7 Reasons to Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And embrace this New Theory

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by andrewgray, Apr 9, 2007.

  1. temur man of no words Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,330
    In the derivation of Planck's formula, cavity walls are not the black body, but a tiny hole in the cavity wall is modeling a surface of the black body.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. andrewgray Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86

    temur,

    you are mistaken:



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    This taken from Elementary Modern Physics, Atam P. Arya. p. 55.


    Planck's theory, derived for a perfect blackbody, is an obvious self-contradiction.


    Farsight, I will prepare material on the structure of the electron.

    Andrew A. Gray
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tom2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    726
    No Andrew, you are mistaken. The idea behind the blackbody thought experiment, upon which Planck's theory is based, is that light enters a small hole in a cavity and bounces around perfectly reflecting walls. The same radiation has (almost) no chance of being emitted from that small hole. Thus, the hole is (approximately) a blackbody. Temur is exactly correct.

    No, you are just a crackpot who doesn't understand the derivation. Believe it or not, the pioneers of modern physics were not the blithering idiots that you suppose they were (astonishing, I know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). If your anecdote about the University of Texas is true, then it's no wonder that they shot you down. You want to try to rewrite the whole of physics without understanding any of what was written before you got there.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    And I suppose you can explain the electron/positron bound states and the Pauli Exclusion principle in a whole new manner?

    I don't really understand what I am supposed to get from this quote. We measure e. We measure \hbar, we measure c. We know that \alpha should be 1/137.

    Then we measure \alpha, which was calculated using renormalization, and find that the two experiments agree. Wo we use the fact that \alpha = e/4 \pi, and we can measure the magnetic moment of the electron to tell us what \alpha should be. The two numbers agree to 13 decimal places.

    Can you explain this agreement in terms of electrons not having quantized magnetic moments?
     
  8. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    But it gives measureable results... Smoot just gave a popular talk here (he won the Nobel Prize in 2006) and talked about measuring the blackbody radiation in the universe (the CMB). Planck's formulae tell us that it should be 2.7 K, the exact number we measure.

    Andrew---I'm not sure why you want to throw out a century's worth of physics just because you don't like the interpretations. The fact is that renormalization gives fantasically accurate answers, so who are you to say that it "doesn't describe reality". I won't write you off as a crackpot just yet, because you have actually told me how to measure the effects you're talking about, and you can be proved wrong (or right, to be fair!) empirically.

    I guess at the heart of it is a philosophical question---I had a discussion with the einsteinhoax.com guy (go check out his website) about these things. He seemed to think that Nature HAD to be understandable to an average joe, but the history of science proves him wrong. When you use words like "New Theory of Reality", it confuses me because who are we to say what reality is? We can measure things, and we can write down consistent formulae. If the formulae predict the measurements, then what more do you want?
     
  9. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Understanding. Grasp. Of everything. Our curiosity demands it. That's why we do physics. If a formula can't tell us what an electron is in terms we can grasp, we are driven to look beyond it. That's why people come to forums like this.
     
  10. andrewgray Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86
    Tom2,

    Here is another source:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If we still are in disagreement, I will be by the UT Physics Library and can look up the original experiments.

    Andrew A. Gray
     
  11. andrewgray Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86
    BenTheMan,

    I hope I do not appear unpleasant from this discussion with you. So I will try my best to stay focused on the issue.
    So this is really a simple example of how QM theory becomes bootstrapped onto itself. You say:

    QUOTE:
    "[Smoot] talked about measuring the blackbody radiation in the universe (the CMB). Planck's formulae tell us that it should be 2.7 K, the exact number we measure."


    However, all that we measured was a thermal radiation curve. No temperature measurement was made. Yet you speak like Planck's formula was "exactly" verified. There are two sides of an equation to verify. Only one side was measured in this case. However, once the CMB measurements are made and an official "temperature" is announced, then the "confirmation bias" researchers who need money will certainly come up with "independent" ways to verify the 2.7 K result. I would only be impressed if the "temperature" measurement was made first, then Planck's formula verified it. This is not the case.

    Now the fine structure constant. It is defined from the "fine structure" hydrogen spectrum on one side, and the constants k,e,hbar, and c on the other. In my view, these five quantities do not give 13 decimal place accuracy.

    So what happened? Well it all started with Sommerfeld. His relativistic corrections to Bohr's model gave the "fine structure" spectrum and defined the "fine structure constant". Imagine. The defining theory had nothing to do with "local reality". (Unless you still believe that Sommerfeld was correct). Here is another example of a famous theory that was experiment matched. I do not think anyone thinks that Sommerfeld's theory has anything to do with anything. Yet it is the defining theory and is very close to experiment.

    However, the experimental data was set, and now we have research grant money available to do theories that are not based on "local reality" to try and see if a better match with experiment can be achieved. So we had Bohr, Sommerfeld, Schrodinger, then Pauli, then Dirac, then the Lamb Shift, etc. These theories are not based on "local reality", and typically they are based on energy terms that are strictly additive and do not interact. And based on experimental data that is already in, so one knows what one is looking for.

    This is how I see it happening. Unfortunately, physics is capitalistic these days, and not immune from being guided by the availability of research money and the "successful" matching of theory with experiment.

    Don't get me wrong. Science is evolutionary to a point, then it is occasionally revolutionary. If this New Theory is correct, nothing will be able to stop it.



    Andrew A. Gray
     
  12. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Andrew---not at all.

    Second, I do not understand what local reality means.

    About the Sommerfield calculation---the fact that alpha pops up in the hyperfine splitting of the hydrogen energy levels is completely expected. The fact that we use this constant in the theory if QED reaffirms the fact that we should be doing perturbation theory. The hyperfine splitting in hydrogen is an order alpha^2 correction, which is about 100 times smaller than the tree level process. When you calculate things using relativistic quantum mechanics, as Sommerfield did, you end up with very long and difficult calculations that are easier to do using quantum field theory. Then you have to requantize the whole thing and make the fields in the theory operators, etc etc.

    I do not buy these conspiracy theories---"confirmation bias", as you call it. There is much fame is finding a way to contradict a theoretical value---Nobel Prizes have been won for less. So if the Kinoshita group found a disagreement in the theory and the experiment to test the fine structure constant, they have a good motivation to accurately report those results.

    I'm not sure about the temperature measurements of space. I mean, you are essentially saying, "Had Penzias and Wilson made the measurement in 1880, using equipment that wasn't available untill the 1960's, I would buy it." Right?
     
  13. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    I'm not sure if he means a conspiracy; more like the red car syndrome.
     
  14. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Maybe conspiracy theory is too strong a word. Either way, I believe that experimenters take their jobs very seriously. I know many experimenters who would love nothing more than to prove a theory wrong.

    When you confirm a theory, no one cares. But when you disprove a theory---that's box office baby!
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have only skimmed the last 20 or so posts, but want to add a little historical facts:

    The fact that any isothermal box with tiny hole emitted the same distribution of radiation regardless of the wall materials and only a simple function to the temperature was well known long before Plank explained it. Because there is no upper limit on the frequency that could be emitted, and the general belief that energy should be shared equally between all possible modes (frequencies) the observed fall off of intensity at higher frequencies was very troublesome, before quantum mechanics and Plank.; This problem was called the "Ultra Violet Catastrophe." - a strong contradiction of classical theory in physics.

    Plank was trying to solve this problem and made then ridiculous assumption that energy of the photons inside the box was not a continuous variable, but a discrete variable - making it difficulty for it to smoothly flow from one mode to the next only infinitesimally different. When he ground thru the consequence of this strange, illogical from classical theory, POV, the black distribution was the result! This is the real beginning of quantum mechanics.
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Billy T:

    Thanks for the historical insight. I was not aware of the 'problem' that Planck was attempting to solve when he derived the black-body formula.

    Allow me to throw in my 2-cents worth regarding the "2.7 degree" CMB. This is actually the same spectrum as one would obtain from a 2,700 degree 'black-body' that is receding from the observer at 0.9999990c. It's been a while since I've reviewed the mathematics and terminology in this area, but essentially that is a redshift of 1,000. Thus, the CMB can be seen to be the red-shifted emissions of a very hot hydrogen [and some helium] gas that is receding from us here on earth. I've gone into that in more depth in other posts, and won't hijack this thread, since I find it interesting that Andrew Gray is clearly well-versed in physics, and has attempted a novel approach to physics.

    What I would like to see is his theoretical understanding as to what causes an electron to have its charge turn on/off as he postulates. I found the deBroglie mathematical explanation of standing waves for electron wave functions in a circle determining discrete orbital 'distances' or 'shells' to be mathematically sound.

    Regards,



    Walter L. Wagner
     
  17. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Andrew Gray:

    I'm with Ben the Man. I don't quite get what your problem is with the definition of a black body approximated as described. Light enters, bounces around quite a few times as it is absorbed by the walls coated with 'lamp-black' [carbon], until it is eventually completely absorbed into the interior walls. None has a chance to bounce back out through the original opening if the opening is very very small compared to the interior surface area. Thus, it approximates a black-body in that all light incident on it is absorbed, and it will only emit photons based on the internal temperature of the body, having the characteristic spectrum spread described by Planck.

    Anyway, I don't see what is the "contradiction" you've asserted exists. Internal 'reflecting' is actually part of the process of absorbtion of the original incident photon energy.

    Regards,



    Walter L. Wagner
     
  18. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    yeah.. yeah...

    pulsing... and sifting natures in sinc, and OR not.. i.e.. resonate or not... maybe sometimes harmonic... and levels induced by colision,,, and or slowing with subsequent emissions... yeah yeah yeah..

    lets talk about why?

    obviously you believe in some form of governing timing nature to space tiself.... allowing all these actions to be timed, and so regulated.

    4d itself.... is that what your on about?

    -MT
     
  19. andrewgray Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86
    OK,

    I will start a new BlackBody thread in a few days and explain myself there. But first:

    QUOTE:
    "What I would like to see is his theoretical understanding as to what causes an electron to have its charge turn on/off as he postulates. I found the deBroglie mathematical explanation of standing waves for electron wave functions in a circle determining discrete orbital 'distances' or 'shells' to be mathematically sound."

    "Yes, I'm very interested in seeing it. Thanks in advance."



    The pulsating model for the electron came from studying the Reissner-Nordstrom metric of a charged body.

    \( -d\tau^2 = - \left(1-\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{q^2}{r^2}\right )dt^2 + \frac{1}{(1-\frac{2M}{r} +\frac{q^2}{r^2})} dr^2 + r^2(d \theta^2 + sin^2 \theta d \phi^2) \)
    This is a very interesting geometry. There are two cases to study:

    Case 1: There is no horizon.
    Case 2: There are 2 horizons.


    Case 1. If there are no horizons, then the coefficient of dt[sup]2[/sup] never vanishes.

    Instead of a "black hole" this geometry describes a "white peak". A quick calculation of the Riemann curvature tensor reveals:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Notice that near the center, the \(\frac{q^2}{r^4}\) terms dominate the geometry and are of opposite sign as the \(\frac{M}{r^3}\) terms. This geometry is gravitationally repulsive. Light shined towards its center is repulsed away, never making it there. Here are a few light geodesics plotted in this repulsive geometry.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This structure has an infinite repulsive singularity at the center. It cannot be stable. It must come apart.

    This geometry cannot exist.

    Case 2. If the dt[sup]2[/sup] coefficient vanishes then this occurs at:

    \(r = M \pm sqrt{M^2-q^2} \)

    This geometry has two horizons. The external horizon is very similar to the normal Schwarzchild horizon. The internal horizon is different. It is pulling things from the "hollow core", so to speak. Like this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The center portion of this geometry still has an infinitely repulsive singularity, repulsing things towards the inner horizon which also tends to pull things "towards the black" from the center.

    1) So, let's just imagine a neutral Schwarzchild black hole with only mass at its center.
    2) Drop a few charges in. The charges fall through the horizon and to the singularity.
    3) Now the geometry tends toward the Reissner Nordstrom geometry. The center becomes infinitely repulsive.
    4) It must come apart! The charge and matter are ejected.
    5) The charge feels both the repulsive geometry and the electrical self-repulsion. The charge must get out first, before the mass. This leaves the mass by itself near the center.
    6) But the mass (by itself) is beyond the critical mass, so it must re-collapse!
    7) A neutral hole is reformed in the center.
    8) So the charges must be dragged back in.
    9) But then the geometry tends towards the Reissner Nordstrom geometry. Infinite repulsion again.
    10) It must come apart! The charge and matter are ejected.
    . . . (back to 5)


    We see that a pulsation is extremely likely to be set up when charge exists with mass. It is clear that charge with mass just naturally pulsates!


    The curious thing is that when one substitutes the values of M and q for an electron, one finds that the "white peak" unstable geometry results. The mass M is orders of magnitude too small to create a horizon. But this static repulsive geometry is impossible, just like the renormalizers have discovered. Such a static geometry is unstable and cannot exist.

    But let us imagine how the mass M and the charge q of the geometry are defined. For the mass M, the easiest way to measure it would be to take a neutral test particle and put it in a circular orbit around the geometry and compute the mass from this orbit.

    But remember, the pulsating geometry oscillates between a repulsive "white peak" and an attractive hole! The "mass function" is actually oscillating between positive and negative! So the time averaged "mass function" has nothing to due with the mass M, which is the limiting constant that this dynamic geometry changes to in the limit. The time averaged mass function is different than the mass M.

    Another thing that we must consider is the "self-energy" mass of the charges. It is this repulsive "self-energy" that makes the mass M of an electron seem so small.

    The breakthrough came when it was shown that a hole that exists inbetween charges can "cloak" the repulsive self-energy of the charges.

    Consider two charges with a hole inbetween them:

     
  20. andrewgray Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    In this little thought experiment, charge is created just above the horizon, and the positive charges sent in. From this diagram it can be seen that the charges cannot "feel their electrical self-repulsion". The electrical influence cannot span the hole.

    These two charges can collide at the center without ever feeling their electrical self-repulsion.

    This little thought experiment shows that charge can exist in a state such that it cannot "feel electrical self repulsion"

    A huge increase in the "mass function" results from the collision in the center.

    In summary:

    1) It is possible to create a stable pulsating charge.
    2) The dynamic mass function can become large enough to hold the geometry together.
    3) When a hole re-forms in the center, the repulsive self-energy can be cloaked, making the mass function positive again.
    4) When the charge is re-absorbed into the hole, a re-forming horizon can stop electrical influence from reaching outside (the charge turns OFF).
    5) When the charge blows the hole apart and re-emerges, the charge turns back ON.


    Andrew A. Gray


     
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    This surprises me. Can you support your assertion that lampblack and melatonin are good reflectors of UV?

    This surprises me as well... have you performed this experiment?
     
  22. Physics Monkey Snow Monkey and Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Andrew,

    I want to start by saying that I appreciate very much your enthusiasm for physics. However, the ideas you've presented here are simply not workable. After only a brief scan of your lengthy introductory posts I see immediately a number of very large problems with your theory. I don't really have the time or energy to go through them all, but I'll throw a few out.

    I'll just mention some of the most obvious problems with your model of Hydrogen. In order to prevent radiation you assume that your charged particles can "turn on and off". You've already got a problem with charge conservation, but lets go on. You claim that the electron doesn't radiate in its preferred orbit because it is "off" while being accelerated, but then how in the world is it accelerated in the first place? If the electron is off it can't feel the Coulomb force! What you want is to keep the Coulomb force (suitably modified with new free parameters!) and throw away the radiation, but that's just cherry picking and you haven't explained anything. What you have done is to absolutely brutalize the classical theory of electromagnetism. But I can go on, what about the L = 0 state of Hydrogen? Your model can't possibly support such a state since the electron would just fall into the nucleus. Or do you plan to brutalize Newton's theory of classical mechanics too? I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone, but I've seen only a great deal of nonsense here.
     
  23. andrewgray Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    86
    Pete,

    A quick search on the web revealed these about dark skin:

    www.modelofreality.org/UV1.gif

    www.modelofreality.org/UV2.gif

    (be sure to zoom in if necessary).

    But it only makes sense. UV absorption is responsible for Vitamin D production.
    So Blacks get rickets in Northern Europe since they reflect UV radiation.

    Blacks don't sunburn so easily near the equator. That's because they reflect the damaging UV "rays".

    Now
    Lampblack. I actually wanted to measure the UV reflectivity of this material in the UT physics lab,
    but as I said earlier, it did not work out. So this experiment is one which I hope someone will do very soon.
    This is one of my suggested "New Experiments".

    But check these out (zoom in):

    www.modelofreality.org/UV3.gif
    www.modelofreality.org/UV4.gif
    www.modelofreality.org/UV5.gif

    Lampblack seems to be well known for its "UV stabilizing" properties.
    UV resistance makes one think that Lampblack is a UV reflector, right?
    If it was an absorber of UV, degradation of the material would certainly occur. Hmmm. . .

    So Lampblack is probably a UV reflector.



    QUOTE:
    "If the electron is OFF it can't feel the Coulomb force!"


    PhysicsMonkey,

    Don't be too sure. In my previous post, I actually introduced the actual structure of this dynamic pulsating electron. Now I showed that the Reissner-Nordstrom metric implies that charge/matter together pulsates. Well, the part of the cycle that is OFF is the part where E-M influence cannot escape. But it is well known that if the geometry keeps E-M influence from escaping, then E-M influence really wants to go in. So just the opposite of what you say is true. When the charge is OFF, it is still sensitive to E-M influence, as the E-M influence can still get in very easily.


    QUOTE:
    "You've already got a problem with charge conservation . . ."

    Indeed, microscopic charge conservation must change. It can only be true as a time average in this New Theory. Macroscopic charge conservation remains intact. I like to use an analogy here. Think of an army troop firing machine gun bullets into the back of a railroad car. The bullets hit the back of the car and start to accelerate it. It is a slow and steady accelerated motion that can be solved for using Newton's continuous calculus since the time averaged force approximates a continuous force. Macroscopically, the force is essentially continuous. Microscopically, the force is pulsed.

    So if pulsed microscopic charge is a problem, I want to know how.


    QUOTE:
    "... what about the L = 0 state of Hydrogen? Your model can't possibly support such a state since the electron would just fall into the nucleus."



    You are partly correct here. I claim that there is no L=0 state. In this New Theory, electron spin is gone and all angular momentum is from L (orbital momentum). I claim that this will be proven in the New Stern Gerlach Experiments which I have laid out.


    QUOTE:
    "I don't really have the time or energy to go through them all . . ."


    PhysicsMonkey,

    I want to hear all of your objections.




    Andrew A. Gray
     

Share This Page