without producing a spot! So associating one film spot with one fictional "photon" is ludicrous, and almost incompetent. Imagine if you dropped 5 Quadrillion grains of sand on a "sand detector" and only got 1 detection. Then imagine if the investigator claimed, "There is a single grain of sand detected at that spot". How dumb. Film at threshold intensity acts like a digital camera at threshold intensity, producing spots on discreet silver bromide crystals from a continuous incident wave.

 

Likewise for "electron waves". We showed that in an electron microscope, electrons with extremely high voltage surge "across-the-gap" in bunches. Like lightning surging "across-the-gap" to ground. Does a thundercloud's charge build up and then smoothly flow to ground? Of course not. A certain high voltage must build up, and then finally the lightning bolt discharges. The same for electrons in electron microscopes at threshold current. A certain high voltage must build up before the electron group "crosses-the-gap" and surges towards ground in a group. And the electrons that are "ON" when the surge happens are the ones that get ejected, so one ends up with a coherent group of pulsating-particle-electrons. This allows particle-interference of electrons, and a spotted interference pattern to emerge. No "electron probability waves" are necessary.

 

Then we always hear from QM advocates, "Well the current in the electron microscope is so small that it is equivalent to 'one-electron-at-a-time". This again is dumb. Imagine that a group of 60 grains of sand were falling into a bucket, one group every minute. Then we measured the sand rate over time and imagine that we proclaimed, "We measured one grain of sand per second dropping into the bucket, one-particle-at-a-time". How dumb. What is actually happening is (one-group-of-60grains)/minute, which averages out to (1 grain)/second, but it is not the same! The sand is actually traveling in bunches and it fooled our thinking by averaging out to (1 grain)/second, and a "one-particle-at-a-time" average. Fooled us. Our confirmation bias really plays the devil here.

 

So finally, and at last, let us say that "A particle is a particle, and a wave is a wave". Whew.

 

Let me know what you think. Thanks for asking.

 

AndrewAncel Gray

Edited October 25, 2012 by andrewgray

[Aethelwulf]

Me...?

 

I know nothing of quantum physics, I am a dummy. :)

[Aethelwulf]

Forgive me mods, ..... but porn is a much better influence than this .... hogwash.

[Aethelwulf]

Ok... I was a bit cryptic. Let's start the debate on the wave-particle phenomenon. There is nothing wrong in thinking there are two sides to the same coin, especially when talking about quantum weirdness. A particle is a particle, a wave is a wave. Do they exist in duality harder to prove. What we do know from the earliest experiments on this subject (The double-slit experiment) and further experiments, show that particles do act as waves, but when they reach their destinations, they look as though that have ''hit a point'' directing the idea that essentially there is only one particle.

 

 

To avoid confusion, perhaps, when something moves through spacetime without any disturbance, it should accumulate every path available. This can be easily demonstrated using mathematics... the wave function, which says a particle which has not been observed takes every possible path - a so-called Feynman Path. Until that object is disturbed, it will continue taking these paths. If it observed, you will only see one particle.

 

I advise you to read up the Wheelers Delayed Choice Experiment. It shows clearly, that a photon can move in more paths than one, until you disturb it's wave function.

[andrewgray]

Aethelwulf,

 

Yes, the threshold-intensity double slit experiment. That is what I have been talking about! There are no photons in the low intensity double slit experiment. Again, take threshold film intensity and take 1% of this intensity so no dots form on the film. Then divide this low intensity by the energy of 1 fictional "photon". One gets that there are 5 quadrillion "photons-worth" of energy striking every cm² on the film without leaving a dot. Let me see if I can emphasize this enough. 5 quadrillion (that's 5,000,000,000,000,000) photon's-worth of energy can hit a cm² of the film and not leave a dot. Take 100 cm² of this film at this intensity. Then 500 quadrillion (that's 500,000,000,000,000,000) "photon's-worth" of energy can strike this film without leaving a dot. So claiming that

1-dot-on-film corresponds to 1 photon

in the threshold-intensity double-slit experiment is foolish. This is where you are getting tripped up Aethelwulf. You are somehow believing that a macroscopic dot on a piece of film represents 1 fictional "photon". It does not. Not by a long shot. And one film dot does not represent one electron in electron-microscope-interference either, by the same reasoning.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Aethelwulf]

I am not tripping up anywhere. It is a well-used experiment. You can vary the intensity of a beam of light until theoretically-speaking, only one photon is being shot at the screen.

[Guest MacPhee]

I am not tripping up anywhere. It is a well-used experiment. You can vary the intensity of a beam of light until theoretically-speaking, only one photon is being shot at the screen.

 

I try to follow these discussions, but they're hard to understand. One point does however strike me - the references to the use of "film" in the double-slit experiment.

 

Film is an outdated medium. We don't use film cameras these days. Instead we use digital ones.

 

So I wonder - has the double-slit experiment been tried with a digital camera - if so, what were the results?

[andrewgray]

I try to follow these discussions, but they're hard to understand. One point does however strike me - the references to the use of "film" in the double-slit experiment.

 

Film is an outdated medium. We don't use film cameras these days. Instead we use digital ones.

 

So I wonder - has the double-slit experiment been tried with a digital camera - if so, what were the results?

 

 

MacPhee,

 

Film still remains more sensitive than digital cameras. We do have photomultipliers that QM'ers claim detect "one-photon-at-a-time", but they do not detect interference patterns (and they do not detect "one-photon-at-a-time"). And even though Aethelwulf objects, even film is 5 quadrillion times too insensitive to detect a single "photons-worth" of energy in a cm² of film. Even the big boys of QM in this forum (a physics moderator here included) have admitted this, Aethelwulf. Sorry, but you should back and reread this part of this thread carefully. We have no way to detect fictional "one-photon-at-a-time" interference patterns. And it's a good thing, because they do not exist. It's the detectors, i.e., the film, digital camera, etc that are discrete, not the light. And when you bring discrete detectors up to threshold intensity with an incident wave, the most sensitive cells just "start to fire", fooling us into thinking it was the light that is discrete when we see the spotted pattern. Fooled us for over 100 years. Nope, not the light. The detectors.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

P.S. Yes, you get the same spotted interference patterns with digital cameras at threshold intensity. But it takes a higher threshold intensity to get it started. "Megaphoton evidence"?

Edited October 29, 2012 by andrewgray

[Aethelwulf]

Aethelwulf. Sorry, but you should back and reread this part of this thread carefully. We have no way to detect fictional "one-photon-at-a-time" interference patterns. And it's a good thing, because they do not exist. It's the detectors, i.e., the film, digital camera, etc that are discrete, not the light. And when you bring discrete detectors up to threshold intensity with an incident wave, the most sensitive cells just "start to fire", fooling us into thinking it was the light that is discrete when we see the spotted pattern. Fooled us for over 100 years. Nope, not the light. The detectors.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

P.S. Yes, you get the same spotted interference patterns with digital cameras at threshold intensity. But it takes a higher threshold intensity to get it started. "Megaphoton evidence"?

 

Well I believe you to be wrong when you say ''we have no method to detect a one-photon at a time scenario.''

 

In the experiment, you can only reconcile the detection of single photon using quantum statistical methods. This does not mean that we cannot detect individual photons, that is misleading. Rather... the detection of individual particles in a statistical phenomenon which classical mechanics cannot reconcile.

 

I'm sure if you do a little research here

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

You will find I am not fooling any one.

[Aethelwulf]

The statistical mechanics, is of course the wave function. Particles do act as waves, we detect these individual particles by their own interference patterns when set up in the Double-Slit Experiment. It is a well proven fact.

[rodin]

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.

 

Au contraire mon ami it matters a great deal. There is no way a crystal saturation process can produce a linear accumulation. Only single fired entities can do that. So there are 3 possibilities.

 

1) Your sensitivity calculations are wrong (this I doubt)

 

2) What is being released is a packet of ----ons mutually interfering in some weird way

 

3) The single ----on experiments are faked

 

Do you have the wherewithal ie access to equipment to record an independent 'spot' v time count?

 

edit

 

I see you favour 2) http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/page__view__findpost__p__324137

 

more edit

 

Sound waves are due to energy being passed along air molecules

 

Perhaps electron wave behaviour is analogous

 

even more edit

 

You think this also?

 

http://scienceforums.com/topic/11645-7-reasons-to-abandon-quantum-mechanics-and-embrace-this-new-theory/page__view__findpost__p__324137

 

edit 28/2/13

 

I was checking to see if any reply when I noticed

 

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).

 

Which of course you also state in the first page of this thread.

 

Another possibility has just occurred to me.

 

IF the MMX experiment showed a nullish result because of aether entrainment as some maintain, what happens in the vicinity of an atom regarding its interaction with an aether? Could that also produce an apparent null result?

 

Reason I ask is because if there is no photon, there has to be a medium in which EM propagates

Edited February 28, 2013 by rodin

[Turtle]

Agreed. Mathematically, "blinking anything" is difficult. The problem is, we do not have any built-in blinking functions to use that are simple mathematically. And, one cannot substitute sinusoidal functions as an approximation. This has been proven to not work. We may have to resort to a computer simulation to get something to work.

 

...snip

 

Andrew A. Gray

 

 

Hi Andrew. I had you on the mind for some reason and was scanning the whole thread to see what you may have said about gravity. Haven't seen that yet but the above caught my attention. To be sure I wouldn't know a deBroglie wave from a bologna sandwich, but I thought of squares as they blink from odd to even. In fact, it is proven that all even polygonal sets do so. EDIT: (odd polygonal sets "blink" {even even odd odd}.)

 

That's all I got. Enjoying the read.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Turtle

[andrewgray]

Hi Andrew. I had you on the mind for some reason and was scanning the whole thread to see what you may have said about gravity. Haven't seen that yet but the above caught my attention. To be sure I wouldn't know a deBroglie wave from a bologna sandwich, but I thought of squares as they blink from odd to even. In fact, it is proven that all even polygonal sets do so. EDIT: (odd polygonal sets "blink" {even even odd odd}.)

 

That's all I got. Enjoying the read.

Turtle,

 

It is strange that you ask me about gravity. You see, I did graduate General Relativity studies

with John Archibald Wheeler at UTexas in the 80's, and was a firm General Relativity

supporter. At first, I thought that everything could be founded upon gravity and that the

intermittent electrons were gravity caused. I am not so sure anymore. In other words, I may

have "bootstrapped" myself full circle. Here is my current train of thought:

 

1) Einstein thought of gravity as curvature. However, if we go back to

the philosophy that gravity is a force (I will support this possibility later), then we need to view

the force between matter as basically three separate forces between: a) proton<->proton

b)proton>-<electron c) electron<->electron (I believe that a neutron is equivalent

to a bound p-e, so I leave neutrons out).

 

2) Since we must time-average the forces between these intermittent particles, the

net electrical force (and their net charge) between them very closely averages out

to zero. However, the intermittent averaged forces depend on the particles' accelerations,

as acceleration changes the "blink frequencies". So just imagine this: if the total of all

electrical forces average to zero down to 1 part in 10³⁶, but remain ever so

slightly ("teentsie weentsie") attractive, then you have "electrical gravity". This would mean

that everything is founded on electricity, and not the other way around. That is, gravity is

caused by intermittent charges, and not the other way around. This would mean that

anti-matter would "fall upwards" in a matter gravitational field (by simple symmetry),

and that an antimatter galaxy would be repelled by a matter galaxy (explaining lots of

cosmic things).

 

3) However, pundits have "proven" that gravity cannot be described as a vector force.

This MUST be resolved before we can continue and claim that gravity is a "leftover"

electical force (i.e., Mercury's precession, bending of light, gravitational redshift, etc.).

 

(To be continued . . . )

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited July 23, 2013 by andrewgray

[rodin]

Hi Andrew, what's up?

[andrewgray]

Hello Rodin,

Well, I am finishing up my paper on General Relativity.  I have been putting solar panels and a solar water heater on my home,

so physics has be on the back burner for a while.  However, I am more sure of my results now than ever.

[rodin]

Well this is a slow-moving thread lol.

 

I saw a video of your solar collector, nice work!

 

How is the paper on GR coming along? How are you dealing with the equivalent frame of reference problem? A rocket makes a round trip, the twin left behind ages more, yet we can just as well say say the rocket remained stationary and the planet made the round trip... 

 

Then there is this business of intrinsic red shift...

 

 

...which pulls the rug out from underneath Big Bang....

 

Lightspeed seems to me a limit only to anything accelerated by electromagnetism, since a yacht cannot sail faster than the wind....

[CraigD]

Let’s start with the easy stuff, before getting to the late, revered and reviled Halton Arp.

 

A rocket makes a round trip, the twin left behind ages more, yet we can just as well say say the rocket remained stationary and the planet made the round trip...

We can’t say that, because we can detect, with a simple accelerometer (such as a spring scale) whether the rocket of the planet accelerated. The planet could do the accelerating, while the rocket does not, in which case the twin on the rocket would be the older one, but in this case, the accelerometer on the rocket would show it didn’t accelerate, while the one on the planet would show it did.

 

Lightspeed seems to me a limit only to anything accelerated by electromagnetism, since a yacht cannot sail faster than the wind....

I’ve only a vague idea of the analogy you’re drawing between electromagnetism and wind, but sailboats can and routinely do sail faster than the wind. The Wikipedia article “Sailing faster than the wind” is one of many good, thorough online explanations of this.

 

Arp really deserves his own thread. He had an interesting career, and his ideas, though most, I think, have proven to be wrong, are deeply thought-provoking and educational. I agree with Arp than many of his ideas haven’t been studied seriously enough by capable people – I’m particularly interested in simulations of LeSagian gravity, even though I’m pretty sure none can successfully model even gross effects like the weight of non-spherical bodies, the motion of planets, and data from recent experiments like Gravity Probe B. Even if its nonphysical, I think it would still be great fun to write a simulator based on it.