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

[A-wal]

Halton Arp showed that quasars are intrinsically red-shifted and attached to parent galaxies. They're not the highly energetic and distant objects that backwards big bang cosmology says the are, they're closer to us with much lower energies.

 

Standard cosmology is fairytale physics and any scientist like Arp/Birkeland/Velikovsky who points this out is discredited and cast out.

[maheshkhati]

If electron charge is on off then total charge of charge substance can not remain same. We can not fixed that same no of electrons are only on in the substance & at what intensity. Also, electron can not moves smoothly in curve in CR tube & in atom, around nucleus.  

This problem can easily be solved by considering charge remain same but there is magnetic field vibration around every particle as consider by me in paper on site www.maheshkhati.com.(2nd chapter, WHAT IS MATTER & DARK MATTER MADE UP OF?) 

 

I like this time. Something beautiful is happening now a days in physics, It is experimentally proved that universe is expanding at faster rate than GR predicted & LHC may find massive particle beyond standard model of physics means we cannot explain even 5% of known matter correctly. We do not know what dark matter is? So, think about unknown universe around us.

[A-wal]

General relativity certainly does NOT predict an expanding universe! It predicts the exact opposite. Gravity pulls objects closer together.

 

The CMB radiation doesn't match the big bang model because it's too irregular, nor does the amount of observed lithium.

 

The presence of dark energy is based entirely on the assumption that the only possible cause of observed redshift is recession. It was a stupid assumption and not even Hubble believed in it. It was proven false decades ago.

[maheshkhati]

My theory is so flexible that this will accommodate, your consideration also.  

[rodin]

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.

 

I guess by tacking you can do this, but I was thinking of sailing downwind. We are accelerating charged particles using a field whose speed of propagation is that of light. Hence lightspeed would be the asymptotic limit for speed of the charged particle. Probably a better analogy is a balloon in wind.

[Holoverse]

So how does this theory deal with the fact that Quantum Computers are built and working?

How do you explain superposition  and/or collapse of wavefunction without photons?

 

I like your theory from what I've read.  It makes intuitive sense.  But I feel like the experimental evidence for quantum wierdness, is too overwhelming.  

Like too much, to just say hey I got rid of photons over here.....so no more need for QM and its strangeness/non-locality anymore.

 

So many things rely on those features, and if your theory just gets rid of them because theyre "not real", then why are hundreds of companies investing in Quantum Computing.  

Surely these computers wouldn't work, if what you say is actually true.

 

Enlighten me

[Super Polymath]

So how does this theory deal with the fact that Quantum Computers are built and working?

How do you explain superposition  and/or collapse of wavefunction without photons?

 

I like your theory from what I've read.  It makes intuitive sense.  But I feel like the experimental evidence for quantum wierdness, is too overwhelming.  

Like too much, to just say hey I got rid of photons over here.....so no more need for QM and its strangeness/non-locality anymore.

 

So many things rely on those features, and if your theory just gets rid of them because theyre "not real", then why are hundreds of companies investing in Quantum Computing.  

Surely these computers wouldn't work, if what you say is actually true.

 

Enlighten me

What I was explaining earlier is that what we misconceived as the vacuum energy might actually be pocket-universe of smaller matter expanding to adjust for a causal scale shift. This also explain the mechanism for dark energy. It is a 5th fundamental force of nature, we assume that the observer effect is the result of the wave function collapse. But If a wave is simply a particle breaking apart into smaller particles, so close that they're experiencing a different dimension of time (see. Doubly Special Relativity) than this 5th fundamental force comes into effect when matter breaks beneath the Planck length. This is the underlying concept of the Fractal Dust Model. It could be called the Fractal Force. These are fractal dimensions, we could be living in such fractal dimensions and living inside of an atom basically. 

 

 

 

 

What I mean is, how the sub-quantum particles that compose a wave are the building blocks of particles, observable universes could be the building blocks of larger particles. It's a mind trip, everything, space, time, YOU, is made out of sub-quantum fractal dimensions, AKA The Virtual Particle.

 

 

 

 

 

In short, these regions of the unobserved universe are orbiting these regions pulled by a vaster region of emptiness save for ancient hypermassive black holes, evaporating to form new atoms as the electromagnetic clouds of the nucleus expand to become the galaxy clusters of the electron rings. This forms one of infinite colossal hyper-omega atomic structures.

 

I mean, could you imagine how large

 

 

 

See this thread. It's a Static Universe, or like a level 1 multiverse (in that is stretches out forever). It's non-discrete space time, time doesn't start nor end with a big bang or a big crunch. etc etc etc. If matter can only arrange itself in so many different ways, than eventually there's another sun, earth, and humanity just like us. That's the theory behind a level 1 multiverse. So if you go out far enough you might find Ancient Greece, you've essentially gone back in time. Neat, right? 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

It's exponentially special relativity. Best way I can describe it to ya'll it seems is by drawing sloppy pics.

 

The Double Slit Experiment shows that when reflecting photons off the tracks of other photon beams the wave function of the original beam collapses after it goes through the double slit. Meaning that photons split and go way under the Planck length, and therefore way faster than light, and the Law of Exponentially Special Relativity comes into effect and the superluminal sub-Planckian particles that compose the photons you're sending to the tracks with other photons interact with them and the sub-Planck-scale gravity is so close that it effectively works faster than light to drag the original photon beam and prevent it from flying apart into a "wave". 

 

They try and trick you by giving you all the necessary information to come to this conclusion and then straight up lie to your face. There's no expansion, no big bang, no higher dimensions, just one universal Mandelbrot set, matter is infinite, and goes infinitely beneath the Planck scale. Atoms switch sides with each other, reverberating, by the same process that gives you the electromagnetic cloud of the early universe expanding into strings of galaxy clusters expanding into desolate evaporating hyper-massive black holes, these are what atoms actually are due to the law of Exponentially Special Relativity. As below, so above, and beyond. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Super Polymath

[andrewgray]

So how does this theory deal with the fact that Quantum Computers are built and working?

How do you explain superposition  and/or collapse of wavefunction without photons?

 

I like your theory from what I've read.  It makes intuitive sense.  But I feel like the experimental evidence for quantum wierdness, is too overwhelming.  

Like too much, to just say hey I got rid of photons over here.....so no more need for QM and its strangeness/non-locality anymore.

 

So many things rely on those features, and if your theory just gets rid of them because theyre "not real", then why are hundreds of companies investing in Quantum Computing.  

Surely these computers wouldn't work, if what you say is actually true.

 

Enlighten me

 

Holoverse,

 

1) I don't want to be too cute here, but....  According to Wikipedia,

    "As of 2017, ..quantum computational operations were executed on a very small number of quantum bits..."

 

   Imagine, in 1971, if Intel  had announced... 

   "We have spent millions of dollars and now have binary operations on a very small number of binary bits!!!"   Ha!

 

2) Now, superposition...  Superposition is fine.  As far as I know, two electric fields or two magnetic fields add linearly just fine.   

 

3) There are no wave functions.  Electrons are not waves. Light is not particles.

 

4)  Yes, "..so no more need for QM and its strangeness/non-locality anymore."  Correct!!

 

5)  QM has failed.  Like I showed in the previous posts.  For example, in the photoelectric effect, the photoelectrons are ejected sideways, perpendicular to the light.

     QM has failed here, as QM would predict a forward ejection of the electrons.  Further, the photoelectrons are ejected sideways along the polarization of the light.

     QM has failed here as well, since QM cannot predict this.  There is more.

 

5) Those "quantum computers will not work".  Correct.

 

Holoverse.  You see, you cannot just say that QM has failed and have any credibility (e.g. Einstein).  You must replace it, which is precisely what we have done.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited July 8, 2017 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

 

The Gravity theory work is done.  I will be coming out with it within the year hopefully.

I have been busy, busy, busy working on it again.

 

Andrew.

Edited July 8, 2017 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Super Polymath,

 

The double slit experiment has been explained.  You should look at the first page of this forum.  No light particles necessary.

One only needs to consider the film's "dot-producing threshold intensity" and everything becomes clear

 

using just a faint light wave incident onto the discreet silver bromide crystals!!

 

This is exactly the same as a faint lightwave incident onto a digital-camera's-discreet-transistors at their threshold intensity.

Or the same as an even fainter lightwave incident on a set of discreet photomultiplier tubes at their threshold intensity.

I had hoped my explanation for this experiment would have "stuck" by now, and I would not have to go over this again.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

 

Yes, this is a slow moving thread because ScienceForums took it down for a while, then brought it back again.

When they brought it back, they did not sign me up for notifications when there is a response.  So it is catch

as catch can.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Turtle]

Rodin,

 

The Gravity theory work is done.  I will be coming out with it within the year hopefully.

I have been busy, busy, busy working on it again.

 

Andrew.

I can't find where Rodin brought up gravity, but I asked about it in post #284.

 

In any case, nice to see you have stuck through the thick-n-thin of this forum and brought us up to date. Cheers!

[Super Polymath]

You've setup the perfect basis in which to utilize my E8. If you plot it I swear to God all of my conjectures on dark flow, non-BB cyclic cosmology, sub planck particles, & ESP would be confirmed.

 

Unfortunately I've envisioned the behavior of this particular cellular automaton to form my conjectures, but it would take years of calculus to acquire the extensive vocabulary needed to plot that E8, & as-of-yet theoretical forms of computation. Just managing to use the cellular automaton to create such types of computing necessary to plot it's own behavior (retrospectively forming an extension to the periodic table of elements to the point of becoming universal, without any uncertainties in it's particle's positions & momenta) would equate to physically detecting tachyons. That's what Einstein's potential unified field oscillations were supposed to be able do to our cosmological model. But the Philadelphia Experiment must have failed to use ESP signalling to achieve UFOs to make the presence of Navy Destroyers & comm channels completely undetectable to the enemy.

 

I cannot stress the kind of scientific break-though such a new elementary physics would lead to!

[rodin]

I wondered about gravity being the result of residual electrostatic attraction. I reasoned that were this so, density should depend on oxidation state. AFAIK it doesn't.

Pushing gravity always held an attraction for me :o) Having worked with liquid crystals the notion came to me that this might be the 'state' of the aether. Here's a new paper on Le Sage I just found FWIW.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Glenn_Borchardt/publication/325746845_The_Physical_Cause_of_Gravitation/links/5b219dc3458515270fc6deb3/The-Physical-Cause-of-Gravitation.pdf

 

edit to add:

 

This experiment would be easy to repeat. Seems to prove 'pushing' gravity

 

http://www.gravityforces.com/

 

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 August 25, 2018 by rodin

[andrewgray]

Well this is a slow-moving thread lol.

 

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....

 

 

Here is my paper on the Twin Paradox (it is previously post on p. 15 of this very thread.).  Let me know what you think.

 

http://modelofreality.org/TP.pdf

 

As far as Halton Arp's "intrinsic red shift"...  I would agree that the large red shifts are not "universe expansion" redshifts, or other "gravitational" red shifts... because...

 

I have discovered that the Equivalence Principle is actually a Weak Equivalence Principle.

That is...

 

Matter accelerates the same in an elevator at g and in gravity at g.  But....

Light bends in an elevator at g, but DOES NOT bend in gravity at g.

That is, a Weak Equivalence Principle.

 

So intrinsic red shift may be the only alternative, if I understand it correctly. I think Halton is saying that

those large red shifts are from very fast ejections of matter.

 

And, Rodin,  EVERYTHING is accelerated by electromagnetism. 

 

And...

 

I wondered about gravity being the result of residual electrostatic attraction. I reasoned that were this so, density should depend on oxidation state. AFAIK it doesn't.

No, Rodin, residual electrostatic attraction would have nothing to do with oxidation.  Why would it?

 

Much, much, more coming soon.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 4, 2018 by andrewgray

[rodin]

Great to see your repsonse. I caught it late, being on holiday, and have taken a little time to formulate a reply. No doubt I will have left in a howler or two! One of my songs (I'm a musician/songwriter) admits as much

 

"I'm not saying to every question I have all the answers

But you can see that i take risks, and I know you're a chancer"

 

The tune(s) must've worked, for I've been dating the subject for the best part of three years now :o)

 

re: oxidation state

 

For gravity to be the result of residual electrostatic attraction net repulsion must be slightly less than net attraction. What is the geometrical difference between – and + charges? -ve charges are outside the nucleus, at radii dependent on element, atomic or molecular environment, oxidation state etc. +ve charges are held in the nucleus. I considered that the time-averaged distances for repulsive and attractive interactions may differ slightly. If r = interatomic distance for, say, diHydrogen, the net interactions between atoms would be :

 

++ repulsive = -2*/r² (where * = a unit of charge, either +e or -e)

+- attractive = 2*/ca r²

-+ attractive = 2*/ca r²

- - repulsive = -2*/ca r²

 

Now this is only describing the residual ES attraction between two atoms of hydrogen. Residual ES gravity would be summed over all mass. ca (approximately) indicates we do not know the exact position of the electrons.

 

In the extreme case consider a linear dihydrogen molecule in which the electrons are as far away from each other as possible:

 

++ repulsive = -2*/r²

+- attractive = 2*/(1.5r)² = 2*/2.25r²

-+ attractive = 2*/1.5r)² = 2*/2.25r²

- - repulsive = -2*/2r²

 

Just from the geometry we can see that though the charges balance, there is a net repulsion between the atoms in this instance:

 

Attraction < 2*/r²

Repulsion = 3*/r²

 

In the normal case of dihydrogen molecule in which the electrons are paired, consider the pair as a point source of -2e, equidistant along the bond axis.

 

++ repulsive = -2*/r²

+- attractive = 2*/(.5r)² = 2*/0.25r²

-+ attractive = 2*/(.5r)² = 2*/0.25r²

 

Attraction = 16*/r²

Repulsion = -2*/r²

 

Repulsion between the paired electrons must be less than -14*/r² since the molecule H₂ is known to be stable.

 

These calculations are meaningless in themselves, for they do not explain how this residual attraction could be non zero over bulk matter. (Perhaps your blinking electron may have something to say about that). I use them merely to show how it might in principle be possible to postulate a residual electrostatic attraction depending on the time-averaged positions of orbital electrons relative to protons in a nucleus. That's a long-winded way to get to my point that if it were at all possible that residual net attraction might exist over a balanced set of + and -ve charges it would have as a basis geometry, and changing oxidation state changes geometry. AFAIK we don't see any mass change during chemical reactions.

 

However:

 

It does seem that certain substances experience slightly different intrinsic g's. It might be interesting to repeat the experiments of Charles Brush, carried out in the 1920's, that showed certain substances gave out constant (non radioactive) heat that also corresponded pro rata to an impairment in g.

 

Brush writes:

 

“I have yet found no exception to this remarkable phenomenon, though I have already tested many natural and artificial minerals. Substances which have shown no generation of heat in the calorimeter show no impairment of their falling velocity when compared with lead. Substances exhibiting small, moderate or large generation of heat have shown comparatively small, moderate or large impairment of the gravitational acceleration.”

 

http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm

 

See also:

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/984383?seq=21#metadata_info_tab_contents

 

Now, if gravity is caused by aether pressure, (bombardment by 'Aetherons' moving 'thermally' at who knows what speed) and if with certain materials the collisions between matter and the aether are somewhat inelastic, resulting in absorption then re-emission of aetherons at lower velocity, or deflected rather than reflected, these materials will show, by the law of conservation of momentum, impaired downward motion or g. Or so it seems to me.

 

Aether, BTW, appears to me to likely comprise ultra-mundane particles, capable of transmitting what we perceive as EM waves just as matter does sound.

 

Re your 2011 paper on twins paradox.

 

The Theory of Relativity demands that a body that has been accelerated then decelerated has a different intrinsic property from one that has remained stationary. While it is true that an accelerometer can distinguish between one that has undergone acceleration versus one that has not, this does not prove that time slows down at speed IMHO.

 

A decent recent attempt to debunk SRT

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity

 

QUOTE from above link

 

“All these findings lead us to the following conclusions:

 

1. The physical time defined by clocks is invariant with respect to different inertial reference frames, absolute and universal.

2. The time of the STR is not equivalent to the physical time and thus can never be measured by any clock. It is merely an artificial variable introduced solely to produce an artificially constant speed of light.

3. Time dilation is merely a property of the time of the STR and cannot appear on physical clocks or in other physical processes.

4. In the STR, there still exist an absolute and universal Galilean time and a rigid Galilean space that follow Galilean transformation.

5. In the STR, the real speed of light as defined in terms of Galilean time and Galilean space still follows Newton's velocity-addition formula.

6. In the STR, the time dilation and length contraction of a moving inertial reference frame as observed in a stationary inertial frame are merely illusions.

7. Therefore, the status of STR as a fundamental theory of physics is shown to be questionable”