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

[andrewgray]

Ok, Science Forum members, 

 

"Does anyone have any comments about the videos, especially Episode 1 about the Nyquist Frequency Limit for X-rays?"

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

Edited May 17, 2020 by andrewgray

[donaldbjames]

Hello, Andrew

 

I'm an electrical engineer -- Texas A&M, class of 1958.

 

The photon theory of light never made any sense to me.  I think that you have finally found the truth.

 

Sincerely,

 

Don James

Edited June 3, 2020 by donaldbjames

[andrewgray]

Thanks Donald.  I appreciate the encouragement. 

 

Yeah, "light particles" in physics are going to go away. I am curious, though, what these ScienceForums people think about Episode 1, the X-Ray Frequency Limit...

 

Perhaps I have left them speechless.  Over a 1000 views since I posted these videos, and yours is the only comment!  Wow.  Do you Science Forums guys and gals have anything to say about Episode 1?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

 

[devin553344]

Thanks Donald.  I appreciate the encouragement. 

 

Yeah, "light particles" in physics are going to go away. I am curious, though, what these ScienceForums people think about Episode 1, the X-Ray Frequency Limit...

 

Perhaps I have left them speechless.  Over a 1000 views since I posted these videos, and yours is the only comment!  Wow.  Do you Science Forums guys and gals have anything to say about Episode 1?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

I watched about half of the x-ray freq limit vid, it looked like you were confusing light ideas, that limit can be easily described with a quantum nature of light I think.

 

Furthermore I wouldn't focus on the frequency response in an x-ray tube. It's probably not that important for unification of physics.

 

Great video presentation though.

Edited June 5, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

I watched about half of the x-ray frequency limit video, it looked like you were confusing light ideas, that limit can be easily described with a quantum nature of light I think.  Furthermore I wouldn't focus on the frequency response in an x-ray tube. It's probably not that important for unification of physics.

 

Great video presentation though.

 

 

Thanks, Devin.  I appreciate the feedback.

 

Well, having an explanation that eliminates "light particles" is the whole point of the "Intermittent Electron Theory". If you think about it, an electron bouncing around a tungsten lattice (in an X-ray tube) will have quadrillions of interactions before it stops, not just one "quantum interaction", which would be required by the QM theory to generate the max frequency.  This just does not seem feasible to me. More likely, the electron emits small amounts (of radiation) quadrillions of times as it goes past each tungsten atom and gradually it is decelerated by radiation reaction (with a Nyquist Frequency Limit due to the intermittent electrons).

 

To unify physics, "light particles" must be eliminated from theory.  To do that, all the experiments that use "light particles" as explanation must have a New Wisdom explanation.  So the X-ray Frequency Limit and the PhotoElectric Effect are re-explained in these videos with a New Wisdom explanation.  I encourage you to view Episode 2, The PhotoElectric Effect to see how it explains this effect without using "light particles".  Rather, a non-acceleration resonance with intermittent electrons is used.  Then, after we can agree that "light particles" need not be used for explanations, we can unify atomic physics and gravity.

 

And finally Devin, answer me this: 

"Why are the photoelectrons (from the photoelectric effect) always ejected sideways along the polarization of the incident light wave?"

 

 

QM does not have an answer for this.  You must see Episode 2 for the answer.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

[devin553344]

Thanks, Devin.  I appreciate the feedback.

 

Well, having an explanation that eliminates "light particles" is the whole point of the "Intermittent Electron Theory". If you think about it, an electron bouncing around a tungsten lattice (in an X-ray tube) will have quadrillions of interactions before it stops, not just one "quantum interaction", which would be required by the QM theory to generate the max frequency.  This just does not seem feasible to me. More likely, the electron emits small amounts (of radiation) quadrillions of times as it goes past each tungsten atom and gradually it is decelerated by radiation reaction (with a Nyquist Frequency Limit due to the intermittent electrons).

 

To unify physics, "light particles" must be eliminated from theory.  To do that, all the experiments that use "light particles" as explanation must have a New Wisdom explanation.  So the X-ray Frequency Limit and the PhotoElectric Effect are re-explained in these videos with a New Wisdom explanation.  I encourage you to view Episode 2, The PhotoElectric Effect to see how it explains this effect without using "light particles".  Rather, a non-acceleration resonance with intermittent electrons is used.  Then, after we can agree that "light particles" need not be used for explanations, we can unify atomic physics and gravity.

 

And finally Devin, answer me this: 

 

QM does not have an answer for this.  You must see Episode 2 for the answer.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

OK, in my theory I found a wave nature to describe Planck's constant so I'm somewhat liking your idea. I'm not totally sure I found a valid particle equation yet. But I'm still looking.

 

Also in an x-ray tube the electrons jump into holes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole) due to the flow of electric current in the vacuum. They must liberate their kinetic energy when they settle into orbit. So there's the energy. Some randomness in spectrum is assumed. So I still don't see how your x-ray limit idea is valid.

 

I'll check out your second video OK?

Edited June 7, 2020 by devin553344

[devin553344]

I looked at the second video. I think they explain perpendicular ejection with spin but I could be wrong, as I have only just skimmed the articles on that, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light

 

But I would think a rolling wave might eject perpendicular especially with a logarithmic strain. And I have particle equations that link to wave equations in my theory. Resonance doesn't sound correct to me, but perhaps that's just my preference.

Edited June 7, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

Hi Devin,

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

I think they explain perpendicular ejection with spin...

 

 

Devin, in the photoelectric effect...

I doubt any kind of spin could explain the perpendicular ejection of the photoelectrons in the direction of the polarization of the incoming light wave!  It has to be a transverse electric force doing that.  And Devin,  if you assume that the linearly polarized incoming light wave has "spin" angular momentum, then that vector would NOT be transverse!  It would not favor any one direction.  And electrons are too small to have spin.  I think you will eventually see that an acceleration-resonance followed by a nonacceleration-resonance (with intermittent electrons) is really the only possible way to explain perpendicular ejection in the photoelectric effect.

 

 

 

Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uc5yQvkbnM

 

Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJkFf8NOt4w

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7JC31jAyXw

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAG49QhwYDM

[devin553344]

Hi Devin,

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

 

Devin, in the photoelectric effect...

I doubt any kind of spin could explain the perpendicular ejection of the photoelectrons in the direction of the polarization of the incoming light wave!  It has to be a transverse electric force doing that.  And Devin,  if you assume that the linearly polarized incoming light wave has "spin" angular momentum, then that vector would NOT be transverse!  It would not favor any one direction.  And electrons are too small to have spin.  I think you will eventually see that an acceleration-resonance followed by a nonacceleration-resonance (with intermittent electrons) is really the only possible way to explain perpendicular ejection in the photoelectric effect.

 

 

 

Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uc5yQvkbnM

 

Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJkFf8NOt4w

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7JC31jAyXw

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAG49QhwYDM

I found the articles on x-ray tubes. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube). It's explained that bremsstrahlung effect is responsible for the generation of x-rays. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung) for that. but it's nothing more than a breaking of kinetic energy of a particle. It's explained that only 1% of the energy generates x-rays, the rest is heat.

 

But your idea of pulsating electron electric fields is interesting so long as it only happened during breaking.

Edited June 12, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

Devin,

 

You are exactly correct.  The "Slowing Down Radiation" is indeed the Bremsstrahlung effect.  This is German for "braking" radiation.  And yes, most of the electron-beam's energy is converted to heat.  

 

But we need to use our imagination here.  As was in the "X-ray Frequency Limit Video" (Episode 1), the electrons bounce around in the tungsten like "Ricochet Rabbit".   This is actually the cause of the x-ray radiation.  That is, when the charges are accelerated back-and-forth very rapidly, this causes ripples of x-ray waves to go down their electric field lines.  But if we are going to claim that it is x-ray waves that are generated (and not x-ray particles), then we need to explain why there is a frequency limit proportional to the electron energy. And HURRAY! Now we do not need to "make up fictional x-ray particles" to explain this limit.  Since the electrons are intermittent like De Broglie, then there has to be a Nyquist Limit to the X-ray Frequencies that are emitted.  So we get our x-ray waves back, along with an understandable frequency limit! 

 

And it does not matter that most of the energy is converted to heat.  So we could imagine one electron in the beam striking the tungsten and bouncing around millions (edit) of times, gradually losing energy due to collisions and radiation dampening.  It is harder to imagine ONE SINGLE interaction that steals all the electron's energy (all at once) so one "max-energy" x-ray particle can be generated with the limiting frequency.  This actually seems a little silly to me.  The electron is actually  going to bounce around millions (or maybe billions)  of times, generating x-ray frequencied waves and gradually slowing down as it makes its way through the tungsten.  The max-frequencied x-rays will easily be generated over-and-over again, and if the electron gets bounced back-and-forth faster than it is intermittent, then it will generate lower x-ray frequencies through a process called "aliasing". 

 

But your idea of pulsating electron electric fields is interesting so long as it only happened during braking.

 

 

Yes, the X-rays are only generated during "braking". 

 

And thanks for your ideas and feedback.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray  

Edited June 13, 2020 by andrewgray

[devin553344]

Devin,

 

You are exactly correct.  The "Slowing Down Radiation" is indeed the Bremsstrahlung effect.  This is German for "braking" radiation.  And yes, most of the electron-beam's energy is converted to heat.  

 

But we need to use our imagination here.  As was in the "X-ray Frequency Limit Video" (Episode 1), the electrons bounce around in the tungsten like "Ricochet Rabbit".   This is actually the cause of the x-ray radiation.  That is, when the charges are accelerated back-and-forth very rapidly, this causes ripples of x-ray waves to go down their electric field lines.  But if we are going to claim that it is x-ray waves that are generated (and not x-ray particles), then we need to explain why there is a frequency limit proportional to the electron energy. And HURRAY! Now we do not need to "make up fictional x-ray particles" to explain this limit.  Since the electrons are intermittent like De Broglie, then there has to be a Nyquist Limit to the X-ray Frequencies that are emitted.  So we get our x-ray waves back, along with an understandable frequency limit! 

 

And it does not matter that most of the energy is converted to heat.  So we could imagine one electron in the beam striking the tungsten and bouncing around quintillions of times, gradually losing energy due to collisions and radiation dampening.  It is harder to imagine ONE SINGLE interaction that steals all the electron's energy (all at once) so one "max-energy" x-ray particle can be generated with the limiting frequency.  This actually seems a little silly to me.  The electron is actually  going to bounce around quintillions (or even sextillions) of times, generating x-ray frequencied waves and gradually slowing down as it makes its way through the tungsten.  The max-frequencied x-rays will easily be generated over-and-over again, and if the electron gets bounced back-and-forth faster than it is intermittent, then it will generate lower x-ray frequencies through a process called "aliasing". 

 

 

Yes, the X-rays are only generated during "braking". 

 

And thanks for your ideas and feedback.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray  

Great, we agree on breaking. I wouldn't use my imagination though and see so much electron interaction once it enters the metal from the vacuum. So I'll probably disagree with you on that. Electrons aren't known to move very fast in a metal. Which is something I've been studying recently. In fact they move very slow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity). I think I would go with a one shot deceleration and x-ray, but thanks for the explanation, it was interesting.

 

P.S. most of a metal is just empty space, attempting to strike a target with an electron point particle is probably impossible, so it's probably not going to be bouncing around. More likely it encounters a counter electric field which decelerates it and then it enters the hole at the same time.

 

If you haven't read this already, I would suggest the electron scattering article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_scattering

 

But basically they just hit a counter electric field.

Edited June 12, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

Devin,

 

Yes, we agree on the braking radiation.  Now, you realize that x-ray tubes typically use 30,000 Volt electrons to hit the tungsten target.  These are electrons moving at about .3c.  When a .3c electron enters the tungsten, it will be "moving very fast in a metal".   Very fast.  Fast enough to generate x-rays as it moves past the tungsten atoms and "has collisions with the electric fields" that emanate from the charges in the atoms.

 

Yes, the charges never really have "collisions".  I completely agree with you there!  They only get repelled and attracted by their respective electric fields.  Occasionally, I could imagine an electron striking a tungsten nucleus, but the probability would be low. 

 

And...

 

The Coulomb force is known to be conservative!  That is, if an electron has a close encounter with a tungsten nucleus, it leaves the area with just about as much energy as it had when it came in! (just like a spacecraft going around Jupiter!)  So most of the heat comes from electron-electron (i.e., their electric fields, as electrons almost never actually "collide" ) collisions!

 

So again, if an electron "collides" (has a close encounter) with another electron, the max energy it gives up would be less than 100% for sure!  The electrons cannot have a "head on" collision.  They are too small. The probability too small. It has never been done in a lab.   At most perhaps it could give up 1/2 its energy as it got really close.  At most.  But there is no factor of 1/2 in the bremsstrahlung max frequency of x-rays given off.  I simply cannot imagine an electron-electron "one-shot deceleration" in the tungsten that would generate the necessary (and fictitious) "max-energied x-ray particle".

 

It is much more likely that the electron is emitting radiation as it passes the tungsten charges' E fields over and over and over and over again.  But...  if we claim that these "collisions" are the source of the x-ray radiation, then we must explain the X-ray Frequency Limit!

 

That is the beauty of this Intermittent Electron Theory.  There is a built in Nyquist Frequency Limit in the emitted x-ray radiation due to the electrons being intermittent like De Broglie!  This is much more likely than an electron-electron "one shot deceleration" (seems impossible) or a "one-shot encounter" with a tungsten nucleus (can't give up much energy because E field is conservative).

 

The only "one-shot deceleration" possible then is the direct absorption of the electron by a tungsten nucleus.  In this case, I could only imagine gamma ray radiation being emitted from that encounter.  There does not seem to be the correct spacing hanging around for the electron to generate x-rays.  Intermittent Electrons win here, Devin.

 

Again, thank you very much for your feedback.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray 

[devin553344]

Devin,

 

Yes, we agree on the braking radiation.  Now, you realize that x-ray tubes typically use 30,000 Volt electrons to hit the tungsten target.  These are electrons moving at about .3c.  When a .3c electron enters the tungsten, it will be "moving very fast in a metal".   Very fast.  Fast enough to generate x-rays as it moves past the tungsten atoms and "has collisions with the electric fields" that emanate from the charges in the atoms.

 

Yes, the charges never really have "collisions".  I completely agree with you there!  They only get repelled and attracted by their respective electric fields.  Occasionally, I could imagine an electron striking a tungsten nucleus, but the probability would be low. 

 

And...

 

The Coulomb force is known to be conservative!  That is, if an electron has a close encounter with a tungsten nucleus, it leaves the area with just about as much energy as it had when it came in! (just like a spacecraft going around Jupiter!)  So most of the heat comes from electron-electron (i.e., their electric fields, as electrons almost never actually "collide" ) collisions!

 

So again, if an electron "collides" (has a close encounter) with another electron, the max energy it gives up would be less than 100% for sure!  The electrons cannot have a "head on" collision.  They are too small. The probability too small. It has never been done in a lab.   At most perhaps it could give up 1/2 its energy as it got really close.  At most.  But there is no factor of 1/2 in the bremsstrahlung max frequency of x-rays given off.  I simply cannot imagine an electron-electron "one-shot deceleration" in the tungsten that would generate the necessary (and fictitious) "max-energied x-ray particle".

 

It is much more likely that the electron is emitting radiation as it passes the tungsten charges' E fields over and over and over and over again.  But...  if we claim that these "collisions" are the source of the x-ray radiation, then we must explain the X-ray Frequency Limit!

 

That is the beauty of this Intermittent Electron Theory.  There is a built in Nyquist Frequency Limit in the emitted x-ray radiation due to the electrons being intermittent like De Broglie!  This is much more likely than an electron-electron "one shot deceleration" (seems impossible) or a "one-shot encounter" with a tungsten nucleus (can't give up much energy because E field is conservative).

 

The only "one-shot deceleration" possible then is the direct absorption of the electron by a tungsten nucleus.  In this case, I could only imagine gamma ray radiation being emitted from that encounter.  There does not seem to be the correct spacing hanging around for the electron to generate x-rays.  Intermittent Electrons win here, Devin.

 

Again, thank you very much for your feedback.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray 

If they're using 30KeV electrons then there could be some tungsten ionization. I'll think about it.

 

But I would think it would act more like a typical capacitor rather than a lot of vibrations and bouncing around. It might be forming a collective 30KeV electron hole. Which would make it a one shot operation I think.

Edited June 13, 2020 by devin553344

[Turtle]

Yes, we agree on the braking radiation.  Now, you realize that x-ray tubes typically use 30,000 Volt electrons to hit the tungsten target.  These are electrons moving at about .3c.  When a .3c electron enters the tungsten, it will be "moving very fast in a metal".   Very fast.  Fast enough to generate x-rays as it moves past the tungsten atoms and "has collisions with the electric fields" that emanate from the charges in the atoms.

 

Yes, the charges never really have "collisions".  I completely agree with you there!  They only get repelled and attracted by their respective electric fields.  Occasionally, I could imagine an electron striking a tungsten nucleus, but the probability would be low. 

 

And...

 

The Coulomb force is known to be conservative!  That is, if an electron has a close encounter with a tungsten nucleus, it leaves the area with just about as much energy as it had when it came in! (just like a spacecraft going around Jupiter!)  So most of the heat comes from electron-electron (i.e., their electric fields, as electrons almost never actually "collide" ) collisions!

 

So again, if an electron "collides" (has a close encounter) with another electron, the max energy it gives up would be less than 100% for sure!  The electrons cannot have a "head on" collision.  They are too small. The probability too small. It has never been done in a lab.   At most perhaps it could give up 1/2 its energy as it got really close.  At most.  But there is no factor of 1/2 in the bremsstrahlung max frequency of x-rays given off.  I simply cannot imagine an electron-electron "one-shot deceleration" in the tungsten that would generate the necessary (and fictitious) "max-energied x-ray particle".

 

It is much more likely that the electron is emitting radiation as it passes the tungsten charges' E fields over and over and over and over again.  ...

 

That is the beauty of this Intermittent Electron Theory.  There is a built in Nyquist Frequency Limit in the emitted x-ray radiation due to the electrons being intermittent like De Broglie!  This is much more likely than an electron-electron "one shot deceleration" (seems impossible) or a "one-shot encounter" with a tungsten nucleus (can't give up much energy because E field is conservative).

 

The only "one-shot deceleration" possible then is the direct absorption of the electron by a tungsten nucleus.  In this case, I could only imagine gamma ray radiation being emitted from that encounter.  There does not seem to be the correct spacing hanging around for the electron to generate x-rays.  Intermittent Electrons win here, Devin.

 

Again, thank you very much for your feedback.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Hi Andrew,

Long time no speak. Happened to just watch a popular science show on lightning and they noted the discovery of X-rays in lightning bolts. What, if anything, does your intermittent electron theory describe about this phenomenon?

Live long & prosper.

[devin553344]

Hi Andrew,

Long time no speak. Happened to just watch a popular science show on lightning and they noted the discovery of X-rays in lightning bolts. What, if anything, does your intermittent electron theory describe about this phenomenon?

Live long & prosper.

I should then probably suggest he read this article on gamma ray flashes as it is thought to also happen with lightning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_gamma-ray_flash

Edited June 15, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

Devin, for sure.   With 30,000 eV electrons there are going to be ionizations!  These "bumped off' electrons will radiate also.  And the electrons replacing these "bumped off" electrons will radiate while they are "dropping" into their vacated "electron holes".  I think we can agree on that.  What we do not agree on is that this will  be a "one-shot" process.  None of these "bumped off" electrons or "electrons falling back into holes" will posses the entire KE of the 30,000 eVolt electrons.  So again, the "one-shot" process seems unlikely to me.  We may have to just agree to disagree here.

 

And it is no coincidence that the lattice spacing of the Tungsten is "just so" to have the "pass-by-each-atom-frequency" emitted in the x-ray spectrum, so that the 30,000 eV electrons can radiate at the max frequency (by being "bumped" by the electric fields of the charges in the tungsten atoms one after another).  This seem like the likeliest way that the max-frequencied X-ray waves are generated in an X-ray tube, and not by a "one-shot-put-all-the-electron-energy-into-one-xray-particle" theory.

 

And did you really stop and think about just saying "x-ray particle"?  Really?  You are using theory from over 100 years ago. Einstein could not have possibly thought of intermittent electrons having a Nyquist Frequency Limit without being familiar with digital audio like I am!  Not possible. No way.  I hate to say it, but hand cranked  "gramophones" were in use when Einstein introduced "light particles".  As a matter of fact, that is how I discovered the Nyquist Frequency Limit in the first place... by leaving physics for a while and studying digital audio engineering and electrical engineering!  If I hadn't done that,  I too would still be stuck on "x-ray particles!" (oh my goodness).  Most physicists do not even have a clue what a Nyquist Frequency Limit is!  So the physics community should really learn here from Episode 1 about Nyquist Limits and  jump on board this X-ray Nyquist Frequency Limit (and quickly so we can make some real  progress while I am still alive to guide you!)

 

[andrewgray]

And Turtle, nice to hear from you. 

 

Well, yes. Storm clouds will occasionally have a massive electrical discharge (lightning).  Then you will have a current running through the air very similar to a current running through tungsten.

 

These lightning-bolt-electrons running through air, even though they are intermittent, will alternatively strike the air atoms-molecules and experience periodic accelerations, causing EM radiation to go down their electric field lines.  This will be emitted with all frequenicies...  up the the Nyquist Limit of the most energetic electrons in the bolt!

 

Turtle, do you see how this works?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray