Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gestalt Theory


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:07 AM

A Gestalt Theory on the nature of light and related phenomenon:

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


(e is the electron’s and proton’s charge, a is the radius of an atom, in this case the hydrogen atom). For the atom to be stable, the force of attraction is insufficient and the electron would, as a result, fall into the nucleus. Therefore this force must be balanced by a corresponding force of repulsion, which is supplied by centrifugal force:
2)


[math]F_c = \frac{mv^2}{a}[/math]

Here m is the electron’s mass and v is its velocity. The equilibrium of forces makes it possible to determine the velocity of the electron in its orbit:
3)

[math]v = (\frac{e^2}{ma})^\frac{1}{2}[/math]

Substituting the numerical values for charge, the electron’s mass, and the radius of the atom

(3 x 10 -8 cms. approx) yields the answer : [math]v \approx 10^{8}[/math] cms/sec or 1000 km/sec.

Next we need to know the total energy of the electron in the field of the nucleus:
4)

[math]E= -\frac{e^2}{2a}[/math]

This formula is obtained by the summation of the kinetic energy and the potential energy of the electron. Finally, the radiation intensity of a charge e moving with acceleration w can be calculated : [math] w = \frac{v^2}{a} [/math]
5)

[math]I = \frac{2e^2w^2}{3c^2} = \frac {2e^2v^4}{3c^3a^2}[/math] ergs/sec

If the electron emits I ergs each second, then it will lose all its energy in a time interval:
6)

[math] T\approx\frac{a}{v}(\frac{c}{v})^{2}[/math]

Using this equation it is possible to calculate that T = 10 -10 Sec. Thus according to Classical physics , the electron should fall into the nucleus in about:

10 -10 secs and therefore atoms cannot exist.

So far so good, it has been adequately demonstrated that the existing classical physics explanations for the phenomenon are inadequate. Yet QM tends to frame this inability in terms of absolutes with statements such as :

“This is the best demonstration of the total failure of Classical Physics.”


And


“This is possibly the most impressive contradiction between classical physics and experiment etc., etc.,.
“The new mechanics was developed precisely to eliminate this contradiction.”

Impressive, but what was the QM explanation of the phenomenon ?

New information on the structure of the atom was emerging so fast at this time in the 1920’s that there was hardly time to assimilate it. Yet the proponents of the wave theory seemed to have the upper hand, precisely because of seemingly insoluble problems such as that of the existence of the atom referred to earlier. One solution that received almost universal recognition at the time was ‘wave’ theory. Obviously a wave is not localized, if the electron was considered as a wave the problem of the ‘radiating electron falling into the nucleus’ went away since the electron was spread out and not localized. This theory seemed to gain ground with Louis De Broglie’s theory of matter waves, since waves were associated with matter it seemed obvious that waves could also be associated with electrons, this was especially so when De Broglie’s equations seemed to indicate that ‘matter waves’ would have a significant effect when applied to an object the size of an electron. The only problem with this theory, as with so many other theories in Quantum Mechanics,was that neither De Broglie, nor anyone else could explain what was waving. To this day more than seventy years after De Broglie formulated his theory, no-one can come up with an explanation of what exactly, in the physical sense, is supposed to be waving when one speaks of matter waves, or waves associated with matter.
The German physicist Erwin Schrodinger offered a solution to the problem by suggesting that electrons could be arranged in the atom like standing waves.This seemed to fit in well with QM because, just like quanta, only a whole number of standing waves can exist in any given length. Again, as so often happens in the history of QM, Schrodinger was not content with merely giving a description of electrons where their motion or position was described in terms of standing waves, he went much further by stating that electrons were actually standing waves. He drew numerous diagrams showing the shape that ‘standing wave’ electrons might take:

Posted Image


Other physicists elaborated or rather generalized on this theory by stating that the electron was a cloud. The Schrodinger wave theory was at first wildly successful, physics text books in schools and colleges were altered to state that electrons travelled round the nucleus as a cloud rather than as a point particle as Bohr’s planetary model of the atom had implied. Soon, however, cracks began to show in Schrodinger’s theory, it is a little known fact that Schrodinger’s wave theory although sufficient to describe the simplest of atoms, grew in complexity when it came to describing larger atoms, they became so complex that to describe the Uranium atom required, no less than 276 dimensions! Don’t even ask me what this means because quite frankly it is beyond comprehension. To try and comprehend the 4 dimensions of General relativity or the 4 to 5 dimensions of Brane Theory or the 11 dimensions put forward by String Theory is bewildering enough, but even to try and imagine 276 dimensions is really out of this world, the Universe and anything else we can relate to. Obviously when Schrodinger came to this conclusion he came to the realization that his theory was untenable. Once so popular, Schrodinger’s wave function theory fell into disrepute, Schools and Colleges once again altered their text books to delete any references to electrons as clouds. What happens next is even more bizarre. The Danish scientist Neils Bohr had been doing some incredible work improving his model of the atom by working on the problem of atomic spectra. Scientists at this time could not understand how a simple Hydrogen atom, having only a single electron could emit a spectrum that had over a hundred lines. Bohr showed that when electrons absorbed external energy ( as for instance a photon ) they would ‘jump’ out to an outer orbit and then emit the same amount of energy as they ‘jumped’ back to their original position. In this way Bohr was able to explain, how many electrons each shell could contain, and how much energy would be released when an electron ‘jumped’ from one shell to another. This was a truly incredible piece of work based on the collation of empirical data collected from experiments. In that sense it was a purely classical investigation. It explained every element in the periodic table, the number of electrons in its shells, its physical properties and the spectrum it radiated. When Werner Heisenberg, who had been working on the same problems as Schrodinger, learnt that Schrodinger was on the point of renouncing his wave theory, he worked hard to try to dissuade him. Heisenberg, argued that the theory was sound and that the ‘wave function’ was very important to QM. This is peculiar, because Schrodinger and Heisenberg, were, in a sense, rivals, both of them were working on different solutions to the same problem. Heisenberg explained that it was possible to solve for the wave function of any atom without using the mathematical formula designed by Schrodinger, which was extremely bulky and complicated. Instead he, Heisenberg, had designed a matrix look up table that would give exactly the same result. In actual fact all that Heisenberg had done was to tabulate Bohr’s results in the form of look up matrix tables. These tables called the s-matrix are still being used today. Of course in the intervening years the s-matrix has undergone many changes and improvements and alterations, in this particular instance, I am referring to the matrix prepared by Heisenberg that gave the probability from look up tables, of the number of electrons in each shell of the an atom, which was what Schrodinger had set out to solve with his wave function. The irony of the situation is that data compiled through meticulous research conducted on the lines of classical physics was used to shore up an absurd Quantum mechanics theory. (Like it or not, any theory which requires 276 dimensions to work is patently absurd and completely unacceptable.) The German physicist Max Born finally offered what seemed to be an acceptable solution by proposing that the wave function did not refer to any practical object but rather was a manifestation of probabilities. Still, a probability function that requires 276 dimensions, is a bit much. However, there is no doubt that the famous Schrodinger wave function equation, remains to this day the single most important mathematical element in quantum mechanics. It is described as being a composite of all the possibilities of the system being observed. Using the Schrodinger wave function it is claimed that quantum theory can predict all the probability of a microscopic event with the same precision that Newtonian physics can predict the actual occurrence of a macroscopic event.
Yet, I often wish, that just once, the wave function would predict which horse would win a race, then at least one could say: "Hey, this is a really good theory!".

So how in the end did Classical Physics explain the fact that an electron does not radiate away its energy and fall into the nucleus ? It turned out to be an elegantly simple solution and was based in large part on Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. There are two uncertainties involved one is the uncertainty involved with time and energy :
1)
[math] \Delta E\Delta t \geq \frac{1}{2}\hbar[/math]

While the second uncertainty equation relates to the uncertainty due to momentum:
2)
[math] \Delta m\Delta p \geq \frac{1}{2}\hbar[/math]

According to the first equation if a subatomic particle is involved in an event for which the time is accurately known, then there is no way in which to accurately determine its energy. Similarly, if the energy of the particle is accurately known then the time over which the interaction takes place becomes indeterminate. What this means is that if an event takes place fast enough , on the order of 10 -15 seconds, then the mass-energy conservation laws are not violated. So this raises the possibility that the electron maintains its movement around the nucleus by emitting and absorbing virtual photons. This is a very elegant solution, because it does succeed in very concisely explaining how an electron can stay in orbit around the nucleus without radiating away all its energy. This theory has been subsequently substantiated by an experiment known as the Lamb Shift. The hyperphysics web-site has a reliable reference to the Lambshift. Surely this is a much more acceptable explanation of the existence of atoms than the hugely complicated wave function that was initially evolved to solve just this problem ? The point here is that it is impossible to completely dismiss the findings of QM, a large part of QM is brilliant, it is therefore necessary that those findings be used to evolve alternate explanations for phenomenon, that are at present taken as gospel by Quantum Mechanics.

Another conundrum posed by physics is the phenomenon of current in a wire. It is well known that if a difference of potential is applied to a free electron, the electron will move at the speed of 108 cms/sec. The explanation for this is as follows:
We assume that this field (i.e., potential difference) E = 1V. Therefore force eE is applied to each electron, and the acceleration w = eE/m. An electron travelling at this acceleration over a distance of 1 cm gains a velocity of 108 cms/sec.


However, what is less well known is that the average velocity of an electron in a wire to which a difference of potential is applied is just 3 x 10 -3 cms/sec. An explanation of this is as follows. If we assume that the current density flowing in a wire is [math]1 amp/cm^{2}[/math] and that the velocity of random motion of electrons is known, then using the definition:
1) [math]J= en_{ev}[/math]
2) Where e = 4.6 x 10-19 cgs esu, [math]n_{e}=\frac { Z}{a^3}[/math] = 1022 – 1023 cm .
Transforming 1 amp into electrostatic units 1A = 3 x 109 cgs esu. Substituting these values gives v = 10 -3 cms/sec.
This is incredibly slow, much slower than a person would take to walk from one end of the wire to the other, and completely at odds with the fact that current in a wire is established at the speed of light. 3 x108 metres/sec. Yet physics states that it is the electron which is the basic unit of electrical charge. (i.e., it is the electron that is the charge carrier in a current.) So what is the explanation for the flow of current in a wire ? One explanation that is frequently put forward, is that a conductor through which an electric current is being passed resembles a tube filled with ping pong balls, put in one ping pong ball at one end and one comes out of the other end. Unfortunately, a wire through which a current is being passed does not resemble this scenario at all. For one electron to hit another while travelling within the wire would be roughly the equivalent of trying to hit one billiard ball with another that is 50 Kms away! Even though free electrons in a conductor are often compared to molecules in a gas, which often collide, this is not an accurate picture of the state of things when a current is flowing through a conductor. If this is a bit too complicated to understand,try to explain how a current flows through a capacitance linked circuit. We know for a fact that no electrons pass through the capacitor, yet when an alternating current is applied to the circuit a current is seen to flow through it. So what is happening? Maxwell explained this by stating that there is a displacement current, in other words the atoms of the di-electric are physically deformed when a current tries to pass through it, when the current reverses the di-electric relaxes and a current is established in the circuit. If this is the case it still does not explain how electrons are the charge carriers. Failing to find a better explanation, QM had no other resort but to try to embrace Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism and try to fit it into a quantum theory, this meant trying to explain an essentially wave theory in terms of dots or particles. The result is something known as quantum electrodynamics. The mathematical chaos that resulted from this endeavour are only too well known, the sleight of hand, the subterfuges and self deceiving blinkers that are put into practice to do this are well known, normalization,re-normalisation, division by zero etc., Is there another solution ? Let’s move on.

Perhaps the most controversial theory of QM is that of wave particle duality. How can something be a wave and a particleat the same time? According to the complementarity theory of Neils Bohr a photon can be either a particle or a wave but never both at the same time. To put it another way. How can mutually exclusive wave-like and particle–like behaviour both be properties of one and the same light ? QM explains this by saying that, they are not behaviours of light, they are properties of our interaction with light. The most frequently quoted experiment in this regard is the double slit experiment. Where a photon seems to be aware of the second slit being open or closed and acts correspondingly, i.e.,producing either an interference pattern or a diffraction pattern. This experiment has been performed with electrons, and even alpha particles yielding the same result. This seems to lend credence to the theory that all particleshave wave like properties. This is a very important aspect of QM because so many suppositions, many of them esoteric, outrageous and cabalistic have been built around the results of the double slit experiment. For instance, one of the frequently asked questions is:

“How does information get around so fast. How can the photon know when the other slit is open? “

From the double slit experiment has arisen the theory that light ( photons ) in some way disassociate themselves and suddenly reappear at the point of detection. It also seems to support the theory that photons can be in two places simultaneously . Is there any other explanation for the results seen in theDouble Slit Experiment?

To offer an explanation that satisfies all criteria, we have to make two propositions that are directly in contradiction of Quantum Mechanics (a) that light is simultaneously a particle and a wave and (b) that an aether type of medium exists.
As regards (a) what would have been unthinkable 70 or 80 years ago when QM was first proposed is now fairly common place. For instance the ultrasonic sound devices that are used to shatter kidney stones into pieces is one example where a wave (sound) is behaving as if it had particle like or solid properties. How is it possible to break a stone using just sound, which is after all a wave, in this case consisting of air molecules? Later on an attempt will be made to show how a photon can be simultaneously both a particle and a wave.

With regard to point (b) Quantum mechanics has already come to the realization that there must be something similar to the aether to account for what otherwise can only be accounted for action at a distance. As usual with QM they have gone overboard with the concept of fields, when Quantum Field theory, as it is know, was first introduced, there were only three known particles,so only three fields were necessary. Today, over a 100 particles are known and Quantum Field Theory requires a field for each one of those 100 particles! Since this seems to complicate nature rather than simplify it, most scientists have given up the idea of a separate field for each particle. Still, it is hardly outrageous, therefore for Gestalt Theory to suggest an aether type of field. The aether type of field that is suggested for‘Gestalt’ theory is a ‘virtual photon’ type of aether. Consider that most of the stable sub atomic particles such as electrons and protons exist practically forever i.e.,1022 years. Yet the photon is supposed to have a very short life span that exists only from the time it is emitted to the time it is absorbed. What if in actual fact the photon also has a very long life span comparable to that of the electron or the proton. The origin of this ‘virtual photon’ aether would be the Big Bang itself when photons in unimaginable numbers flooded the whole of the Universe. How do they survive undetected ? The answer would seem to lie in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle. If these photons have a low enough energy on the order of 10-15 cgs esu . They can survive indefinitely. Imagine what the existence of such a 'virtual photon' aether would mean:-
1) It would be tasteless

2) Odourless

3) Undetectable

4) Would pass through matter without any difficulty, since no atom would react with photons of such low energy.

5) Would serve as medium for the transport of electromagnetic radiation.

6) Would be an explanation for why the speed of light is constant.

7) Would totally explain the Double slit experiment.

8) Occupies the whole Universe


Gestalt Theory:

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

Posted Image



Posted Image




Posted Image

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

1) The photon has no mass

2) It will always travel at the speed of c.

3) It is electrically neutral, meaning that it won’t be affected by electromagneticfields.

4) It will preserve its energy intact.

5) It has the properties of both a transverse wave and of a particle.

6) High energy photons would have a different emission system as compared to low energy photons such as radio waves.

7) It travels in straight lines until it is absorbed.



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

Posted Image

In this diagram it can be clearly seen that the when both the slits are open the particle, photon, electron, alpha particle etc., will follow the route taken by the ‘virtual photon’ ether as it passes through the two slits and aggregates at certain points forming the typical interference pattern associated with the double slit experiment. Interestingly this model of the virtual photon aether and of photon construction, also gives positive results when applied to the polarization experiment that is also put forward by QM as one of the incontrovertible proofs of the soundness of QM theory. I will continue discussing flow of current in a conductor and radio waves in the nextpost, if this one is at all favourably received.

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:30 AM.


#2 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:27 PM

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

Returning now to the subject of how a current is established in a conductor, it was pointed out that electrons in a metal (wire) at room temperature move in a random motion at speeds of about 108 cms/sec. This motion is completely chaotic and is not an ordered motion in a particular direction. However, when a difference of potential is established across the ends of the wire (conductor) the speed with which the electrons move drops to a mere 3 x 10-3 cms/sec. ( One thousandth of a millimeter a second!) This brings us back to the question of determining exactly how, a current is carried. Obviously an electron is a particle with mass and can never move at the speed of light (i.e., 3 x 108 m/sec) although when accelerated in machines such as the LHC they can reach a velocity of 99.9 something % the speed of light. The solution put forward by both Maxwell and later QM, suggests that electrical energy is carried by fields.. Thus when two fields, the electric and the magnetic, meet at an electron, they cause a perturbation, exciting the electron, which in turn energises the field, which in turn causes perturbation in the next electron and so on so that an electrical current results that is established at 3 x 1010 cms/sec. Other conventional theories of electricity are even worse. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining the flow of current in a conductor:-

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

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

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


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

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:25 AM.


#3 Ti@NiS

Ti@NiS

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 381 posts

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:31 PM

Maybe I can agree with something you say. But this thread go to philosophy too soon?

#4 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 03:47 AM

This information is deserving of more time and scrutiny, this time around trying to understand what has been stated: Take a copper wire maybe 1mm in diameter, then at room temperature the free electrons in this wire are moving about at approx: 108 cms/sec (1000 Kms/sec.) this is very fast but since their motion is random, everything cancels out, nothing happens. What happens when a difference of potential is applied to the ends of this conductor (copper wire)? Almost instantaneously the speed with which the electrons are moving in the conductor drops to 3 x 10 -3 cms/sec (One thousandth of a millimetre a second.) This is if a DC current is flowing through the wire, if an AC currrent is flowing through the wire, the electrons don't move at all ! They appear to be frozen in place. How and why does such a dramatic change take place ? If the electrons were absorbing and emitting photons there would be no reason for them to move. This I think is what is happening. What explanation does QM give for this dramatic and sudden change in the movement ( non- movement) of electrons in a conductor when a difference of potential is applied ? To the best of my knowledge none at all, apart from talking about the mean free path that the electrons can follow and the generation of phonons (sound particles !) from the metal lattice. Surely, if a purely unbiased view is taken of these facts the Gestalt Theory stating that the electrons are emitting and absorbing photons and therefore have no reason to move fast, but many reasons to drift or remain stationary is a far more acceptable and likely scenario than the QM theory. The next post about the generation of raio waves will be even more telling. However, I need a little time to prepare.

Edited by McQueen, 22 August 2012 - 03:48 AM.


#5 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 22 August 2012 - 02:49 PM

A discussion on radio waves:
There can be no doubt that electrons absorb and emit photons in the visible and higher wave-length range. This has been frequently observed in the photo-electric effect and in the study of atomic spectra and so on. Thus it is established that by absorbing or emitting a photon an electron can change its energy. But what happens when electromagnetic radiation of longer wave lengths is involved ? Take for instance electromagnetic radiation taking place at 60Hz, this yields an incredible wavelength of 5000 Km ( i.e., c= wf = 3 x 108 /60 = 5 x 10 6 m.) How can a photon with a radius of 10-13 cms emit a photon with a wave-length of 5 x 10 6 m. Quantum Physics says that it is the vibration and spin of the electrons in the conductor that sets up these huge wave lengths. Again, if one is honest about the issue, it can straight away be seen to be bad science two completely different explanations for a phenomenon that is identical in all but size. So how does Gestalt Theory deal with this problem. Gestalt theory states that the largest photon that an electron can emit has a wave length of about 10-6 m. . This gives it an energy of about 1.98 x 10-19 J/s. Interestingly this is also the amount of energy that an electron in one of the outer shells of the electrical conductor would have to absorb to break away from the parent atom. So an electron in one of the outer shells absorbs a low energy photon (which will henceforth be called the conduction photon) ( on the order of 1.98 x 10 -19 J/s) and is freed from the parent atom, it then emits a conduction photon of the same energy, and immediately re-absorbs a conduction photon of the same energy, and so on. This is due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle that states that free electrons cannot absorb or emit photons, because it would be in violation of the conservation of momentum. By immediately absorbing a photon of the same energy this is avoided. So the photons in the conductor are constantly leaving the conductor and looping back into the conductor so that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is never violated. In effect the ‘virtual photon’ aether aligns itself to form the lines of force and the energy of the conduction photons travel along these lines of force. However, these lines of force formed by the ‘virtual photon’ aether are arranged in series, what this means is that every line of force regardless of its length contains the energy of just one conduction photon (i.e., 1.98 x 10 -19 J/s. ).
Posted Image
Since at any given time there are not less than 10 18 of these lines of force each having an energy of 1.98 x 10 –19 J/s a current is established in the conductor. So with a given current flowing in the conductor n lines of force are produce resulting in x amount of current. ( i.e., n x 1.98 x 10 -19 J/s.) Obviously the greater the current the more dense the lines of force. Now consider what happens when the current is suddenly stopped, the electrons in the conductor no longer need to absorb photons, so the photons in the lines of force have nowhere to go. If a conductor is close by in the vicinity they enter that conductor giving rise to a current in that conductor and if a conductor is not in the immediate vicinity they change their orientation arranging themselves in parallel and speed away from the conductor at the speed of light.
Posted Image
These are radio waves. Now consider that a 0.5m wave length radio wave has an energy of 2.48 x 10-25 J/s . Dividing the 0.5m wavelength by the conduction photon wave length gives the number of conduction photons in this composite radio wave. So 0.5/ 10 -6 = 500,000 conduction photons, multiplying this by the eigen value of the 0.5m wave gives 1.24 x 10 -19 J/s. Which is about approximate. Thus each composite electro-magnetic wave has the same energy as a conduction photon. The maths in this is very rough at the moment. It will have to be spruced up.
In brief both conduction photons travelling along lines of force formed by the orientation of the ‘virtual photon’ aether and composite waves, contain the energy of a single conduction photon. The difference is that composite waves share the energy among all the conduction photons of which it is composed giving a correspondingly lower eigen value or energy. Photons in the visual spectrum and higher that are directly emitted by photons travel in the series configuration.
In one sense this theory is certainly an improvement on the QM version, which apart from depending on electron spin, electron vibration etc., also uses quantum entaglement to explain photons in the radio wave frequency range, but I don't say it can't be spruced up.

Next will be a discussion on gravity :

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:26 AM.


#6 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:25 AM

Gravity:

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

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

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

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

[math] \Delta E\Delta t \geq \frac{i}{2}\hbar[/math]

Thus the energy of these ‘virtual photons’ constantly being emitted and re-absorbed by the electrons in an atom is on the order of real photons, the time taken for the emission and re-absorption of these photons, which is on the order of 10-15 secs, is what makes them virtual photons, that are capable of eluding the mass-conservation laws.
Obviously the more electrons an atom possesses , the more virtual photons that will be emitted and absorbed. Thus denser material will feature a greater number of ‘virtual photons’ than lighter material and this is exactly what was postulated by Newton. The ‘virtual photon’ aether lines up in the direction of propagation of each of these ‘virtual photons’ , emitted by the atom, into lines whose ends rest on infinity and the force resulting from this interaction is what we experience as gravity.
Before anyone even begins to pooh pooh this theory let me remind you that the gravitational force is approximately 1039 times weaker than the electromagnetic force. Think of what this means 1039 is a number that possibly exceeds the entire number of atoms in the Universe. This gives adequate grounds to suppose that the gravitational force is due to some type of virtual interaction, the theory proposed by Gestalt Theory that it is virtual photons emitted and re-absorbed by electrons of the atom in less than 10 - 15 secs. that is responsible for the force of gravity is thus at least tenable.
Even more satisfying is the fact that this theory of gravity exactly accounts for the concept of inertial mass. The reason that a shotput made of iron and a feather fall to the earth at exactly the same time in the presence of a vacuum is that they are being pulled away from the earth with a force that is in direct proportion to the force that is attracting them towards the earth.
(The next post will be a summation and conclusion of what has been so far discussed.)

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:26 AM.


#7 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:31 PM

How does this aether explain Larmor radiation? http://www.cv.nrao.e.../LarmorRad.html

#8 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 11:11 PM

Hi Little Bang,

Imagine standing near your window looking out into the garden. The sun is shining and the grass is looking spectacularly green. But how does this information get from the grass to you? Obviously the atoms in the grass are excited by the sunlight and they are absorbing and emitting photons at the rate of 6 x 10 14 Hz/sec . (N.B., That is why the PEP is so important !) Yes, frequency of a photon does mean something, it is not just an abstract construct, it means that the susceptible electrons in the atoms of the grass are absorbing and emitting photons with a wave-length of 505 nm at the rate of 6 x 1014 Hz/sec. Given that they are photons and not waves, the most probable way in which they can propagate is through the medium of an 'aether'. Thus each susceptible electron is acting as an oscillator. Notice there is no talk of waves. Maxwell, as you probably know, wrote his equations much before the discovery of atoms or electrons were known, the discovery of photons lay a hundred years in the future. I don’t think it is necessary to quote Maxwell because obviously he was working with incomplete ( to say the least) information. What conclusions do you wish me to draw from that (outdated) data ?

LittleBang,
My apologies, at first glance it looked as if you were making an esoteric quote to try and 'flame' the topic. A closer look at the link you had posted, shows that you do seem to have read the post in some detail. I quote from the link:
"For example, Larmor's equation incorrectly predicts that the electron in a hydrogen atom will quickly radiate away all of its kinetic energy and fall into the nucleus. "
This, of course , is the very problem that I had detailed in the OP, as well as giving an answer to it. My thanks to you for reading the post.

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:27 AM.


#9 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 12:49 PM

Actually I am in agreement with your thinking much more than you suppose. Larmor radiation presents a unique problem for QM and an aether. As far as we know there is only one thing a charged particle will interact with and that is another charged particle or an electric and a magnetic field both of which are produced by moving or stationary charged particles. So the quandary,what is it about space that causes Larmor radiation? It is either your virtual photons(I hate the word virtual because there's no way to prove it) or a magnetic field and I use magnetic because everything is moving through space. We know that matter is nothing but pure energy and what is pure energy, radiation a thing that is produced by disturbing the aether. This makes me tend to think the aether is just a very diffuse magnetic field.

#10 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 24 August 2012 - 11:12 PM

As far as we know there is only one thing a charged particle will interact with and that is another charged particle or an electric and a magnetic field both of which are produced by moving or stationary charged particles.

Exactly, and when you think about it, what are radio waves and light but electromagnetic radiation, so why doesn’t light interact with electromagnetic fields. It must have a lot to do with frequency. It is only when the two are of similar frequencies that any interaction can take place. Think of the jamming of radio waves, you have to get the exact frequency to do it. Again, a charged particle can never be ‘stationary’, unless you are referring to ions of the lattice which are supposed to 'spin' differently (although nothing is spinning) to electrons and give rise to magnetic fields. Bad Science ! The field around a magnetic and the field around a wire carrying a current are identical, there is no difference, and according to ‘Gestalt Theory’ their cause is the same. Thus there is no such thing as a magnetic field. I prefer to think of it more as ‘frozen electricity’. Maybe a more detailed discussion on how this is possible can take place later. !

It is either your virtual photons(I hate the word virtual because there's no way to prove it) or a magnetic field ...

If you look at the link I had given to the Lamb shift, you will see that although it is not possible to detect ‘Virtual’ particles it is possible to measure the effect they have, very accurately.

This makes me tend to think the aether is just a very diffuse magnetic field.

‘Diffuse’ is not the word, the energy of the ‘virtual photons’ of the aether is so low that nothing we possess can detect it. Again, its effects can be clearly seen in everyday phenomenon.

As far as we know there is only one thing a charged particle will interact with and that is another charged particle or an electric and a magnetic field both of which are produced by moving or stationary charged particles.


Here is another answer to the same question:
According to Gestalt Theory, lines of force making up the electromagnetic field are for all purposes 'real' , since they are made up of aligned lines of the 'virtual photon' aether along which the real photons travel, and not a construct of interacting magnetic and electric fields. An electron accelerating in this field therefore would have lines of force (and photons) going through it. The question of radiating away energy does not arise. Just as in a conductor with DC current flowing through it, the electron would tend to move towards the postive side of the electromagnetic field while a proton accelerated in the same field would move towards the negative side of the field. The question of either of these charged particles radiating away their energy does not arise. As far as an electron/electron or electron/proton interaction is concerned this happens through exchange of photons if they are situated close together and through lines of force if they are further apart..

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:27 AM.


#11 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 05:46 AM

Conclusion:

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

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:27 AM.


#12 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:28 PM

I was going through this forum when I came across this article on ring magnets, which reminded me that I still had to explain how Gestalt Theory deals with 'Super Conductivity'. I have to tell you that I don't know all that much about 'super conductivity' but after giving it some thought this is what what I theorised would result from apply Gestalt Theory to super conductivity. It is a bit like walking a tight rope. Here are four predcitions:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:28 AM.


#13 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 02:02 PM

I'm busy right now but I do want to continue this discussion, I'll get back to you.

#14 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 11:46 PM

I was going through this forum when I came across this article on ring magnets, which reminded me that I still had to explain how Gestalt Theory deals with 'Super Conductivity'. I have to tell you that I don't know all that much about 'super conductivity' but after giving it some thought this is what what I theorised would result from apply Gestalt Theory to super conductivity. It is a bit like walking a tight rope. Here are four predcitions:-

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

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

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

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

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

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



Hello,
I was out for the day yesterday, just got back.
When, I likened making predictions in physics to something like walking a tight rope, in my last post, it was an exaggeration in retrospection what it felt like , was walking off a cliff. Here I was, having put forward a pretty good theory in a fairly coherent manner, and in one post, it looked as if I had thrown it all away together with any chance at credibility. And then .......... against all the odds, it looks as if Gestalt Theory has again come up aces !
Taking the predictions made in the last post one by one:

1) Is, if you think about it common sense, if you want to have a current that goes for ever, it has to be in a fully enclosed self sufficient circuit like a ring of super conducting material.

2) It was here I thought I had 'bombed' but amaZingly it turns out to be correct. Look at this youtube video.

3)Seems on the face of it to be correct, yet I can't understand exactly how it is correct, how does a cuperconductor act as a super magnet when it doesn't really have a magnetic field in the normal sense of the word.

4) Is perfectly correct, a superconductor will eject any electromagnetic field.

The truly amazing thing about these predictions is that I just thought about how the Gestalt Theory on the conduction of electricity, the formation of lines of force ( electromagnetic fields) and the 'virtual photohn' aether would fit into this scenario of a super cooled conductor and this is what the answers came up like.

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:28 AM.


#15 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 04:15 PM

The standard model says that the proton can become a neutron simply by one of it's up quarks, with a charge of +2/3, suddenly switching to a down quark with a charge of -1/3. How do you Handle that change?

#16 McQueen

McQueen

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 31 August 2012 - 07:43 PM

The standard model says that the proton can become a neutron simply by one of it's up quarks, with a charge of +2/3, suddenly switching to a down quark with a charge of -1/3. How do you Handle that change?



If you look at the heading of the first post (The OP) in this thread you will see that it is: A Gestalt Theory on the nature of light and related phenomenon. As far as this title goes I think the post has fulfilled everything that it said it would. This thread is not about nuclear physics or about what goes on in the nucleus, and therefore any questions on that subject fall out of the purview of this thread.

Edited by McQueen, 04 September 2012 - 03:29 AM.


#17 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 12:54 PM

Not if matter is made of light.