Jump to content
Science Forums

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


Recommended Posts

The reaction only goes forward if the kinetic energy/momentum of the electron/proton are high enough to allow the reaction to go forward. Energy/momentum still need to be conserved.


Further, this is for the synthesis of a free neutron- in stars the hydrogen is being converted to helium 4. This means that we need to include the protons electromagnetic energy in the nucleus on the left side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



You have a good point. For a free neutron to form, the electron & the proton would be traveling too fast to make any sense. I.e., if one considers a neutron formation from the proton's frame (roughly the center of mass frame), then the electron would be traveling at about 0.75c. This seems highly unlikely to me. The particles are being squeezed so tightly that they are binding. Moving at three-quarters of lightspeed seems silly. So kinetic energy is probably not supplying the missing mass(?).


So, you are wanting to include the proton's electric field? I thought that the proton's electric self energy was accounted for in its rest mass. So you must be speaking of the binding energy of the nuclear bonds.


The reactions we are speaking of, according to standard thinking, are


2p + (p+e) -> 2p + n + nu (Helium 3)

2p +2(p+e) -> 2p + 2n + 2nu (Helium 4)


where the right sides are He nuclei+nu's. Are you saying that the binding energy of the He nuclei on the right side are negative enough to account for the (0.78 Mev mass differences plus E_nu's) , or are you saying that the electrons/protons had kinetic energy on the left side (or something else)?



Thanks again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, again, there is nothing wrong with the protons moving near c, its a gas of protons, and the cross section for neutron formation in an electron/proton gas is huge (10/20 barns or so). Again, keep in mind that we are NOT talking about the formation of a bound state. A neutron is NOT an electron bound to a proton. Its similar e+/e- collisions in particle accelerators (where both are moving at near c), where hadrons are formed from the collisions. The hadrons are NOT e+/e- bound states.


BUT, these aren't actually the reactions that occur in stars, where the electrons have been largely stripped from the protons.


Lets look at the actual proton-proton reaction that occurs in stars


p+p -> H_2 +e+ + v_e


Two protons fuse to form hydrogen 2, a positron, and an electron neutrino. Consider- if instead we had fused to form Helium, the two protons would be bound by the strong force, BUT there would be a great deal of stored electrostatic energy. Does this make soem sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Just want to say that I'm impressed by you all here :)

The civility shown is most refreshing, as well as the knowledge that seem to linger at both sides of the fence. Andrew, what made you want to create this new hypothesis?


And what do you think about spin?

Why I'm asking is because that is one of the most strange phenomena i know of :)

Well entanglements and tunneling come as a close competitor of course.

(Hmm, reading again you do have a lot to say about it:)


But are you disallowing the two slit experiments on 'technicalities'?

You do not accept the results at all then?


If so, you must have thought of a way to test your ideas by designing your own 'two slit experiment' right? And how do you think that that should that be done, if so?


But entanglements is either polarizations or due to spin, right?

So that seems to follow from spin.


And tunneling is mostly, as I've seen it, explained as a result of wave packets?

And while I'm thinking of it. Singularities, do your theory have any explanations for such? Like Black Holes f.ex, and the idea of event horizons.


And yeah, one more thing, I think your drawings would win on diminishing them a little. They are hard to get a overview over as they are so big.


I'm going to read up on your ideas, as for now I just read the discussion and had good fun doing so too.



Your idea seems to hinge around "an electron turns its electric field ON and OFF. And its does so according to De Broglie:"


So why would it do so? As I understands it most what we see is based on us interpreting interactions, are you suggesting that the electron has an intrinsic 'switch' of some sort? Reacting differently on different EM fields?


And could you explain in layman terms how you see De Broglie ideas defining it?

And yes, please shrink those images a little:)


They are cool, but distracting, when one try to read your thoughts.

And I'll stop asking now, it's a lot to take in, and I'll have to see what you answer first :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Thanks for the encouragement. Yeah, civility is good. Modern physics can sometimes turn into a religious-like argument, if one is not careful. That is why I have pledged to stay with strictly logical (and civil) reasoning, and that is all.


What made me create this hypothesis? Well, the answer is simple. A phenomenological theory explains nothing. And that is what Quantum Mechanics is, in my opinion. I want explanations for what is really going on. If you have a theory that claims that "microscopic reality is not reality", then you do not have a theory based in reality. That simple. My curiosity needs a theory based in reality.


What do I think about spin? Well, "spin" was invented in 1925 by two graduate students Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. Later, when the size of the electron was determined to be smaller than  OneTimesTenMinus6.gif , then the hypothesis was in trouble, because the surface velocity of the electron would then have exceed the speed of light to generate the hypothesized magnetic moment. So to the logical mind, the rejection of electron spin would be in order. But the phenomenologists (the QM 'ers), their theories not based in reality, can then just say:


Electron spin is not something spinning.


To me, this explains nothing. Further, I have shown in a previous post that atomic angular momenta are not quantized but induced. So the bottom line is that realistically, electron spin is very doubtful.


I am not dismissing the double slit experiment on technicalities. If one does simple arithmetic, one can find that a single "spot" on a plate of film would correspond to trillions of "photons" (if photons existed, but they don't). Seeing a 1,000,000,000,000 "photon" spot on a plate of film and then saying that the "photons" go through the slits "one-at-a-time" is ridiculousness.


But yes, I accept the results of the double slit experiments. The ones using film say that

Film is discrete (not quantized) crystals.


That's what the results say.


Yes I have proposed a new "electron double slit" experiment very clearly. It is waiting to be done. I need more acceptance and collaborators though, before any hope of getting it done.


Yes, the EPR entanglement experiments are usually done experimentally with polarizations, and theoretically done with spins. For the "photon" polarization experimental version, think about this logic:


1)Bell and Aspect have shown that if photons exist, then there is "no local reality".

2)Therefore, photons do not exist.


Pretty simple, eh? That's all there is to it.


Tunneling is this new Model of Reality theory comes from the fact that the charges turn ON and OFF, and while OFF, the charges can move together/apart without a change in energy. Macroscopically, however, everything stays the same.


Sorry about the drawings. On my computer with a hi res monitor, the drawings are a little small. It is hard to judge the resolution that all viewers will have.


Yes, the model of based on charges "switching ON and OFF". .


As far as De Broglie defining the frequency of pulsations of the charges, this is extremely complicated for the model, and will probably have to remain a hypothesis for now. But this hypothesis simply means that if one accelerates a charge, it starts pulsating faster for a while, and when you stop, it eventually goes back to its normal state of pulsation.


Thanks again for your interest. Let me know what you think.


Andrew Gray

Edited by andrewgray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have discovered a coordinate system that spans both the inner and outer horizons of a black hole in an inertial, non-problematic way. This new metric says that gravitational collapse will cause a supernova or pulsar, and not a black hole. You will have to wait for the paper to come out, though.


That is of great interest. Anything in geometry that explains physical is interesting.

I enjoyed reading through this thread. Thanks for posting.

As far as civility, it is called scientific scrutiny. If you don't like it, too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw you write "The charge's mass function actually goes negative while OFF, allowing the gravitational mass's amplitude to be huge, but its average mass to be very small." Is that an answer to the idea of dark energy's role for invariant mass in your model?


Also this one "Bell and Aspect have shown that if photons exist, then there is "no local reality".

That one is new to me Andrew, I assume that it's your conclusion of those experiments?

Do you have a link toward how you formulated it?


I'm really fascinated by photons so that one is very interesting, or do you mean that they stated it?


(To me a photon is a non-classical particle, and even if in a mathematical symbiosis with energy/frequency it will in its single state bear no resemblance to a wave packet:)


But I may be bicycling in the blue younder there of course..

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I am not sure what you mean by "dark energy's role", but in any case, the answer is probably "no". Both Dark Energy and Repulsive Universe are products of faulty astronomical distance measurements and are both likely non-existent.


As for Bell and Aspect's Logic, it goes like this:


1)" If photons exist, then there is "no local reality".

2) "Therefore, there is no local reality".


The correct logic goes like this:


1)" If photons exist, then there is "no local reality".

2) "Therefore, there are no photons".


It might takes years for the correct logic to sink in, but I believe that we will get there eventually. In addition, there is also that stubborn realization that a macroscopic detection of a light pulse probably involves the energy equivalent of millions of "photons" (which of course do not exist), like we see it would be for film. We will look back at Aspect's "one-photon-at-a-time" claim with humor in the distant future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of the mass measured in the universe according to the Lambda-CDM model based on the the 5 year Five-Year WMAP temperature and polarization observations, and how your theory might explain it?


You writing "The charge's mass function actually goes negative while OFF, allowing the gravitational mass's amplitude to be huge, but its average mass to be very small." gave me a glimmer of an idea?


But wrong :)



Considering photons, even if they don't exist there are experiments done on Bells theorem giving strange results if locality is correct.


How does Bell's Theorem lead to predictions of negative probabilities. How would you explain this experiment based on your theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Very interesting questions, but they are very big questions. First, the Lambda in in Lambda-CDM. The only reason we have the Lambda in Einstein's field equations these days is because modern physicists think that gravity is mostly repulsive (I kid you not). For gravity to be repulsive, you need a Lambda ("cosmological constant, Einstein's greatest blunder", etc). So let me be the first to break the news to you.


Gravity is not repulsive.


Why do modern physicists think that gravity is mostly repulsive? Because of faulty distance measurements. We can figure out how fast a galaxy is receding from us by its red-shift, but the red-shift does not tell us how far away it is. A galaxy that is 12 billion light years away is unimaginably far away. Not 1 quadrillion miles. Not 2 quadrillion miles, but 5 trillion quadrillion miles. Almost unimaginable. So how do you attempt to measure such a distance? You cannot. But modern physicists have tried a few "tricks". Here they are:


1) You can triangulate distances out to about 10 light years with very large error bars.

2) Next, measure a few close Cepheid Variables, and try to formulate an intensity-distance relationship.

3) Assume all Cepheid Variables in the galaxy have the same intensity-distance relationship.

4) Find some Cepheid Variables near supernovas. Approximate distances to a few supernovas using Cepheid Variable method.

5) Assume all of these supernovas in the universe also have the same intensity-distance relationship.

6) Assume all of these supernovas have had this same intensity-distance relationship for 12 billion years.

7) Measure the intensity of some supernovas near distant galaxies and write down their distances and velocities.


Pay attention here:


Incorrect conclusion:

8) Conclude that gravity is repulsive.

Correct conclusion:

8) Your distance measurements are wrong.


So Yoron, if I were you, I would not pay too close attention to this stuff.


Next, Bell's theorem experiments. Yoron, all of Bell/Aspect's conclusions are based on the existence of "photons", and the assumption that macroscopic detections of dim light pulses are "one-photo-at-a-time". We have seen why photons do not exist, and we have seen that one "spot" on a film would correspond to millions of "photons" (if they existed). Most likely, a macroscopic detection of a dim light pulse in an Aspect-like experiment probably would also correspond to millions "photons" (if they existed). So making claims about "one-photon-at-a-time" probabilities, and then measuring millions of "photons" at a time is just irresponsible. It would be like measuring the positions of two grains of sand on a beach with a steam shovel and claiming precise properties of the two grains of sand.


How would Bell's theorem lead to negative probabilities? Because the initial assumptions are incorrect.


How would this new theory explain the experiments? Well, a crystal is stimulated and produces mostly linearly polarized light in random intensities. The light is split and put into two polarizers. If the polarizers are crossed, sometimes you will get detections at both detectors (this really happens, QM'ers just ignore these, and they are usually around 25% of the data). If they are parallel, sometimes you will get two detections, sometimes one, and sometimes none. The QM'ers cannot count the "nones", so their probabilities are wrong. Any reality-based theory for these experiments would have to go into great detail about how the light pulses overcome the threshold for detection and trigger the detector.


Andrew Ancel Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Andrew, I can understand your frustration very well. I feel the same :)

And you make sense, but you are going against almost everything that we think that we know.


So for it to take hold I expect that you will need experimental evidence. That is what I would do if I was you. Take a look at what I think and then search for how to define a few, well thought out, experiments proving your concept. That will be what opens the door, to explain it mathematically is all well and good, but to change the way we look at photons you will need a experiment showing that our particle/wave duality can't be what we think it is.


But you do impress me with your thoughts, they are logic although quite drastic :)

So construct that experiment(s) first, then the math may change course.



As for 'gravity being repulsive?'


I have understood it as an idea where 'dark energy' is creating a' negative pressure' :)

But still expanding our SpaceTime. That one is hard to melt for me too as it seems to build on' invisible boxes' filled with a negative pressure that still somehow can expand the areas around the box, and you do need the 'box concept' to make it work, as I understand it.



But my main interest is understanding the concept of 'photons' and, if you're right, I spent all too much time on that ::))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, Bell's theorem experiments. Yoron, all of Bell/Aspect's conclusions are based on the existence of "photons", and the assumption that macroscopic detections of dim light pulses are "one-photo-at-a-time".


This is not at all true, groups have done Aspect-type experiments with fermions as well. Surely you don't doubt we can detect one electron at a time?


Secondly, detectors have improved dramatically since Aspect- the Kwiat group at Illinois for instance have performed dozens of better-than-Aspect experiments to close various loop holes in photon detection.


If the polarizers are crossed, sometimes you will get detections at both detectors (this really happens, QM'ers just ignore these, and they are usually around 25% of the data).


It sounds as if you are accusing groups of actively ignoring data- which is scientific misconduct of a pretty high order. Do you have any evidence of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andre has produced a new theory. An impressive theory. It supplies new answers to some of QM's paradox's . That is what new theories do. That is what QM did for Classical physics. His on and off proton, electron relationship is a really neat idea. Not because I think it is right but because it does suggest some relationship between the electron and proton that we have, as of yet, been unable to decipher. It does not explain charge, mass, inertia, and gravity. A full explanation of charge or mass will probably explain gravity and inertia..

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yes, there already is experimental evidence. The vectorial photoelectric effect, mentioned previously in this thread is such. Light polarized perpendicular to the metal surface ejects photoelectrons much better than light polarized parallel to the metal surface. In addition, the ejections are not in the forward direction, they are sideways (transverse) at 90o. In other words, the photoelectric effect is a transverse electric field effect, and not a "particle collision". If it were a "particle (i.e. photon) collision" and not an electric wave effect, the polarization would make no difference (and it does). If it were a "particle collision" the ejections would tend to be in the forward direction (and they are not). And yes, I have several well-defined experiments that would clearly show the difference between this new theory and QM. The advantage of being outside of the current phsyics Group Think is the freedom to explore for the truth. The disadvantage is that one does not have access to all the expensive equipment required to do these experiments. I am patient.




Scientific misconduct? I think misconduct means "on purpose" or "intentionally". Is ignorance misconduct? I think not. For example:


Aspect et al, 1982, Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers , Physical Review Letters Vol 49 No. 25, p 1804.


In the Aspect paper, they say that in the optical switch, the incident light is switched ... "by diffraction at the Bragg angle on an ultrasonic standing wave." By a single photon? I think not.

But that is not what we are looking for. Listen to what Aspect's team has to say about collector efficiency:

Coincidence rates with the polarizers removed were only a few per second, with accidental coincidence rates about one per second.

So "coincidence rates" were a few per second. Error "accidental rates" were one per second. So how many is "a few"? Say "a few" is 4/sec. Then the error rate is 25%, which is typical. Also note that the QM'ers ignore detections when only one of the detectors fires. This is really what happens when the polarized pulse hits a polarizer that is at say 88o-90o. QM 'ers simply ignore these pulses also.


Erasmus, I do doubt that we can detect "one-electron-at-a-time". One can put a picoammeter in a circuit and measure an average current that acts like one-at-a-time, but I do not remember any regulators in my semiconductor catalogs that claim regulation to strictly one-at-a-time. That's really crazy when you think about it. You really cannot tell the difference between one-electron/picosec and 100-electrons/100-picosec. They act the same in the picoammeter, but they are way different. The latter being pulsed groups of electrons, which may show up in detectors.


Little Bang,


Yes, the pulsations would be very fast. A 10 KeV electron would have a pulsation frequency in the order of 1018 Hz. This is way too fast for us to directly measure. One can see this frequency show up in electron microscopes, though, as described previously in this thread.


Andrew Ancel Gray

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...