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

[devin553344]

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!)

I like that you've done your research. Good job! I don't think photon particle theory has been abandoned yet as it appears in articles still (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation) maybe you can lead the way on that.

 

Although I'm left wondering how the free electron laser produces x-rays using your idea or do you consider that a different process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser).

Edited June 15, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

Thanks for the kudos, Devin!

 

No, "light particle" theory has definitely not been abandoned, yet!   But it is going to have to be abandoned if we are to make any progress in unifying physics.  Electromagnetic "light particles" were thought to be necessary (it seemed!) to explain the photoelectric effect and the X-ray cutoff frequency (they were not necessary).   So Bohr conveniently used these fictitious "light particles" in his theory to experiment-match to the Rydberg equation.  Then it was off in the wrong direction for 100 years, with the crowning folly being "entangled light particles" that can act faster than the speed of light and claims of "no underlying reality" (oh my goodness again!).

 

It turns out that Intermittent Electrons explain the PhotoElectric Effect and the X-ray Frequency Limit with no "light particles" necessary.  As a matter of fact, "perpendicular-ejection-along-the-lightwave-polarization" eliminates any "light-particle-explanation"  for the photoelectric effect!  Intermittent Electrons is now the only theory that is compatible with the photoelectric effect.  If you are a physicist, you better make yourself aware of "perpendicular-ejection-along-the-lightwave-polarization" and you better understand why Intermittent Electrons is the only theory compatible with it by watching Episode 2 in this series!

 

Now, Devin, the Free Electron Laser!

 

Well, the electron beam used in this device has 40,000,000 eVolt electrons.  This makes the "intermittency" so rapid that it does not come into play and the frequency limit hard to measure or observe.  40,000,000eV/h  gives about 1 x 10²² Hz  (10 zeptoHertz!, in the gamma range).  So these electrons (to us in the lab) would act like ordinary static charges and we can analyze this device with regular ideas.

 

So, as we explain in Episode 1, if you accelerate a charge back and forth at x-ray frequencies, then it will emit x-ray radiation.  It is just that simple.  So if you send 40,000,000 eVolt electrons (moving nearly at c ) though an alternating static magnetic field so they "wiggle" side to side (i.e., accelerate side to side) at x-ray frequencies, then they will emit x-ray radiation at this frequency.  No "x-ray particles" (oh my goodness!) needed here.  Simple charge-periodic-acceleration leading to charge-periodic-radiation.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

I don't think photon particle theory has been abandoned yet as it appears in articles... still maybe you can lead the way.

 

 

OK, Devin, I am trying too!

 

So now that we have discussed Intermittent Electrons's view of the PhotoElectric Effect and the X-ray Frequency Limit...

 

What did you think about Episode 3, The Atom? (and its non-radiating planetary orbits with no "light particles" in sight?)

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[devin553344]

OK, Devin, I am trying too!

 

So now that we have discussed Intermittent Electrons's view of the PhotoElectric Effect and the X-ray Frequency Limit...

 

What did you think about Episode 3, The Atom? (and its non-radiating planetary orbits with no "light particles" in sight?)

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

I watched episode 3. I didn't really see how your idea fits with Larmor radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula). Which means episode 1 is probably incorrectly describing physics. You appear pretty certain of your ideas. Might I suggest a more scientific approach? For instance, can you prove any of your ideas?

Edited June 19, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

Devin,


Thanks for your feedback.


Yes Devin, you are correct.  Episode 1 shows the approximation of EM pulses going down the field lines of the electrons.  Indeed, this is a simplified concept and a simplified version of Maxwells equations (not exactly what is really going on with the X-rays!)  But the simplified version makes the extremely difficult Nyquist Frequency Limit concept easier to understand.  Imagine if I tried to explain the Nyquist Frequency Limit for X-rays while simultaneously writing out complicated Maxwells equations and EM wave equations.  The Nyquist Limit explanation just would not happen! No way.  So let's look at the approximation that I used in Episode 1.  Let's look at the  "EM-pulses-going-down-the-field-lines-of-the-electrons" approximation and see if it is legitimate.  So consider an electron, with its radial electric field and then "travel right along beside it" like we did in Episode 1.  Here we go:

 

Now...  accelerate the electron upwards VERY RAPIDLY for a short distance and bring the electron to a stop again:

 

 

Now there are two spheres that define a volume where the electric field is changing due to the acceleration.  Let's call it the yellow "acceleration zone".  The exact solution for what the electric field in this "yellow acceleration zone" is very complicated.  Jackson, in his book Classical Electrodynamics gives the acceleration zone electric field as:

 

 

where [math]\beta[/math] is the velocity of the charge V/c,   R is the vector pointing from the charge position to the field point x, n is the unit vector in the R direction, and [math]\dot{\beta}[/math] is the charge's acceleration.  And... all quantities inside the large brackets are to be evaluated at the "retarded time".  This is really complicated and tedious to calculate as you can see! 

 

But fortunately, we know that the divergence of E vanishes, i.e., [math]\nabla \cdot \textbf{E}[/math] = 0.  That means that the E field is continuous across the acceleration zone and connects each E field line back together.  So a simple approximation to the acceleration zone E field would be to simply connect the E field lines with a line segment. Like this:

 

 

Now the black E field lines are exact!  No approximation.  The red acceleration E field lines are approximations.  But we see from the above equation that the acceleration E field is more transverse the more the acceleration of the charge.  So the real acceleration fields probably look like this:

 

You see that the "straight-line-segment approximation" is good enough to understand what is going on.  You do not need the exact Maxwell equation solution to the problem.  You physicists ( and you electrical engineers ) need to develop some more intuition on how acceleration E fields behave.  Then it would not be so difficult for you to picture how Bremsstrahlung electrons bouncing through tungsten could generate transverse x-ray waves (and you would not have to resort to (oh my goodness!) "x-ray particles" ). 

 

So I kind of agree with you Devin.  I have not been exactly scientific in my Episode 1 The X-ray Frequency Limit.  But the approximation I used was good enough to help you guys understand what was going on with the Nyquist Frequency Limit for X-rays, and I did not get bogged down in a bunch of Maxwells equations details!

 

And... as you can see, the above E field formula is complicated enough for a static classical charge.  Well, it turns out that electrons pulsate, too.  And the Intermittent Electrons pulsate fast enough so that their time averaged electrical force is the Coulomb force. This complicates things further and we will have to resort to a computer to calculate the intermittent fields if they are desired.

 

Quote

 

I didn't really see how your idea fits with Larmor radiation...

 

Now the Larmor formula for emitted power from an accelerated charge is also one for a classical static charge.  The Larmor formula would be a time averaged value for intermittent electrons.  Think of an army regiment of 1000 men shooting machine guns into the back of a railroad card.  The railroad car would start to accelerate fairly uniformly and you could use Newton's equations to predict its velocity and position at any time.  BUT THE FORCE WAS ACTUALLY INTERMITTENT, and not uniform!  However, it approximated a uniform, constant force close enough to do the position and velocity calculations.  The same reasoning applies to intermittent electrons and the Larmor formula!  The intermittent electrons have a time averaged Coulomb force (like the machine guns shot into the railroad car) and everything works out as it should.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Quote

 

can you prove any of your ideas?

 

 

Devin,

 

Can I prove Intermittent Electrons?

 

Now we are getting somewhere. 

 

1. First of all there is the Photoelectric Effect Experiment.  In this experiment there is:

 

Perpendicular Ejection of the electrons Along the Polarization of the Incoming Light Wave!

 

QM and all other current theories fail here.  Think about this statement.  QM fails here. Did I say QM fails here?  Only Intermittent Electrons predicts this phenomenon.  Isn't agreement with experiment what we use to "prove" theories?  (That begs: "Why aren't you asking your QM buddies this same question since their QM theory disagrees with this experiment?" ).

 

2. Second, there is the X-Ray Frequency Limit Experiment.  Since the Frequency Limit depends on how fast the intermittent electrons are pulsating, if we could produce high energy electrons with a slower pulsation rate and lower the X-ray Frequency Limit, then this would indeed "prove" this theory (and disprove QM)!  Imagine 30,000 eVolt electrons with a frequency limit like 15,000 eVolt electrons!

 

How do we do this?  Well, it turns out that when you "kick electrons from behind" with a linear electric voltage, they start to pulsate like De Broglie says!  However what if we used a cyclotron to accelerate our electrons?  Then to accelerate these electrons...  

 

we "kick the electrons from behind", then we "kick the electrons in the face", then "we kick 'em from behind", then "we kick 'em in the face"... over and over again until they reach 30,000 eVolts.  But what if this does not make them pulsate "like De Broglie" (since we periodically "kick them" in alternating directions) and then we get a different x-ray frequency limit?  Then this would "prove" this theory and disprove QM.  Here is the setup:

 

Why don't we do this experiment?  Someone will!  I have confidence.  Will it be you Devin? 

 

3.  There are many other experiments to be done "now that we know what is going on", that could prove intermittent electrons.  For example, we now know that the x-ray frequency decrease found in Compton scattering is a Doppler Shift off of resonant inner electron orbits of the target.  The frequency of the incident x-rays could be changed (just right) to make the scattered x-rays have increased frequency rather than decreased frequency, Doppler shifting them the other way.  We should do this experiment to disprove QM!

 

...

 

Finally,  Devin.  What about the Atomic Model presented in Episode 3?  Do you understand it? Do you understand the consequences of Helium on the model?

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[Vmedvil2]

everything contained within this thread is pure crack pottery put forward by cranks!

[Vmedvil2]

What happened to your previous all caps "pure crackpottery!" comment in this thread, that one was more hilarious.

 

What are you just a naysayer with no further input now if something isn't conventional?

Oceanbreeze or GAHD thought that was too far however this is still pure crackpottery so I replaced it.

[Vmedvil2]

Yeah that's why I started copying more pertinent information.

 

Kinda want AndrewGray to see it but I keep missing him. 

well, what you have said is "Pure Crackpottery" too. things that are not pure crackpottery, "Quantum Mechanics is correct because it has been experimentally proven" words like that aren't pure crackpottery.

Edited June 22, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

I wouldn't say quantum mechanics has been experimentally proven because what is quantum mechanics? It is patchwork, assigning probabilistic wave functions in place of hidden variables. The fact that doesn't allow us to have coherent quantum computers, even with stitches in time error correcting mathematics, disproves that it's just probabilistic there really are hidden variables. I'm at least offering a way to approach those variables arithmetically. 

The difference is quantum mechanical effects are scientific fact unlike whatever you are about to say, if you deny that Quantum Mechanics is correct then you are nothing but a crackpot. I say the same thing to anyone that thinks GR and SR is wrong, all of those theories are correct and whatever crap you came up with is wrong.

Edited June 22, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

You'd have to spot those three contradictions in my work. It's not that quantum mechanics is incorrect, it is incorrect to say there aren't hidden variables. It's more an issue of efficiency in the applied sciences where probabilistic wave functions are treated as absolute, this is theoretical. 

[andrewgray]

 

AaronArco:

I wouldn't say quantum mechanics has been experimentally proven because what is quantum mechanics? It is patchwork, assigning probabilistic wave functions in place of hidden variables. The fact that doesn't allow us to have coherent quantum computers, even with stitches in time error correcting mathematics, disproves that it's just probabilistic, there really are hidden variables...

 

Aaron, Thank you for that.

 

 

...there really are hidden variables.. ...it is incorrect to say there aren't hidden variables.

 

 

So let's discuss these so-called hidden variables, and what we have found, and how they will impact QM!

 

OK. 

 

1. Hidden Variable of the X-ray Frequency Limit:

    The beam-electrons impacting the tungsten are intermittent so they have a Nyquist Frequency Limit!

    Impact on QM:

    No need for the "photon hypothesis".

 

2.  Hidden Variables of the PhotoElectric Effect:

    The electrons in the metal are intermittent and resonate with the incoming light wave.

    This ejects them "sideways" and along the polarization of the incident lightwave as seen experimentally.

    Impact on QM:

    No need for the "photon hypothesis".

 

3.  Hidden Variables of the Compton Effect:

    The incident x-rays have a resonance with an electron in an inner orbital of the atoms (in a part of its orbit that is receding away from the x-ray source).

     This electron re-transmits the x-ray wave with a Doppler Shift, which matches up perfectly with Compton's data.

     Impact on QM:

     No need for the "photon hypothesis".

 

4.  Hidden Variables of the Hydrogen Frequencies:

     Intermittent electrons allow for planetary orbits in the theory, without radiating!

     The hydrogen frequencies are then simply the orbital frequencies of the electrons around the nucleus.  (See Episode 3!)

     Impact on QM:

     No need for the "photon hypothesis".

 

 

What if we were to tell an electrical engineer:

 

 

Electricity is definitely NOT electrons!

 

Though that statement is false,  it would have the SAME impact as this true statement will have on physicists:

 

 

Light is definitely NOT "light particles"!

 

There are no light particles, according to this new theory. There is no need to use "light particles" in any explanation in physics.

It will be just like telling an electrical engineer that "electricity isn't electrons"!  The impact on the physics community will be huge and unfortunately, unwelcome.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited June 22, 2020 by andrewgray

[devin553344]

I'm wondering how you explain the dual slit experiment and how light has a wave particle duality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment).

Edited June 23, 2020 by devin553344

[devin553344]

The other problem with your theory is that your rendering of field lines suggests an ether. Which is old thinking. In order for relativity to exist, space-time and therefore field lines must emanate from particles. Like object oriented programming, each particle is a space-time object. Changes in charge or mass produce waves emanating from particles, then light and the dual-slit experiment expose a particle nature.

[andrewgray]

Yeah, sure Devin.

 

It's fairly simple, I cannot believe we have had this double slit thing around for a century or so.

 

The double slit "one-detection-at-a-time" experiment is straightforward. 

 

1.  You put a low intensity wave (with below-threshold intensity) through the double slit to start.

 

2.  Then you raise the intensity of the wave gradually, until you start to get one detection at a time.

 

3.  What you have done...  is simply raised the wave intensity just above the threshold for the most sensitive spots in the detector, which start to fire and you get one-detection-at-a-time from the low intensity incident wave striking the most sensitive spots on the detector.

 

That's it.

 

 

Now to see how silly this experiment's claims were when using film, we need only examine "minimum blackening" of film.

 

This guy tells us what it is:

http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html

 

Minimum blackening for film, he says is 0.004  lux-seconds.

 

So expose the film at just 1% of this "minimum blackening".  Probably no spots on the film from this exposure.

So we have a 0.00004 lux-second exposure of the film with NO dots at 1%.

 

Do you know how many fictional "light particles" this "no-dots-at-all" exposure represents?

Well, a lux-second is approximately 0.001 J/cm²

 

 

A fictional "red light particle" would have about 2 x 10^-19 Joules.

And if we divide it out we see that (.00004 x .001 J/cm²)/(2 x 10^-19 J) = 200,000,000,000/cm².

 

So 200,000,000,000 fictional "red light particles" can strike 1 cm² on the film... and not leave a single dot!

 

So claiming that a single dot on a piece of film (oh my goodness!) represents ONE single fictional "light particle" is beyond silly.

(Oh my goodness!)

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[devin553344]

Yeah, sure Devin.

 

It's fairly simple, I cannot believe we have had this double slit thing around for a century or so.

 

 

The double slit "one-detection-at-a-time" experiment is straightforward. 

 

1.  You put a low intensity wave (with below-threshold intensity) through the double slit to start.

 

2.  Then you raise the intensity of the wave gradually, until you start to get one detection at a time.

 

3.  What you have done...  is simply raised the wave intensity just above the threshold for the most sensitive spots in the detector, which start to fire and you get one-detection-at-a-time from the low intensity incident wave striking the most sensitive spots on the detector.

 

That's it.

 

 

Now to see how silly this experiment's claims were when using film, we need only examine "minimum blackening" of film.

 

This guy tells us what it is:

http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html

 

Minimum blackening for film, he says is 0.004  lux-seconds.

 

So expose the film at just 1% of this "minimum blackening".  Probably no spots on the film from this exposure.

So we have a 0.00004 lux-second exposure of the film with NO dots.

 

Do you know how many fictional "light particles" this "no-dots-at-all" exposure represents?

Well, a lux-second is approximately 0.001 J/cm²

 

 

A fictional "red light particle" would have about 2 x 10^-19 Joules.

And if we divide it out we see that (.00004 x .001 J/cm²)/(2 x 10^-19 J) = 200,000,000,000/cm².

 

So 200,000,000 fictional "red light particles" can strike 1 cm² on the film... and not leave a single dot!

 

So claiming that a single dot on a piece of film (oh my goodness!) represents ONE single fictional "light particle" is beyond silly.

(Oh my goodness!)

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Your explanation leaves out positioning of particle hits. A particle might do that but not a wave. Can you see that? Also you ignored my question regarding your ether views.

 

I did notice this thread is 13 years old. But sure keep bringing it to the top of the list for 13 years. I think you lost your objectivity. Anyways I'm currently busy on my own theory and proving it. Good luck.

Edited June 23, 2020 by devin553344

[andrewgray]

I understand, Devin.  Yeah, the double slit detector events are wave interactions with the film at threshold film intensity level.  That is, the film "is just about to start to blacken", and the most sensitive silver bromide crystals are the ones that just start to blacken...  And of course,  they just start to blacken in the maxima of the diffraction pattern.

 

Your explanation leaves out positioning of particle hits.

 

 

The positioning of the detector events, of course,  would mostly be in the maxima of the incident wave.  Again, saying that these correspond to single "light particle hits" is a bit illogical given the intensity levels that can hit the film and not have a detection (see above). 

 

Yes, I agree with you Devin, there is no ether.   And I never meant to convey that Idea. My rendering of the field lines in Episode 1 is just an approximation of the dynamic radiation coming from accelerating charges, bouncing around in tungsten.  These renderings are done to help people understand what is really going on in the X-ray Frequency Limit.  That is all.  No "ether" was ever intended.

 

Yes, I started this thread 13 years ago.  Then I revived it 8 years ago in 2012, after I successfully got The Theory of Intermittent Electrons published in the peer reviewed Physics Essays.  Then I spent the next 7 years making these videos because people were having a real hard time understanding what I was saying in the paper.  So I revived this thread again in 2020 to put out links to the videos.  Now, at least you understand what I am saying, I believe (though you still might not agree with me... ... ... yet).

 

My objectivity has gone up, Devin, in my opinion.  I hope I have not left out anything else!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited June 24, 2020 by andrewgray