Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
367 replies to this topic

#1 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 21 June 2007 - 07:43 PM

October 2012 Update Edit:

This forum is about our new Intermittent Electron Theory that has been recently published

in Physics Essays:
The Theory of Intermittent Electrons

 

 

April 2020 Update Edit:

Announcing Four New Videos:

 

New Wisdom Unifies Physics!

 

These four videos explain the paper, "The Theory of Intermittent Electrons" and this forum.

("A video says a 1,000,000 words").

 

So here they are.  Get busy watching them and then commenting right here!

 

Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!

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

https://www.youtube....h?v=_uc5yQvkbnM

 

Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!

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

https://www.youtube....h?v=xJkFf8NOt4w

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

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

https://www.youtube....h?v=I7JC31jAyXw

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

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

https://www.youtube....h?v=KAG49QhwYDM

 

 

Finally, I am working on the final unifying video:

Episode 4: Gravity!

It will be done this year.  You will have to wait in suspense to see how this theory unifies Physics.

But it is coming!

 

 

Note: If you have a slow internet connection you can download these videos directly to your computer

from Google Drive and watch them locally on your computer.

You can then put them on a thumb drive and give the videos to your friends and tell them to come here

and comment on them!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now... Back to the original 2007 thread:

Here are the biggest problems with QM as I see it and the solution to these problems:

1) The Photoelectric Paradox.




The photoelectric effect setup for a 10 eV UV photon is like this:


photoelectric7.gif


A UV photon is incident on a metal plate with an energy of approximately 10 eV. An electron with the max energy is ejected with an energy of approximately


Emax = hv - Ф = 10 eV - 3 eV = 1.12 x 10-18 J


This implies that the photoelectron has a momentum of  [math] P_e=\sqrt{2mE_{max} }[/math], or


|Pe| = 270 |PUV|


Check the arithmetic yourself. This is no arithmetic error. The photoelectron ends up with 270 times the momentum of the UV photon. Think about this for a moment...


Now, it is possible for QM theory to conserve momentum in this case by giving the metal plate a huge momentum in the "backwards" direction. This is how QM must respond. The metal plate recoils with a large momentum in the "backwards" direction, away from the photoelectron:


momentum.gif


Just how the photon in QM theory gives the metal plate such a large momentum in the transverse direction is not exactly clear, and a little doubtful in my opinion. However, this is not all.


It is also fairly well known that the most likely angle for the electron ejection is at 90o. See


Phys. Rev. 37 (1931): Milton A. Chaffee - The Angular Distribution of...


The electron can actually absorb a photon and be ejected in a direction greater than 90 degrees heading back to where the photon came from. How can the photon "knock the electron backwards" through absorption? This just does not make sense, and this does not seem like a particle absorption. This phenomena seems like a transverse electric force reaction, plain and simple. If this is the case, then the polarization of the wave must come into play:


photoelectric8.gif


If I am correct, then the UV light that is polarized perpendicular to the metal plate will eject electrons much more readily than UV light polarized in the horizontal plane. (We will see how this works later).


And indeed, this is the case!


Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper

http://repositories....03&context=lbnl

 

Quoted from Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper

"The QE dependence on angle of incidence and light polarization is a long standing problem [4–8] that largely remains to be understood."


"A QE enhancement is found for light with electric field perpendicular to the sample’s surface, showing a vectorial photoelectric effect."




We see that Quantum Mechanics has absolutely failed here with this new information!



It appears that the polarization of the wave must be brought into consideration, but QM has treated this as a particle interaction. Bohr's Principle of Complementarity does not allow the wave nature to be brought in:




Quoted from Neils Bohr

"a single quantum mechanical entity can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never simultaneously as both."



And since photons in QM theory are circularly polarized with a "spin" equal to 1, this portion of the theory has failed in this paradox as well, as vertically polarized EM radiation is required to solve this paradox!

photoelectric16.gif

What is required is a new theory which we will see in a moment.





2) The Bremsstrahlung Paradox.




The setup for a 25 KeV x-ray machine is like this:


bremsstrahlung5.gif


X-rays are emitted when 25 KeV electrons are blasted onto a metal plate. The electrons enter the surface and bounce around, probably thousands or millions of times like "Ricochet Rabbit", emitting radiations of all frequencies up to a cutoff frequency, called the Bremsstahlung Cutoff Frequency, in all directions. According to QM, this maximum frequency is given by the energy of a photon with energy given by:


[math]E = h \nu_{max}[/math]


But does this really make sense?


Suppose that an x-ray photon with almost the maximum frequency is given off. This implies the following scenario:


bremsstrahlung4.gif


Think about this scenario for a moment. To have an interaction that creates a photon with nearly the max energy, a single interaction must nearly stop the electron and produce the max energy photon.


But these are conservative Coulomb fields that the electron is interacting with. If an electron comes in for a close encounter with a nucleus or another electron, it leaves the encounter with approximately the same speed that it came in with. We know this from scattering experiments. A single encounter that stops the incoming electron is just not feasible. It's just not going to happen. It's probably going to take millions of deflections to stop the electron. Check it yourself.


So again, Quantum Mechanics has failed. A single interaction to mostly stop the Bremsstahlung electron is just not feasible.

(What really is happening comes later)




3) Electron Spin




It was in the latter part of the last century that electrons were discovered to be smaller than 10-15 cm from electron scattering experiments. This was a problem because it then became impossible for the electron to have a magnetic moment without it's surface velocity exceeding the speed of light. So the statement in modern physics is that:




"Electron spin is not something spinning".




Many 1st year QM students do this calculation. But there is another problem with electron spin that has surfaced. Recall that magnetic moments precess in a magnetic field. There are many instances in modern physics where this is used. However, it is known that a precessing magnetic moment would radiate. Whenever there are time dependent fields, there is radiation. Whenever there is an acceleration involving charges, there is radiation. Precessing magnetic moments radiate, that's all there is to it. But atomic electrons do not radiate in a magnetic field. Hence, it seems to me that electrons probably do not have a magnetic moment, and hence do not have angular momentum. So we now have two oxymorons:




"Electron spin is not something spinning".

"Electron magnet moment is not a moment."





A point particle just cannot have "something spinning", and a point particle cannot have a "moment" of any kind.


This is just not acceptable to the purely logical mind, and if you will open it, you will see that this New Theory is much better.




4) Wave Particle Duality




One thing unique to QM theory is its invention of the wave-particle paradox. It seemed like wave-particle duality was necessary because the evidence was mounting for the baffling behavior of both light and electrons. In particular, the most baffling of these was the low intensity double slit experiment. Look on the net and see that this experiment is still being argued around after nearly a century.


The double slit output:


doubleslit.gif


Questions:




1) How can the "photon" know about the other slit if it goes through just one?


2) How can the "photon" interfere with itself it if it just goes through one slit?





The first myth that needs to be cleared up is cleared up with the following statement:



One film dot ≠ One photon detection.



Many QM books have pictures of film dots accumulating like the above picture. Well consider this:


For 200 ISO film, minimum blackening is .004 lux-sec, or 0.04 millijoules/cm². See:


Radiometry and photometry in astronomy


So take 1% of this minimum blackening illumination, and consider 0.0004 mJ/cm². This illumination is below the threshold of the film. In other words, this illumination is so weak that no dots are formed on the film. Now, one visible photon has an energy of about


2 x 10-19 Joules


If you do the division, you get that about 200 billion photons can strike a cm² of the film without producing a film dot. Think about this for a moment. 200 Billions-worth of photon-energy can strike a cm² of the film and not produce a single film-dot. So these pictures, like the one above, in first year QM books are a serious exaggeration.


So what would happen if an extremely low intensity wave were incident on some ISO 200 speed film? Well, film has tiny silver bromide crystals. These crystals must have crystal defects, or they are not light sensitive at all. So a lot of light could hit these crystals with no effect.


But some crystals have defects, some with more defects than others. These are the most light sensitive crystals. These "most sensitive" crystals are randomly distributed across the film. When the incident light wave intensity just reaches the threshold for film-dot production, it is these "most sensitive" crystals that are randomly activated first. This random activation of the "most sensitive" crystals would start to make a pattern like that seen in figure 5.25A from being struck by a low intensity wave.


A low intensity wave incident on film would produce the patterns seen in the above figure because the film is discrete crystals.



No harm done, you say as you consider yourself an advanced physicist? OK, then let's move on to the next best "one-photon-at-a-time" claim, photomultipliers. The double slit can be done with supposedly "one-photon-at-a-time" photomultipliers:


http://www.wm.edu/ph...eniorThesis.pdf


 

"The polarizing filters are used to cut the light down to an intensity low enough that only one photon is in the apparatus at a time. . . Using the detector slit, the photomultiplier tube measures photon counts at different positions of the screen. Counts can be plotted with respect to X and the interference pattern constructed."



The same myth needs to be cleared with the following statement:



One photomultiplier tick ≠ One photon detection.



The same reasoning applies to this apparatus. Photomultipliers, like any detection device (be it film, digital camera, etc) has a threshold illumination below which no detection takes place. For example, take the photomultiplier tube in the above paper, with, for example, a blocking area of 10 μm². put it 1 meter away from the double slit and set the crossed polarizers so that the illumination is so low that the photomultiplier ticks once per second. Now move that photomultiplier 100 meters away from the double slit, and increase the blocking area proportionately so it is looking down the same solid angle.


Theoretically, according to QM, the same number of photons going down the solid angle at one meter will still be going down the solid angle at 100 meters. So the number of ticks supposedly will be the same. Wrong, the intensity at 100 meters is so low that the photomultiplier will not record one tick per second. It will record nothing but noise. Not convinced? Try it yourself. Next, try moving the photomultiplier a kilometer away and see if it will tick while looking down the same solid angle.


Again, to the purely logical mind, wave-particle paradox is not acceptable, and if there is a better way, the purely logical mind would be open to it.




Next, consider "one-electron-at-a-time" double slit experiments in a electron microscope. Here is A. Tonomura video:


http://www.hqrd.hita...ubleslite-n.wmv


And here is the picture:


fig2.jpg


Look familiar? Well, they had to use film in this experiment as well. Again, the myth needs to be cleaned up by this statement:



One film dot ≠ One electron detection.



Many electrons can strike a film crystal with no crystal defects and produce no dots. In addition, "cross-the-gap" high voltage currents tend to surge. They build up on the electron gun tip, surge across the gap as a group, then start to build up again. Think about a thunderstorm and lightning. A huge charge builds up in the clouds at high voltage. Does it flow smoothly across-the-gap to the ground? No! There are plenty of electrons to interfere with each other as they high voltage surge "across-the-gap" like a lightning strike.


These one-particle-at-a-time claims are not realistic. QM is not needed to explain wave particle duality, and again, if a more logical explanation were available, the truly open mind would at least look at it.




5) Quantum Entanglement.




The famous EPR paper started it all. (Einstein, Podalski, & Rosen). Then came J.S. Bell's paper and his now famous "Bell's Inequality". And finally Alain Aspect's experiments using Bell's Inequality applied to "photons". The bottom line of all this came to the QM concept that:




Bell's Inequality places restrictions on probabilities based on local realities. Since Bell's inequality is violated, then local reality is impossible.



So now we will have a discussion about raw logic. In mathematics if we have a hypothesis and come to a point in its proof where we get:



4+1 ≠ 5



Well, we simply abandon the hypothesis as incorrect. Like electron spin. Electron spin was hypothesized by two graduate students in 1925. Later we found out that



Electron Spin ≠ Something Spinning



So likewise in this case, we need to abandon the electron spin hypothesis as incorrect. BUT! The spin Nobel Prize has already been awarded and one must not say that this Nobel Prize is wrong. (Even though a purely logical mind might be tempted).


So here we find ourselves with yet another QM oxymoron:



Local Reality ≠ Reality



So we start out with a hypothesis about photon polarizations and find that there is no reality. So if you ask Mr. Vulcan, just based on pure logic, he will say that there is some hypothesis that needs to be abandoned.


Which one?


The Photon Hypothesis needs to be abandoned. The only reason it has not been abandoned until now is that there has not been a suitable replacement. Now there is.





6) Renormalization.




The electron's mass-energy is roughly 1/2 MeV. This mass-energy is the amount contained in a static electric field emanating from a charge with a radius roughly


rc = 2x10-13 cm


An electron, however, is known to be more like


re = 2x10-15 cm


or smaller. The electric field energy from such a small particle is roughly 50 MeV. This is troublesome to say the least. If the resultant mass-energy of the electron is indeed just 1/2 MeV, then the mass function for a static electron must go negative below this "classical electron radius".


So once again we have a logical contradiction:



A static electron's actual size < minimum permitted size



So how has QM handled this paradox? With Renormalization. Renormalization is a process where one is faced with infinities in equations. To rid these infinities, one plays games so that a +∞ integral can cancel out a -∞ integral. A Nobel Prize was actually awarded to Gerardus 't Hooft for a particularly clever way to cancel infinities. But listen to what the famous physicist Paul Dirac had to say about renormalization:


 

Quoted from Paul Dirac

"I am very disturbed by the situation because the so-called good theory quantum theory does involve neglecting infinities in an arbitrary way. This is not sensible. Sensible Mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it's small; not because it's infinitely great and we do not want it."




As soon as he started to criticize the mainstream for illogic, he was out of there. It appears that raw logic will not necessarily advance your physics career.


Next, listen to what the inventor of renormalization had to say about it:


 

Quoted from Richard Feynman

"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent."


"I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."




So again we are faced with the raw logic of having to abandon some hypothesis. The point particle electron is logically inconsistent. But which hypothesis do we abandon?


Well, we have only one choice.


The static electron viewpoint must be abandoned. Raw logic dictates that the structure of the electron must be dynamic. A static negative mass function cannot be possible. We shall abandon the static electron for a New Theory with a dynamic electron structure!






7) A better theory is now possible.



So we now have the fundamental criteria for the new theory.


1) The electron's structure must be dynamic.

2) It must cover the photoelectric effect.

3) It must cover the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.

4) It must have stable, nonradiating atoms, especially in a B field.

5) It must allow for electron interference.

6) It must allow for Compton Scattering, Hydrogen Spectra, etc. . .



The first four fundamental criteria give us no choice but to insist that an electron be a pulsating particle.


That is, an electron turns its electric field ON and OFF. And its does so according to De Broglie:


electron_animation3.gif


The faster an electron in accelerated, the faster it pulsates:


electron_animation4.gif


When the electron is ON, it is susceptible to a greater force in an electric field than when it is off. ( the justification for all this exists. Later . . . )


This pulsating particle scenario allows for a stable, nonradiating atom:


http://www.modelofreality.org/atom.gif


Why does this atom not radiate? Because radiation comes from accelerating charges. The electron is only accelerated

while it is OFF. When it is ON, it travels in a straight line. Hence, this atom will not radiate.


Now for the fascinating parts.



The photoelectric effect.



Consider a free electron in a metal, pulsating with a certain frequency. When visible light is incident on the electron, what does it do?



Remember this: If an electron is static, then when an oscillating electric force hits the electron, it simply moves up and down going nowhere.



However, this is not true if the electron is pulsating. If the electron is pulsating just right, it might take off either up or down. This depends on the correlation of electron pulsation frequency with the light. If the electron is ON in phase with the peaks of the light wave, then the electron ill simply go UP and DOWN, also going nowhere. However, if the electron is ON only during the UP part of the light wave, and OFF during the DOWN part of the light wave, then the electron will move upwards very rapidly. It is influenced less by the down part of the light wave, since the electron is OFF! So the electron is accelerated upwards.


Now the electron pulsations start to quicken according to De Broglie:


[math]E_e=\frac{1}{2}h \nu_e[/math]


(the factor of ½ will become clear later) The electron starts to pulsate faster and faster until it no longer is in phase with just the UP part of the light wave. When it becomes fast enough so that the electron is ON in phase with both

peaks of the wave, the acceleration is over. The electron returns to just going UP and DOWN in its co-moving inertial frame. A non-acceleration resonance has occurred! This resonance occurs at the moment that ½ the electron's De Broglie frequency reaches the frequency of the light wave. The electron stops accelerating when


[math]\frac{1}{2} \nu_e= \nu_{light} [/math]


or when


[math]E_e = h \nu_{light}[/math]


Stop and imagine this for a moment. Packets of energy hνlight given to a charged particle without photons! No momentum considerations!


And finally take note: This pulsating theory succeeds in explaining the vectorial photoelectric effect while Quantum Mechanics fails.





Next, the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.



Imagine that a 25 KeV electron collides with a metal plate and goes through the following motion:


http://www.modelofre...rg/radiate2.gif


For a brief moment in the diagram above, the Bremsstrahlung electron goes through an oscillitory motion with a period of about 1x10-18 seconds. This is certainly possible, as almost any random motion would be possible to imagine. Thus, the electron must briefly radiate with a frequency of 1x1018 Hz. There is just no logical way around this. And this radiation's frequency is below the limiting νmax=E/h. You want a 25 keV electron to radiate at a certain frequency below the limit? Well, just move it back and forth at a lower frequency, and it must radiate at this frequency. No way around it.


So the question again becomes:


If the electron gets moved back and forth at a frequency higher than the limit, then why doesn't it radiate at this frequency?


The answer is the Nyquist Frequency Limit. Here is a simple explanation. Lets say that a Bremsstrahlung electron goes through the following motion:

January 2014 Edit: Here is another (better) animation explaining the Nyquist limit:
http://modelofreality.org/16.html


http://www.modelofre...g/nyquist1b.gif



where we have included in the diagram where the Bremsstrahlung electron has pulsed ON proportional to De Broglie. We see that since the movement frequency is less than the De Broglie frequency, then the motion and radiation approximate what we usually associate with an oscillating charge. The radiation frequency closely approximates the movement frequency. No surprise here.


But now lets say that the Bremsstrahlung electron gets moved around much more radically with a much higher movement frequency, like this


http://www.modelofre...g/nyquist2b.gif


We see that the movement frequency is much higher than the pulsation frequency, and the radiation cannot be generated at this frequency. The charge is "OFF" during much of the acceleration. Thus, the radiation cannot follow the movement, and the radiation is aliased down to a lower frequency. This emitted frequency limit is called the Nyquist frequency limit. It is half the electron pulsation frequency. (hence the factor of ½).


Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now this Nyquist frequency chopping is different than frequency modulation. Here is the difference:


http://www.modelofre...g/chopping4.gif


If you modulate a frequency at 1022 Hz with a frequency of 1018 Hz, the resultant frequency is basically still at 1022 Hz.


The modulated wave still acts like a 1022 Hz wave, while the chopped wave aliases back down to 1018 Hz.


For example, if the modulated wave went through a Bragg diffraction crystal lattice (x-ray spectrometer), it would still act like a 1022 Hz wave. But if the chopped wave went through, it would act like a 1018 Hz wave.


So back to the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency. If an electron were pulsating at a certain frequency and generating radiation, we would expect the radiation to be limited to ½ that frequency. The Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency!


[math]E=\frac{1}{2}h \nu_e=h \nu_{max} [/math]


So imagine this for a moment. We have gotten a Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency without using photons, while even allowing for thousands of bumps and ricochets!


This is a much more logical explanation, and I hope you will open your purely logical mind to it.





The Hydrogen Spectra




Recall that this new theory has allowed us to have stable, nonradiating electron orbits.


http://www.modelofreality.org/atom.gif


These orbits do not radiate because the electron is not accelerated while it is ON. We must conclude that the requirement that the electron only be ON while the proton is OFF establishes only certain allowed orbits. If the electron deviates from these allowed orbits, then it will be ON while the proton is ON, and in this case, it will radiate energy. This radiation friction and the huge increase in the force between them will disrupt the trajectory until the electron returns to an allowed orbit.


The advantage of this pulsating model for the hydrogen atom is that the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation actually exists within the atom. In all physical systems, the system’s resonant frequencies actually exist within the system! That is, something is vibrating at these frequencies! In the Schrodinger theory for the hydrogen atom, the electron is normally in a ground state which is actually spherically symmetric and static! The Schrodinger/Born picture has resonant frequencies which do not exist in their static system.


We start the new scenario by assuming that the electron orbits are quasi-circular (not necessarily the case, but most likely). Let ve be the unknown De Broglie frequency of the pulsating electron for some allowed orbit. Let vp be the De Broglie frequency for the proton. Then for stable, quasi-circular orbits we must have


[math]n_p \nu_e = n_e \nu_p[/math]


or


[math]n_pT_p = n_eT_e[/math]


where Tp and Te are the proton's/electron’s pulsation periods and np and ne are integers. This condition keeps the electron in sync with the proton so that they never are ON at the same time.


Since the electron’s allowed orbits only have the proton’s E field ON while the electron is in its OFF state, the average electric force between them may be different than the time averaged Coulomb’s Law. We write


[math]\frac{m_eV^2}{r} = k' \frac{e^2}{r^2}[/math]


where mV²/r is is the average centripetal force on the electron, and k’ is some fraction of the normal Coulomb force constant.


Next, we assume that the resonant frequencies of the hydrogen atom are simply the orbital frequencies of the electrons in their allowed orbits. That is, if an electron in a hydrogen atom were subject to a force that perturbed it, then it would tend to radiate electromagnetic energy that was at these resonant orbital frequencies. Conversely, if electromagnetic radiation were incident on an atomic electron at its resonant orbital frequency, then the atom would start to absorb energy from the resonant wave.


To get the approximate radii of the corresponding electron orbits, we set V= rω

where ω is the orbital angular frequency of the electron. Solving for ω we get


[math]\omega^2 = k' \frac{e^2}{mr^3}[/math]


Substituting in the empirical Rydberg relation gives:


[math]r^3= \frac{k'e^2}{4 \pi^2 c^2R^2m_e } \left ( \frac{1}{m^2} - \frac{1}{n^2} \right) ^{-2} [/math]


The general trend in this new scenario is exact opposite that of Bohr’s atom. In Bohr’s theory, the 6th orbit corresponds to 36ro (ro=Bohr radius of .53A) , or about 19 angstroms. It seems unlikely that such a large orbit would play much of a part in the Lyman series. But the (1,6) Lyman spectral line is strong.


So in this new scenario, the higher the resonant orbital frequency, the smaller the orbital radius.


http://www.modelofre...g/orbitals2.gif


In this new scenario, these are the actual radii of the electronic orbits, with the exact orbital frequencies being the same as the resonant light frequencies:



Orbital Electron Frequencies = Hydrogen Spectrum Frequencies



So if you heat hydrogen gas, or run a current through it, these orbits will be perturbed. These perturbations will disturb the orbits so that the electrons are accelerated while ON, and hence they will start to radiate at their natural frequencies!


It cannot be stressed enough here. These natural frequencies exist within the atom and these natural frequencies are stimulated by perturbations, just like all physical systems with resonances.




In order to keep the new theory's explanation simple, I have neglected to even mention the hydrogen molecule.

Here is how this new pulsating model views the hydrogen molecule:




The Hydrogen Molecule and the Reality-Based Covalent Bond



It is now much easier to understand the hydrogen molecule. Hydrogen is a magnetic dipole. It is attracted to other hydrogen atom like two magnets are attracted to each other. From a distance, the hydrogen atom appears electrically neutral. The magnetic forces still exist, though. Thus, two hydrogen atoms would be pulled towards each other with a relatively small magnetic force until the Coulomb forces come into play. If a collision occurs with a small enough separation distance, an H2 molecule is formed by Coulomb forces.


A stable hydrogen molecule can be constructed using Coulomb attraction as shown in the figure. The two electrons circulate in the same direction in between the two protons, their separation vectors forming two equilateral triangles.


The four pulsating particles are synchronized, allowing only for certain electron orbits so that the stable molecule does not radiate. We finally are able to see a reality-based covalent bond! The two electrons are shared by and are in between the two hydrogen nuclei.


http://www.modelofre...rg/molecule.gif


So I believe that when you run a current through hydrogen gas, it is the molecular hydrogen spectra that you are seeing. This would make sense because the majority of the hydrogen gas is in the diatomic molecular state. So the relative proportions of how the electrons are distributed into the orbitals is predicted by the absorption spectrum of hydrogen. Since the Lyman series is the only series seen in the absorption spectrum of hydrogen, then one would suspect that the electrons would be distributed across the Lyman orbitals at room temperature. (And not mostly in one ground state). The relative intensities of the Lyman absorption spectrum would be proportional to how many electrons were in each Lyman orbital (of molecular hydrogen).


Energy conservation is fascinating in this pulsating theory. On the macroscopic level, all the pulsations of gazillions of particles time-average to Coulomb's Law, and everything is as expected. But on the microscopic level we have tunneling in this theory! Suppose the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is momentarily OFF. Then at that moment, the electron can be quickly moved to a higher orbit without much energy being expended. The electron can "tunnel" to a higher orbit while the nucleus is OFF! So, for example, during collisions with spectrometer current-electrons, the hydrogen's electrons can be moved to different orbits sometimes without having to fight the full centripetal nuclear Coulomb forces.


And when a spectrometer electron collides with the hydrogen electrons, the electrons become "out of sync" with the nuclei, and radiation results. This radiation is at the frequency of electron revolution. This radiation causes "radiation friction". This friction cannot last forever, as the electrons start to feel the nuclear forces while they are ON. Something will change. The orbits will either change or the electrons will decay into the nuclei. Since we do not see spontaneous neutron production, it is safe to assume that the orbitals change back to stable orbits, with or without tunneling.





Electron Interference





This pulsating model for electrons allows a more reasonable picture for electron interference. Here is the setup:


http://www.modelofre...nterference.gif


We have already discussed how high voltage cross-the-gap-currents tend to surge. So a pulse of

coherent electrons emerges from the tip of the electron gun. They make their way towards the positively charge

filament, pulsating in unison since they are coherent. Now when they are bent around the filament, the two sides will

cross in only one place. If the electrons are ON when they cross, a tremendous repulsive force will keep them from

continuing on their way, and they will not strike the film on their original path (a minimum). If the electrons are OFF

when they cross, they will continue on to the screen and hit the film on their original path (a maximum).




This New Theory covers all the fundamentals of microscopic physics. It is hoped that our logical minds

can simply take this a new theory as something that can just be tried and tested, no big deal.



Andrew A. Gray


Edited by andrewgray, 23 June 2020 - 11:08 AM.

  • Blacksmith likes this

#2 TheFaithfulStone

TheFaithfulStone

    Rockin'

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1488 posts

Posted 21 June 2007 - 10:13 PM

Your post has lots of pictures that you obviously spent a lot of time on.

Me thinks you misunderstand the photoelectric effect.

That is all.

TFS

#3 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 21 June 2007 - 11:46 PM

I really enjoyed it.

I agree, it is something to think about, and something else to test for.

Thanks for sharing, I will be looking into this more.

#4 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 11:02 AM

Many of your reasons for abandoning quantum mechanics actually do have explanations. Consider your "photoelectric paradox." The first thing to realize is that this treatment of the photoelectric effect is really a (fairly good) approximation. Very complicated interactions are lumped into the "work function" of the metal.

Now, how can the photon give such a large momentum to the emitted electron? Well, momentum is a vector property, and the metal that ejects the electron is quite massive compared to the electron itself. Hence, a high transverse momentum back the other direction simply means the metal itself is moving forward very slightly, such that the total is the initial momentum of the photon.

Rather than address every new point, lets ask a question about your new theory: If the electrons electric field "pulses" on and off this comprises a changing electric field- why doesn't this create radiation? Its not just accelerating charges, its changing electric fields that create radiation.
-Will
  • TheFaithfulStone likes this

#5 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 03:31 PM

Erasmus00,

Yes QM allows the momentum to be conserved. The plate moves away from the electron with a large momentum that is also "slightly forward" (as shown). But how does the photon give the plate such a large momentum? That is just one of the questions.

Good question about radiation from pulsating charges.

Spherically symmetric changing electric fields do not generate radiation. Why is this? Take the Maxwell equation:

[math]\nabla \times \vec E + \frac{\partial \vec B}{\partial t} = 0 [/math]

Consider a pulsating charge with its E field turning on and off. This electric field is time dependent, but it is strictly radial. That is,

[math]\vec E= \vec E(r,t)[/math]

The curl of anything strictly radial is zero. Therefore, there is no changing magnetic field (actually no magnetic field at all). No changing magnetic field implies no radiation.


Andrew A. Gray

#6 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 03:34 PM

I really enjoyed it.

I agree, it is something to think about, and something else to test for.

Thanks for sharing, I will be looking into this more.


Akrain101,

Thanks for the encouragement.

Andrew A. Gray

#7 jungjedi

jungjedi

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 04:27 PM

thanks for the pictures.im going to read through it.

#8 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:21 AM

The curl of anything strictly radial is zero. Therefore, there is no changing magnetic field (actually no magnetic field at all). No changing magnetic field implies no radiation.


You are correct, though the radiation equation WOULD imply spherical radiation for this system. The solution to this paradox is the simple fact that a blinking electron is incompatible with maxwell's equations.

Consider

[math] \nabla X B =\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \cdot E + \frac{4\pi}{c} J [/math]

Taking the divergence of both sides, using maxwell to replace divergence of E

[math] 0 = \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot J [/math]

This is a continuity equation and in your blinking electron case it is violated. Why is it that it is violated? Simple- your theories imply that charge isn't strictly conserved.
-Will
  • Jay-qu likes this

#9 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 03:02 AM

The curl of anything strictly radial is zero. Therefore, there is no changing magnetic field (actually no magnetic field at all). No changing magnetic field implies no radiation.

As Will says, you are correct... except for the last sentence which I don't find consequential.

Now to his excellent remarks I will add: What about the other Maxwell equation, displacement current and curl of B? Unless you conjecture the electron's charge flowing in and out (which would neatly solve Will's objection) you would have the curl of B oscillating in time and tangently propagating the displacement current's oscillations. I'm having a spot of trouble imagining this being spherically symmetric though. Integrating might be tricky, I 'll give it a thought.

#10 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:39 PM

Will,

You are correct. However, the Macroscopic Maxwell's Equations would remain unchanged, as the time variations of individual charges is completely negligible.

As you point out, the charge continuity equation will have to be changed. This New Theory does not have strict charge conservation at the microscopic level. Only a time-averaged charge conservation.

At a more fundamental level, this New Theory actually says something about the electron structure, which I have not presented yet. This new structure reveals an "upgraded" Coulomb's Law. At first, one might be tempted to write:

[math]F = k \frac{q_1(t)q_2(t)}{r^2}[/math]

but this is not the case. This New Theory reveals that charges are still susceptible to external electric force even if the charge is "OFF". I will show how if there is interest.

So each charge, q1(t) and q2(t) would have two characteristics: 1) if the charge were "ON" or "OFF", and 2) how much external electric force the charge "is accepting".

The modified "Microscopic Maxwell's Equations" will be more complex, which we knew must be the case a priori. (Maxwell's equations have failed). However, at the macroscopic level, things remain unchanged.

#11 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:59 PM

What about the other Maxwell equation, displacement current and curl of B? Unless you conjecture the electron's charge flowing in and out (which would neatly solve Will's objection) you would have the curl of B oscillating in time and tangently propagating the displacement current's oscillations. I'm having a spot of trouble imagining this being spherically symmetric though. Integrating might be tricky, I 'll give it a thought.


Qfwfq,

Here is the spherical symmetry:

Posted Image

Just imagine the charge "turning on suddenly, then turning off". It has spherical symmetry just like a static electron model does.

Technically, if one defines charge in the "old Maxwell way" as being related to the [math]\nabla \cdot E[/math], then both positive and negative "charge" travels out with each pulse, since the [math]\nabla \cdot E[/math] is related to lines of E that end somewhere.

These modified "Microscopic Maxwells Equations" are going to be complicated. Are you interested in helping me write them down, or are you hostile to the idea in any way?

Finally, let me say that we know that Maxwell's equations can be derived from simply assuming that some radial Coulomb force law exists in the rest frame of one charge, and that the force on another charge is then radial and velocity independent. Once these assumptions are made, then all of Maxwell's equations are completely predicted.

The same is true in this case. All one needs to do is sit down and write a modified Coulomb's Law. Then all modified Maxwell's Equations follow mathematically.


Andrew A. Gray

#12 coldcreation

coldcreation

    Resident Bright

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1577 posts

Posted 23 June 2007 - 05:29 PM

Interesting Andrewgray,
I still have to read all the text.

Question: Aside from the details mentioned above, what globally changes within the standard model if you are correct in your hypothesis, i.e., what are the consequences, say, on cosmology, astrophysics, celstial mechanics, if any. Why should the mainstream abandon QM to adopt you new view? Are there any practical (or economically advantageous) applications to be derived from your model?

Thanks

CC

#13 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 24 June 2007 - 04:53 PM

Why should the mainstream abandon QM to adopt you new view? Are there any practical (or economically advantageuos) applications to be derived from your model?


ColdCreation,

QM has "non-local reality". This is now accepted. This means that QM does not "actually describe what is really going on".

A New Theory that works and describes what is actually going on is superior. That is all there is to it. In order to get to the next level of understanding, one must know what is "really going on".

So the mainstream should adopt this New Theory so we can get to the next level of understanding, knowing what is really going on.

Economic applications? Well, this would be similar to asking Einstein if there were any economic applications to his rebellious E=mc2. He wouldn't have had a clue, now would he?

. . . what globally changes within the standard model if you are correct in your hypothesis, i.e., what are the consequences, say, on cosmology, astrophysics, celstial mechanics, if any?


The biggest consequence that this New Theory has on cosmology and astrophysics is its impact on Thermal (blackbody) Radiation theory, and the assumptions made from it on the Cosmic Background Radiation data.

As you probably recall, Thermal (blackbody) Radiation Theory came from:

1) Rayleigh-Jeans counting standing wave modes in a cubic cavity of a "black-body". Their energy density diverged due to the infinite number of ways to put small wavelengths in a cavity.

2) Planck "quantizing" the number of ways to put radiation in the cavity, allowing the energy density to converge.

3) Choosing Planck's constant to match experimental data.

This New Theory sheds new light on Thermal Radiation.


Andrew Ancel Gray

#14 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 24 June 2007 - 09:59 PM

Your blinking charge, as you have said, is incompatible with maxwells equations (maxwell's equations imply strictly conserved, not on average conserved charges). Hence, if your theory is right Maxwell's equations need to be reexamined.

One important consequence of Maxwell that you are invoking to show no radiation can be summarized as "no monopole radiation" i.e. no spherically symmetric radiation field. HOWEVER, this is a consequence of the conserved charge, in order to change a field we must move charges from one point to another (creating dipole or higher order radiation).

In your theory, however, a field DOES change without moving one particle from another. I believe this can lead to radiation. Consider that the abrupt field changes will lead to large derivative of E terms, which should lead to displacement current, hence magnetic fields.

Also, your theory would hae only local "hidden variabes" and aspect type experiments, I believe, have demonstrated the non-local correlations of reality.
-Will

#15 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 24 June 2007 - 11:56 PM

I've been contemplating various expermental apparratus' of which would be ideal for testing out many of the QM weak spots you pointed out.

One of which is to test the particle-wave double slit experiment without film. Instead, one would use various kinds of detectors, to pick up currents, or what have you. As you point out photo film is a crude method for this particular experiment, and has far too much room for error to form any kind of emperical evidence.

Another thought was to run this sort of test with more than 1 set of slits.

There must be other tests that can be done to further understand the nature of light and matter. (that would be my main point)

#16 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 07:22 PM

Will,

I understand what you are saying regarding changing E fields. However, consider this:

If any vector field is spherically symmetric, then it must be completely radial. There is no way to have any tangential vector field anywhere if spherical symmetry is demanded.

Yes, there are "displacement currents", but they are radial and spherically symmetric also. All the magnetic fields coming from these "displacement currents" cancel out.

Agreed?



Next,

. . . Aspect type experiments, I believe, have demonstrated the non-local correlations of reality.


Yes, if one assumes that two correlated photons emerge from these Aspect sources, then local reality cannot exist. In my "logic discussion" in the first post, I discuss this as one of the main reasons for abandoning the photon hypothesis.

If the photon hypothesis is abandoned, then we are back to having local reality.

There is no way to come up with any kind of "reality-based" local "hidden variables" to explain the Aspect Experiments if photons are demanded to exist. Therefore, photons cannot exist. It is simple logic, if one demands reality.


Andrew A. Gray

#17 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 08:10 PM

akrain,

Yes, there finally are experiments to displace QM. To discuss these experiments, we need to discuss:

Magnetic Moments of Atoms


A magnetic moment μ in a magnetic field is known to precess. The torqe

[math]\vec \tau = \frac{\vec dL}{dt} \; \; = \;\; \vec \mu \times \vec B [/math]

is perpendicular to L and makes it precess.

For a body that is rigid and has a magnetic moment, this precession can be smooth and uniform. However, electrons in orbit around an atom cannot be modeled as rigid. Consider the hydrogen atom in a magnetic field B, for example. The electron below is shown in five different places along its orbit:

Posted Image

The torque that causes the precession goes as:

[math]\vec \tau = \vec r \times \vec F \;\; = \;\; \vec r \times (\vec V \times \vec B)[/math]

It is amazing to see that the torque at positions 2 & 4 vanishes!

Also, the torque at positions 1 & 3 is at a maximum!

The torque at position 5 has a z component!

(Take note: This means that Lz is not constant for a non-rigid magnetic moment precessing in a magnetic field).

This means that the motion of electrons around an atom
in a B field is not a smooth and uniform precession as we have been lead to believe!

The magnetic torque changes from max to zero twice with every orbit, and has z-components.

This motion is actually a wild nutation/precession, with the z-component of the angular momentum changing periodically.

This scenario will radiate, there is no question about it. Radiation friction will be generated. Now it is well known that nutational precessions accompanied by friction tend to change rapidly. Spin a top. Watch it precess and wildly nutate at first. The friction immediately dampens the nutation so that it goes into a smooth, stable, precession. The friction dampens the wild nutations first.

The same thing will happen here. The radiation friction will dampen the nutations in such a way that the electron is forced into a stable orbit. Otherwise, the electron will either decay into the nucleus, or be cast away in ionization. These don't occur, so the electron must be forced into a smooth, stable orbit. And there are just two stable orbits, one with L UP and one with L DOWN.


We finally see that angular momentum and magnetic moments are not "quantized" by the strong magnetic fields of the Stern Gerlach experiment. They are induced.


For example, if silver atoms enter a strong magnetic field with continuous values of Lz, then they are immmediately induced into either the UP or DOWN states.

Remember: Induced, not quantized.


The New Stern Gerlach Experiments

The usual Stern Gerlach Experiment setup is like this:

Posted Image

A huge magnetic field with a large derivative in the z-direction is used to separate the UP and DOWN magnetic moments of silver atoms. We see that the output is induced into the "UP" or "DOWN" states as predicted.

But notice that it is the derivative of the B field

[math]\frac{dB_z}{dz}[/math]

that does the separation, and not the B field itself. However, it is the B field itself that does the inducements. So what we need is:


We need a B field that has a strong z derivative,
but the B field itself is small.


This way, the small B field will not be able to induce the silver atoms to the UP and DOWN states, but the z-derivative will still deflect the atoms. Such a B field is possible. If one could superimpose magnetic fields (this is more difficult than it sounds), then:

Posted Image

one could end up with a field that had a large z-derivative, but a small value for the field itself. This would allow the silver atoms with their continuous values for Lz to be deflected without a huge B field inducing them all towards the totally UP or DOWN states. This would allow


the continuous Lz spectrum to be recovered, proving space quantization and quantized spin incorrect.



Andrew A. Gray