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

[andrewgray]

 

Quote

An experiment caught a quantum system in the middle of a jump...

Write4u,

By now, you could have realized that there are no quantum jumps in atoms.  About 100 years ago, Niels Bohr made up this "quantum jump" mythology with "fauxton emission" mythology to go along with it!  Now let us think about these myths for a minute.  The atom emits well-formed sinusoidal light waves that are indeed "well-formed"!   Just imagine a chaotic transition between two orbitals of an atom and try to imagine "well-formed" EM waves being generated during this chaotic transition between orbitals.  You cannot!  "Quantum jumps" with sinusoidal EM emissions are the dumbest thing since epicycles!

In reality, the atomic frequencies seen in atomic spectra are orbital frequencies THAT EXIST IN THE ATOM.  These EXISTING frequencies are thermally disturbed and then radiate "well-formed" sinusoidal EM waves. Now this makes sense!  The main thing early 1900s physicists could not figure out was "how an electron could orbit a nucleus without radiating ALL THE TIME".  It took this New Wisdom, Intermittent Electron Theory to explain that!  The electron and the nucleus pulsate in such a way that the electron is OFF when it is accelerated around in the orbit!

So you physicists have been stuck with all this dumb, makes-no-sense, "quantum jump" theory for over 100 years!  Ouch, that is dumb.

Give it up!

Andrew Ancel Gray   

And you electrical engineers out there reading this forum...!!  How could you guys let physicist go down such a dumb path for 100 years without saying anything???   This quantum dumbness is partially on you guys too!  Have you guys ever seen a radio wave fauxton??  There goes one!

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by andrewgray

[Aghmen]

 

[andrewgray]

 

Quote

Does Quantum Entanglement Allow for Faster-Than-Light Communications?

Aghmen,

This forum really needs to be entitled:

Quote

"Andrew Gray explains away stupid modern physics claims!"

Anyway, we are talking about Alain-Aspect-style "entangled fauxton" polarization experiments.  We covered this subject in previous posts, but it is worthwhile to go over it again!

 

So Aghmen, we use an 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!

 

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 and further conclude FASTER-THAN-LIGHT communication!

3.  Contradiction!

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

 

Aghmen, it is just that simple.  All those contradictions and myths that you see in experiments like these are resolved by simply throwing out Einstein's assumption about the existence of "fauxtons!"   There are no fauxtons!

 

Better get used to it.  It is coming.

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

So now that is seems quiet on this thread, it is time to lay down the

 

Bremsstrahlung Cutoff Killer Experiment!

 

So we start with an x-ray tube:

We see an electron beam emitted by the cathode, striking the tungsten anode!  The electrons go bouncing around inside the tungsten, being accelerated back and forth so fast that they emit x-ray waves!  Like this:

But there is an x-ray frequency limit!  If we plot x-ray intensity vs. x-ray frequency, there is a cutoff frequency that depends on electron beam energy that looks like this:

So, for example, the cutoff frequency for 25 KeV electrons is 6 exahertz!  And this cutoff frequency does not change even if you make the anode material denser so the electrons have faster collisions!  So look at the x-ray tube again:

In the lower right corner we have magnified the electron beam.  We show the electrons pulsing ON and OFF according to De Broglie!  And as they gain more and more energy, they pulsate faster and faster!  Just like we show in the inset!  How fast do they pulsate according to De Broglie when they get to the tungsten anode???  Well... we start with De Broglie's formula:

Notice that De Broglie's formula gives an extra factor of 2 that we are not used to!  This says that for linear acceleration, the electron's pulsation frequency is twice its Kinetic Energy over Planck's constant (2E/h)!  But if the electron is pulsating at this De Broglie frequency while generating x-ray waves, it naturally has a Nyquist Frequency Limit for its emitted x-ray waves!  This Nyquist Limit is ½ the electron's  pulsation frequency or, as expected:

 

Folks, this x-ray cutoff frequency HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FAUXTONS!  It simply comes from the Nyquist Frequency Limit for a pulsating electron that is getting accelerated back and forth and radiating!  NO FAUXTONS!

And... if you are not familiar with Nyquist Frequency Limits, watch this video!!!  :

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lAdUM62V3ALN_cxKOHUNdYnQDh5DZDZu/view?usp=sharing

 

Now we are ready for the Bremsstrahlung Cutoff Killer Experiment!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

[andrewgray]

As we saw in the previous message, the electron pulsates according to De Broglie for the linear acceleration in an x-ray tube:

Then, when the pulsating electron strikes the tungsten anode, its EM emissions are limited by a Nyquist Frequency Limit that is half the electron pulsation frequency!

Again, this has nothing to do with "fauxtons"!  But we are very sure that this DeBroglie/Nyquist relation is true for linear accelerations, but what about circular accelerations?  Does the De Broglie formula remain true for an electron accelerated by a cyclotron?  Probably NOT!  We need to find out!  In the linear x-ray tube, the electron is obviously accelerated in the same direction for the whole time!  But in a cyclotron, the electron is accelerated linearly one way, then centripetally accelerated, then linearly accelerated the other way (over and over again!).  This is different and could result in a different electron pulsation frequency!    If a 25 KeV linearly-accelerated-electron pulsates differently than a 25 KeV cyclotron-accelerated-electron, then guess what???   Their x-ray frequency limits will be different when they slam into the tungsten, disproving QM (Quantum Mythology!)  QM says that the x-ray frequency limit will be the same for these two cases.  If they are different, then we can get rid of QM!

So one of you "soon-to-be-not-so-dumb" young physicists out there needs to do the Bremsstahlung Cutoff Killer Experiment!

The experimental setup would be like this:

 

Do this experiment with the electron cyclotron and find the x-ray cutoff frequency.   Compare this frequency with E/h !!!  It could be different!  If it is, goodbye QM!

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

 

[andrewgray]

It is time to continue with experimental proof that we do not have QM (Quantum Mythology), and we DO have New Wisdom Unifies Physics!  So which Quantum Mythology are we going to talk about next???  Well,  this one:  (!!!)

 

Atomic Energy Level Mythology!  The mythology above is easy to see now that we know what is REALLY going on in the atom!  You see, Bohr and Einstein just made up this "fauxton-emission-during-level-transition" mythology.  Bohr saw that the Balmer Formula was a subtraction of two "1 over n²" terms, and Einstein had already made up "fauxtons".  So Bohr put Einstein's mythological "fauxtons" together with his mythological "energy levels" and pretended a sinusoidal EM "fauxton" could be emitted while a chaotic electron transition occurred between levels.  What nonsense!

In reality, these EM frequencies exist in the hydrogen atom.  These frequencies exist in the atom because the electrons are orbiting at these frequencies!  Why don't they radiate continuously?  (If you do not know already, then watch these videos!)

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

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

In the Bohr diagram above, the Lyman (1,7) "jump" corresponds to the electron almost being ejected from the hydrogen atom.  And indeed, in Bohr's scenario, the Lyman (1,∞) "jump" corresponds to ionization.  The Lyman (1,∞) "drop" would correspond to the chaotic capture of a free electron by a proton.  Just think about this for a moment.  A free electron is chaotically captured by a proton and while doing so it emits only regular sinusoidal UV radiation of just one frequency?  Nonsense! Just plain nonsense!  The electron would emit slow, then faster and faster frequencies until it settled into its final orbit!  You might as well face the logic!  Bohr and Einstein's logic is QM (Quantum Mythology)!

 

Sinusoidal EM waves ARE NOT emitted during chaotic transitions!  They are emitted when orbitals with these orbital frequencies are thermally disturbed, causing them to radiate their resonant frequency!  So the hydrogen diagram changes to this:

So instead of the Lyman (1,∞) frequency corresponding to the electron's [ejection/capture] [to/from] about 50Å (!), the Lyman (1,∞) frequency actually corresponds to the most tightly bound electron orbital at about .8Å.  This inner electron orbits at this frequency without radiating and only emits at this Lyman frequency when it is thermally disturbed!  We finally know what is really going on in the atom so we can devise experiments to prove it!

So Next!    The Energy Level Killer Experiments!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited January 26, 2023 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

So the first Energy Level Killer Experiment is the

Lyman Killer Experiment!

According to QM (Quantum Mythology), the Lyman (1,∞) ultra-violet frequency corresponds to the complete ionization of the hydrogen atom.   We will show by experiment that this is NOT true.  First we must know this: (!)

(Fundamentals of Modern Physics, Eisberg, p 113)  Only the Lyman series shows up in the absorption spectrum of hydrogen at room temperature!  This means that the Lyman (1,∞) frequency shows up in the hydrogen absorption spectrum. What this means is that the hydrogen absorbs the Lyman (1,∞) frequency just like it absorbs the Lyman (1,2), Lyman (1,3), Lyman (1,4)... frequencies.  We want to let hydrogen gas at room temperature absorb Lyman (1,∞) UV light and see if hydrogen is actually ionized as QM claims.  According to QM if we illuminate hydrogen with (1,∞) UV light, then electrons will be freed from their hydrogen nucleus and can cause an electric current through the hydrogen gas when a small voltage is applied!   We claim that the Lyman (1,∞) UV light is NOT the special ionizing frequency!   The experimental setup is as follows!

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

The Lyman Killer Experiment!

We want to set up an experiment that shines the Lyman (1,∞) light into hydrogen vapor and show that it does NOT actually ionize hydrogen as QM claims it does.  The Lyman (1,∞) frequency is actually the tightest electron orbital frequency possible for hydrogen and it actually exists in the hydrogen atom as shown below: 

The Lyman(1,∞) frequency does NOT correspond to "electron-ionization" as QM claims!

So first we prepare a hydrogen emission setup and use a prism to separate the Lyman(1,∞), Lyman(1,2), Lyman(1,3), and Lyman(1,4) frequencies.  Like this:

Then we let just the Lyman(1,∞) UV light into an absorption hydrogen vessel.  We block out all the other frequencies.  If Quantum Mythology is correct, then this frequency should ionize any hydrogen atom it contacts.  We put a small voltage across the vapor and see if this Lyman(1,∞) light starts an electric current.  

Next, we do the same for Lyman(1,2), Lyman(1,3), and the Lyman(1,4) frequencies (one at a time) and see what current, if any, they induce.  According to our New Wisdom Theory, all of these frequencies should act the same, including the Lyman(1,∞) frequency!  According to QM, only the Lyman(1,∞) will generate any current.  We need to find out! 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Next:

The Balmer Killer Experiment!

Edited January 27, 2023 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

The Balmer Killer Experiment!

According to Quantum Mythology, the Lyman(1,2) frequency raises the hydrogen's electron from the mythological energy level 1 to the mythological energy level 2, like this:

We learned from above that hydrogen only absorbs the Lyman Series UV light at room temperature. It does not absorb Balmer or any other series' frequencies at room temperature!  Supposedly, if we shine Lyman(1,2) light into hydrogen, then there will supposedly be many hydrogen atoms "in the n=2 energy level!"  Then, once there, with n=2, these electrons can supposedly experience "Balmer Series absorption" and start absorbing Balmer frequencied light.  We want to prove that this is NOT true, and that the Lyman(1,2) frequency has nothing to do with the mythological n=2 energy level! (The Lyman(1,2) frequency is actually an electron orbital frequency present in the hydrogen!)

So we will use the hydrogen emission setup (in the message above) to isolate the Lyman(1,2) frequency and let it shine into a hydrogen absorption vessel!  According to Quantum Mythology, this should supposedly start Balmer absorption in the hydrogen since there will be electrons present in the mythological n=2 level!

So we simultaneously do a visible-light-hydrogen-absorption-experiment while also shining Lyman(1,2) UV light into the vessel!  If Quantum Mythology is correct, one should be able to get a visible-light-Balmer-absorption-spectrum while doing this absorption spectrum at room temperature!

We need to find out!

In reality, Lyman absorption is just the resonant re-transmission of the UV light (by electrons with these orbital frequencies) "with phase shifts that cancel!"

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited January 27, 2023 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

The next topic we want to talk about is the Hubble Diagram.  The Hubble Diagram shows that the further away a galaxy cluster is from us, the faster it is moving away from us!  Something like this:

This diagram is used by astronomers to claim that spacetime itself is expanding.  "The universe is expanding", is what is colloquially said!  So let's do a little thought experiment.  Let's take a grenade out to a safe distance from the space-station and explode it!  We want to plot the velocity diagram of the grenade fragments vs. distance after 100 seconds.  A fragment plot may look something like this:

Notice that the furthest grenade fragments have the fastest velocity BECAUSE THEY WERE EJECTED THE FASTEST AND HENCE HAVE TRAVELED THE FURTHEST.  As you would expect.  Duh.  The Hubble Constant for this grenade fragment explosion is H=10.3 m/s/km.  So what?  That DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SPACETIME AROUND THIS GRENADE EXPLOSION IS EXPANDING.  It just means there was a big explosion and the fastest fragments traveled the furthest.  AGAIN I SAY, "Duh!"

 

What does this mean?  It simply means that the top diagram DOES IMPLY THAT THERE WAS A BIG EXPLOSION, but that it only means we are fairly near the center of the explosion and that the fastest ejected galaxies traveled the furthest.  That's all it means.  We are going to have to rename The Big Bang to The Big Explosion!  Spacetime "does not expand".  That is just nonsense.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

[andrewgray]

Quote

JeffreysTubes:  If the highest redshift is just the nearest proximity to the largest super massive black hole...

Jeffreys,

First of all, all of General Relativity's "confirmation experiments" are HEAVILY confirmation biased.  The WORST being the Pound and Rebka experiment where they did not even measure their supposed Doppler velocity on a speaker which they went ahead and USED anyway.  What I am saying is that we have Special Gravitivity and NOT General Relativity.  We have a Weak Equivalence Principle, and therefore there is NO spacetime curvature, which means that black holes are NONSENSE.  Sagittarius A* is actually a gigantic neutron star with gravity so great that there are no atoms present.  Everything is compressed to neutrons.  Therefore, without atoms, there is no visible  light emanating from Sagittarius A*, only x-rays and gamma rays.  That's right.  Look at Sagittarius A* with an x-ray telescope and there it is!  :

Look at it!  The object you supposedly cannot see... and there it is you dummies!  Duh!  I can see it, can you?

The Chandrasekhar Limit (which uses General Relativity and even more nonsensical "electron degeneracy" to limit a neutron star's mass) is NONSENSE, just like General Relativity.  You mainstream physicists have wonderment about many stars rapidly orbiting something that is black in the visible, but if you use x-rays,

There it is!

Duh. Jeffreys, you might as well face it!  There are many myths in modern physics these days.  Myths that have been around for a century!

Quote

... according to my quantum gravity ...

Jeffreys, "quantum gravity" is a myth upon a myth, or a "double myth" if you will.  First of all, QA (Quantum Anything) is all nonsense, so to make "gravitons" out of gravitational waves is "going off the deep end" crazy. Just like EM waves are waves and only waves, gravity waves are waves and only waves!

Quote

We can still calculate the age of the universe by the light of the furthest object we can see.

No!  We can calculate a lower limit to how long ago "The Big Explosion" happened.  That's all.  The Universe having an "age" is a paradox.  Jeffreys, what happened before the Universe was born?  Huh?  Duh.

Quote

If the universe is infinite in size (not duration) and isn't expanding, nonetheless all the stars will eventually be just iron stars.

Jeffreys, anything but "infinite duration" of the Universe is a paradox.  And yes, we may have a bunch of "iron stars" around our part of the Universe until another big crunch happens and it explodes again (which may make a LOT of hydrogen again)!

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

Quote

However, strong gravity is in fact superluminal where more than one graviton is combined into one and generates a g-wave, at least within the event horizon.

Jeffreys,  this is NonSense.  It is scary to me how nonsensical this is. There is no wave-particle "duality".  Making a "gravity particle" out of gravity waves is scary nonsensical. 

Yes, according to Obler's paradox, if galaxies were evenly distributed throughout the universe, the night sky would be bright.  So that just means that galaxies are NOT evenly distributed throughout the universe. 

[andrewgray]

And I have claimed that General Relativity "confirmation experiments" are heavy with confirmation bias!  General Relativity's "spacetime curvature" is nonsense.  What about "Mercury's Perihelion Procession" I hear you say.   Well, let's look at it.

The first thing that comes to mind about the orbit of Mercury around the Sun is that MERCURY DOES NOT ORBIT THE SUN!  Mercury orbits the barycenter of the solar system.   The Sun also orbits the barycenter of the solar system!  As a matter of fact, when Jupiter and Saturn are lined up, the Sun is completely outside the solar system's barycenter!  Like this:

As you can see, Mercury's perihelion in the inertial barycentric coordinates IS NOT the same as Mercury's perihelion in the accelerated, non-inertial heliocentric coordinates.  Newton's Laws and General Relativity are invalid in heliocentric non-inertial coordinates. But astronomers have been measuring this false perihelion in heliocentric coordinates for centuries.  So what is this error angle, I wondered.  This error angle θ shown here :

Just how far off the real inertial perihelion have astronomers been measuring the non-inertial perihelion????  Well, the Sun is approximately 3/4 of a solar diameter (~1,000,000 km) away from the barycenter, and Mercury is at about 46,000,000 km away from the barycenter.  So this angle is aproximately  arcsin( 1.0/46) ≈ 1.25° !!!  So there is a maximum of 1.25° of slop in the perihelion measurement of Mercury away from inertial coordinates!  1.25° !!!   So it is nonsense to claim a 0.16° perihelion-precession PER CENTURY when astronomers can be 1.25° in error away from the true inertial coordinate perihelion! (technically a barycenter periapsis).  So Mercury-precession claims matching GR  are probably confirmation bias guided scientific misconduct !!!  They can wait and measure anything that they want so it agrees with GR !!!

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited March 2, 2023 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Quote

A physicist discovering that there are no photons would be just as catastrophic as an electrical engineer discovering that there are no electrons.  Except there are no photons!

So there are no photons.  What does that mean for the future of physics???

Well, it is catastrophic for a century of theoretical physics!

Quantum Anything is gone!  We have shown that atomic physics is based in reality and is analog, not quantized!  E.g., the photoelectric effect is caused by an acceleration resonance for the threshold followed by a non-acceleration resonance for the KE limit!  The double slit experiment simply tests the threshold intensity of the detector, and on and on...  Quantum is gone!  You physicists must face this!  You may not like it, but you must face this! 

 

 

Quote

An astronomer discovering that there is no spacetime curvature would be just as catastrophic as an electrical engineer discovering that there are no electrons.  Except there is no spacetime curvature!

So there is no spacetime curvature!  Instead we have a weak equivalence principle and Special Gravitivity!  What does that mean for the future of theoretical astronomy???

Well, it is catastrophic for a century of theoretical astronomy!  Spacetime curvature is a goner!  We have shown that all general relativity experiments are fraught with confirmation bias.  E.g., the Pound/Rebka redshift-doppler experiment was done with a vibrating speaker instead of a simple moving cart, and the velocity of the radioactive sample actually  included the non-redshift velocity and the velocity actually used was never even measured!  Never measured!  Scientific misconduct!  Another example:  Mercury does NOT orbit the sun!  It orbits the inertial barycenter of our solar system.  There is a maximum of a 1.25° difference between the perihelion position and actual inertial barycenter periapsis position (and this can be "fudged" so it agrees with general relativity)!  Final example:  the bending of light around the sun is due to refraction from the massive amounts of atomic hydrogen in the solar atmosphere (proven by the fact that the solar Balmer hydrogen spectrum is an ABSORPTION spectrum, and not an emission spectrum.  All that Balmer emission from a 1000 quettagrams of atomic hydrogen is absorbed by the solar atmosphere!!!! )!  ...

So we have Special Gravitivity instead of general relativity.  You physicists must face this.  You may not like it, but you must face it.  There are no Black Holes.  You can look out at Sagittarius A* with an x-ray telescope and see it.  It is not black in the x-ray frequency spectrum.  Special Gravitivity predicts that Sagittarius A* is simply a giant neutron star ( the Chandrasekhar limit is spacetime curvature nonsense) so there are no atoms present on the star to emit visible light, that's all.  So it looks "black" in the visible spectrum, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE X-RAY SPECTRUM!  I can see it, and so can you! Just use an x-ray telescope!  There it is!

So general relativity is gone!  You may not like it, but you must face it!

 

The state of nuclear physics in not much better.  We will get to that next time!

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited March 4, 2023 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

So let's talk about binding energy of nuclei.  When you take some neutrons and protons and bind them together into a nucleus, the resulting nucleus is ALWAYS less massive than the sum of the masses of the constituent protons and neutrons.  ALWAYS.  So in general, when you take two things and bind them together, the mass of the result is always  less than the mass of the parts!  Some binding energy escapes!

So the mass of both the proton and electron can be measured with a mass spectrometer.  The masses are as follows:

Mass of proton:      1.67262 yoctograms

Mass of electron:   0.00091 yoctograms

But the mass of the neutron is tricky because one cannot use a mass spectrometer.  The way modern physicists calculate the neutron mass is by using a deuteron.  The equation used is:

But they use 0.003921 yoctograms for the mass-energy of the "photon". To mass-balance the equation, this leaves the neutron mass as 1.67492 yoctograms! 

But that means that the neutron would be more massive than a proton + electron!

proton + electron :  1.67358 yoctograms

neutron:                   1.67492

This seems impossible since putting two things together ALWAYS results in less mass.  What is wrong?

Well. we have seen that there ARE NO PHOTONS!  Bluntly, like this:

 

The emitted gamma radiation is NOT an EM particle!  We have shown that EM radiation is analog and can be emitted in ANY AMOUNT OF ENERGY, so their neutron mass is in error!

Quote

A physicist discovering that their neutron mass is in error would be just as catastrophic as an electrical engineer discovering that their electron charge is in error.  Except the neutron mass is in error!

Since the neutron mass is in error, we can go back to Chadwick's original idea that a neutron is a proton/electron composite.  This makes so much more sense!  (QUARKS ARE NONSENSE!)  So the maximum mass that a neutron can be is 1.67358 yoctograms.  The neutron's mass would be (1.67358 ygrams) - (Its Binding Energy)!

 

This makes so much more sense!  You "soon-not-to-be-so-dumb" physicists had better start using this new knowledge to make some progress in modern physics!  Get with it!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited March 29, 2023 by andrewgray