Jump to content
Science Forums

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


Recommended Posts


In the theory of Intermittent Electronsare 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 11/2/2022 at 12:32 AM, andrewgray said:




Your version of this image is just a dream.  Sorry.  Nothing personal to you.  Thinking that you can remove such a gigantic foreground image and reveal a tiny little background image is just stupid.  I am sorry to have to say it again.  Jeffreys, there is an "Big Elephant in the Room", and I am pointing it out!

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elephant in the room

Andrew Ancel Gray




We have isolated portions of the sky containing galaxies that are nearly as old as the CMB, that IS as faint, as you put it, the 'sound of a worm next to a jackhammer'.

Furthermore no the concave of the globe would not contain the red-band in the equator. That is the sum of the red specs when the spherical shape is flattened out, but it's inversely flatten, so as the equator is closer and the upper squares nearing the poles of a sectioned off globe are smaller than those along equator, the equator is actually smaller at the middle. 

You see the image I used did not properly confer this, you have to use the left side, the globe, in the example I made, next to two images of the cmb br you used. It actually looks like this flattened out







This simply shows that light doesn't redshift evenly because "there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum", meaning, not all light that gets to the lens travels at the same velocity (in picture ONE) but that the light at the center-middle traveled the furthest distance to reach us in picture 2 (FLAT). BTW, the first picture is the most accurate of what we are receiving, and it's progressively more centralized from flat to oval ONLY because of changes in proximity of which of the most k-banded photons we're receiving, or ever will receive due to expansion. 

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 by andrewgray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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



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.



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.


Edited by write4u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

APLANCK_FSM_03_cropped_0.pngHere is the image of the CMB after the galactic (and other sources of interference) are removed:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.



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



The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theoryBohmian mechanicsBohm'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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by andrewgray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...