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

### #18

Posted 26 June 2007 - 03:48 AM

Though, a bit out of my league, but I still find some interest in this with some of my past work.

This animation I put together shows a form of space-time geomerty of individual units of matter.

Assume the Red line is E field and the Black line is the B field. The purple line is the Time. As such the motion of the time, is in sync with the motion of the fields.

Each Line rotates on its own plane. These are X, Y, Z.

There is more to it than this but I thought for now I would share this untill later.

### #19

Posted 26 June 2007 - 09:08 AM

Will,

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

From Maxwell, [math] \nabla X B = \frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial E}{\partial t}[/math]

If you have a changing E field, classically, you have to have a non-zero B field somewhere.

Now, in playing with your theory, I have encountered a few problems. The first is that non-strictly conserved charge totally destroys the concept of U(1) gauge invariance and E/M. Admittedly, you might argue that this isn't all that fundamental- but its probably the only guide to writing down a lagrangian for the theory.

If we use a force law of the form F = E(t)q(t) we have more trouble. Its difficult to conserve energy unless we assume that the stationary charge is monopole radiating. (i.e. the switching field carries some energy). However, I'm sure that you don't want this to be the case. However, changing the force law seems to be destroying the whole idea of charge and electric field, which I'm sure you also don't want.

Also, in doing away with quantum mechanics we do away with anti-particles and any reasonable understanding of them. How does your theory explain electron/positron annihilation?

-Will

### #20

Posted 27 June 2007 - 06:49 PM

From Maxwell,

[math]\nabla \times B = \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}[/math]

If you have a changing E field, classically, you have to have a non-zero B field somewhere.

Now, in playing with your theory, I have encountered a few problems. The first is that non-strictly conserved charge totally destroys the concept of U(1) gauge invariance and E/M. Admittedly, you might argue that this isn't all that fundamental- but its probably the only guide to writing down a lagrangian for the theory.

Erasmus,

I admittedly have not sat down and derived the New Maxwell's equations and potentials. So I do not know if there is any "New Gauge Invariance" or not. I would not be too worried if writing down a Lagrangian was extremely complicated. The real world is complicated. Wouldn't you be surprised if it wasn't?

If we use a force law of the form F = E(t)q(t) we have more trouble. Its difficult to conserve energy unless we assume that the stationary charge is monopole radiating. (i.e. the switching field carries some energy). However, I'm sure that you don't want this to be the case. However, changing the force law seems to be destroying the whole idea of charge and electric field, which I'm sure you also don't want.

Ah, you are getting somewhere now. Yes! There is "tunneling" in this New Theory. Microscopic Conservation of Energy is only conserved for charged particles that do not have pulsation correlations. Usually, if there are no pulsation correlations, then the time-averaged electric forces yield a conservation of energy. I believe, for example, that beta decay (with its uneven energy spread for the resultant particle energies) proves this, and that neutrinos probably do not really exist. Neutrinos were invented to make up for the tunneling observed in beta decay.

"Monopole Radiation", as I mentioned previously, would be impossible unless the radiation were longitudinal. This is because a spherically symmetric vector field must be completely radial. I have serious doubts if longitudinal electric fields can carry away momentum and energy.

Also, in doing away with quantum mechanics we do away with anti-particles and any reasonable understanding of them. How does your theory explain electron/positron annihilation?

A positron would still be identical to an electron, except the electric forces would be reversed. Electron-Positron annihilation would still be the conversion of bound electromagnetic energy into unbound. Are you interested in seeing the analysis for the structure of the electron in this New Theory?

Andrew A. Gray

### #21

Posted 27 June 2007 - 11:23 PM

While this is true, like most people who have studied a lot of modern physics, my thinking is (perhaps unfortunately) rather tied to the lagrangian formalism. This is especially true as it allows the rather rapid construction of various theories. Unfortunately, as I've said, your blinking charge seems to violate the idea of charge as a generator of a U(1) gauge symmetry.

[quote]I believe, for example, that beta decay (with its uneven energy spread for the resultant particle energies) proves this, and that neutrinos probably do not really exist. Neutrinos were invented to make up for the tunneling observed in beta decay.[/quote]

What are the large neutrino detectors (like snow) seeing then? Do you have an alternative explanation for their data?

[quote"Monopole Radiation", as I mentioned previously, would be impossible unless the radiation were longitudinal. This is because a spherically symmetric vector field must be completely radial. I have serious doubts if longitudinal electric fields can carry away momentum and energy.[/quote]

I am having a great deal of trouble writing down equations that let the charge blink but don't allow for spherically symmetric radiation (similar to the pressure wave from a spherical explosion).

[quote]A positron would still be identical to an electron, except the electr forces would be reversed. Electron-Positron annihilation would still be the conversion of bound electromagnetic energy into unbound. Are you interested in seeing the analysis for the structure of the electron in this New Theory?[/QUOTE]

Sure, especially if it helps me understand just what an anti-particle is in your theory. The beautiful thing about quantum mechanics is that it allows us to derive apriori the existence of anti-particles, which makes anti-particles a powerful prediction of quantum mechanics.

Also, is there a pauli exclusion principle for your theory? Bosons and fermions? How is the spin-statistics theorem dealt with in your theory?

-Will

### #22

Posted 01 July 2007 - 10:11 PM

Sure, especially if it helps me understand just what an anti-particle is in your theory.

The Einstein Field Equations for a spherically symmetric charged body are derived like this:

Substituting the Stress Tensor values for a charged body yields the Reissner-Nordstrom metric:

This is a very interesting geometry. The first thing to notice is that the center of the geometry is influenced by the +Q²/r²

**and not the**-2M/r term, no matter what the values of Q and M are! And notice that they are of

opposite signs. It turns out that that this geometry has a gravitationally

**repulsive**charged singularity at the center of the geometry.

If one plots light geodesics near the center of this charged geometry one obtains plots like this:

The gravity is actually repulsive in this region near the charge center. Any charged geometry like this

**must**come apart.

For an uncharged body, the Schwarzchild metric applies:

This geometry has an attractive singularity at its center. If one plots light geodesics near the center, they look like this:

Light is pulled into the center, exactly opposite of a charged geometry.

So, to set the stage for our pulsations, consider an uncharged geometry according to Schwarzchild. An event horizon masks the center. Create several charges and drop them into the geometry like this:

1) It is amazing to see that the repulsive forces of the charges heading inward cannot span the geometry to "repel each other". The charges can crash into the center without any energy of assembly.

2) Once this happens, a repulsive charged geometry must form, according to Reissner-Nordstrom.

3) The center must then come apart as the charges head towards a Reissner-Nordstrom geometry with a repulsive center.

4) The charge is both electrically repulsive and feels the repulsive gravity. The charge must therefore get out first, leaving the uncharged matter behind.

5) The original Schwarzchild matter is again by itself in the center, setting up another hole. The charge will be caught again and will be drawn into the center.

6) ... back to step 1.

We see that

**it is more natural for charge and matter to pulsate than for it to be in equilibrium**. And notice that the electrical forces to the outside world are periodically cut off by the horizon that temporarily forms around them.

Additionally, if one writes down a "mass function" for this dynamic geometry, the mass function oscillates between positive and negative. While the charge is "exposed" to the outside world and it "feels its own self-repulsion", the mass function is positive. While the charge is "cloaked" behind a horizon and cannot feel its own self repulsion, the mass function is negative.

This means that the mass of the electron m

_{e}is simply the time-averaged mass of the electron. The "amplitude" of the electron mass may be enormous. That is, gravity may be playing a part in the electron's structure in an enormous way, but its "time average" is small.

Finally, notice that the structure of a positron or an electron would essentially be the same, as the sign of the charge is irrelevant.

What are the large neutrino detectors (like snow) seeing then? Do you have an alternative

explanation for their data?

These huge detectors typically detect about 1 positron or 1 muon event per day.

**Definite evidence for neutrinos?**No. Not even close.

Alternate explanation? Yes, the normal production of a positron or muon.

I am having a great deal of trouble writing down equations that let the charge blink but don't

allow for spherically symmetric radiation (similar to the pressure wave from a spherical explosion).

I understand the dilema. The new Microscopic Maxwell's equations will have to be different, but one tends to use

Maxwell's equations to try to change Maxwell's Equations. This is a circular trap. This new electromagnetic theory

will have to be bootstapped from scratch, probably starting from a New Coulomb's Law. So how are you defining

radiation? Are you defining radiation in the usual sense using a Poynting Vector with crossed E and B fields? If so, then there can be no radiation.

Or, are you defining energy flux simply as the motion of "electrical influence" moving away from the charge at

*c*? If so, then what about in the normal static electron's case. It has electrical influence that is constantly moving away from the charge at

*c*.

Andrew A. Gray

### #23

Posted 01 July 2007 - 10:28 PM

Also, is there a pauli exclusion principle for your theory? Bosons and fermions? How is the spin-statistics theorem dealt with in your theory?

The Pauli exclusion principle is a QM invention to apply the Schrodinger hydrogen solution to the rest of the periodic table. Pauli made up a rule so hydrogen quantum numbers could apply to the rest of the periodic table. It works pretty well and is another example of a non-reality based theory matching experiment well. People are clever, that's for sure. (Remember Sommerfeld?)

However, what we are really dealing with here is the fact that a "covalent bond" takes two electrons to be stable. So in this New Theory, we take a more direct approach. Remember the hydrogen molecule? Well, a carbon-hydrogen bond would be very similar. Here is what it would look like:

This theory would not have to stoop to "hybrid hydrogen orbitals" to explain methane. A pair of electrons would orbit inbetween and hold the nuclei together just like the hydrogen molecule, with Coulomb forces.

Bosons? This is generally synonymous with photons. Photons do not really exist. They are another clever non-reality based invention used to cope with not knowing the real situation.

Look Will, QM has been trying for 100 years to adopt itself to the crazy microscopic world, and it was a clever stop-gap attempt. But if one makes QM assumptions and then proves that "local reality" cannot exist, then raw logical minds must pull themselves out and look at a better solution if one comes around.

Andrew A. Gray

### #24

Posted 01 July 2007 - 10:37 PM

### #25

Posted 02 July 2007 - 11:07 AM

It is hoped that, with a successful set of equations, the time average will result in Poynting's vector. This is proving quite difficult, as Maxwell's equations have many properties that seem difficult to reconcile with a blinking charge.

When I have more time, later this week maybe, I'll play with the GR model of particles. It looks very interesting. In the meantime, a few more questions.

The reason I asked about the exclusion principle is to ask why don't all of the electrons in your bohr type atom fall into the innermost orbit?

Now, if your anti-particle has the same structure as your particle, what happens in, say, a pair creation event? Or an annihilation event?

Also, you must agree that even if quantum theory is wrong, the constant h is still certainly a constant of nature. Does it relate to the blinking rate of your electrons? If so, how?

-Will

### #26

Posted 02 July 2007 - 02:51 PM

what kind of predictions does this theory make about reality and other things?

Arkain,

It seems so bizarre to have to say that in this New Theory

Local Reality = Reality

Local Reality = Reality

When you really think about it, don't you think that this is a bizarre statement to have to make? When world renowned physicists say otherwise, it makes you kind of think that the world is a crazy place.

But in this New Theory, the whole setup of the "EPR Paradox" is incorrect. In the Aspect version of this experiment, two correlated photons were assumed to collide with the detectors. In reality, the light intensity given off by the samples was set so low that the intensity of the

**continuous**radiation given off just barely surpassed the detection threshold of the detectors. Just as in the double slit experiment with low intensity, the Aspect experimenters were fooled into assuming that "two photons were hitting the detectors". What really was happening was that low intensity

**waves**were hitting the detectors, with the intensity so low that they observed "just a few ticks" in several seconds. And if you look very closely at these experiments, the "error pulse rates" for these experiments are

**usually around 25-40%!**That is, about ⅓ of the time these continuous light waves would give simultaneous pulses through crossed polarizers, even though this percentage was supposed to be 0%.

Do you know what the Aspect experimenters did with these "error pulses"? You guessed it. They ignored them (so the data would match their theory).

Andrew A. Gray

### #27

Posted 02 July 2007 - 03:27 PM

This is proving quite difficult, as Maxwell's equations have many properties that seem difficult to reconcile with a blinking charge.

Agreed. Mathematically, "blinking anything" is difficult. The problem is, we do not have any built-in blinking functions to use that are simple mathematically. And, one cannot substitute sinusoidal functions as an approximation. This has been proven to not work. We may have to resort to a computer simulation to get something to work.

The reason I asked about the exclusion principle is to ask why don't all of the electrons in your bohr type atom fall into the innermost orbit?

For the same reason that Venus and Mars are in different orbits. Different orbits can be stable. There would be no reason for the electron to change orbits once it gets into one of the stable Lyman orbits.

Why are the Lyman orbits stable and the Balmer orbits not? I am not sure. What we know is that at room temperature, all the Lyman orbital frequencies are there, and the Balmer frequencies are not. Therefore, according to this New Theory, there are many electrons in each of the Lyman orbitals, and not many in the Balmer.

Now, if your anti-particle has the same structure as your particle, what happens in, say, a pair creation event? Or an annihilation event?

On this question, you are asking me to be very speculative on something that is no doubt extremely complicated. OK.

**Speculation:**

During pair creation, continuous gamma wave radiation is cut and concentrated by the geometry of the nuclear particles. The end of the cut wave that has "lines of E" emerging becomes the positive electron, and the end of the cut wave that has "lines of E" going inward becomes the negative electron.

**More Speculation:**

During pair annihilation, the electron and positron spiral down at extreme frequencies (emitting gamma radiation) and the charged geometries cancel each other out, releasing the trapped electrical influence.

Also, you must agree that even if quantum theory is wrong, the constant h is still certainly a constant of nature. Does it relate to the blinking rate of your electrons? If so, how?

Yes, I have shown that the blinking rate of an accelerated electron is proportional to De Broglie's rate:

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

where the "small" blinking rate of the stationary electron has been ignored. Remember, the factor of 2 comes in because the Nyquist frequency has a factor of 2 (radiation), and for absorption, the monopolar pulsation of the electron (only ON and OFF, not +,0,-) vs. the bipolar radiation of the incident wave, causes the other factor of two.

So yes, Planck's constant is there.

Andrew A. Gray

### #28

Posted 02 July 2007 - 06:40 PM

Agreed. Mathematically, "blinking anything" is difficult. The problem is, we do not have any built-in blinking functions to use that are simple mathematically. And, one cannot substitute sinusoidal functions as an approximation. This has been proven to not work. We may have to resort to a computer simulation to get something to work.

But to simulate something with a computer, we first need a theory to simulate. The problem, as I find it, is that Maxwell's equations have time derivatives in them (or in Fourier components proportional to some omega). We need a function of omega that cuts off smoothly with high frequency fourier components (as our blinking charge (if a square wave) will have very high frequency fourier components). I worry that a blinking charge may be fundamentally incompatible with Maxwell, though I haven't proven it yet.

For the same reason that Venus and Mars are in different orbits. Different orbits can be stable. There would be no reason for the electron to change orbits once it gets into one of the stable Lyman orbits.

But the electrons in atoms have many more interactions than Venus, being constantly bombarded with radiation, etc. One would think, from statistical mechanics, that these electrons would end up between the ground state and the energy kt.

Also, without the exclusion principle I don't think we can explain the specific heats of metals.

On this question, you are asking me to be very speculative on something that is no doubt extremely complicated. OK.

I worry that perhaps local reality is being rescued at too great a cost- we sacrifice a great deal of simplicity. Particle/anti-particle pair production emerges elegantly and naturally from quantum field theories, but seems difficult to work into your theory.

-Will

### #29

Posted 03 July 2007 - 03:20 AM

Are you saying the magnetic field, as defined by its curl being the spherically symmetric displacement current, will be identically zero? Apart from the fact that I'm not so sure at all, how does an identically zero field have a non-zero curl?Yes, there are "displacement currents", but they are radial and spherically symmetric also. All the magnetic fields coming from these "displacement currents" cancel out.

And yet, the principle follows as consequential to the quantum formalism with the addition of indistinguishability...The Pauli exclusion principle is a QM invention to apply the Schrodinger hydrogen solution to the rest of the periodic table. Pauli made up a rule so hydrogen quantum numbers could apply to the rest of the periodic table.

### #30

Posted 03 July 2007 - 02:53 PM

Arkain,

It seems so bizarre to have to say that in this New Theory

Local Reality = Reality

When you really think about it, don't you think that this is a bizarre statement to have to make? When world renowned physicists say otherwise, it makes you kind of think that the world is a crazy place.

But in this New Theory, the whole setup of the "EPR Paradox" is incorrect. In the Aspect version of this experiment, two correlated photons were assumed to collide with the detectors. In reality, the light intensity given off by the samples was set so low that the intensity of thecontinuousradiation given off just barely surpassed the detection threshold of the detectors. Just as in the double slit experiment with low intensity, the Aspect experimenters were fooled into assuming that "two photons were hitting the detectors". What really was happening was that low intensitywaveswere hitting the detectors, with the intensity so low that they observed "just a few ticks" in several seconds. And if you look very closely at these experiments, the "error pulse rates" for these experiments areusually around 25-40%!That is, about ⅓ of the time these continuous light waves would give simultaneous pulses through crossed polarizers, even though this percentage was supposed to be 0%.

Do you know what the Aspect experimenters did with these "error pulses"? You guessed it. They ignored them (so the data would match their theory).

Andrew A. Gray

Local Reality = Reality

One question I ask is, 'What offers the suggestion of a local reality?'

The method we use to most strongly suggest this is our visual perception. This is as I am sure you know a slow frequency refresh rate perception creation.

It is this approx 60hertz frequency of consciousness that is somehow created that declares a local (aka stable) reality.

However, as a main response to;

When you really think about it, don't you think that this is a bizarre statement to have to make?

I do not assume it is a bizarre statement to make. Also, I do not think that a non-local microscopic system declares that the world is sort of a 'crazy place'. The world is macroscopic, and philisophically regardless of what goes on at that small scale it does not affect in how I view or plan to live my life. One of the most fundamental things in my view and theoretically in anyones view is a loving and caring family. Afterall, that is why you are here.

However when we attempt to define reality by the small things occuring I think we need to be careful and cautious about how we go about it.

One reason I can logically accept that the microscopic world may not be local is by accepting that the very small and microscopic world is not 'material'.

(This is when I define material at the macroscopic level that can be percieved and sensed by our bodily functions)

Energy does not have to be a physical thing, it meerly needs to be the creator of macroscopic things. Matter does not have to be a thing, it meerly needs to be a series of energy emitters and forces, that produce mass.

With this view, and I understand it may sound bizarre and strange, one can use the guidlines of relativity to comprehend exactly how and why reality at the bottom scale can be a potential versus a constant per say.

### #31

Posted 09 July 2007 - 10:37 PM

But to simulate something with a computer, we first need a theory to simulate.

This really isn't as bad as it seems. For example, one might define a trial blinking function:

This function time averages to 1. The blips are sinusoidal, so the derivatives are simple.

And one might also define a trial accepting function:

This function also time averages to 1. The frequency of the blips for a linearly accelerated electron would be given by De Broglie's function:

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

Then the electric force on the electron, instead of being F(t)=eE(t), would be

[math]F(t) = eE(t)Accept(t)[/math]

And the electric field given off by the charge would be:

[math]E(t) = k \frac{e}{r^2} Blink(t)[/math]

where the retarded time would have to be taken into account. These two definitions would time average to Coulomb's Law very closely. With these two trial functions, a simulation for electron interference around a positively charged filament could be run, for example.

We need a function of omega that cuts off smoothly with high frequency Fourier components. We need a function of omega that cuts off smoothly with high frequency Fourier components.

These functions would fit the bill.

One would think, from statistical mechanics, that these electrons would end up between the ground state and the energy kt.

Will, I not sure that this makes sense, even for Schrodinger mechanics.

I worry that perhaps local reality is being rescued at too great a cost- we sacrifice a great deal of simplicity.

The ancient Greeks once theorized that Apollo pulled the Sun across the sky behind a royal chariot. This belief was actually "correct" in the sense that it perfectly matched experimental data to the accuracy available at the time. And it "satisfied" the curiosity of the masses by giving it an official explanation. But as human history progressed, it became apparent that this theory was not based on reality and that it was indeed mythology. It stopped satisfying the curiosity of the curious, and was abandoned.

Will, QM has stopped satisfying the curiosity of the curious. In my opinion, it is "non-reality" based mythology in the same sense. And it matches experimental data in the same sense. We must move on. If the cost is high, so be it. You are welcome to continue to believe the simple explanations.

Andrew A. Gray

### #32

Posted 09 July 2007 - 10:59 PM

Are you saying the magnetic field, as defined by its curl being the spherically symmetric displacement current, will be identically zero? Apart from the fact that I'm not so sure at all, how does an identically zero field have a non-zero curl?

Qfwfq,

There seems to be some confusion about spherically symmetric currents and radiation. OK, take a macroscopic problem:

Put some charge on a spherical balloon and "inhale and exhale" in a fashion to make it pulsate spherically. Does it radiate?

Andrew A. Gray

### #33

Posted 09 July 2007 - 11:58 PM

where the retarded time would have to be taken into account. These two definitions would time average to Coulomb's Law very closely. With these two trial functions, a simulation for electron interference around a positively charged filament could be run, for example.

But to model how the electric field works, you need to put an equation governing the field in. In this case, you have equations governing an electric field, but it gives nothing with which to simulate the relevant magnetic effects. Trying to derive equations which preserve the "sense" of the maxwell equations and at the same time allow for blinking charges seems like it might be impossible, especially as non-conservation of momentum seems to keep cropping up.

Will, I not sure that this makes sense, even for Schrodinger mechanics.

Are you familiar with thermodynamics/statistical mechanics? In a system at temperature T, the average thermal energy will be around kT. Hence, as you cool a system you expect all the electrons to spiral into the lowest possible state.

Also, we expect any quadratic degree of freedom to participate in the specific heat of an object. For metals, this isn't true. Most of the conduction electrons don't actually participate. The answer to both questions is the pauli exclusion principle. I fail to see how your theory can answer this.

-Will

### #34

Posted 10 July 2007 - 01:22 AM

Of course not, and the curl of B is zero. I was talking about what you said about a radially symmetric non-zero curl, which you seemingly said wouldn't be a problem. The only confusion here appears to be between the two things, charge moving in and out, or just magically appearing and disappearing, so we should try to be clear which we're talking about.Put some charge on a spherical balloon and "inhale and exhale" in a fashion to make it pulsate spherically. Does it radiate?