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

[engcat]

5 hours ago, andrewgray said:

Watch the video to see what I mean.

Andrew Ancel Gray

Excellent.  Now, what is waving?

For example, in the case of sound, the air oscillates. The energy is in air pressure. The propagating wave carries the air pressure energy to transfer it to a remote microphone.

In the case of water, the surface of water oscillates.  The weight of water energy propagates and ultimately kicks the grains of sand on the shore.

In the case of EM wave, does not quantized hf energy propagate in a wave to kick the electron and give it that KE?

The wave part is all fine and dandy. The resonance is the mechanism. Fine. But, does not conservation of energy, hf = KE, require Einstein and others to say that hey, we are also dealing with quantas of energy for the sake of energy conservation?

[andrewgray]

Quote

Now, what is waving?

Engcat, consider a stationary charge just sitting somewhere.  The electric field emanates from it!

http://modelofreality.org/charge1.png

 

Next, use a voltage to quickly accelerate the charge upwards for a short time!  An EM ripple comes away from the charge, moving out at velocity c, as the electric field re-adjusts itself!

http://modelofreality.org/charge2.png

 

Next, use a voltage to quickly accelerate the charge back downwards for a short time!  Another EM ripple oriented in the opposite direction comes away from the charge (and, the original one a little further away is still in view!) moving out at velocity c, as the electric field again re-adjusts itself!

http://modelofreality.org/charge3.png

 

Engcat, if you keep doing this over and over again, you simply generate an ordinary plane wave!  Engcat, the EM field is what is waving!  I see no quanta here!  There is no need for EM quanta anywhere in physics!   And the energy (per second per sq meter)  is being delivered by the EM wave as given by the Poynting vector  S =  E x B !

Finally, Engcat... the only further complication to this simple picture is that the above picture is for macroscopic, time-averaged charge!  Like in a radio antenna or an LED or an x-ray machine! 

However, at the microscopic level, we are dealing with pulsating charges, so the above picture is still correct, but the electric field pulsates ON and OFF every few oscillations, making Maxwell's equations a bit more complicated!  And energy conservation is a little tricky as well.  We have "tunneling" with this picture!  And energy is NOT strictly conserved when we are dealing with "tunneling" interactions (see previous posts about tunneling!).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by andrewgray

[Photonics]

Hello Andrew,

I appreciate your interest in the topic of physics and I agree that things are not perfectly explained (yet and for the most part). This theory of mine (on CosmoQuest) might help you proceed a bit further as you seem to enjoy explaining things (I also added the attachment here for convenience):

MyTheoryOnTheStructureOfLight

And I replied here on the subject of Mass, Time and Gravity (among others):

MassAndTimeAndGravityConsiderations

Oh and regarding neutrino`s, they are nothing more than extremely high wavelength light particles. If they get some results out of a collision in experiments then they do need to consider some low energy particles might get lost in the dark side of things. Discharging quickly and at low energies, possibly flipping polarity. Therefore hidden.

Regarding your theories on electrons: what basically happens is that electrons flip polarity at the Speed of Light and end up in a Mass structure. Like the Proton having a Photon emission.

Mass is something that arrives from having (or is) positive energy balance. Like the 'virtual' Mass of Photons or the Mass of Protons. Electrons get all their energy from Mass and are therefore negative. Strictly speaking electrons are therefore not actually Mass(ive).

In the first link stated above and the attached I almost exactly calculated the Mass of a Proton (new method).

I have been working on this for about 6 years now.

Let me know what you think.

New calculations on the Structure of Light (by Photonics).pdf

Edited September 7, 2022 by Photonics
addition

[andrewgray]

Fauxtonics!

Quote

Oh and regarding neutrino`s, they are nothing more than extremely high wavelength [sic] light particles.

I almost agree with you.  I believe that neutrinos are extremely high frequency EM waves!   There are no EM "light particles!"  So neutrinos are probably ultra-gamma waves!   Waves, not particles.

 

The rest of your "fauxton stuff",  IMO, is nonsense, since there are no fauxtons!

 

JeffriesTubes,

Quote

Imagine the photons ("fauxtons") are two spinning coins.

Nonsense!  Again I say there are no EM particles.  No fauxtons!  They are Einstein's myth!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by andrewgray

[Photonics]

Neutrino energy is very low. A little bit less than the Electron.

Therefore not gamma as then they would need to be high energy!

Enjoy.

[Photonics]

And I arrived at the structure of the Proton, Neutron and Atoms here (nevermind the calculations you see in the pictures as they are completely false but I can`t change that because it is closed).

The structures you see are correct however:

ProtonNeutronandAtomStructure

The download is not working in one of my previous posts so check the topic on the same forum.

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Photonics
Correction

[andrewgray]

Wow,

You two, "Fauxtonics" and JeffreysTube, are talking such nonsense, I cannot believe that things have gotten this bad.  But things have gotten really bad.  The only interesting thing in your comments that I have seen is this:

Quote

What is interesting is that there's interference when the electrons are sent at different times and aren't interacting

This is the "one-electron-at-a-time" claim in electron microscope electron-interference!  So we can talk about this! 

 

So the electron microscope guys get a very small charged filament set up (sorry, no slit in the electron "double slit" experiment) and shoot electrons around the filament inside of an electron microscope.  They see an electron interference pattern!  Next, they turn down the electron gun intensity so the electron current is very, very slight.  They insert their pico-ammeter in the gun circuit and measure the extremely small current.   Then they calculate and claim that there must have been just "one-electron-at-a-time" in the electron microscope at a time at this slight amperage!

Here is the claim:

http://modelofreality.org/ElectronInterfere.png

This just proves that these physicists know almost nothing about high voltage currents.  The claim in this article is just DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!   First of all, have  you ever seen a smooth, continuous, electron flow out of a 1 mile high thunderstorm cloud?  No!  That's because the high voltage charge builds up, discharges, builds up again, discharges, builds up again, and discharges again!  Claiming a "smooth, one-electron-at-a-time high voltage electron flow is like claiming a smooth, continuous, lightning strike!  What really happens in the electron microscope is that the tip of the electron gun builds up charge, it discharges a bunch of coherent pulsating charges  TOGETHER, then it builds up a bunch of charges again! Discharges again. Builds up again. Discharges again! Builds up again......   This is just like we know high voltage currents operate.  Claiming a smooth "one-electron-at-a-time" current just shows how dumb these physicists are.  So actually, there are plenty of pulsating electrons going around the charged filament in the electron microscope to interfere with each other, EVEN THOUGH THE AVERAGE CURRENT IS EQUIVALENT TO "one-electron-at-a-dumb-time!  The pico-ammeter just averages the pulsed groups over time even though there is no stupid "one-electron-at-a-time" flow.

 

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.  We have tolerated these dumb "double slit claims" for over a century.  You dumb physicists need to give these up.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

JeffriesTubes8...

So now we are talking about "fauxtons".  First, let's talk about the "entanglement" myth.  So we use this important principle in science:

1.  You make an assumption.

2. You test the assumption with experiment.

3. Suppose you get a contradiction.

4. Then you throw out your initial assumption...   You do not keep your contradiction!

 

JT8,  In short, if you get a experimental contradiction, you throw out your assumption, YOU DO NOT KEEP YOUR CONTRADICTION!   This principle applies to many experiments in modern physics, especially the entanglement myth experiment!  Here is the entanglement myth as it applies to the above:

 

1.  Assumption:  assume two fauxtons emerge from a system, "entangled".

2.  Do an Alain-Aspect-style experiment with two polarizers and then use Bell's inequality to conclude that there is NO LOCAL REALITY!

3.  Contradiction!

4: SO THROW OUT YOUR INITIAL ASSUMPTION THAT THERE EXISTS TWO "FAUXTONS"!

 

JT8, it is just that simple.  All those contradictions and myths that you see in experiments like you describe are resolved by simply throwing out Einstein's assumption about the existence of "fauxtons!"  Your stupid "QM delayed choice effect" experiment is resolved the same way!  There are no fauxtons!

 

Better get used to it.  It is coming.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Quote

So it's several electrons at a time?  Do you have any proof of this?

JT8, the proof of this is the existence of electron interference and the fact that the electron is not a wave and needs more than one particle to interfere.  Personally, though, I am not aware of a current-measuring-device that is accurate enough to detect the passage of each individual electron as it goes by the filament in the electron microscope.  The pico-ammeter can measure time-averaged current, but it cannot detect when each electron goes by the filament or how many electrons are in each group... 

 

And, I am familiar with high voltage currents, and certainly, high-voltalge-current-surges are much more probable than high-voltage-smooth-current-flow coming out of a high voltage electron gun (or out of a high voltage mile-high thunder cloud, for that matter!) !

 

But you tell me!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

JT8,  By "Venn Diagram Paradox", I assume you are referring to the Bell Inequality Venn diagram, like seen in this YouTube video:

Well, let's consider Alain Aspect's dual polarizer experiment along with this video and see how far we get!!!

At the 10:36 mark (10 minutes, 36 seconds), the author of the video says:

He says, "Suppose we take a particle in the state X and subject it to an experiment with two possible outcomes..."

Wrong!  Sound the ERROR Bell instead of J.S.Bell!  (Pun intended)!

https://modelofreality.org//WrongBuzzer.mp3

JT8, Like I have been trying to tell you over and over,  THERE ARE NO LIGHT PARTICLES!

So this is the incorrect assumption that I have been talking about.  If there are no light particles, then there is no silly "particle-X-subject-to-2-outcome-test-a" assumption.  If there are no light particles, YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION!   And thus there is NO BELL APPLICATION TO REALITY WHATSOEVER!  YOU ARE APPLYING THE BELL INEQUALITY TO MYTHOLOGY!  (Hey that alliterates!)  Not only that.  If you actually read these Alain-Aspect style dual polarizer experiments... 25% (YES I SAID 25%) of the outcomes of these experiments are what they call "error pulses" and they are simply not counted... real data that disagrees that is just thrown away, even though it clearly shows that there are more than the two possible outcomes! (Some of the ANALOG, NON-QUANTIZED EM pulses can be circularly polarized and go just 1/2-way through in a random direction!)   25%!  Confirmation Bias data removal!  Look at it hard, JT8!

JT8, this Bell-Inequality-No-Local-Reality stuff is really dumb!  You dumb physicists are going to have to give it up!

 

Now come on, JT8.  the electron "observer effect" is still there with real, "non-wave" electrons!  "Come ON!"...  If you put an electron detector right near the filament of the electron microscope that is doing the electron interference pattern, YOU WILL STILL MESS UP THE INTERFERENCE PATTERN.  You do not need any silly QM theory to know that your detectors will influence the experimental outcome!  Again, NO QM Mythology needed here, JT8!  Give it up I say!

 

Quote

...you’re still not explaining what most organisms on this planet with large brains have developed these organs (eyes) for and you haven’t explained what is waving

And we are back to sophisticated eyes having a WAVE stimulate their optic nerve instead of "fauxton particles"!  JT8, a WAVE can stimulate something, believe me!  How about that 2004 WAVE in the Indian Ocean that killed 250,000 people!  Those people did not experience any "WATER-ON" particles!  How dumb would that be!  JT8, THIS IS THE SAME DUMBNESS WITH YOU CLAIMING IT TAKEs LIGHT PARTICLES TO STIMULATE A RETINA.  JT8, a light WAVE can stimulate the retina!  The oscillating EM wave can make the electrons in the retina move up and down which sends a message to the brain via the optic nerve.   And "what is waving?"  Again, the electric force is waving.  JT8, accelerated charges generate transverse electric force waves that really stimulate things!

 

JT8, From Wikipedia:

Quote

Retrocausality, or backwards causation, is a concept of cause and effect in which an effect precedes its cause in time and so a later event affects an earlier one.^[1][2]

JT8,  all I can say to this is "SHEESH, YOU PHYSICISTS ARE GETTING EVEN DUMBER THAN I THOUGHT!"

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 17, 2022 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

JT8,

So now we are talking about entangled electron spin?  Oh boy does that really give me an opening! Thanks!  So let's review:

1.  You make an assumption.

2. You test the assumption with experiment.

3. Suppose you get a contradiction.

4. Then you throw out your initial assumption...   You do not keep your contradiction!

 

OK.

1. Assumption: the electron has an angular momentum of 

2: Experiment: Electron scattering experiments show that the electron is smaller than

3. Contradiction:  An object this small with this mass cannot possess this much angular momentum!  The most it can possess is if the surface of the electron were moving at the speed of light, or:

4.  This is a contradiction by a  factor of 200,000!   So we throw it away!   We throw out the electron spin angular momentum assumption, we DO NOT keep the electron spin angular momentum contradiction like my stupid graduate QM book does (and I quote!)  "electron spin is not something spinning"  ...

How stupid is that???  Real stupid... that's how stupid.  So JT8,  "electron spin" is mythology, so "entangled electron spin" is "double mythology".  Any angular momentum associated with the electron is orbital angular momentum.  No "fudge factor" gyromagnetic ratios are needed ( yes, they fudged that factor of 2 to make QM spin seem to work out! ).

Finally, JT8, the EPR paradox experiments were attempted with light ("fauxtons") instead of particles because one cannot directly measure the angular momentum of a charged particle.  Thus, your claim that element 115 nuclei have "entangled spins" is nonsense.

JT8, "retrocausality" is nonsense.  Just the fact that this concept exists tells me that modern physics is in a Deep Dark Age.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

PS. And while we are on the subject of "angular momentum contradictions", we simply cannot resist talking about "black hole angular momentum".  Black holes, which supposedly have shrunk to just a point, are claimed to possess spin angular momentum.  This again is a contradiction and it is stupid not to throw away this contradiction.  "The spin angular momentum of a point" is a moronic oxymoron.  This moronic oxymoron is just the same as claiming that the electron is a "point particle" that possesses spin angular momentum.  Dumb!

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

JT8,

Well, you cannot measure the spin angular momentum of a charged particle with a Stern Gerlach apparatus because the charged particle would simply spiral around the magnetic field lines, like this:

 

So you cannot measure the spin angular momentum of a nucleus or a proton with the Stern Gerlach apparatus because they won't go through!

A neutron, however, will go through a Stern Gerlach apparatus!  But the neutron detector on the output depends on secondary proton collisions to detect neutrons.  So the detector would miss lots of neutron events, making the correlated "entanglement" data useless.

And finally, the electron is 200,000 times too small to have  its  claimed angular momentum so an EPR experiment with electrons is just as  useless.

In short, "fauxton" experiments  are really  your only EPR experiment option.  But "fauxton" EPR experiments lead to Bell's Contradiction, so we throw out the "fauxton" assumption ( see rule below, so "fauxtons" do not exist).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

1.  You make an assumption.

2. You test the assumption with experiment.

3. Suppose you get a contradiction.

4. Then you throw out your initial assumption...   You do not keep your contradiction!

 

[andrewgray]

OK, Jeffreys.  There is a lot to talk about here.

First, "Gravitons".  These are nonsense just like "fauxtons".  There are no "wave particles".  There is no "particle-wave duality".  "Gravitons" are a continuation of the mythology started by Einstein when he made up "fauxtons" for his mythological explanation of the photoelectric effect.  We now know that a photoelectric ejection is caused by an acceleration resonance between the incident light wave and the pulsating photo-electron in the metal.  And the absorbed photoelectric energy is then limited by a nonacceleration resonance between the light and the faster pulsating photo-electron.  No "fauxtons" needed!

 

And we know that gravity is actually an ordinary force, and NOT a curvature of spacetime. And Quantum Gravity and Gravitons are just nonsense.  Quantum Gravity is a "moronic oxymoron". 

 

And, if you recall, here is what we know about gravity:
 

Quote

 

Take two hydrogen atoms, A and B ,  separated by one meter.  They each have one electron and one proton. Now the attractive electrical forces between them are the e-p and the p-e electrical forces.  The repulsive electrical forces would be the e-e and the p-p  electrical forces.

The attractive and repulsive electrical forces would be about:

The magnitude of these two numbers are experimentally the same!  They only differ by one part in (see the last red digit).  You could not measure this difference experimentally!  But this "teensy weensy tee-niney" difference in magnitude is enough to give the two hydrogen atoms a gravitational attraction!

 

So gravity is actually the very slight difference between "neutral matter" attractive electrical forces and "neutral matter" repulsive electrical forces.  

So the Equivalence Principle is actually a weak equivalence principle, and not a strong equivalence principle.  So when you compare motion in an accelerating elevator with motion in a gravity field, you actually get:

1)  You cannot tell the difference between motion of matter in the elevator and motion of matter in the gravity field.  No difference, just as Einstein says!

2)  But a laser beam bends in the elevator and it DOES NOT BEND in the gravity field.  This is how you can tell the difference!

So we actually have a weak equivalence principle and no spacetime curvature!

 

Next, "Quarks".   Quarks are nonsense. 

 

A neutron is a proton-electron composite (and not made of ficticious "quarks"}.   This is obvious since a neutron ALWAYS decays into a proton-electron pair (and by the way, neutrinos are nonsense too!  No neutrinos coming from neutron decay)

 

Jeffreys, much of what you say in the above post sounds like the JabberWocky poem to me.  All I have to say is that physics is in crisis:  QM is wrong.  GR is wrong.  Quarks are wrong. 

I wish one of you young physicists would perform one of my experiments so we could prove that this quantum nonsense belongs in the trash can of history!  Do my Compton Killer Experiment!  Do my X-ray Cutoff Killer Experiment.  Come on!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

No, I said that electrons cannot have spin (their surface velocity would have to exceed c).  Electron "spin" is silly when electrons are known to be smaller than 0.1 quadrillionths of a centimeter!  Naturally, since neutrons are a proton/electron composite, they have spin.  And protons are large enough to have spin.  But electrons, NO!   Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) is probably tuned to the neutron.  Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) is NOT a "spin resonance", but an electron orbital resonance.

Yes, quarks are a myth.  No, Gravitational Waves are still in "Special Gravitivity"!!!  This residual electric force (gravity) is just that, and waves of them travel at c just like light!

The CMB is indeed NOT a remnant of the Big Bang.  The CMB is microwaves given off by the MIlky Way.  Don't forget, there is "Milky Way" (not only to the sides of us but) above us and below us.  The MIlky Way is 1000 light years thick.  And the microwave telescopes used for the CMB are so "small" relative to microwave wavelengths that they cannot distinguish the space between stars from the stars.  Watch this video about how:

"...based on extensive experience in the laboratory that it is absolutely impossible to extract a weak underlying signal from a strong overlying signal without either perfect a priori knowledge or ability to manipulate the signal at the source. It is physically unreasonable to remove the (Milky Way) foreground despite the pronouncements of the cosmologists".

 

 

They claim they can take this signal:

 

and remove the overwhelming foreground to reveal a very faint background.  That is like trying to record the sound of a worm crawling while there is some jackhammering going on in the foreground.

Anyway, you can see that this signal totally comes from the Milky Way, and as you "look up" through the the thinner part of the Milky Way the signal gets weaker.

Physics has been very dumb for over 100 years. 

Andrew Ancel Gray 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Jeffreys,

I am not really a relativity denier.  Special Relativity is correct.  It is General Relativity and its "spacetime curvature" that is not correct. We have a weak (not a strong) equivalence principle, so we have Special Gravitivity INSTEAD OF General Relativity.   And, there was a "Big Explosion" (a NON-Beginning-of-Time-Explosion), and not a "Big Bang" (a Beginning-of-Time-Fiction).  There was plenty of time ( more than quadrillions of years) before the "Big Explosion".  A Beginning-of-Time is a silly paradox.  If there were a beginning of time, then what happened before that?  Jeffreys, "something-out-of-nothing" is just stupid.  That is the way it is.

 

And of course I must justify my disbelief in General Relativity.  The so-called GR confirmation experiments are riddled with extreme confirmation bias.  THE WORST IS THE AWFUL Pound-Rebka redshift experiment.  If you actually get the paper and read it yourself, you will see how awful it is.  THEY NEVER EVEN MEASURED THEIR SO-CALLED doppler velocity that they supposedly used to redshift the radiation, and their radioactive sample mounted on a speaker moved with both the doppler velocity and the non-doppler velocity at the same time.    The Pound-Rebka experiment is nothing more than scientific misconduct.  And every time I look VERY closely at a so-called GR confirmation experiment I find this scientific misconduct!  The second worst is the so-called bending of light around the sun. 

 

And Jeffreys, take a look at THIS WMAP image in the W and K microwave bands:  (!!!)

 

They do not want you to see images like these!  The Galactic Plane is a horizontal line right across the center!  The Milky Way is generating ALL KINDS OF MICROWAVES!   And if you look closely near the Galactic "North Pole", there seems to be an area with a lot of Milky Way generated microwaves (there in the North)!  And on the "East" and "West" sides of the galactic plane and curving around to the "South" is another area with A LOT OF MILKY WAY generated microwaves that curve around almost to the galactic "South Pole".  It is obvious to me that these microwaves are generated by the Milky Way.  Now claiming that one can remove this "gigantic" Milky Way foreground signal revealing some "teeny weensy" Big Bang background signal is just stupid.  I am sorry Jeffreys.  That is just the way it is.  Really stupid.

And Jeffreys, Your Mollweide projection would actually look more like this:

 

Your version of this image is just a dream.  Sorry.  Nothing personal to you.  Thinking that you can remove such a gigantic foreground image and reveal a tiny little background image is just stupid.  I am sorry to have to say it again.  Jeffreys, there is an "Big Elephant in the Room", and I am pointing it out!

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elephant in the room

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

 

[write4u]

On 10/24/2022 at 2:05 PM, andrewgray said:

So the Equivalence Principle is actually a weak equivalence principle, and not a strong equivalence principle.  So when you compare motion in an accelerating elevator with motion in a gravity field, you actually get:

1)  You cannot tell the difference between motion of matter in the elevator and motion of matter in the gravity field.  No difference, just as Einstein says!

2)  But a laser beam bends in the elevator and it DOES NOT BEND in the gravity field.  This is how you can tell the difference!

So we actually have a weak equivalence principle and no spacetime curvature!

I question that statement.

In the elevator experiment, it is not the laser beam that moves (bends), it is the elevator that moves (giving the appearance of the laser bending). And that is only because the elevator is accelerating. If the elevator moved at a steady speed the laser would remain straight, albeit at a diagonal orientation, throughout the event .

Hence the leaser beam bends relative (only) to the observer inside the elevator, not to itself or an observer outside the elevator.  The actual beam NEVER bends but does follow the gravitational curvature of spacetime around a massive star. 

What am I missing?

Edited November 2, 2022 by write4u

[write4u]

Question; 

In the theory of Intermittent Electrons, are the intermittent EM states also known as "quantum suspension", the space between change of quantum states?

___^___________^____________^____________^____________^____________^____________^

In my ignorance, I always assumed that the SOL limitation was due to the inability of quantum reality to physically renew itself during the chronology of changing quantum states, thereby also creating the emergent measurable chronology of time.

IOW, at any given time we only experience 1/2 of quantum reality and the other 1/2 is in a state of suspension between quantum expressions.

I based this wild flight of fancy on David Bohm's concept of Implicate  (enfolded) and Explicate (unfolded) orders.

See "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".  (David Bohm)

Free pdf download: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:DownloadAsPdf&page=Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order&action=show-download-screen

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by write4u