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

[Knothead]

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

 

I don't understand one percent of what I've read in this thread, but that sure seems to make sense.

Thank you Mr. Gray. I really like the way you explain things.

 

I know, I know.

I'm leaving.

[Qfwfq]

1) Propose theory/hypothesis.

2) Test with experiment.

3) Accept/reject theory/hypothesis.

Oversimplification. Reject doesn't mean that never again should anything similar be considered. It can even mean it isn't quite exact and perfect. Look where it doesn't match up, try to find what the discrepancy could depend on, use a problem-solving approach, seek something that works a bit better.

 

Sometimes someone comes along with a wholly new approach that might be even better than patching up, it has happened. Often a radically new approach meets with criticism but then proves better.

 

In my opinion, there are no neutrinos, only ultra gamma rays.

Take a strong beta source and surround it with shielding that's adequate for the beta particles but which gamma can easily get through. Hold whatever Geiger you like around it and tell me if you find gamma. If you are correct then you ought to find such a result for any beta source and your spectral data ought to be compatible with energy-momentum conservation. Guess what, it was the lack of this which led Henry to suggest the idea of the neutrino.

 

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.

I'm not much informed on this but in any case it wouldn't induce me to say QM is wrong.

 

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).

Why 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.

You bet!!!!!!!!! :cocktail:

 

Your theory seems sound to you, QM escapes you. What does this prove to me? Nothing. It only suggests to me that you don't understand QM and I don't understand your theory.

 

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!

Especially if you had calculated the probability and the computed value is in line with the counts. 1 out of 100 thousand is a high frequency compared to some events, when the top quark was first announced the had found 10 or so candidate events after months of data. Both groups kept on running, because 10 events weren't considered to be an abundant sample, just barely sufficient to say we seem to be reaching the goal.

[andrewgray]

Qfwfq,

 

Sorry for so long to reply. I was in LA giving a talk on my paper. Now for some more friendly idea exchange!

 

Quote

Take a strong beta source and surround it with shielding that's adequate for the beta particles but which gamma can easily get through. Hold whatever Geiger you like around it and tell me if you find gamma. If you are correct then you ought to find such a result for any beta source and your spectral data ought to be compatible with energy-momentum conservation.

 

What I said was Ultragamma. This is my own analogy like UHF is to HF, Ultragamma is to gamma. A whole frequency range above gamma rays. I agree that something is coming out of reactors, I just doubt that it is a particle traveling at the speed of light with no mass. This is in my opinion, from looking at the evidence. As far as energy/momentum, as I stated in a previous post, this new Model of Reality Theory has microscopic tunneling which accounts for this discrepancy. Either way, (making up an imaginary particle, or not having strict microscopic conservation of energy), it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

 

Quote

Sometimes someone comes along with a wholly new approach that might be even better than patching up, it has happened. Often a radically new approach meets with criticism but then proves better.

I hope this new Model of Reality Theory is this wholly new approach of which you speak.

 

Quote

I'm not much informed on this but in any case it wouldn't induce me to say QM is wrong...Your theory seems sound to you, QM escapes you. What does this prove to me? Nothing. It only suggests to me that you don't understand QM and I don't understand your theory.

OK, then this gives me an excuse to continue clarifying this new theory with some graphics & animations that I made for my talk. Here is the first:

Like I said, when light strikes a metal plate (or metal vapor), the electrons are ejected sideways, and are not skewed in the forward direction as one would expect from particle interactions. In addition, the electrons are ejected along the polarization of the light wave. Finally, for UV light, the photoelectrons typically have crazy final momenta, typically about 200h[font=Times New

Roman]v[/font]/c, or 200 times the momentum of a "photons-worth" of UV light (which is just QM crazy), in the transverse (90^o) direction, which forebodes ominously for the future of the "photon version" of this effect.

 

So how does this new theory get around all of this? Well, light is a wave and an electron is a particle (pulsating according to De Broglie). The free electron in the metal is pulsating at some frequency. If it is pulsating in sync with the "UP" part of the wave, then the electron will be ejected upwards, like this:

Next, as the electron is accelerated, it increases its frequency, according to De Broglie. As its frequency changes, it gets out of sync with the "UP" part of the wave, and its acceleration starts to stall. Finally, when the electron's pulsation gets in sync with both the "UP" and "DOWN" part of the light wave, the acceleration is over. A non-acceleration resonance has occured:

Here is a view of the same thing, but as viewed by an observer traveling alongside the photoelectron:

So we have the desired result: 1) The electron obtains an energy limited by hv 2) It is ejected sideways, 3) It is ejected along the polarization of the light wave, and 4) There are no crazy momentum considerations coming into play.

 

Out of time. Will return soon. Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Quote

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).

Quote

Why wrong?

 

Qfwfq,

 

Why are sp³ orbitals wrong? Well listen to how they are "derived" (taken from Fundamentals of Chemistry by Rod O'Connor):

 

Here we see the blatant QFF. The "directions to average" is a non-linear Fudge Factor that totally changes the nature of things so that the sp3 "orbital" is no longer a solution to the Schrodinger equation. This is a great example of non-reality based fudging in QM. Just toss in a non-linear "direction function" so one can make a tetrahedral shape from two shapes that are completely non-tetrahedral. This blatant "patch-up" explains nothing in my opinion. In addition, the appearance that "things have been explained" (when they have not) actually hinders progress being made on correct explanations.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[Qfwfq]

In order to see your images properly, I had to replace the domain names with IP address, there seems to be a DNS problem. I thought you should know because if the IP changes the links will be no good again.

 

Sorry for so long to reply.

No problem, I don't have too much time myself. :hyper:

 

What I said was Ultragamma. This is my own analogy like UHF is to HF, Ultragamma is to gamma. A whole frequency range above gamma rays. I agree that something is coming out of reactors, I just doubt that it is a particle traveling at the speed of light with no mass.

You don't show why a geiger counter wouldn't detect them, then you say you believe them to have a non zero mass. Folks know what energy and momentum to expect, but you conjecture the conservation not being strict. I don't see whyt his is more reality-based than the neutrino.

 

Like I said, when light strikes a metal plate (or metal vapor), the electrons are ejected sideways, and are not skewed in the forward direction as one would expect from particle interactions. In addition, the electrons are ejected along the polarization of the light wave.

It isn't that simple at all, and anyway don't forget the correspondence principle. In the figure, wher you say "definitely not a particle collision" you seem to be supposing impact parameter to have zero value. Have you ever played pool? Anyway, you shouldn't think QM is a purely corpuscular description; it is far from it.

 

Finally, for UV light, the photoelectrons typically have crazy final momenta, typically about 200hv/c, or 200 times the momentum of a "photons-worth" of UV light (which is just QM crazy), in the transverse (90^o) direction, which forebodes ominously for the future of the "photon version" of this effect.

I don't get you. According to the pure wave model, yes the electrons could receive high energy, depending on amplitude for a same frequency. This isn't what happens. I don't see why this is a fault with QM.

 

Here we see the blatant QFF. The "directions to average" is a non-linear Fudge Factor that totally changes the nature of things so that the sp3 "orbital" is no longer a solution to the Schrodinger equation.

There is an asterisk right above the end of your red line. Shortly afterwards there is a dagger and then figure 8.8 is referred to. It seems to me these are essential for understanding the guy's argument.

 

In any case O'Connor apparently is discussing a model for the methane molecule and I would scarcely expect the hybrid orbitals to be a solution of the Schrödinger equation for the sole carbon atom. Solving it for the entire five atom system would be a computationally more intensive task, this isn't a fault of QM it just shows that short cuts can often be taken, which turn out to be quite fine. You would need to show that your theory is superior for computing molecules and all the various things QM is used for. :rolleyes:

[andrewgray]

Qfwfq,

 

Yes, the IP address of modelofreality.org changed about 4 years ago. Many domains have DNS caches that remember IP addresses for that long of a time. Most time-out within a month. So your DNS cache is probably not timing-out. That's all. 99.9% of the web can see my domain properly. The DNS server for modelofreality.org is networksolutions.com, and it is working properly with the correct IP address. Just for completeness though, the current IP address for modelofreality.org is 24.155.147.197, and I will use this IP address in the future to get around your DNS cache. If anyone else is having this problem, just let me know, and I will go back and change the previous images as well.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

PS. Will get back to our interesting discussion soon.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

Quote

You don't show why a geiger counter wouldn't detect them, then you say you believe them to have a non zero mass. Folks know what energy and momentum to expect, but you conjecture the conservation not being strict. I don't see whyt his is more reality-based than the neutrino.

 

Qfwfq,

 

Wikipedia says:

Quote

"Some Geiger counters can be used to detect gamma radiation, though sensitivity can be lower for high energy gamma radiation than with certain other types of detector, ..."

 

In other words, once the frequency of the EM radiation gets above any resonance with the detecting material, detections cease. Also, in this new Model of Reality theory, EM radiation of all kinds (even ultragamma) is a wave, not a particle. Even though you may not agree yet, you must understand that this theory does not assign a "rest mass", "energy", or "momentum" to any kind of EM wave. As far as being "reality-based", EM radiation moving at its natural speed of light seems more "realistic" than a particle moving at the speed of light. But I agree that 1 or 2 detections per day make it very difficult to gather any meaningful data about such interactions. I also do not think that the "particle metamorphasis" described in "neutrino oscillations" is very realistic. Again, this is just my opinion given the very limited amount of data that we have. The bottom line really becomes, do we have tunneling or not, or do we need to "make up" a neutrino particle to account for missing momentum/energy at the microscopic level.

 

Quote

wher you say "definitely not a particle collision" you seem to be supposing impact parameter to have zero value. Have you ever played pool?

Come on qfwfq, this is not rocket science. If you fire a machine gun into a bag of ball bearings, one would expect that the resulting momentum of the bearings would be skewed in the forward direction, with the resultant momentum limited by the momentum of each bullet. You would not expect many bearings to be ejected "backwards". This is not the case in the photoelectric effect. Just as many are ejected backwards as forward. Also, the resulting momentum is not limited by one unit of hv/c as one would expect. It can be typically 200hv/c., ejected sideways along the polarization of the light wave. So again I say that "the photoelectric effect is clearly not a particle interaction." This conclusion has overwhelming evidence now.

 

Quote

I don't get you. According to the pure wave model, yes the electrons could receive high energy, depending on amplitude for a same frequency. This isn't what happens. I don't see why this is a fault with QM.

No! Not high energy. The photoelectrons receive "high momentum" in this experiment, contrary to both the pure wave theory and QM "photon theory". The photoelectrons are limited by 1 unit of hv of energy, but can receive up to 200hv/c of momentum. The pure wave model (with a static electron) would add zero momentum to the particle, since the electron would simply move up and down, going nowhere. The "photon version" of this effect should logically have the electrons limited to 1 unit of hv/c of momentum.

 

This new theory overcomes both of these phenomena. It allows a non-acceleration resonance so that the energy is limited by 1 unit of hv/c, and the momentum considerations of this new theory allow for the corresponding values of momentum with no paradox.

 

Quote

There is an asterisk right above the end of your red line. Shortly afterwards there is a dagger and then figure 8.8 is referred to. It seems to me these are essential for understanding the guy's argument.

Yes, the asterisk/dagger footnotes say:

Quote

* The mathematical process used is somewhat analogous to averaging, but is really quite complex. †The Salt Lake City Zoo has an animal called a Liger ... The process for its formation was also more complex than averaging.

.

Quote

In any case O'Connor apparently is discussing a model for the methane molecule and I would scarcely expect the hybrid orbitals to be a solution of the Schrödinger equation for the sole carbon atom. Solving it for the entire five atom system would be a computationally more intensive task, this isn't a fault of QM it just shows that short cuts can often be taken, which turn out to be quite fine. You would need to show that your theory is superior for computing molecules and all the various things QM is used for.

 

I agree with this assessment, but I would put it into different words. Instead, I would say that 1) the QM orbitals do not apply to carbon as you say, and 2) the "shortcuts taken" add a second layer of non-applicability to O'Connor's so-called sp³ "orbitals". This double layer of non-applicability results in what I call Quantum GobbledyGook (QGG), it explains nothing, and it is very detrimental to the real struggle for the truth since it appears on the surface that it does.

 

Yes, this new Model of Reality theory does have a much better model for the methane molecule! As we saw in an earlier post, the covalent bond can be modeled with two electrons in a non-radiating planetary orbit in-between the two nuclei, like this:

The covalent bond is accomplished with purely Coulomb forces. The electrons are in-between the nuclei, generating an attractive force. The electrons are attracted to the nuclei, which generate the centripetal force needed for their quasi-circular motion. The electrons do not radiate (as explained previously) because they are synchronized so that they are only ON while the nucleus is OFF (and vice versa).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[Qfwfq]

In other words, once the frequency of the EM radiation gets above any resonance with the detecting material, detections cease.

How do you explain that they don't detect any gamma at all? On what grounds do you say they would all be at such smacking high frequency? Are you able to provide a computation of the frequency you expect them to have?

Radioactivity

According to the mainstream this gives what frequency spectrum to expect and if it were simply a matter of them being too high for Geiger counters or other detectors they would know it well enough.

 

Come on qfwfq, this is not rocket science. If you fire a machine gun into a bag of ball bearings, one would expect that the resulting momentum of the bearings would be skewed in the forward direction, with the resultant momentum limited by the momentum of each bullet. You would not expect many bearings to be ejected "backwards". This is not the case in the photoelectric effect. Just as many are ejected backwards as forward. Also, the resulting momentum is not limited by one unit of hv/c as one would expect. It can be typically 200hv/c., ejected sideways along the polarization of the light wave. So again I say that "the photoelectric effect is clearly not a particle interaction." This conclusion has overwhelming evidence now.

 

 

No! Not high energy. The photoelectrons receive "high momentum" in this experiment, contrary to both the pure wave theory and QM "photon theory". The photoelectrons are limited by 1 unit of hv of energy, but can receive up to 200hv/c of momentum.

Rocket science? I mentioned pool! Same goes for ball bearings if you like. Of course there's more to it in the case of photoelectric effect.

 

Momentum, you said! ;) Don't forget to consider the total energy-momentum and remember that momentum is a vector. If the incident photon interacted only with the electron, it would be a wholly different matter; there's a fundamental reason why even in this case the electron can't acquire the energy and momentum of the photon. Look up Compton scattering. In the PE case, there's plenty of mass around. Most of us are paying good cash for energy, but for some odd reason I've never seen folks trying to sell momentum.

 

Do you really think folks have been missing huge incongruities all along?

 

The pure wave model (with a static electron) would add zero momentum to the particle, since the electron would simply move up and down, going nowhere. The "photon version" of this effect should logically have the electrons limited to 1 unit of hv/c of momentum.

You mean according to classical electromagnetism?

:hihi:

Get a good textbook and you'll find the above is false.

[andrewgray]

Qfwfq,

 

I understand what you are saying. First, the photoelectric effect. The vector nature of the "high momentum" was discussed in my very first post of this thread. (Can U see it? DNS cache?)

 

OK. Suppose the photoelectron is ejected in the "sideways" (90^o) direction with 200 units of hv/c. That means that the QM "photon version" must bring the metal atom into consideration (& not the whole metal lattice, because of the vapor experiments) for momemtum considerations not to be totally crazy. So QM is forced to assign -200 units of hv/c to the metal atom in the transverse direction, and it also must assign the 1 unit of hv/c in the forward direction to the metal atom. Like this:

Thus, it is the metal atom that is "knocked forward" in this theory, which seems strange, and the metal atom obtains high momentum in the opposite direction. It seems to me that if the bound electron were "jerked off" the atom by the "photon", then the atom would be dragged along with it. But the atom goes in the opposite direction. So why not just assume that a free conduction electron absorbed the "photon"? (free conduction electrons actually are the ones ejected) No(!), because QM cannot handle a "photon absorption" with a free electron because it is QM mathematically impossible.

 

Now for the coupe de grace. Like I mentioned before, the electron is just as likely to be ejected backwards! This scenario would look something like this:

Now we see the electron being ejected "backwards" and the metal atom ending up with 8 units of hv/c in the forward direction. This seems silly to me. This new theory seems very superior to this wacky "photon explanation". This new theory does not have such weird high momentum considerations because it is a wave-particle interaction, not a particle-particle interaction. In a wave-particle interaction, the particle (the electron) is simply accelerated by the wave (the light). The momentum of the particle simply increases in the transverse direction until a non-acceleration resonance is achieved. It's that simple.

 

Yes, there is Compton scattering. In this experiment, the "photon version" claims an elastic "billiard ball-like" collision, not an absorption (Inconsistent. Just make it up as you go along). What is actually happening here is that there is a non-acceleration resonance in a different harmonic, and the reflected x-ray waves are Doppler shifted due to the velocity of the accelerated and receding electrons.

 

Finally we are back to UltraGamma radiation. Qfwfq, there is something very penetrating coming off reactors. I agree with you on this. So your question: "Why is there UltraGamma radiation coming out and not just plain gamma radiation" is answered by analogy. Why is there Infra-Red thermal radiation and not Visible-Red? Because thermal agitation is generating IR and is not generating plain Red. I do not even come close to claiming that I have a model for nuclear physics yet (so I have no prediction for frequencies coming out). I am sure, however, that since physics at the nanometer is incorrect, that physics at the femtometer is probably incorrect as well. Let's back up, now that the whole nano-picture has been painted, and start getting the femto-picture correct as well. (This means that the justification for neutrinos goes away, for example).

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

OK, now that the photoelectric effect seems to have settled down a bit, I would like to show my Bremsstrahlung diagrams from the presentation that I gave in Los Angeles. Bremsstrahlung is the opposite of photoelectric. In Bremsstrahlung, electrons are blasted into a metal plate instead of light. X-rays come out, but their frequency is limited, often referred to as the Bremsstrahlung Cutoff Frequency.

 

Why is the frequency limited? Is it because of "photons"? No, of course not. It is because of the physics of pulsating particles emitting radiation. A emitting electron can only transmit frequencies up to its Nyquist Limit Nyquist Limit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF2DHsJmf7s&feature=related or else one gets aliasing to lower frequencies. In the above examples, we are talking about audio frequencies with sampling rates. With our new scenario, audio_frequencies=x-ray-frequencies and sampling_rate=pulsation_rate. The analogy applies directly. If an electron is pulsating at a certain frequency 2v, then it can only emit frequencies up to its Nyquist limit of v.

 

Here is a diagram that explains this concept directly with x-rays:

An electron is moving up and down in the drawings at a certain movement frequency. The pulsation rate of the electrons is shown with different ratios relative to the movement frequency. In the first drawing, labeled "0", we have a "static electron" with no pulsations, and we see that the wave is generated perfectly with no frequency limit. In the second drawing, labeled "1/6", the pulsation rate is 6 times the movement rate, and we have that the wave is generated with no problem. In the the drawing labeled "1/4", the wave is still generated with no problem. Finally, when we reach the Nyquist Limit labeled 1/2, the pulsation rate is twice the movement rate, and the wave is generated, but barely. Like in the YouTube example, we barely see the peaks and valleys of the wave, and it is very choppy. When we go beyond the Nyquist Limit in the figure labeled "1/1", we see that we only have the peaks of the wave, and the wave is not generated. Even though the electron is moved up and down with a very high frequency, it does not actually emit this frequency! Thus, we see that the Bremsstahlung x-rays have a frequency limit not because of "photons", but because of the Nyquist Theorem. This x-ray frequency limit is given by one half of the pulsation frequency of the electrons, given by our De Broglie relation:

 

v_e = 2E_e/h

 

or if we substitue the Nyquist Limit formula 2v_xray = v_e we get that the max x-ray frequency generated by electrons with kinetic energy E_e is given by

 

v_xray = E_e/h

 

as required. This explanation is much more logical than the "photon version", and this explanation should replace it just as soon as "old dogs can be taught new tricks".

YouTube - MythBusters: Dog Myths http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAv7czgIl0Q

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray

[Qfwfq]

Well, I'm an old dog, and a dumb one too. I will refuse to learn a new trick unless I'm certain that it'll get me prime venison in lieu of something quite unpalatable. F'rinstance, can you successfully calculate the spectrum for a given incident electron beam energy? Note that the theorem is based on the Fourier transform and it also supposes a few things about the reconstruction of the analogue signal, in order to avoid the garbage. I'm not sure how a lead surface struck by an electron beam manages this.

 

BTW I still don't see what's crazy about the QM description of the photoelectric effect.

[andrewgray]

LoL Qfwfq,

 

I disagree, though. You are no dumb ol' dog. It's just that physicists seem dog_gedly opposed to simple logic, and they have a hard time seeing past the dog_ma, and seeing the logic. It has been a real dog_fight to just get to the point where people say:

I see what you are saying, but I just disagree until you prove it experimently.

Perhaps we are to that point now. Perhaps we are where this new under_dog logic will make enough sense to push through the boon_dog_gle and the dog_ged dogma_ists will allow it to finally be tested experimentally.

 

George Shultz is now famous for saying

... if you are constantly mired in 'what is', and not 'what ought to be', then you are never going to get anywhere.

 

So here goes. What ought to be is that we should have a theory of physics that is logically based on local reality and "what is really going on". This is what "ought to be".

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

Now back to reality.

 

Yes, qwfwq, the "photon version" of the photoelectric effect is illogical.

 

1) There is experimental evidence that it is the free metallic electrons that are being ejected, and not the electrons that are tightly bound to metal atoms. It is mathematically impossible for free electrons to absorb much energy in QM. This is dumb. Dumb is bad.

 

2) The "photon version" of the photoelectric effect says that "the electron absorbs the energy of the photon, so that is why its energy is limited to hv". But the electron is ejected backwards, and the metal atom ends up getting the forward momentum, not the electron. If you did not have all that dog_ma behind you, you would probably say this is dumb, and that dumb is bad.

 

3) The photoelectric effect is clearly a wave-particle interaction, and not a particle-particle interaction because the electron is ejected sideways and is ejected along the polarization of the incoming wave. Having the wrong type of interaction is dumb. Dumb is bad.

 

4) The "high momentum" considerations for the "photon version" of the photoelectric effect are just plain dumb, and dumb is bad.

 

 

And yes, this new theory predicts the spectrum from the Bremsstrahlung electrons. One need only consider the mean free path between collisions (say approximately 3 Angstroms between atoms). Assume 1/2 wavelength for this collision (it takes two electron collisions to make 1 EM wave), and calculate the time/frequency of this emission to get the most intense x-ray frequency. Then make a normal distribution around this most intense frequency, and then round it off where it comes up against the Nyquist limit, and voila, your spectral distribution.

 

An electron that strikes a lead plate starts to bounce around like Ricochet Rabbit. Ricochet Rabbit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOJXTzbkQa8&feature=related

Each time it is accelerated, it emits radiation. If it is pulsating, it has a Nyquist Limit. It is that simple.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[Knothead]

 

 

So here goes. What ought to be is that we should have a theory of physics that is logically based on local reality and "what is really going on". This is what "ought to be".

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Dr. Gray, you are a hoot. I love the way you write. I didn't know you genius types had such great senses of humor.

 

I hope you don't mind if I steal that quote. I can see where that can be applied to a whole lot of much more pedestrian things. (things that I understand)

 

Steve

[Qfwfq]

I did not ask you to give us experimental evidence, there's already a wealth of data that your theory would have to match up with, at least as well as quantum formalism does and also, possibly, in a way that's reasonable. There are even results showing that the Bell disequalities get violated; this is no reason to go looking for a theory that's based on local realism.

 

So here goes. What ought to be is that we should have a theory of physics that is logically based on local reality and "what is really going on". This is what "ought to be".

You still haven't shown us why it ought to be.

 

Have you ever tried looking through the design criteria for reconstructing analogue signals from digital sampling? The main requirement is to ask Harry Nyquist to come and wave his magic wand and voilà, perfect reproduction. You must engrace him too, remember not to call him nike-wist; although he went to live in the US he kept on pronouncing it properly, so you have to say something more along the lines of nuke-veest or he won't eliminate the bad spectral components for you. That must be why top quality CD or DVD players are so expensive.

 

Then again, maybe he's been providing his services, free of charge, to electron beams incident on heavy metal, ever since the days of Röntgen. Must be a great fan of Iron Maiden and so on.

[Boerseun]

So here goes. What ought to be is that we should have a theory of physics that is logically based on local reality and "what is really going on". This is what "ought to be".

...I think Heisenberg just kicked you in the nuts. :(

[andrewgray]

Steve,

 

So here goes. What ought to be is that we should have a theory of physics that is logically based on local reality and "what is really going on". This is what "ought to be".

 

I hope you don't mind if I steal that quote.

Yeah, go ahead, quote away. Spread the word.

I do not know about "genius type". I'll take "logical type".

That's what I try to live up to. "If it's not logical, replace it".

 

Andrew Ancel Gray