Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
284 replies to this topic

#52 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 24 July 2007 - 12:57 PM

What do you mean by "pure microscopic"? What do you mean by "non strict" [conservation of energy]? Without either the neutrino or some other garbage bin, we'd have to conclude that energy is consistently disappearing. Not even average conservation.


Qfwfq,

By "pure microscopic" I mean that strict conservation of energy would be a "macroscopic" law. Microscopically, in my opinion, tunneling allows the law of energy conservation to be cheated sometimes. That is, when charges have correlations in their pulsations, they can escape from one another without strict conservation of energy (beta decay, for example).

By "non-strict", I mean that usually, microscopic charges do not have pulsation correlations, and usually conservation of energy holds on the time average.

Energy would not necessarily be "consistently disappearing", since reverse tunneling would also be possible. That is, sometimes microscopic charges could escape from each other with more energy than expected due to a more favorable correlation in their pulsations. So on the average, energy still would tend to be conserved.

Andrew A. Gray

#53 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • 6241 posts

Posted 25 July 2007 - 01:47 AM

You would have to explain how energy would be conserved on the average in beta decay. The outcooming particles excluding the neutrino never total more than the incoming energy.

Microscopically, in my opinion, tunneling allows the law of energy conservation to be cheated sometimes. That is, when charges have correlations in their pulsations, they can escape from one another without strict conservation of energy (beta decay, for example).

By "in my opinion" you apparently mean according to your theory, but initially you seemed to be upholding tunnelling as a justification for it. Isn't it becoming somewhat bootstrap here?

#54 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1913 posts

Posted 25 July 2007 - 10:38 AM

I would be interested to see how or where this theory attempts an explanation to what 'fundamental' objects are.

What are these things made of? Light, electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.

Is the universe a physical machine like place (fundamental material forming the reality) in the view of this theory...

or..

Is every small object considered a interpratation reflected on the macroscopic knowings of things.

Let me try to ask a little more clearer.

In the view of the theory...

What is the source (small quantum/atomic world) of existence made of?

#55 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 26 July 2007 - 12:26 PM

You would have to explain how energy would be conserved on the average in beta decay. The outcooming particles excluding the neutrino never total more than the incoming energy.


That is correct. Beta decay would tend to be energy deficient. This is one choice.

The second choice is to hypothesize an almost massless particle that moves at lightspeed, that can traverse 150 miles of solid rock without much of an interaction, and needs to magically change into something else to match reasonable QM theoretical predictions.

This choice, the neutrino hypothesis, is not very good science, it seems to me. The first choice, this New Theory's tunneling, though unpalatable, seems more promising. Especially since it explains why the tunneling is energy deficient.

By "in my opinion" you apparently mean according to your theory, but initially you seemed to be upholding tunnelling as a justification for it. Isn't it becoming somewhat bootstrap here?


Apologies if unclear expression. Yes, by "in my opinion", I mean "my interpretation of this New Theory".

And "Yes", this New Theory will have to be bootstrapped. This is because we are changing the very foundations of physics in this New Theory. These foundations are changing:

1) Charge. Electric charge is no longer believed to be static.
2) Light. Light is no longer believed to have a particle nature.
3) Particles. Particles are no longer believed to have a wave nature. Only pulsating pseudo-waves.

With these changes, isn't it reasonable that one would have to go back and bootstrap the New Theory from scratch?


Andrew A. Gray

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

#56 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 26 July 2007 - 11:02 PM

I would be interested to see how or where this theory attempts an explanation to what 'fundamental' objects are.
What are these things made of? Light, electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.
What is the source of existence made of?


Arkain,

According to this theory, there is electrical influence and gravity.

Light is the rippling of accelerated electrical force centers (charge).
Electrons are pulsating electrical influence. The same for protons. Neutrons are probably bound protons and electrons, as a neutron decays into a proton and an electron after a few seconds. (Qfwfq of course disagrees, as he says that DIS shows that there are 3 charges in a neutron. I would like to see this evidence).


The source of existence is electrical influence bound together by gravity. This is possible since the mass function for pulsating charges oscillates between positive and negative. So even though the time average for gravity forces is extremely weak, the amplitude of the gravity force can be huge. It must only time-average to small to agree with reality.


Andrew A. Gray

#57 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • 6241 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 02:59 AM

and needs to magically change into something else to match reasonable QM theoretical predictions.

Magically? The conjecture is that a neutrino changes from one flavour to another, and I believe it contemplates the same basic mechanism of RQFT as for other phenomenology. The only trouble conceptually is that of supposing a particle to be not perfectly massless while it is known to be chiral. Personally, I've thought of my own Alternative Theory to that and it would seem much more reasonable, but I won't discuss it here and probably no time soon.

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

lol that's a good one!!! :hihi:

You'll be needing to hire Michelangelo, Tiziano, Raffaello, Dalì, Picasso, Van Gough, Vermeer, Klee, Mirò, Kandinsky... the whole works of them! :hihi:

#58 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1913 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 11:21 AM

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.


Ah, but what if the picture is already painted and the painting is lost when one attempts to see how the strokes of the brush were layed...

I suppose I will start a new topic based upon this philisophical and theoretical view of my own.

#59 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 07:34 PM

You'll be needing to hire Michelangelo, Tiziano, Raffaello, Dalì, Picasso, Van Gough, Vermeer, Klee, Mirò, Kandinsky... the whole works of them! :eek:


You are correct. Rewriting Modern Physics will be a big job. Hopefully, there will be some "artists" who are still living working on the project.:eek2:

So we wish to continue with our painting of "The Whole Picture". The next most important foundation of physics that we wish to cover is Thermal Radiation, commonly misnamed Blackbody Radiation.

To review, Planck's Blackbody Radiation formula started it all. Raleigh-Jeans had first devised a theory that counted standing waves in a cubical "blackbody cavity". This theory made the silly prediction that small wavelength energy would be infinite in the cavity since there are an infinite number of ways to put smaller and smaller wavelengths in the cavity. Planck saw the data, so he decided to "quantize" the harmonic oscillators in the walls to justify changing Rayleigh-Jeans' infinite integral into a convergent sum. Then he experiment-matched his famous "Planck's Constant" to the data. The rest is history.

However, now that we have "the whole picture", we believe that Thermal Radiation has nothing to do with counting standing wave modes in a cubical blackbody cavity.

1) Take a chunk of steel (without a cavity) at room temperature. See that it emits InfraRed Radiation.

2) Take a torch and heat this steel and watch it as it glows Red ("red hot").

3) Continue to heat the steel and watch it as it starts to glow white ("white hot").

4) The steel melts before it can become "UV hot".

So what is happening here? Clearly, this is an example of "thermal radiation", and clearly it has nothing to do with black coatings or cavities of any kind.

So what is happening here? Well, when we discussed hydrogen, we saw that as the orbital radius became larger, the frequency became lower:

Posted Image

So consider a solid's crystalline lattice at room temperature. The atoms have an average vibrational amplitude:

Posted Image

This makes their outer electron orbitals overlap. At room temperature, these affected orbitals are the outer InfraRed frequencied orbitals, so these are the orbitals that are disturbed and radiate. Thus, we see InfraRed radiation at room temperature.

Next, as one heats the solid to a higher temperature, the amplitude of the thermal vibrations increases:

Posted Image

Thus, the next layer of orbitals are disturbed. These would be the ones that have low visible frequencies. Thus the thermal radiation becomes visible Red.

As the lattice is heated to an even higher temperature, the deeper orbitals that have higher visible frequencies are seen. The solid becomes "white hot".

If one heats the object further, typically it melts. However, if it did not, then it would become "UV hot".

In my opinion, this explanation is the reality-based physics that we need to explain thermal radiation, and is superior to counting standing wave modes in cubical blackbody cavities. That is, thermal radiation has nothing to do with cubical cavities, and nothing to do with black coatings. Thermal radiation is caused by thermal vibrations disturbing deeper and deeper orbitals that have higher and higher frequencies.

Andrew A. Gray

#60 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1561 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 09:05 PM

In my opinion, this explanation is the reality-based physics that we need to explain thermal radiation, and is superior to counting standing wave modes in cubical blackbody cavities. That is, thermal radiation has nothing to do with cubical cavities, and nothing to do with black coatings.


I think you misunderstand the typical blackbody derivation- the reason you assume a "black" body is so that you don't have to deal with reflected light, only emitted. If you wish to only consider thermal radiation, you had better be experimenting with something "black" in the frequency regions you are considering.

As to the cavity you put the object into, while its a convenient visualization technique, its unnecessary to the derivation. It merely supplies the boundary conditions for your light, and the cavity can be "removed" merely by taking the limit that the volume of the cavity goes off to infinity.

Also, what you are suggesting is a model of continuum electromagnetic radiation interacting with a "quantized" electron/atom. This is well developed, and I'm sure you can find some information by google-ing around. I think its a rather hard theory to hold on to in light of recent quantum optics research.
-Will

Edit:Afterthought- care must be taken to interpret the limit of your cavity as the walls go to infinity. Statistical mechanics only applies to equilibrium/steady state situations. Just clearing up a subtlety.

#61 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1561 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 09:18 PM

Things I have missed in this discussion

So why the surprise to find my skepticism when you probe a neutron or a proton by annihilating it with anti-protons with a GaZeV (gazillion eV's)? We see some pieces come out after the anti-proton "atomic bomb" is dropped on it, but so what? In the same way with Aunt Mary, this does not give a picture of how it was before the bomb. So how do you know that a neutron wasn't a proton and an electron if you blasted it into pieces, and you saw "some stuff" come out? You don't.


I'm not talking about experiments at the tevatron, I'm talking about deep inelastic scattering off of nucleons. I believe SLAC still does this, and the first experiments were done in the 50s/60s. By scattering a high energy lepton (like an electron) off a nucleon you can get a good idea of its structure in much the same way we use electrons to probe crystal structures. This in no way requires "blasting to pieces" the proton, though sometimes the proton comes apart in much the same crystal lattices can be damaged by spectroscopy.

Now, Andrew, I'd also suggest, in regards to your stance on neutrinos, you should read up on modern neutrino experiments, such as miniBOONE. I think the evidence is extremely hard to ignore.
-Will

#62 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 10:33 PM

Will,

Thanks for bringing these points up:

. . . the reason you assume a "black" body is so that you don't have to deal with reflected light, only emitted.


It is very interesting that Planck & Rayleigh-Jeans assumed no reflected light. Yet they also assume standing waves, which directly implies reflected light. (??) There can be no standing waves without reflections. Random thermal emissions are not coherent, and will not form "standing waves".

As to the cavity you put the object into . . .


Will, the original blackbody experiments were on the black cavity itself, and not "an object placed in it".

. . .what you are suggesting is a model of continuum electromagnetic radiation interacting with a "quantized" electron/atom.


Close. I am suggesting a model of continuum radiation interacting with atoms that have resonant orbital frequencies.

. . . you had better be experimenting with something "black" in the frequency regions you are considering.


But consider my example of a chunk of steel. It is a reflector of almost all frequencies up to x-rays. It still follows the typical thermal radiation pattern without being an absorber ("black") in any of the frequencies being considered.

Andrew A. Gray

#63 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1561 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 10:40 PM

Will, the original blackbody experiments were on the black cavity itself, and not "an object placed in it".


I am unfamiliar with the original experiment, though I am familiar with a number of derivations, including one in Schroeder's book, one in Sethna's book, and one in the Feynman lectures. In these derivations, a black object is placed in a metal/reflecting cavity. The object is in thermal equilibrium with the radiation in the box. The box, in this case, is merely a visualization device to count radiation modes.

The experimental technique might be to use hohlraum, which is a reflecting cavity with a hole in it. Any light that enters the hole will be reflected many, many times and as such it is almost certain to be absorbed by the box before it finds its way back out the hole. This would be used in a lab setting because there is no perfect black body.
-Will
Edit- forgive me for the misunderstanding, I am a theorist who often defaults to the theoretical and not the experimental. Since we were talking about the Rayleigh Jeans formula I defaulted to thinking of the standard derivation and not the experimental motivation.

Edit(further): To respond to the above

But consider my example of a chunk of steel. It is a reflector of almost all frequencies up to x-rays. It still follows the typical thermal radiation pattern without being an absorber ("black") in any of the frequencies being considered.


I don't know if you have performed this experiment yourself, but to get the "ideal" spectrum you have to subtract off your reflected background to get the low power (very short, very long wavelength) areas, they get swamped out by reflections.

#64 coldcreation

coldcreation

    Resident Bright

  • Members
  • 1576 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 10:29 AM

Magically? The conjecture is that a neutrino changes from one flavour to another, and I believe it contemplates the same basic mechanism of RQFT as for other phenomenology. The only trouble conceptually is that of supposing a particle to be not perfectly massless while it is known to be chiral. Personally, I've thought of my own Alternative Theory to that and it would seem much more reasonable, but I won't discuss it here and probably no time soon.

lol that's a good one!!! :woohoo:

You'll be needing to hire Michelangelo, Tiziano, Raffaello, Dalì, Picasso, Van Gough, Vermeer, Klee, Mirò, Kandinsky... the whole works of them! :eek2:


I would not have left out Leonardo di Ser Piero da Vinci (1452 – 1519) from the list above. One of his best works in unfinished. But that take nothing away from its beauty, elegance or value (which is of course priceless). It is hanging in the Louvre. If anyone was an observer of nature as well as a discoverer-creator-inventor himself it was he.

There is one other artist that I would add to the list: Marcel Duchamp, aka, R. Mutt, for a variety of reasons. I can elaborate if anyone would like. And, oh, the deviation from the topic at hand (quantum reality) will only be slight.

CC

#65 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 10:29 AM

I don't know if you have performed this experiment yourself, but to get the "ideal" spectrum you have to subtract off your reflected background. . .


Will,

I have performed this experiment myself in that I have heated steel, copper, and other metals and seen them turn red hot, then white hot. As far as subtracting reflected light, all that would be necessary to do this would be to turn off the torch and turn off the lights. They would still glow, of course, from the thermal emissions within.

I am curious as to why you had no comment on the apparent self-contradiction contained in both the Planck and Rayleigh-Jeans theories. That is, they assume no reflections, yet they assume standing waves which require reflections. (??)

Now that we are thinking about it, what is your opinion on self-contradictory theories that match experiment in general? They match, isn't that good enough?

Andrew A. Gray

#66 andrewgray

andrewgray

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 187 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 10:38 AM

. . . in regards to your stance on neutrinos, you should read up on modern neutrino experiments, such as miniBOONE. I think the evidence is extremely hard to ignore.


Just a quick scan of Wikipedia revealed:

MiniBoone Neutrino Result

Here they say that:

"Detecting Neutrino Interactions"

". . . For example, an electron neutrino interaction will produce an electron, and a muon neutrino interaction will produce a muon."


Will, I have no doubt that these experiments produce electrons and muons. However, there's really no way to jump from electron/muon detections to neutrinos except through the neutrino hypothesis. If the neutrino hypothesis goes away, there are absolutely no consequences. This experiment produced electrons and muons. So what?

Andrew A. Gray

#67 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1561 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 03:54 PM

I am curious as to why you had no comment on the apparent self-contradiction contained in both the Planck and Rayleigh-Jeans theories. That is, they assume no reflections, yet they assume standing waves which require reflections. (??)


I think we are confusing two things here. My initial post on this subject was on the standard derivation used today, which is a black object in thermal equilibrium with radiation in a cavity. Hence, reflections. I believe this is nice pedagogically.

Now, the original result (I'm guessing) was problem done on an empty hohlraum. This is probably less pedagogically sound, but is exactly what is looked at in a standard experiment (at least today, I don't know the originals, as I've said). In this case the cavity was also reflective (we've removed the black object as it doesn't really matter anyway. If it was in equilibrium it radiated as much as it absorbed).

Now

I have performed this experiment myself in that I have heated steel, copper, and other metals and seen them turn red hot, then white hot. As far as subtracting reflected light, all that would be necessary to do this would be to turn off the torch and turn off the lights. They would still glow, of course, from the thermal emissions within.


There is much more to thermal radiation then the color of the thing radiating! What you are describing is (more or less) the peak frequency of emission at a given temperature. I want to calculate (and compare) the entire spectrum of radiation! For this, we have to do more than turn the lights off because nearly everything is radiating in the infrared, which will get reflected, etc. Hence, the use of reflecting cavities as nearly ideal generators of black body radiation.
-Will

#68 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1561 posts

Posted 01 August 2007 - 03:58 PM

Will, I have no doubt that these experiments produce electrons and muons. However, there's really no way to jump from electron/muon detections to neutrinos except through the neutrino hypothesis. If the neutrino hypothesis goes away, there are absolutely no consequences. This experiment produced electrons and muons. So what?


I think you miss how this works- first its not a few detections (not like SNOW) but in fact measures off the Tevatron line. If the neutrino theory is correct, we should see a large increase in the number of events, we do.

Now, if we remove the neutrino hypothesis we are left with the unsettling conclusion that electrons (and muons) can simply pop into existence all by themselves, without an anti-particle present. This violates any number of conservation laws macroscopically.
-Will