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

[write4u]

As to "in the beginning", this is a very interesting interview of Roger Penrose and his brilliant analysis of 

"Why did our Universe begin?"

 

[andrewgray]

Quote

In the elevator experiment, it is not the laser beam that moves (bends), it is the elevator that moves (giving the appearance of the laser bending). And that is only because the elevator is accelerating. If the elevator moved at a steady speed the laser would remain straight, albeit at a diagonal orientation, throughout the event .

Write4U,

Correct.  You are getting the gist of the equivalence principle.  In the accelerated coordinates tied to the elevator, the laser beam bends.  Also, in these accelerated coordinates tied to the elevator, if you gently toss a ball across the elevator, the ball acts just like it does in a gravity field!  The ball goes up and then comes down and hits the elevator floor!

Quote

What am I missing?

I'm not sure you are missing anything except that you missed the very point of the equivalence principle.

Now, the laser beam will bend and the ball will drop in the accelerated elevator coordinates.. 

Quote

but in a gravity field, the ball will go up and then come down, but the laser beam will NOT bend!

That is why we have a weak equivalence principle and not a strong equivalence principle. 

So maybe it is time here to discuss the "bending-of-starlight-around-an-eclipsed-sun" experiment, and why these experiments are so bad.  At first glance, the starlight actually bends around the sun.  So a priori, what amount of bending should be expect?  Well, if gravity bends the light (it doesn't), then we would expect that

(amount-of-bending) = (gravity-bending) + (refraction-bending)

What do we find?  Well, the amount of bending matches the first term, so the confirmation-biaser klan sets the refraction bending second term to zero!  There is a NEGLIGIBLE SOLAR ATMOSPHERE THEY CLAIM!!!   How stupid is that?  Really stupid, that's how stupid.  JeffreysTubes8, here's another case where physics has been stupid for over 100 years, I am sorry to say.  How do I know there is plenty of solar atmosphere?  Well, consider the hydrogen spectrum from the sun.  You basically have two choices.  Here they are:

Which one do you think it is? The top absorption spectrum or the bottom emission spectrum.  If there is not much of a solar atmosphere to bend starlight, then the bottom choice is obvious.  If there is plenty of hydrogen in the sun's atmosphere to block the sun's 1.4 nonillion kgs of emitting hydrogen, then the top choice is obvious.  If the confirmation bias klan is to be correct, there is not much of a solar atmosphere and the bottom choice is correct.

 

Well, it isn't!  The sun's hydrogen spectrum is the top ABSORPTION SPECTRUM!  THERE IS PLENTY OF HYDROGEN IN THE SUN'S ATMOSPHERE TO BLOCK THE 1.4 nonillion kgs of hydrogen giving off spectrum from the sun itself.  THIS MEANS THERE IS PLENTY OF HYDROGEN IN THE SUN'S ATMOSPHERE TO BEND THE STARLIGHT IN THE "light bending" EXPERIMENT.  So the second term in

(amount-of-bending) = (gravity-bending) + (refraction-bending)

is NOT negligible so the gravity-bending term does NOT agree with the experiment, and all the bending is most likely refraction.

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

[andrewgray]

Quote

In the theory of Intermittent Electrons, are the intermittent EM states also known as "quantum suspension", the space between change of quantum states?

No.  In the theory of intermittent electrons, the electron's electric force simply goes "OFF" in these states.

[andrewgray]

Your video of Roger Penrose starts off with the CMB.  Look again at the microwaves given off in all directions:

 

 

Does this look like a homogenous, isotropic, "perfect blackbody" emission to you?  Do you believe they can remove this gigantic Milky Way foreground and extract a teeny weeny CMB background like they claim?  (like extracting the sound of a worm crawling from a recording of men jackhammering?)   It is very dumb to think that THEY can.  The CMB claims are dumb, dumb, dumb.  So Roger Penrose starts off with a dumb, dumb premise.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

[andrewgray]

Jeffreys,

Here is your actual global WMAP scan:

As you can imagine, if you cut your "paperball" image out and glued it together, there would be a large red band around the equator of the "paper ball" (not like your "CONCAVE" drawing seen above).  This large red area corresponds to a large red band in the Milky Way Galactic Plane.  This "paperball microwave frequency" map is not as drastic as this one:

but it still shows that your "paperball" microwave map has a gigantic amount of microwaves being generated by the Milky Way.  At this frequency, the part of the Milky Way that is above and below us still generates microwaves, but it simply drops off faster.  And... trying to find the teeny weeny CMB behind this drastic red band is still ludicrous.  It is more like the sound of a "worm-crawling-while-using-a-60-pound jackhammer" instead of a "worm-crawling-while-using-a-90-pound jackhammer!"

So I still say that claiming they can find the teeny weeny "background microwave radiation" behind the "paperball map" is really dumb.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

[andrewgray]

OK, now that things with the CMB have quieted down, I want to go on and get rid of QM (Quantum Mythology!)  And how are we going to do that?  Well, to start with we are going to lay out the

Compton Killer Experiment

and the

Bremsstrahlung Cutoff Killer Experiment.

So let us start with explaining the Compton Effect with New Wisdom, Reality Based Physics (NWRBP!), and then explain how to disprove QM with the Compton Killer Experiment!  Let me be clear, here!  The Compton Killer Experiment disproves Compton's theory and opens the door for the final rejection of "fauxtons" and QM!

 

Ok.  Compton Scattering.  Imagine a carbon atom with 6 electrons, 2 of which are in orbitals deep inside the carbon atom with x-ray frequencied orbits.  According to New Wisdom's Intermittent Electron Theory (which we are trying to prove), the electrons in these orbits are pulsating ON and OFF with even faster x-ray frequencies than their orbital frequency.  Now Compton transmitted 4.214 exohertz  x-rays (λ=.712 Å)  into his sample containing carbon.  There is no electron in carbon that is pulsating with that frequency, but almost!   The electrons in the deeper orbit of carbon are pulsating slightly faster than this!  So... if the incident x-rays can catch these electrons while receding in their orbits (!), the Doppler shifted x-rays will suddenly be in resonance with the pulsations of the electron, and a resonance will occur and these receding electrons will re-transmit the x-rays in all directions! The relativistic Doppler formula is:

If we put θ=0 and V/c=β=.035 and into the Doppler formula, we get the frequency that the receding electron "feels" from the x-rays as it recedes away.  The frequency is less (so we use the "-" sign).  With β=.035, we get that ν' = 4.069 exohertz (λ=.737 Å).  Now this electron feels an acceleration resonance, as the frequency of the Doppler shifted x-rays matches its pulsation frequency, and the electron will re-transmit the x-rays due to its accelerations!  If we use the Doppler formula again (using the correct signs) for the x-rays re-transmitted at different angles we get:

ν' = 4.069 exohertz,  θ=90 degrees,   β=.035, ν'' = 4.071 exohertz  λ=.737 Å,   Δλ = .025 Å

ν' = 4.069 exohertz,  θ=45 degrees,  β=.035,  ν'' = 4.172 exohertz,  λ=.719 Å,  Δλ = .007 Å

ν' = 4.069 exohertz, θ=135 degrees,  β=.035, ν'' = 3.970 exohertz, λ=.755 Å, Δλ = .043 Å

ν' = 4.069 exohertz,  θ=180 degrees, β=.035, ν'' = 3.929 exohertz, λ=.763 Å, Δλ = .051 Å

These match up with Compton's measured values very well (!):

 

We see that a reality-based Doppler shift explains this effect!  But wait!  What if the x-rays were not in resonance with a receding electron orbital, but an orbital that was approaching!!!!   Then the re-transmitted frequencies would be HIGHER NOT LOWER!  The re-transmitted wavelengths would be SHORTER NOT LONGER! Compton's theory says the wavelengths would remain longer no matter what the frequency!  We have a way to disprove QM at last!  Coming soon!  The Compton Killer Experiment!

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited November 29, 2022 by andrewgray

[write4u]

On 11/6/2022 at 11:59 AM, andrewgray said:

So maybe it is time here to discuss the "bending-of-starlight-around-an-eclipsed-sun" experiment, and why these experiments are so bad.  At first glance, the starlight actually bends around the sun.  So a priori, what amount of bending should be expect?  Well, if gravity bends the light (it doesn't), then we would expect that

(amount-of-bending) = (gravity-bending) + (refraction-bending)

Rereading this post, can we not say that gravity does not bend the light but gravity bends spacetime and that results in "bending" of light as it follows a straight path along the curved spacetime coordinates?

--------------------------------

An interesting and possibly related subject is  Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) that proposes a fractal "unfolding" of spacetime fabric.

Causal dynamical triangulation

Quote

 

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

 

Quote

There is evidence ^[1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

Edited November 28, 2022 by write4u

[OceanBreeze]

On 11/7/2022 at 3:09 AM, andrewgray said:

Your video of Roger Penrose starts off with the CMB.  Look again at the microwaves given off in all directions:

 

 

Does this look like a homogenous, isotropic, "perfect blackbody" emission to you?  Do you believe they can remove this gigantic Milky Way foreground and extract a teeny weeny CMB background like they claim?  (like extracting the sound of a worm crawling from a recording of men jackhammering?)   It is very dumb to think that THEY can.  The CMB claims are dumb, dumb, dumb.  So Roger Penrose starts off with a dumb, dumb premise.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

That is taken by the Wilkinson Probe and not from the Planck satellite.

The Planck satellite can see though to the CMB much more clearly. By using the different wavelengths measured, the light from the Galaxy can be identified and removed from the images, so the CMB can be reconstructed. Link

These astronomers and physicists are way ahead of you, and not so dumb as you think.

 

Here is the first image from the Planck, before the galactic interference is removed:

AHere is the image of the CMB after the galactic (and other sources of interference) are removed:

[write4u]

On 9/10/2022 at 1:40 PM, andrewgray said:

Claiming a smooth "one-electron-at-a-time" current just shows how dumb these physicists are.  So actually, there are plenty of pulsating electrons going around the charged filament in the electron microscope to interfere with each other, EVEN THOUGH THE AVERAGE CURRENT IS EQUIVALENT TO "one-electron-at-a-dumb-time!  The pico-ammeter just averages the pulsed groups over time even though there is no stupid "one-electron-at-a-time" flow.

I hope this addresses your concern about ability to control the single photons

Double Slit Experiment: How do scientists ensure that there's only one photon?

Quantum dots. nanoscale semiconductor materials that can confine photons in 3 dimensions and release them a measurable time after. Based on material used the decay time is known empirically. frequency is also known. the latter is sufficient to calculate the energy of one photon. The former is then sufficient to calculate the rate of photon re emission from the QD. If the peaks at the detector are further apart than the decay time and each peak is measurable to one photon's worth of energy then you know you have a beam of single photons.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76162/double-slit-experiment-how-do-scientists-ensure-that-theres-only-one-photon#

 

I believe the point was that regardless of number of photons, the interference pattern always appears.

This would suggest confirmation of DeBroglie-Bohm's interpretation of a Universal Pilot Wave  that carries all particles as physical objects, but gives the appearance that it is the particle that exhibit wave like properties.

 

The Bohmian trajectories for an electron going through the two-slit experiment. A similar pattern was also extrapolated from weak measurements of single photons.^[7]

 

De Broglie–Bohm theory

Quote

 

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

The theory is deterministic^[1] and explicitly nonlocal: the velocity of any one particle depends on the value of the guiding equation, which depends on the configuration of all the particles under consideration.

Measurements are a particular case of quantum processes described by the theory and yields the standard quantum predictions generally associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. The theory does not have a "measurement problem", due to the fact that the particles have a definite configuration at all times. The Born rule in de Broglie–Bohm theory is not a basic law. Rather, in this theory, the link between the probability density and the wave function has the status of a hypothesis, called the "quantum equilibrium hypothesis", which is additional to the basic principles governing the wave function.

In Bohm's 1952 papers he used the wavefunction to construct a quantum potential that, when included in Newton's equations, gave the trajectories of the particles streaming through the two slits. In effect the wavefunction interferes with itself and guides the particles by the quantum potential in such a way that the particles avoid the regions in which the interference is destructive and are attracted to the regions in which the interference is constructive, resulting in the interference pattern on the detector screen.

To explain the behavior when the particle is detected to go through one slit, one needs to appreciate the role of the conditional wavefunction and how it results in the collapse of the wavefunction; this is explained below. The basic idea is that the environment registering the detection effectively separates the two wave packets in configuration space.

 

more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

[andrewgray]

Wow.  A lot of activity!  I will respond to all this activity when I have the chance, but first the promised

Compton Killer Experiment!

We are tired of QM (Quantum Mythology) and we want to get rid of it!  So here is the scenario.  In Compton's experiment he shines 4.214 exohertz  x-rays (λ=.712 Å)  into his sample containing carbon orbitals and the receding electron experiences x-rays at  ν' = 4.069 exohertz (λ=.737 Å).   This inner electron orbital that is receding from the source is having a non-acceleration resonance with the incoming x-rays.  Like this:

The re-transmitted x-rays go out in all directions, Doppler shifted to lower frequencies.  So what if we shine x-rays of a slightly LOWER frequency towards an APPROACHING electron so the x-rays will have a non-acceleration resonance while the electron is APPROACHING instead of receding??!!  Like this:

 

So let's calculate just what this slightly lower x-ray frequency must be.  We need the electron to experience x-rays at    ν' = 4.069 exohertz (λ=.737 Å) which must come from a slightly lower frequency incident x-ray beam since it will be Doppler shifted.  Using the relativistic Doppler formula again with β=.035:

we use the "+" sign and get that ν must be  ν = 3.929 exohertz (λ=.764 Å).  So if we shine x-rays with frequency     ν = 3.929 exohertz into Compton's sample, the electron will experience a non-acceleration resonance WHILE APPROACHING instead of while receding, and the re-transmitted x-rays will be Doppler Shifted to a HIGHER frequency instead of a lower (shorter wavelength instead of longer!)!!!  Something like this:

This will be all that we would need to kill QM and "fauxtons" (or to shut ME up if I am wrong!)  So... one of you "Soon-to-be-not-so-dumb" younger physicists out there get busy and do this experiment!

 

Andrew Ancel Gray!

 

Next: Respond to all of you above and THE BREMSSTRAHLUNG KILLER EXPERIMENT!

 

 

Edited November 29, 2022 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

OceanBreeze,

Just look where there are microwaves that are obviously coming from the Milky Way in the  "first image from Planck":

If we draw a cross section diagram of the Milky Way with just these obvious patches of microwaves we get something that looks like this!

We see that our solar system is surrounded by "Milky Way Stuff" that is generating microwaves.

OceanBreeze, the Planck and WMAP scientists spent billions of dollars detecting Milky Way microwaves... but that is not what they wanted to find.  They wanted to find a low level even distribution of microwaves from all around, which they did not.  Do you think that a group of physicists would spend billions of dollars on a project then proclaim (!!) THAT THEY FOUND NOTHING!!???  Of course not!  So they claim that they can detect the "sound of a worm crawling while there are a dozen 90 pound jackhammers" going off!  (They cannot!).  It is that simple.  So yes, thinking that they can extract a tiny microwave background signal from an overwhelming foreground is just really dumb, dumb, dumb.  The Planck data simply shows the distribution of microwaves coming from the Milky Way, the thinner parts of the Milky Way generating less microwaves! Duh!  Dumb!

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

 

[andrewgray]

write4u,

I thought I had discussed the dumb "one-fauxton-at-a-time" claim in earlier posts!  But it is probably a good thing to go over this dumbness again!  Let's look at one of the dumbest of your 4 answers to "How do scientists ensure that there's only one fauxton?"

Quote

In the double slit experiment, if you decrease the amplitude of the output light gradually, you will see a transition from continuous bright and dark fringe on the screen to a single dots at a time. If you can measure the dots very accurately, you always see there is one and only one dots there. It is the proof of the existence of the smallest unit of each measurement which is called single photon: You either get a single bright dot, or not.

This is really dumb.  A single mythological "fauxton" would contain about an attojoule of energy (a quintillionth of a joule)!  Let's look at this from the point of view of the film screen.  Happily, this scientist tells us the intensity of "minimum blackening" of the film:

http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html

Minimum blackening for film, he says is 0.004  lux-seconds, or about  0.001 J/cm²  .

Minimum blackening is where you just get "a few dots on the film".  SO TAKE ONE MILLIONTH OF THE MINIMUM BLACKENING INTENSITY!  One Millionth of the intensity!  An exposure with One Millionth of "minimum blackening" would result in NO DOTS ON THE FILM.  So how many attojoules (mytholgical fauxtons) of energy would hit the film per square centimeter at this "no-dots" intensity???  Huh?

Well, divide it out!   One millionth of "minimum blackening"  is .000000001 J/cm²  .

So  (.000000001 J/cm² ) /  ( attojoule ) = 1,000,000,000 /cm²

This means that ONE BILLION MYTHOLOGICAL "FAUXTONS" would strike a cm² of the film at this intensity AND LEAVE NOT A SINGLE DOT!  Not a single dot!  So claiming that one film dot corresponds to one "fauxton" is an idiot's folly.

So write4u, you are "really off" with your "one-fauxton-at-a-time-one-filmdot-at-a-time" claim!  Really OFF by a factor of a billion!  And just think, we have had this dumb "one-fauxton-at-a-time" claim for over a century!

So the bottom line for "what is really going on" is this:

When you have  light wave intensity so low that you barely get any detections, you simply are revealing the threshold intensity of your detector, the majority of these threshold detections happening in the maximums of the interference pattern!

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited December 13, 2022 by andrewgray

[write4u]

Clever.

And how do you explain the emerging interference patterns?

Edited December 13, 2022 by write4u

[write4u]

On 11/6/2022 at 12:09 PM, andrewgray said:

(like extracting the sound of a worm crawling from a recording of men jackhammering?)

IMO, that is a misleading analogy. It has nothing to do with decibels

It is quite possible to separate worm crawling waves from jackhammer waves. 

In fact it is said that one of the proofs of a small beginning is found in the absence of the longest wavelenghts in the background indicating a small point of origin.

 

[andrewgray]

Quote

And how do you explain the emerging interference patterns?

Write4u, I thought I did explain it.  I said:

Quote

When you have  light wave intensity so low that you barely get any detections, you simply are revealing the threshold intensity of your detector, the majority of these threshold detections happening in the maximums of the interference pattern!

But OK.  Let's go a little further.  Perhaps if we use a digital camera analogy you all will understand better.  So take a digital camera with a CCD transistor array, say with a megapixel or so.   Not even your "idiot's folly" person from the above "one-fauxton-at-a-time-on-the-film" paragraph above would claim that a single dot on a CCD photocell was correlated to one attojoule "fauxton".   Not even him.  So, OK.  Now let's put a double slit interference pattern into the camera so it strikes the CCD array.  You see a double slit interference pattern in the CCD array.  OK, so far so good.  Now, let's turn the double slit light source OFF.  Then let's bring the intensity of the double slit light source up from zero and very gradually!  We bring up the light source intensity up gradually and lo and behold, SOME DOTS START APPEARING IN THE CCD ARRAY PHOTOCELLS  FROM THE LIGHT WAVE THAT IS HITTING IT!  And since the intensity is greater in the maximums of the array, that is where most of the CCD dots start appearing.  FROM THE LIGHT WAVE!  There are no GIANTONs hitting the CCD array!  The LIGHT WAVE intensity is right at the threshold for CCD photocells to start firing!   And the most sensitive photocells (in the maximums of the pattern) are the ones that start firing!  You start getting a double slit pattern built up one CCD photocell dot at a time, just like you would from film!  And no GIANTONs striking the CCD array.  A low intensity WAVE is striking the CCD array!  And the WAVE at this threshold intensity is causing dots to form in the digital image!

Just like this!

It's the same for CCD photocells as it is for some silver bromide crystals on 200 ISO film!  Bring the intensity OF THE LIGHT WAVE up gradually to the threshold intensity of the detector, and dots FROM THE WAVE will start appearing in the most sensitive cells in the maximums of the pattern..

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Next: Listening to worms crawling while a dozen men are jackhammering!

Edited December 15, 2022 by andrewgray

[write4u]

Ok, I accept your expertise in the field.

Can you comment on this definitive statement.

Quantum Leaps, Long Assumed to Be Instantaneous, Take Time

An experiment caught a quantum system in the middle of a jump — something the originators of quantum mechanics assumed was impossible.

 

Play it on "loop"

https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2019/06/QuantumJumps_2880x1220_01.mp4

 

Quote

When quantum mechanics was first developed a century ago as a theory for understanding the atomic-scale world, one of its key concepts was so radical, bold and counter-intuitive that it passed into popular language: the “quantum leap.” Purists might object that the common habit of applying this term to a big change misses the point that jumps between two quantum states are typically tiny, which is precisely why they weren’t noticed sooner. But the real point is that they’re sudden. So sudden, in fact, that many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics assumed they were instantaneous.

 

Quote

A new experiment shows that they aren’t. By making a kind of high-speed movie of a quantum leap, the work reveals that the process is as gradual as the melting of a snowman in the sun. “If we can measure a quantum jump fast and efficiently enough,” said Michel Devoret of Yale University, “it is actually a continuous process.” The study, which was led by Zlatko Minev, a graduate student in Devoret’s lab, was published on Monday in Nature. Already, colleagues are excited. “This is really a fantastic experiment,” said the physicist William Oliver of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who wasn’t involved in the work. “Really amazing.”

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-leaps-long-assumed-to-be-instantaneous-take-time-20190605/

 

In the clip I see no continuity between energetic expression.  If it is not the electron (photon) itself shedding energy, what is the invisible source that is emitting this enegy?

Edited December 15, 2022 by write4u

[andrewgray]

Write4u,

Quote

Ok, I accept your expertise in the field.

Wow.  You realize that "my expertise" realizes that the low intensity double slit experiment involves WAVES ONLY at the detector's threshold intensity.  "No quantum anything".

 

Quote

IMO, that is a misleading analogy. It has nothing to do with decibels.  It is quite possible to separate worm crawling waves from jackhammer waves.

Write4u,

It is only possible to detect a tiny background wave from behind a gigantic foreground wave if

1) YOU generate the gigantic foreground wave and

2) YOU know the gigantic foreground wave exactly down to the tiny wave's scale! 

Then and only then can you "subtract out the jackhammers" and recover the "worm crawling".  A tiny background wave behind a noisy gigantic foreground wave is unrecoverable if they have similar frequencies!

WIth the CMB, obviously we did not generate the gigantic Milky Way microwave foreground (the "jackhammers"), and obviously no one really knows EXACTLY what it is, so...  the tiny microwave background (the "worm crawling") is unrecoverable.  Duh.

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by andrewgray