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

[Yoron]

Andrew do you have the link(s) from where they reported this kind of behavior? It would be nice to read from the original sources of it and see how they explain it. Okay, I found some but mostly pay sites though. I like that you feel that you have several well defined experiments. That is what you need to get done to get the ball rolling for you. Why not present them here and see what people think? There might be angles you haven't thought of yet, that might be 'lighted up'.

[Little Bang]

Andrew, that 10^18 agrees with a calculation I did quite a while ago on the freq. of the electron as Eras knows.

 

Regarding the on off scenario of an electron, that would mean any field associated with the electron also is off and on. Do you have any fell for how the electron generates this negative field? I must assume this field is opposite that generated by the proton.

[andrewgray]

Yoron,

 

Yeah, here is the link again for the vectorial photoelectric effect:

 

Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper.

 

Also, review this post about the photoelectric effect:

 

The PhotoElectric Effect

 

For the experiments, start here (post #76):

 

The Experiments

 

and read for a few posts. There are other proposed experiments if you are interested.

 

 

Little Bang,

 

How does the electron generate its electric field? Are you referring to the pulsations or to its electric force field in general? Also, the electron's field would be exactly opposite from a positron's field, not a proton's. The proton would still be a pulsating charge, but in a different manner than electron/positrons.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Little Bang]

Andrew, you have done an enormous body of work in preparing an excellent presentation for your theory. It provides solutions for some apparent paradoxes in QM and shows an ability to think outside the box. This does not mean I buy into your theory but will at least consider it's attributes.

 

When I asked about the field of the electron and said it was the same but opposite in charge of the proton that was a true statement. The only difference is if a proton is accelerated at the same rate as an electron the proton will emit radiation of a shorter wavelength. When an electron goes to it's on position it's field would start propagating at C and be accelerated into a circular path around the proton. Wouldn't this acceleration produce a photon? And what is it about the electron that produces this field?

[andrewgray]

Little Bang,

 

Yes, when the electron goes into its "ON" sequence, it would create a spherically symmetric shell around it with electric force, and it would travel outward at c. However, it is known that spherically symmetric fields cannot have radiation. See this post:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/11957-7-reasons-abandon-quantum-mechanics-embrace.html#post179463

 

So no, the pulsating electron would not generate radiation. And

what is it about the electron that produces this field?

This is a question that is the most fundamental and still needs answering. Philosophically, there is a never ending sequence of deeper and deeper knowledge about anything, and one only hopes to get to the level of understanding where all practical experience is accommodated. That said, if the scientific community makes a wrong turn and gets nanophysics incorrect (QM), then the next deeper level of physics will surely be incorrect (femtophysics).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Little Bang]

Amen to that Andrew. I think if Bohr and Heisenberg had not convinced the world we can't understand the electron we might have an answer by now.

[coldcreation]

Andrewgray,

 

Quick question: how do you explain nonlocality, quantum entanglement, nonseparability? And on the subject what do you think of d'Espagnat's philosophical extension of QM, with its 'mind independent reality', or veiled reality?

 

 

CC

[andrewgray]

Cold Creation,

 

Sorry for such a long time answering. What do I think about nonlocality, entanglement, etc?

 

Well, I an totally committed to logic. If a theory shows that there is no local reality, then it is wrong. Reality is something that something must have or else it does not exist! If a theory can "prove" that there is no reality, it is silly. However, for about 100 years, the "put up or shut up doctrine" has prevailed, and no one has been able to "put up" a viable reality-based explanation for the admitting puzzling properties of microscopic systems. I believe that I have made a very good start at such an explanation. It just needs to be tested (the photoelectric effect is extreme support for this new theory already.)

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

coldcreation,

 

As for d'Espagnat, I have not read his books, but this is what I found on Wikipedia:

This is the basis on which Bernard d’Espagnat argues in his recent books for two philosophical claims: (1) Quantum reality is nonseparable and therefore holistic. (2) We cannot know that reality. We only occasionally get a glimpse of it in experiments such as the Bell-type experiments. Quantum theory thus is important for philosophy in two respects: concerning the metaphysics of nature, it shows that nature is holistic instead of atomistic, or multitudinist, as d’Espagnat puts it. Concerning epistemology, it refutes scientific realism: we cannot know nature as it is in itself.

 

I agree that we may not be able to know nature as it is in itself perhaps at the sub-nuclear level, but I certainly disagree with him and believe that we can know nature realistically at the atomic and molecular level. The only limitation for knowing nature at smaller and smaller levels is a practical one, and not an "uncertainty principled" one! We haven't even gotten atomic physics correct yet, and we can "see" individual atoms now easier than ever! But I do not believe that we will be able to "see" individual electrons because they seem to be the smallest things that we can use for probes.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Yoron]

I'm quite impressed with your thinking Andrew.

It would be really nice to see some of the experiments done that you propose.

After all, it's only when they are done the discussion really can start.

 

So, have you gotten any interest from experimentalists?

[Rade]

To Andrew Gray:

 

What would your new theory have to say about interactions of asymmetrical mass units of bags of quarks between matter and antimatter ? Here is a simple problem, perhaps you can shed light.

 

So, let there be up (u) and down (d) quarks, then the antimatter of the (u^), (d^). Then, suppose they interact as superposed quark bags. Here is the situation to apply to your theory:

 

matter (uuddduuud) + antimatter (d^d^u^u^u^d^)

 

The first goes by the name helium-3 (a stable isotope), the second anti-deuterium (also a stable isotope).

 

If you can show the mathematical equation for this using your theory as opposed to what QM predicts, that would be useful. Thank you for your time.

[Qfwfq]

If a theory shows that there is no local reality, then it is wrong. Reality is something that something must have or else it does not exist! If a theory can "prove" that there is no reality, it is silly.

Are you implying that Quantum Mechanics proves that there is no reality? If you think this is so, you might find a few clarifications in this very informative article:

 

Bell's Theorem (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[andrewgray]

Quote

It would be really nice to see some of the experiments done that you propose.

After all, it's only when they are done the discussion really can start.

So, have you gotten any interest from experimentalists?

 

Yoron,

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. Here are a few thoughts. First, it was after this theory was written that I discovered that the photoelectric effect supports this new theory and not QM. The photoejections are sideways (90^o), they are along the polarization of the light wave, and the momentum considerations are not crazy like they are in the "photon version" of QM.

 

Other than that, you are correct. The proof lies in the experiments. So I am really torn. The theory is really not yet complete. So do I pause momentarily in this journey and do one or two of these experiments in my basement for say $10 grand or so? Or do I continue on and finish this theory so it is more complete? Well so far, the theory work has taken precedence over experiment.

 

Other experimentalists? Well, we would be naive to think that some experimentalist in the mainstream would do these experiments for the sake of finding the truth. How can I say this softly and politically correctly? Well, I guess I cannot. But the bottom line is money. Money trumps the quest for the truth every time in the real world of physics. Got money for an experiment? Then it will be done. "Don't have money?". Forget it. It's that simple.

 

That being said, the one experiment that is #1 on my list to do once I get into that mode is the electron-cyclotron e-beam bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency experiment.

This experiment would require an electron cyclotron (most cyclotrons are designed for protons), which are only good up to about 25 KeV. But 25 KeV electrons would be plenty good to check to see if v_max = E_e/h, in this case where the electrons are not accelerated linearly, but alternately in opposite directions, as well as centripetally. This new Model of Reality theory predicts that the cutoff frequency should be lower than that predicted by QM.

 

This and other experiments are mentioned at the end of this paper:

 

A Reality Based Replacement for QM

 

Have a look and let me know what you think.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

PS. I have more to respond to. Will do so soon.

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

What would your new theory have to say about interactions of asymmetrical mass units of bags of quarks between matter and antimatter ?

 

Rade,

 

Let me apologize in advance for this answer. I hope I offend no one with my opinions here. Again, my opinions. You may by now have noticed that I am basically a critic of modern quantum theories. The main criticism is that they are phenomenology theories:

 

Phenomenological Theory: A theory which expresses mathematically the results of observed phenomena without paying detailed attention to their fundamental significance.

 

Translation: QM theorists use non-reality-based theories to experiment-match results and don't really know what is going on. So they made up quarks, gluons, charm, isotopic spin, yadda...yadda, and experiment-matched their "standard model" in successive "oops we didn't get it quite correct" steps, and invented and changed multiple arbitrary parameters to get it to "match".

 

So bottom line: I doubt that there really are quarks. Quarks are a made up construction used to experiment-match and are simply not real. Like I said in a previous post, "QM'ers do not even have nano-scale particles correct. Therefore, it is inconceivable that they have femto-scale particles correct."

 

The same argument for the preciseness of the "Lamb Shift" and other quantum theories can be applied to the preciseness of Sommerfeld's extension of Bohr's atomic theory. Sommerfeld's extension of Bohr's theory was amazingly precise for its day (and the origin of the famous fine structure constant), but it was hogwash. People are clever and can experiment-match and use confirmation bias to a fool's conclusion. When one is free to "make stuff up without regard to reality", then it is easy to get answers that are "precise". It is no wonder that QM theory is claimed to be the most precise scientific theory in the history of science.

[Qfwfq]

I'm trying to think of modern physics theories that match that definition of Phenomenological Theory less than QM does. I'm trying to think of older ones that don't match it but the "fundamental significance" of which was more than a mere model... or even hogwash.

 

Now, in some cases, the model gradually grew into something more or less observable, and in turn investigatable, such as atoms.

 

QM theorists use non-reality-based theories to experiment-match results and don't really know what is going on..

QM is a mathematical formalism. Strictly speaking, it is more this than "a theory" and this is how physicists typically regard it: a method of computing expectations.

 

So they made up quarks, gluons, charm, isotopic spin, yadda...yadda,

They did what? Not the QM theorists but the particle theorists. What happened was that the particle experimentalists were observing a whole zoology of particles and, naturally, folks were trying to make some kinda sense out of them all.

 

Once the distinction between fermions and bosons had (very soon) become apparent, and then that between leptons and hadrons, so some Clever Dick thought up the parton model which grew into the quark model. So? What did those asses go and do? They tried to work out consequences of this model that could be falsifiable despite confinement and put'em to the test.

 

...and experiment-matched their "standard model" in successive "oops we didn't get it quite correct" steps, and invented and changed multiple arbitrary parameters to get it to "match".

Uhm, ya mean, they continued applying the scientific method to it? Is this what you are accusing them of?

 

So bottom line: I doubt that there really are quarks. Quarks are a made up construction used to experiment-match and are simply not real.

I also doubt that there really are electrons, muons, photons and so on... oooops, I mean that there are these little poinlike things like the classical notion of a corpuscle. I don't doubt they exist, as some wierd kind of things whose behaviours are describable by quantum field theory, but what exactly they are is still beyond our imagination and I suspect it might forever remain beyond our capacity.

 

Like I said in a previous post, "QM'ers do not even have nano-scale particles correct. Therefore, it is inconceivable that they have femto-scale particles correct."

Er, exactly how wrong do they get the nano-scale particles? The Bohr radius is something like a 20th of a nanometre, this means a ball of diameter even just above 1 nm is many hundreds of atoms which might be in molecules. How much more exactly are you able to work them out?

 

Physicists and chemists using QM get atoms mighty correct, they get molecules perddy good too and they get some great results with nuclei and hadrons despite the difficulties of QCD. Do you provide an improved alternative?

 

The same argument for the preciseness of the "Lamb Shift" and other quantum theories can be applied to the preciseness of Sommerfeld's extension of Bohr's atomic theory. Sommerfeld's extension of Bohr's theory was amazingly precise for its day (and the origin of the famous fine structure constant), but it was hogwash. People are clever and can experiment-match and use confirmation bias to a fool's conclusion. When one is free to "make stuff up without regard to reality", then it is easy to get answers that are "precise". It is no wonder that QM theory is claimed to be the most precise scientific theory in the history of science.

Nice. So, the scientific method is a fool's game, a big con scheme that folks are getting bamboozled with. You're certainly right in starting with the disclaimer, stating that it's your opinion and walking on eggs hoping not to offend people with it. You're right to exercise caution about it 'cause some hot heads could otherwise be howling away, pretty soon from now. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope your disclaimer suffices.

 

Now, about this new theory that you propose we should all embrace. In it, you don't seem to be "making stuff up without regard to reality", You seem to be proposing this solid fact about an electron that somehow knows when to switch its field on and off, just to avoid radiating when it can't afford to. You seem to be showing exactly why it gets accelerated by the proton's field only and exactly when its own is switched off. Yes, without the faintest hint of conjecturality in these premises, eh? Nobody will have to work out all consequences of your theory to check how well they match such a wealth of data and phenomenology, even less will they find it necessary to refine your theory before it will be acclaimed as being more precise than QM and hence replace it. Is this what you mean to say?

[andrewgray]

Qfwfq,

 

Yeah again, I must apologize for my opinions, which surely are not too popular with the mainstream. But there seemed no other way for me to answer Rade's question.

 

Yes, we need to discuss the scientific method. Keep in mind that the true scientific method does not exist just like true capitalism doesn't. The "scientific method" in practice today is heavily influenced by the physics group think inertia. The physics group think inertia cannot react to revolution, only evolution. Here is how the scientific method should work:

 

1) Propose theory/hypothesis.

2) Test with experiment.

3) Accept/reject theory/hypothesis.

 

Here is how it really works with group think inertia:

 

1) Propose theory/hypothesis.

2) Test with experiment.

3) If it works, fine.

4) If it does not, make stuff up to make it "work".

 

The best example of this is when neutrino data absolutely blew neutrino theory "out of the water". Didn't work? Well then make up "neutrino oscillations" and match it with data that we found. In my opinion, there are no neutrinos, only ultra gamma rays.

 

Also, the physics group think inertia will never admit when there is overwhelming evidence against. Again, for example, there is overwhelming evidence that the "photon version" of the photoelectric effect is way off. The electrons are ejected sideways from a metal vapor, instead of forward like would be expected for a "particle interaction". In addition, the electrons are ejected along the polarization of the light wave. Finally, the momentum considerations for the QM "photon version" are really silly (see previous posts in this thread.) In spite of this overwhelming evidence, and evidence that this new theory is correct, the group think inertia cannot be moved.

 

Yes, QM has molecules (nanometer sized particles) incorrect. Take organic molecules with covalent bonds. QM uses "probability wave overlap" (wrong) to describe the bonds, using made up "hybrid sp3 carbon orbitals" (wrong). In reality, I am betting that the covalent bonds are a pair of electrons in planetary orbits in-between the carbon and hydrogen nuclei, using only coulomb forces to describe the bond. This logic seems sound to me. But QM's logic that the carbon's electron would tend to have a high spacial probability where the partner hydrogen atom's electron also has high spatial probability escapes me. Perhaps we will get the "made up" Pauli Principle in explanation, I do not know.

 

Finally, we need to discuss particle theory. We use an analogy. Take two pieces of soft clay and blast them together at Mach 10. Some arbitrary sized chunks of clay will come spraying out, right? Suppose that I predict that an 80 gram chunk of clay will appear in the spray and write a detailed paper making this claim using a made up framework. Well, lo and behold, after 100,000 clay collisions, an 80 gram chunk of clay is detected. Lobel Prize! Excitement! I was correct!

 

This is exactly how modern particle physics appears to me. Perhaps it is even worse than the clay analogy, since all of the "chunks" only last an extremely short period of time. In my opinion, modern particle physics is irrelevant, just like other branches of modern physics are becoming.

 

I realize that these opinions are not popular in the mainstream, and again, let me apologize if I offend some sensibilities. I do truly cherish the pure logic of such discussions if possible.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Boerseun]

Andrew, I haven't been really following this thread, but from the last few posts I just have a few things to say:

 

Particle physicists don't "invent" new particles to make up for gaps in theory vs. experiment. New proposed particles must not only fill the observed gaps experimentation have pointed out in current theory, but they must also be consistent with everything else we know. You don't just pull a particle out of a hat - the description of any sort of new particle is a rigorous exercise in maths and physics to ensure that the proposed new particle don't clash with anything else. It doesn't work to propose a particle that causes cheese to be blue if that particular particle will make it impervious to gravity, if you catch my drift.

 

But be that as it may, the entire concept of atoms being little balls with electrons in planetary orbits (which you agree with) is also mere conjecture with proposed particles which some physicist have pulled out of his ear (which you don't agree with). Fact is, nobody has ever seen an atom. The best we can do is to propose a model that comes as close to predicting what matter does under certain forces and at certain scales that agrees as closely as possible with experimental results. Any physicist is free to propose that gluons are actually tiny inverted banana skins, but if it doesn't agree with theory, it's simply wrong. If it's consistent with theory and makes predictions that can be tested, Bob's your uncle. As a matter of fact, the entire LHC has its existence to thank to your attitude. For many, many years, physicists have been pulling imaginary particles outta their asses. So they built the LHC to determine which of these Nobel Jockeys have smoked their socks and who might actually be on to something.

 

Also, your 80g piece of soft clay example is one huge giant strawman. Thing is, the prediction of particles coming out of a collision isn't merely pulling a figure out of the air. If your clay example always shot off an 80g piece under such and such conditions and that 80g piece always follows a certain path with a certain lifetime after being smashed with a certain amount of energy before disappearing, then yes - you might say that the 80g piece of clay might even be fundamental to your clay blob under those circumstances. But smash it at ten times the power, and you might end up with a bunch of 10g pieces with different properties - which some crazy scientist dude might even have predicted, along with their properties. The key word is always. What you're talking about, and why your entire argument is a strawman, is random. Think about it. The one is predictable and science, the other not, and a strawman.