A Gestalt Theory on the Nature of light and related phenomena

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quant, Sep 1, 2012.

  1. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    A Gestalt Theory of the nature of light and related phenomenon:

    The main drawback with QM is that it has established certain inviolable tenets or beliefs that, as long they are open to other explanations , are absolutely self defeating and have no place in a science that claims to be based on pure reason and a detached and neutral point of view. For instance one of the reasons that QM puts forward for the inadequacy of classical physics is the fact, that using purely classical physical theories ‘atoms cannot exist !’ Absurd as it sounds, a lot of the hype and baggage that QM has collected over the years, is based on the facts that classical physics has no explanation for how ‘atoms can exist.’ According to QM, it follows that the whole edifice on which Classical physics is built collapses at this point and can have no further application in explaining events at the sub-atomic level. However, anyone with even a modicum of common sense, can see at once that this is a childish argument, because no time or latitude is given for Classical Physics to come up with an explanation. In saner times, what would have been said was that classical theories do not at present appear to have an explanation as to how atoms can exist, and until they come up with some explanation the theories put forward by QM will have to be followed as the most likely explanation.
    Why can’t atoms exist according to the classical physics point of view: A positively charged nucleus ‘holds’ a negatively charged electron by the force of Coulomb attraction:
    1)
    \( F{_coul}= \frac{e^2}{a^2}\)
    ( e is the electron’s and proton’s charge, a is the radius of an atom, in this case the hydrogen atom). For the atom to be stable, the force of attraction is insufficient and the electron would fall into the nucleus. Therefore this force must be balanced by a corresponding force of repulsion, which is supplied by centrifugal force:
    2)
    \(F_c = \frac{mv^2}{a}\)

    Here m is the electron’s mass and v is its velocity. The equilibrium of forces makes it possible to determine the velocity of the electron in its orbit:
    3)
    \( v = (\frac{e^2}{ma})^\frac{1}{2}\)

    Substituting the numerical values for charge, the electron’s mass, and the radius of the atom
    (3 x \( 10^ {-8} \)cms approx) yields the answer :\( v \approx 10^ {8}\) cms/sec or 1000 kmh.

    Next we need to know the total energy of the electron in the field of the nucleus:
    4)
    \(E = -\frac{e^2}{2a}\)
    This formula is obtained by the summation of the kinetic energy and the potential energy of the electron. Finally, the radiation intensity of a charge e moving with acceleration w can be calculated : \( w = \frac{v^2}{a} \)
    5)
    \(I = \frac{2e^2w^2}{3c^2} = \frac {2e^2v^4}{3c^3a^2}\) ergs/sec
    If the electron emits I ergs each second, then it will lose all its energy in a time interval:
    6)
    \(T\approx\frac{a}{v}(\frac{c}{v})^2\)
    Using this equation it is possible to calculate that \( T \approx 10 ^{-10} \) Sec. Thus according to Classical physics , the electron should fall into the nucleus in about \(10^{-10}\) secs and therefore atoms cannot exist. So far so good, it has been adequately demonstrated that the existing classical physics explanations for the phenomenon are inadequate. Yet QM tends to frame this inability in terms of absolutes with statements such as : “This is the best demonstration of the total failure of Classical Physics.” And “This is possibly the most impressive contradiction between classical physics and experiment and so on. “The new mechanics was developed precisely to eliminate this contradiction.” Impressive, but what was the QM explanation of the phenomenon ?
    New information on the structure of the atom was emerging so fast at this time in the 1920’s that there was hardly time to assimilate it. Yet the proponents of the wave theory seemed to have the upper hand, precisely because of seemingly insoluble problems such as that of the existence of the atom referred to earlier. Obviously a wave is not localized, if the electron was considered as a wave the problem of the ‘radiating electron falling into the nucleus’ went away since the electron was spread out and not localized. This theory seemed to gain ground with Louis De Broglie’s theory of matter waves, since waves were associated with matter it seemed obvious that waves could also be associated with electrons. The only problem with this theory, as with so many other theories in Quantum Mechanics, was that neither De Broglie, nor anyone else could explain what was waving. To this day more than seventy years after De Broglie formulated his theory, no-one can come up with an explanation of what exactly is supposed to be waving when one speaks of matter waves, or waves associated with matter. The German physicist Erwin Schrodinger thought that he had solved the problem when he described electrons as being standing waves. Again, as so often happens in the history of QM, Schrodinger was not content with giving a description of electrons where their motion or position was described in terms of standing waves, he went much further by stating that electrons were actually standing waves. He compiled numerous diagrams showing the shape that ‘standing wave’ electrons might take. Here is an example.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Other physicists elaborated or rather generalized on this theory by stating that the electron was a 'cloud'. The Schrodinger wave theory was at first wildly successful, physics text books in schools and colleges were altered to state that electrons travelled round the nucleus as a cloud rather than as a point particle as Bohr’s planetary model of the atom had implied. Soon, however, cracks began to show in Schrodinger’s theory, it is a little known fact that Schrodinger’s wave theory although sufficient to describe the simplest of atoms grew in complexity when it came to describing larger atoms, they became so complex in fact that to describe the Uranium atom required, no less than 276 dimensions. Don’t even ask me what this means because quite frankly it is beyond comprehensions. To try and comprehend the 4 or 5 dimensions of Brane Theory or the 11 dimensions put forward by String Theory is befuddling enough, but 276 dimensions is really out of this world the Universe and everything else. Obviously when Schrodinger came to this conclusion and admitted that his theory was untenable. Schools and Colleges once again altered their text books to delete any references to electrons as clouds. What happens next is even more bizarre. The Danish scientist Neils Bohr had been doing some incredible work improving his model of the atom by working on the problem of spectral lines. Scientists at this time could not understand how a simple Hydrogen atom , having only one electron could emit a spectrum that had over a hundred lines. Bohr proved that when electrons absorbed an electron they would jump out to an outer orbit and then emit the same amount of energy as they moved back to their original position. In this way Bohr was able to explain, how many electrons each orbit could contain, and how much energy would be released when an electron ‘jumped’ from one orbit to another. This was a truly incredible piece of work based on the collation of empirical data collected from experiments. In that sense it was a purely classical investigation. It explained every element in the periodic table, the number of electrons in its shells, its physical properties and the spectrum it radiated .When Werner Heisenberg, who had been working on the same problems as Schrodinger, learnt that Schrodinger was having problems and was about to renounce his wave theory, he convinced him not to renounce his theory. He explained to Schrodinger that instead of using the mathematical formula which was extremely bulky and complicated, he had devised a matrix look up table that would give exactly the same result. In actual fact all that Heisenberg had done was to tabulate Bohr’s results in the form of look up matrix tables. These tables called the s-matrix are still being used today. Of course in the intervening years the s-matrix has undergone many changes and improvements, in this particular instance, I am referring to the matrix prepared by Heisenberg that gave the probability from look up tables, of the number of electrons in each shell of the an atom, which was what Schrodinger had set out to solve with his wave function. The irony of the situation is that data compiled through meticulous research conducted on the lines of classical physics was used to shore up an absurd theory. (Like it or not, any theory which requires 276 dimensions to work is patently absurd and completely unacceptable.) The German physicist Max Born also came to Schrodinger’s aid by suggesting that the wave function did not refer to any practical object but rather was a manifestation of probabilities. Still, a probability function that requires 276 dimensions, it’s a bit much. However, there is no doubt that the famous Schrodinger wave function equation, remains to this day the single most important mathematical element in quantum mechanics. It is described as being a composite of all the possibilities of the system being observed. Using the Schrodinger wave function it is claimed that quantum theory can predict all the probability of a microscopic event with the same precision that Newtonian physics can predict the actual occurrence of a macroscopic event.

    Contd...........
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    So did a solution based Classical Physics emerge that explains the fact that an electron does not radiate away its energy and fall into the nucleus ? It certainly did and it turned out to be an elegantly simple solution and was based in large part on Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. There are two uncertainties involved one is the uncertainty involved with time :
    1) \( \Delta E\Delta t \geq \frac{1}{2}\hbar\)
    While the second equation relates to the uncertainty due to momentum:
    2) \(\Delta m\Delta p \geq \frac{1}{2}\hbar \)
    According to the first equation if the time during an event that takes place with a sub atomic particle is accurately known there is no way in which to determine its energy. Equally, if the energy of the particle is accurately known then time becomes indeterminate. What this means is that if an event takes place fast enough , on the order of \( 10^{-15}\) seconds, then the mass-energy conservation laws are not violated. So this raises the possibility that the electron maintains its movement around the nucleus by emitting and absorbing virtual photons. This theory has been subsequently proved by an experiment known as the Lamb Shift. The hyperphysics web-site has a reliable reference to the Lamb shift. Surely this is a much more acceptable explanation of the existence of atoms than the hugely complicated wave function that was initially evolved to solve just this problem ? The point here is that it is impossible to completely dismiss the findings of QM, although those findings can be used to evolve alternate explanations for phenomenon, that are at present taken as gospel.
    Another conundrum posed by physics is the phenomenon of current in a wire. It is well known that if a difference of potential is applied to a free electron, the electron will move at the speed of c . However, what is less well known is that the average velocity of an electron in a wire to which a difference of potential is applied is just \(3*10^{-3}\) cms/sec. An explanation of this is as follows. If we assume that the current density flowing in a wire is \(1 amp/cm^2\) and that the velocity of random motion of electrons is known, then using the definition:
    1) \(J = en_e v\)
    2) Where \(e = 4.6 * 10^{-19}\) cgs esu, \(n_e =\frac { Z}{a^3}\)=10[sup]22[/sup] to 10[sup]23[/sup] cm.
    Transforming 1 amp into electrostatic units \(1A = 3*10^9\) cgs esu. Substituting these values gives \(v = 10^{-3}\) cms/sec.

    This is incredibly slow, much slower than a person would take to walk from one end of the wire to the other. Yet physics states that it is the electron which is the basic unit of electrical charge. (i.e., it is the electron that is the charge carrier in a current.) So what is the explanation for the flow of current in a wire ? One explanation that is frequently put forward, is that a conductor through which an electric current is being passed resembles a tube filled with ping pong balls, put in one ping pong ball at one end and one comes out of the other end. Unfortunately, a wire through which a conductor is being passed does not resemble this scenario at all. For one electron to hit another would be roughly the equivalent of trying to hit one billiard ball with another that is 50 Kms away ! Even though free electrons in a conductor are often compared to molecules in a gas, which often collide, this is not an accurate picture of the state of things when a current is flowing through a conductor. If this is a bit too complicated to understand, how does current flow through a capacitance linked circuit. We know for a fact that no electrons pass through the capacitor, yet when an alternating current is applied to the circuit a current is seen to flow through it. So what is happening. Maxwell explained this by stating that there is a displacement current, in other words the atoms of the di-electric are physically deformed when a current tries to pass through it, when the current reverses the di-electric relaxes and a current is established in the circuit. If this is the case it still does not explain how electrons are the charge carriers. Failing to find a better explanation, QM had no other resort but to try to embrace Maxwells equations for electromagnetism and try to fit it into a quantum theory, The result is something known as quantum electrodynamics. The mathematical chaos that resulted the sleight of hand and subterfuges that are put into practice to do this are well known, normalization, re-normalisation, division by zero etc., Is there another solution ? Let’s move on.
    Perhaps the most controversial theory of QM is that of wave particle duality. How can something be a wave and a particle at the same time? According to the complementarity theory of Neils Bohr a photon can be either a particle or a wave but never both at the same time. To put it another way , How can mutually exclusive wave-like and particle – like behaviours both be properties of one and the same light ? QM explains this by saying that , they are not behaviours of light, they are properties of our interaction with light. The most frequently quoted experiment in this regard is the double slit experiment. Where a photon seems to be aware of the second slit being open or closed and acts correspondingly, i.e., producing either an interference pattern or a diffraction pattern. This experiment has been performed with electrons, and even alpha particles yielding the same result. This seems to lend credence to the theory that all particles have wave like properties. This is a very important aspect of QM because so many suppositions, many of them outrageous and cabalistic have been built around the results of the double slit experiment. For instance, one of the frequently asked questions is: “How does information get around so fast. How can the photon know when the other slit is open ? “ From the double slit experiment has arisen the theory that light ( photons ) in some way disassociate themselves and suddenly reappear at the point of detection. It also seems to support the theory that photons can be in two places simultaneously . Is there any other explanation?
    To offer an explanation that satisfies all criteria, we have to make two propositions that are directly in contradiction of Quantum Mechanics (a) that light is simultaneously a particle and a wave and (b) that an aether type of medium exists. As regards (a) what would have been unthinkable 70 or 80 years ago when QM was first proposed is now fairly common place. For instance the ultrasonic that is used to break kidney stones into pieces is one example where a wave (sound) is behaving as if it had particle like or solid properties. How is it possible to break a stone using just sound, which is after all a wave, in this case consisting of air molecules? Later on an attempt will be made to show how a photon can be simultaneously both a particle and a wave.
    With regard to point (b) Quantum mechanics has already realized that there must be something similar to the aether to account for what otherwise can only be accounted for as action at a distance. As usual with QM they have gone overboard with the concept of fields, wanting to have a different field for each separate particle, at one time more than one hundred fields was the accepted norm. The aether type of field that is suggested for ‘Gestalt’ theory is a virtual photon type of aether. Consider that most of the stable sub atomic particles such as electrons and protons exist practically forever i.e., 10[sup]22[/sup] years. Yet the photon is supposed to have a very short life span that exists only from the time it is emitted to the time it is absorbed. What if in actual fact the photon also has a very long life span comparable to that of the electron or the proton. The origin of this virtual photon aether would be the Big Bang itself when photons in unimaginable numbers flooded the whole of the Universe. How do they survive undetected ? The answer would seem to lie in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle. If these photon have a low enough energy on the order of \(10^{-15}\) cgs esu . They can survive indefinitely. Imagine what the existence of such a virtual photon aether would mean:-

    1) It would be tasteless
    2) Odourless
    3) Undetectable
    4) Would pass through matter without any difficulty, since no atom would react with photons of such low energy.
    5) Would serve as medium for the transport of electromagnetic radiation.
    6) Would be an explanation for why the speed of light is constant.
    7) Would totally explain the Double slit experiment.
    8) Occupies the whole Universe

    Gestalt Theory:

    Having established, the concept of a virtual photon type of aether. It is time to go over the basic facts of Gestalt theory. It is well established that the electron is an electrically charged particle, it is equally well established that changes in an electron’s energy are mediated through the absorption and emission of photons. What could be more natural than that the matter that the electron is emitting and absorbing are pulses of electrical energy. Look at the following diagrams:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    This is what a photon might look like. As can be seen it consists of pulses of electrical energy that have been emitted by an electron, encapsulated in a solenoidal electrical field. What are the properties of such a photon construction:-

    1) The photon has no mass
    2) It will always travel at the speed of c.
    3) It is electrically neutral, meaning that it won’t be affected by electromagnetic fields.
    4) It will preserve its energy intact.
    5) It has the properties of both a transverse wave and of a particle.
    6) High energy photons would have a different emission system as compared to low energy photons such as radio waves.
    7) It travels in straight lines until it is absorbed.

    In short such a photon construction means that all of the criteria associated with a photon are realized. But how does the photon propagate through space. To answer this we have to return to the concept of a virtual photon aether. Let us assume that the virtual photon aether is randomly oriented when at rest. When a real photon is emitted from an electron the virtual photons along its line of propagation line up in a line whose ends rest on infinity. The real photon then travels along this line of virtual photons, till it either loses energy and joins the virtual photon sea or till it is absorbed by a suitable electron in its path. A discussion of how a photon can lose energy and turn into a virtual photon will take place later. For now we return to the Double slit experiment. Look at this diagram.:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In this diagram it can be clearly seen that the when both the slits are open the particle photon, electron alpha particle etc., follow the route taken by the virtual photon ether as it passes through the two slits and aggregates at certain points forming the typical interference pattern associated with the double slit experiment. Interestingly this model of the virtual photon aether and of photon construction, also gives positive results when applied to the polarization experiment.
    ...continued
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    Continuing from the OP and the premise made there that the whole of the known Universe is saturated with “virtual” photons forming the kind of aether proposed by classical physicists, which because of the photon structure postulated, equates to a weak electromagnetic type of aether. Thus the aether consists of infinitesimal 8 * 10 [sup]–8cm[/sup] (approx.) electromagnetic solenoidal points which are oriented at random. All matter would be completely permeable to an aether with these properties. “Virtual” photons because of their extremely low energy would pass through atoms without being noticed and no likelihood of absorption. Thus the ‘virtual photon’ aether is impossible to detect. At the same time , because of its essentially electromagnetic nature, it is extremely sensitive to the least photon activity, varying its orientation accordingly. In the presence of a real photon the “virtual” photons of the aether line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon forming a line whose end rests on infinity , the energy of the real photon is transported along this line of virtual photons. Thus while the ‘virtual photon’ aether cannot be detected its effects are manifest in phenomenon such as the transmission of light and electromagnetic radiation and in the lines of force which can be made visible, as for instance by iron filings. In this respect it is analogous to the situation in the Middle Ages, where people speculated about whether such a thing as ‘air’ existed and yet could feel its effects out in the open in the form of winds, breezes etc.,

    Returning now to the subject of how a current is established in a conductor, it was pointed out that electrons in a metal (wire) at room temperature move in a random motion at speeds of about 10[sup]8[/sup]cms/sec. This motion is completely chaotic and is not an ordered motion in a particular direction. However, when a difference of potential is established across the ends of the wire (conductor) the speed with which the electrons move drops to a mere \(3 * 10^{-3}\)cms/sec. ( One thousandth of a millimeter a second!) This brings us back to the question of determining exactly how, a current is carried. Obviously an electron is a particle with mass and can never move at the speed of light (i.e.,\( 3 * 10^8\)m/sec) although when accelerated in machines such as the LHC they can reach a velocity of 99.9 something % the speed of light. The solution put forward by both Maxwell and later QM, suggests that electrical energy is carried by fields.. Thus when two fields, the electric and the magnetic, meet at an electron, they cause a perturbation, exciting the electron, which in turn energises the field, which in turn causes perturbation in the next electron and so on so that an electrical current results that is established at 3 * 10[sup]10[/sup]cms/sec. Other conventional theories of electricity are even worse. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining the flow of current in a conductor:-

    “When a metal wire is connected across the two terminals of a DC voltage source such as a battery, the source places an electric field across the conductor. The moment contact is made, the free electrons of the conductor are forced to drift toward the positive terminal under the influence of this field. The free electrons are therefore the charge carrier in a typical solid conductor.”

    This seems to be a false statement, it has been proved ( and it is generally well known physics) that when a difference of potential is applied across the ends of a conductor the average drift velocity of electrons is a mere \(3 * 10^{-3}\)cms/second. Further there is little chance of one electron bumping into another and conveying its charge. So the Wikipedia explanation can be ignored. This leaves fields.*

    If the situation is dealt with, with complete honesty, an electron is never seen to transmit energy through fields but through the emission and absorption of photons. This is something that has been repeatedly proved by experiment. So is there a chance that this is what is happening in an electrical conductor carrying a current ? According to the PEP , (Pauli Exclusion Principle) a free electron in a conductor can never (Page 2 ) emit a photon, because the free electron has nothing to recoil on, it would therefore violate the conservation of energy. When an electron emits or absorbs an electron in an atom, the recoil is absorbed by the atom.


    What if electricty were conducted by photons. (I can see expressions of exasperation at this statement) but think about it. Everything would then be easily explained, including the external fields around a conductor, the lines of force etc., Imagine the scenario inside a conductor, when a potential difference is applied. An electron in an outer shell gains energy ( logic tells us that the only way that an electron can gain energy is through photon absorption, in this case absorption of a photon of low energy) and breaks loose from the atom. It is now adrift in the vast interstitial spaces of the conductor with no close neighbour to which it can give up its extra energy. Seemingly there is no way in which it can emit a photon because of the PEP , unless it is able to regain that energy within \(10^15\)secs or less. And this is exactly what happens, (This is possible because of the close proximity of electrons in a conductor, and the speed at which photons travel) the electron emits a photon which is absorbed and re-emitted by another electron and so on, the photons then loop back through lines of force (orientation of the 'virtual photon' aether) and re-enter the conductor. So Faraday's lines of force may have been much more intuitive and closer to the nub of the problem than Maxwell's more complicated equations. If you think about it the fields of force formed by iron filings seen around a wire through which a current is flowing is*identical*to the fields formed around a circular magnet. So the field of force around a straight wire does not depict the field of force around a straight wire but around a circular circuit, that is why it is called a circuit because current flows in a circle. (In the next post an attempt will be made to explain radio waves.)*

    This information is deserving of more time and scrutiny, this time around trying to understand what has been stated: Take a copper wire maybe 1mm in diameter, then at room temperature the free electrons in this wire are moving about at approx: \(10^8 \)cms/sec (1000 Kms/sec.) this is very fast but since their motion is random, everything cancels out, nothing happens. What happens when a difference of potential is applied to the ends of this conductor (copper wire)? Almost instantaneously the speed with which the electrons are moving in the conductor drops to \(3 * 10^{-3}\) cms/sec (One thousandth of a millimetre a second.) This is if a DC current is flowing through the wire, if an AC currrent is flowing through the wire, the electrons don't move at all ! They appear to be frozen in place. How and why does such a dramatic change take place ? If the electrons were absorbing and emitting photons there would be no reason for them to move. This I think is what is happening. What explanation does QM give for this dramatic and sudden change in the movement ( non- movement) of electrons in a conductor when a difference of potential is applied ? To the best of my knowledge none at all, apart from talking about the mean free path that the electrons can follow and the generation of phonons (sound particles !) from the metal lattice. Surely, if a purely unbiased view is taken of these facts the Gestalt Theory stating that the electrons are emitting and absorbing photons and therefore have no reason to move fast, but many reasons to drift or remain stationary is a far more acceptable and likely scenario than the QM theory. The next post about the generation of raio waves will, I hope, be even more telling.

    ..........contd.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    Gravity:

    Any discussion of gravity would have to include a reference to Sir Isaac Newton. Here are some of his thoughts on gravity:
    “Hitherto we have explained the phenomenon of the Heavens and of our seas by the power of Gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centre of the sun and the planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surface of the particles upon which it acts ( as mechanical causes used to do), but according to the quantity of the solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to immense distances, decreasing always in the duplicate proportion to the distances………”

    Yet, Newton makes no claims as to how Gravity works:
    “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses (hypotheses no fingo)….”

    Newton rejected the use of ‘hypothesis’ in scientific method, in the sense that he refused to admit metaphysical or unverifiable ‘assumptions’ _ hypotheses non finga .
    Yet he admits that his theory works:
    “………..And to us it is enough that gravity really does exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”
    (All quotations: Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Vol 2, pp, 313-4. )
    General Relativity Theory has largely been ignored, for the simple reason that NASA scientists would never dream of using it, for their space craft calculations. Gestalt Theory is above all a pragmatic theory, that deals in practical situations. Two things come to mind from reading Newton’s thoughts on Gravity, the first is that he refused to make any hypotheses that was based on metaphysical ‘assumptions’ . We have seen that by contrast QM is only too willing to accept ‘metaphysical assumptions’ as in the 276 dimensions ( what could they be ? ) postulated by Schrodinger’s wave function equation , the disembodiment of photons between the time of emission and absorption, the possibility that photons can exist in two places at one and the same time and the wave particle duality in general. The second and possibly more important point that Newton raised is that he points to where he thinks the causes of gravity may lie:
    “……………according to the quantity of the matter that they contain….”

    This second point brings us squarely back to the Gestalt Theory for the existence of atoms, that was discussed in the OP and which is substantiated by the Lamb’s shift experiment. This shows that all electrons in all atoms are continuously emitting and re-absorbing ‘virtual photons’ The emission and absorption of these ‘virtual photons’ follows the Heisenberg uncertainty principle represented by the equation:



    Thus the energy of these ‘virtual photons’ constantly being emitted and re-absorbed by the electrons in an atom is on the order of real photons, the time taken for the emission and re-absorption of these photons, which is on the order of 10[sup]-15[/sup] secs, is what makes them virtual photons, that are capable of eluding the mass-conservation laws.
    Obviously the more electrons an atom possesses , the more virtual photons that will be emitted and absorbed. Thus denser material will feature a greater number of ‘virtual photons’ than lighter material and this is exactly what was postulated by Newton. The ‘virtual photon’ aether lines up in the direction of propagation of each of these ‘virtual photons’ , emitted by the atom, into lines whose ends rest on infinity and the force resulting from this interaction is what we experience as gravity.
    Before anyone even begins to pooh pooh this theory let me remind you that the gravitational force is approximately 10[sup]39[/sup] times weaker than the electromagnetic force. Think of what this means 10[sup]39[/sup] is a number that possibly exceeds the entire number of atoms in the Universe. This gives adequate grounds to suppose that the gravitational force is due to some type of virtual interaction, the theory proposed by Gestalt Theory that it is virtual photons emitted and re-absorbed by electrons of the atom in less than 10[sup]-15[/sup] secs. that is responsible for the force of gravity is thus at least tenable.
    Even more satisfying is the fact that this theory of gravity exactly accounts for the concept of inertial mass. The reason that a shotput made of iron and a feather fall to the earth at exactly the same time in the presence of a vacuum is that they are being pulled away from the earth with a force that is in direct proportion to the force that is attracting them towards the earth.

    Conclusion:

    First the term Gestalt Theory: The definition of 'Gestalt' according to the Online Dictionary means : " a configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that it cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts." Which is why I thought it would be fitting to call this new theory a 'Gestalt Theory'.
    If you have read the whole of this thread from the beginning you will have noticed that in a few short paragraphs an explanation has been given for (1) the nature of light (i.e., wave and particle simultaneously) (2) Flow of current in a conductor ( Charge carriers are 'conduction' photons not electrons) (3) Radio waves ( are composite waves made up of photons arranged in parrallel) (4) magnetism ( is the same as electromagnetism) (5) Gravity ( is due to the interaction between the 'virtual photon' aether and virtual photons emitted and absorbed by electrons rotating around the atom, in a process of self interaction. Further all of the theories and explanations put forward here are amenable to being put into a coherent mathematical framework, that should improve on present results by being even more precise than they are at present. The point here is that if even one of these explanations falls short, nothing else works. Yet if everything does work as stated, then the end result is something that is greater than the sum of those parts, because each part fits perfectly into the theory as a whole.

    ..........Contd.
     
  8. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    A discussion on radio waves:
    There can be no doubt that electrons absorb and emit photons in the visible and higher wave-length range. This has been frequently observed in the photo-electric effect and in the study of atomic spectra and so on. Thus it is established that by absorbing or emitting a photon an electron can change its energy. But what happens when electromagnetic radiation of longer wave lengths is involved ? Take for instance electromagnetic radiation taking place at 60Hz, this yields an incredible wavelength of 5000 Km ( i.e., c= wf = 3*10[sup]8[/sup]* 60 = 5*10[sup]6[/sup]m
    m.) How can a photon with a radius of 10[sup]-13[/sup] cms emit a photon with a wave-length of 5 * 10[sup]6[/sup] m. Quantum Physics says that it is the vibration and spin of the electrons in the conductor that sets up these huge wave lengths. Again, if one is honest about the issue, it can straight away be seen to be bad science two completely different explanations for a phenomenon that is identical in all but size. So how does Gestalt Theory deal with this problem. Gestalt theory states that the largest photon that an electron can emit has a wave length of about 10[sup]-8[/sup]m. . This gives it an energy of about 1.98 * 10[sup]-19[/sup] J/s. Interestingly this is also the amount of energy that an electron in one of the outer shells of the electrical conductor would have to absorb to break away from the parent atom. So an electron in one of the outer shells absorbs a low energy photon (which will henceforth be called the conduction photon) ( on the order of 1.98 * 10[sup]-19[/sup] J/s) and is freed from the parent atom, it then emits a conduction photon of the same energy, and immediately re-absorbs a conduction photon of the same energy, and so on. This is due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle that states that free electrons cannot absorb or emit photons, because it would be in violation of the conservation of momentum. By immediately absorbing a photon of the same energy this is avoided. So the photons in the conductor are constantly leaving the conductor and looping back into the conductor so that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is never violated. In effect the ‘virtual photon’ aether aligns itself to form the lines of force and the energy of the conduction photons travel along these lines of force. However, these lines of force formed by the ‘virtual photon’ aether are arranged in series, what this means is that every line of force regardless of its length contains the energy of just one conduction photon (i.e., 1.98 * 10[sup]-19[/sup] J/s. ).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Since at any given time there are not less than 10[sup]18[/sup] of these lines of force each having an energy of 1.98 * 10[sup]–19[/sup] J/s a current is established in the conductor. So with a given current flowing in the conductor n lines of force are produce resulting in x current. ( i.e., n * 1.98 * 10[sup]-19[/sup] J/s.) Obviously the greater the current the more dense the lines of force. Now consider what happens when the current is suddenly stopped the electrons in the conductor no longer need to absorb photons, so the photons in the lines of force have nowhere to go. If a conductor is close by in the vicinity they enter that conductor giving rise to a current in that conductor and if a conductor is not in the immediate vicinity the change their orientation arranging themselves in parallel and speed away from the conductor at the speed of light.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    These are radio waves. Now consider that a 0.5m wave length radio wave has an energy of 2.48 * 10[sup]-25[/sup] J/s . Dividing the 0.5m wavelength by the conduction photon wave length gives the number of conduction photons in this composite radio wave. So 0.5/ 10 [sup]6[/sup] = 500,000 conduction photons, multiplying this by the eigen value of the 0.5m wave gives 1.24 * 10[sup]-19[/sup] J/s. Which is about approximate. Thus each composite electro-magnetic wave has the same energy as a conduction photon. The maths in this is very rough at the moment. It will have to be spruced up.
    In brief both lines of force formed by conduction photons travelling along lines of force formed by the orientation of the ‘virtual photon’ aether and composite waves, contain the energy of a single conduction photon. The difference is that composite waves share the energy among all the conduction photons of which it is composed giving a corresspodingly lower eigen value or energy. Photons in the visual spectrum and higher that are directly emitted by photons travel in the series configuration.
    In one sense this theory is certainly an improvement on the QM version, which apart from depending on electron spin, electron vibration etc., also uses quantum entaglement to explain photons in the radio wave frequency range, but I don't say it can't be spruced up.
     
  9. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    Predictions of Gestalt Theory:

    (I have not yet dealt with how 'Gestalt Theory' treats the concepts of either superconductivity or black holes but I am willing to make some predictions:


    1) Super conductivity is always arranged in a circular circuit so that the current can keep circulating round the circuit.

    2) The electromagnetic field around a super conducting element would be different from an ordinary electromagnetic field. If a conductor (i.e., metal rod , wire etc.,) was moved through this electromagnetic field, only negligible current would be generated in the conductor.

    3) A circular magnet held above the super magnet would be suspended in the air above the super conductor, without any regard to polarity ! (i.e., if you turned it round, so that the poles were reversed, it would still remain suspended.)

    4) If an electromagnet was brought near the super conductor, the super conductor would have the effect of ejecting the current from the electromagnet.

    These are the predictions I have made by applying the theory of Gestalt Theory to the phenomena of super conductivity. I have to tell you that I don't know if any of these predections are right. I am going to look it up.

    The next prediction is about Gestalt Theory with regard to Black Holes. Obviously the Gestalt Theory of Gravity could not apply to either neutron stars or to Black Holes, simply because there would be no atoms in these two cases. What Gestalt Theory can predict is that in the case of the neutron star where only the nucleus is left and all the electrons have been stripped off, is that the nucleus would not last long but would soon start to degrade in the absence of electrons. Thus Gestalt Theory predicts that Black Holes emit a kind of super gravity, much stronger than ordinary gravity.
     
  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    You do realize that the people here are generally not stupid right? Well there are a few notable exceptions, but I digress. I doubt anyone here has given a 'Nigerian offical' their bank account numbers. I also doubt that anyone has bought a 'rolex' from a guy in a back alley.

    Likewise nobody is buying this crap. It is embarrassingly obvious that you looked up superconductivity and wrote down (to the best of your ability) the properties (you did a terrible job of it) and then said here are my predictions, and then added, "Gee, I don't know if these are right, I will look up superconductivity now and see if I was right". I hope to God you don't actually expect anyone to buy this! This is absolutely pathetic.

    Nothing in your rambling word salad would lead to the 'predictions' that you made.

    Please stop; this is embarrassing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2012
  11. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, that is your prerogative. If you can live with the 276 dimensions required by the Schrodinger wave function, please feel free to do so. Oh! and yes, also don't forget to be vituperative to anyone who disagrees with your beliefs. I use the word beliefs since you seem to take a fanatical attitude to anything differing from your professed 'beliefs'. If you can explain even four or five different dimensions, it would really be something that no-one else can do and by the time you get through explaining what 276 dimensions might #&%^$! be, maybe you will be locked away somewhere?
     
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    The schrodinger equation can be rather daunting to say the least, but making stuff up is hardly the a useful alternative!

    Nice word!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    Instead of indulging in such diatribes, why not explain a simple concept. How does electricity flow in a wire. Simple enough to do AND remember you are not allowed to make things up, try to be reasonable in your explanation.
     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    That's the diatribe.
     
  15. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Electrons travel, on average, in one direction under the influence of an electric field. \(I = \frac{V}{R}\). Is that simple enough?
     
  16. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    If you could read this I think you would have a better idea of what I am expecting. Mainly if the drift velocity of electrons is 3 x 10[sup] -3 [/sup] (which is a thousandth of a millimetre a second) when a difference of potential is established in the conductor, how can an electric current be established at speed of c? Also with no difference of potential across the conductor the average velocity of electrons in a conductor is about 10[sup]8[/sup] cms/sec. How do you explain the slowing down of electrons when a difference of potential is established ? I have in the linked post at least given an explanation for this phenomenon.
     
  17. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    The inverse square law as applied to photons:

    The QM explanation for light is that once a photon is emitted by an electron it will, unless absorbed by a suitable electron in its path, travel forever. But is this really true, is this what we observe in real life. Maybe not, light in our practical experience does not seem to travel forever and for infinite distances, rather, it seems to spread out until eventually it is no longer detectable. This spreading out of light occurs according to the inverse square law. But exactly why does light and electromagnetic radiation in general behave this way.
    A 'virtual photon' aether, that pervades the whole of the Universe offers one explanation. When an electron emits a photon, the 'virtual photons' of the aether ( which are extremely low energy photons on the order of 10[sup] -19[/sup] eV) , along its path align themselves in the direction of travel of the photon forming a line whose ends rest on infinity and the energy of the emitted photons travels along this line of aligned virtual photons. However as the photon travels along the aligned line of 'virtual photons' it begins to share its energy with the 'virtual photons' around it. Yet the energy of the photon is shared among the 'virtual photons' in such a manner that its own original energy is always intact. How is this possible ? The explanation is that photons are emitted by the electron in a straight line in numbers depending on their frequency. Thus the energy of the leading photon in the 'line' is always being renewed by those behind it. The shape that results from these interactions is cone shaped, (i.e., in keeping with the inverse square law. ) So if for instance an electrom emitting red light might emit 500 x 10[sup] 14[/sup] photons every second. Even though the radiation ( emission of photons) is isotropic, (i.e., radiating in all directions.)the photons that are emitted still follow the inverse square law. Since there would be in the region of a minimum of 10[sup]22[/sup] electrons emitting photons at the rate of 10 [sup]14[/sup] photons a second, from a cross section of the radiating object, the manner described for the working of the inverse square law seems to feasible.
    Those who are reading this will now immediately exclaim 'what rubbish....!!' or 'I never heard such b....s.... !" and other similar statements. They are forgetting one extremely important and practically inexplicable fact. Namely that the mean free path of a photon in space is approximately 10[sup]23[/sup] Kms. Think about what this means it seems to suggest that an emitted photon can travel for a distance of 10 billion light years ( wikipedia source) without meeting any obstruction!

    And YET, and yet here is the nub, electromagnetic radiation while travelling through these vast empty spaces, (think Voyager transmissions) and transmitting over billions of kilometres of distance, exactly ( and I stress the word exactly) follow the inverse square law. Receivers are constructed taking exactly these parameters into account. In fact the transmissions from the Voyager space craft were only made possible because of the signal bouncing of the heliosphere and also through boosting by space craft that were intermediately located in space during the transmissions. With nothing to absorb them why do the photons still spread out in this manner ? (Remember that when we talk of voyager transmissions we are speaking of 'radio' waves and not of light.) So the signal from Voyager would arrive at the detecting point with the photons carrying the same intial energy as they set out with but with a reduced intensity that is determined by the inverse square law.

    So how does it happen, as I have pointed out the existence of a 'virtual photon' aether would exactly account for why light follows the inverse square law. It would also explain why collimated light ( as for instance from a laser) can travel for much longer distances and doesn't follow the inverse square law. If we take the 'virtual photon' aether explanation into account, it just means that the collimated beam of light offers less surface to interact with the 'virtual photon' aether, consequently the spreading out effect is much reduced and the light can travel much further.
     
  18. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    For crying out loud the inverse square law has nothing to do with with an individual photon!

    It is simply geometry. This is very basic stuff that does not need some crazy explanation.
     
  19. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    On the propagation of radio waves:

    Gestalt Theory holds the view that all radio waves are composite waves and that they are made up of conduction photon ( i.e., name given by Gestalt Theory to the photon that carries electrical charge) wave lengths connected in parallel. Thus the eigen energy of a single conduction photon is distributed across the whole of the radio wave. This is demonstrated as follows:


    Let :
    \(P_{c}\) = conduction photon
    \(e_{c}\) = eigen value conduction photon.
    \(e_{r}\) = eigen value radio wave.
    \(\gamma_{r} \) = wavelength radio wave
    \(\gamma_{c}\) = wavelength conduction photon
    \( n_{c}\)= \(\frac{\gamma_{r}}{\gamma_{c}}\)

    Then eigen value \(\gamma_r\) = \(\hbar\gamma_{r}\)

    and

    \({e_{r}}{n_{c}}\) = \( e_{c}\)

    also

    \(\frac{e_{r}}{e_{c}}\) = \(n_{c}\)

    In effect each radio wave is made up of a number of conduction photons connected in parallel and the eigen value of the radio wave = the eigen value of the conduction photon divided by the number of conduction photon wave lengths in the composite radio wave.

    It is therefore possible to determine the eigen value of the radio wave by dividing the eigen value of the conduction photon by \( n_{c}\) (i.e., number of conduction photon wave lengths present.)
     
  20. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    I would be extremely interested in seeing an example of the simple geometry that you speak of, considering that it must take place when there is nothing to interact with.
     
  21. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Hi. I had trouble posting the following in the Luminiferous aether thread, so I am posting it here too, as it seems relevant and just in case the other post doesn't make it!

     
  22. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    That is a beautiful description of a radio wave. I remember, hearing about how long radio waves (i.e., the old AM modulated waves before FM became widespread) used to travel extremely long distances and a part of the wave would turn up in unexpected places, like around corners and so on.
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,842
    Here you go
     

Share This Page