andrewgray Posted August 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Qfwfq, It is self-evident that a theory that is based on reality is superior. And at first I thought physicists would celebrate the possibility that a "reality based theory" has been found. But no, it has been a dog:dog::dog:fight like I mentioned before. It reminds me of Darwin and the group think of his day. There is an overwhelming amount of logical Darwinian evidence supporting the concept of evolution, yet we idiots in the United States still are fighting him. Half of U.S.'ers do not accept this "reality" and we still have idiot school boards legislating "creationism" over 150 years later. Incredible. So this defines human behavior. Fight change tooth and nail, even when faced with strong supporting evidence. This is how I view the reaction by QM'ers to these new concepts. It's not:Oh, this new theory looks very interesting, is intellectually stimulating, and passes initial viability tests. So why don't we test it? It's more like: Heisenberg just kicked you in the nuts To me, this is wrong. Andrew Ancel Gray Edited August 13, 2010 by andrewgray grammar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Qfwfq Posted August 16, 2010 Report Share Posted August 16, 2010 C'mon Andrew, so maybe B's remark wasn't the most enlightening but... to compare QMers with Biblical Creationists? :rolleyes: I tried to set an exercise for your model, I then remarked on your overly simplicistic solution. So, maybe bremsstrahlung wasn't a simple enough exercise to start with, just that it was on hand ATM. Let's start simpler. How about the hydrogen energy spectrum, even without considering spin? Simple enough? According to QM it is a dicrete spectrum with a [imath]\frac{1}{n}[/imath] law and a ground state of -13.6 eV which matches spectroscopic data very well in absence of magnetic field and counting out fine and hyperfine splitting. Can you show how your model fits this? I still haven't figured it out. You suggested how to get around the stability problem but I don't get how it would explain the discrete spectrum and the transitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

andrewgray Posted August 27, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) Qfwfq, Quote Have you ever tried looking through the design criteria for reconstructing analogue signals from digital sampling? Yes, I actually work for an audio/video company, so my background in digital audio (plus mathematics & physics) is what allowed me to figure this stuff out. The Nyquist Limit found in audio design is very similar to what I am proposing for the Nyquist Limit for the Bremsstrahlung x-rays. One could take an audio signal and chop it, say at 20,000 Hz (like my pulsating electrons) and find that the highest signal that a speaker could be driven would then be 10,000 Hz. This is extremely analogous to an electron pulsating at 2x10^{18} Hz that could only generate x-rays with frequencies up to 1x10^{18} Hz. Yeah, great. Let's talk about hydrogen. First of all, you initially want to leave out spin. Yeah, this new theory wants to leave it out completely. This new theory depends on spherical symmetry so that the pulsating electron will not radiate. Thus, there is no room for an axially symmetric electron and no room for an axially symmetric electron spin. You remember in 1925, two graduates students proposed electron spin for explaining the fine structure of hydrogen. However, today we know that the electron is so small (< 1 x 10^{-16}cm) that it is impossible for the electron to have such a spin and magnetic moment because its surface velocity would need to exceed the speed of light for this to happen. Thus, we reject electron spin as non-reality based. We digress for a moment. Quote myth –noun 1. An explanation for some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature that is not based in reality. A story with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation. So is my comparison so out of line? Electron spin is an explanation for something that is not based in reality. So technically, by the above definition, electron-spin could be classified as a myth. Many things could be classified as Quantum Mythology (QM) since many things in QM are not reality-based. So again, we reject electron spin. So where does that leave us? Well, we previously explained that the pulsating electron orbits the pulsating proton in such a way that they are synchronized so that they are never ON at the same time. This makes it possible for the orbit to be non-radiating. The atomic animation previously shown was this one: Now, if the pulsation period of the electron is T_{e} (=1/v_{e}), and the pulsation period of the proton is T_{p}, then we must have n_{e}T_{e} = n_{p}T_{p} where n_{e} and n_{p} are integers. This keeps the electron and proton synchronized so that they don't radiate and establishes just certain allowed orbits. One can plug in the Rydberg formula to get the size and frequency of these orbits (see previous posts). Now we are at a tremendous theoretical advantage here. The frequencies of these orbits are the same as the hydrogen resonant frequencies. Why is this? It is because if one disturbs these orbits (say by a bump by another particle) and accelerate these electrons while they are in their ON state, they will become circular radiators, radiating light at the same frequency as their orbits. Conversely, if light with the same frequency as the electron-orbitals is incident on the electrons, they will be in resonance and start canceling out this light with a phase shift re-emission (absorption). Thus, we see that in this theory, the resonant frequencies of the atom are actually something that has a frequency. In the Schrodinger electron states, the atom is frequency-less and static. QM has nothing that exists with a frequency in its model. That is, the resonant frequencies do not even exist in the Schrodinger atom. This is highly unlikely (i.e, I doubt it). As far as the Lyman (1,∞) line ionizing hydrogen, I doubt it. In this new theory, the Lyman (1,∞) frequency is just another resonant frequency, and not the special ionizing "photon". I have actually proposed an experiment to shine Lyman (1,∞) light on hydrogen to see if a plate current develops just as soon as the Lyman (1,∞) light appears. This new theory predicts that it will not ionize the hydrogen. (Or if it does, then so will the other Lyman frequencies). Finally, there are no "transitions" in this theory. The light emitted by hydrogen are the disturbed resonant frequencies of the orbits. The resonant frequencies actually exist in the atom in this theory, so there is no need for a "transition emission" of a "photon". Andrew Ancel Gray Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Qfwfq Posted August 30, 2010 Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 That's a good one! :lol: Quantum Mythology! Yes, I actually work for an audio/video company, so my background in digital audio (plus mathematics & physics) is what allowed me to figure this stuff out. The Nyquist Limit found in audio design is very similar to what I am proposing for the Nyquist Limit for the Bremsstrahlung x-rays. One could take an audio signal and chop it, say at 20,000 Hz (like my pulsating electrons) and find that the highest signal that a speaker could be driven would then be 10,000 Hz. This is extremely analogous to an electron pulsating at 2x10^{18} Hz that could only generate x-rays with frequencies up to 1x10^{18} Hz.Great, but that's a reason why you should be aware that you ought to show exactly how the spectrum forms, how it gets "chopped off" without the electronic devices with their LC cells and all that jazz. You ascribe plenty of reality to the waves, for photons, and consider the fermions to be purely corpuscular; you talk about a reality based theory; you really can't let any waving of magic wands slip into it. And yet, you seem to be reciting Nyquist's magic formula and letting him wave his wand. You remember in 1925, two graduates students proposed electron spin for explaining the fine structure of hydrogen.I wasn't around back then but I remember reading the amusing story in Eisberg-Resnick for one of my third year courses in QM. However, today we know that the electron is so small (< 1 x 10^{-16}cm) that it is impossible for the electron to have such a spin and magnetic moment because its surface velocity would need to exceed the speed of light for this to happen. Thus, we reject electron spin as non-reality based.So what in the name of reality explains fine and hyperfine structure? How about results with Stern-Gerlach magnets on a beam of electrons? You know. there's an even more fundamental thing than small size against the spinning little ball explanation for intrinsic angular momentum and corresponding magnetic moment: For the same given charge-mass ratio, there's a 2 to 1 mismatch! That's why the conjecture of those two students was so bold. Nevertheless, the name spin stuck around (just like the name particle, for that) and the Dirac equation is what half-spin follows from. It's all very complicated and the Dirac and Weyl algebras follow from the theory of Lie groups and algebras and their representations. In a very odd, complicated way the half valued "spin" follows from the mathematics behind describing rotations (included in Lorentz transformations) and that's why it is possible for it to be a "spin" despite not being a spin. The electron does manifest an intrinsic angular momentum (and also a magnetic moment via the coupling term); there's plenty of phenomenology in which the intrinsic ones contribute to the total, along with those associated with motion. Now, if the pulsation period of the electron is T_{e} (=1/v_{e}), and the pulsation period of the proton is T_{p}, then we must have n_{e}T_{e} = n_{p}T_{p} where n_{e} and n_{p} are integers. This keeps the electron and proton synchronized so that they don't radiate and establishes just certain allowed orbits. One can plug in the Rydberg formula to get the size and frequency of these orbits (see previous posts).Doesn't all this smack of the 3-D resonance which constitute the energy eigenstates? Oh, but... of course:In the Schrodinger electron states, the atom is frequency-less and static. QM has nothing that exists with a frequency in its model. That is, the resonant frequencies do not even exist in the Schrodinger atom.You are making false statements about QM here. The energy eigenstates are a kind of resonance, a standing wave; its frequency is related to the energy eigenvalue by the usual old formula. But I guess you are thinking of what is often called the "time independent Schrödinger equation" which is really just the eigenvalue equation for the Hamilton operator. Finally, there are no "transitions" in this theory. The light emitted by hydrogen are the disturbed resonant frequencies of the orbits. The resonant frequencies actually exist in the atom in this theory, so there is no need for a "transition emission" of a "photon".So, what actually happens according to you? I've been meaning to ask where you could get a source of actually sinusoidal EM wave called light, as you suppose it to be, when your charges are pulsed in this manner; this strikes me as just like reciting the Nyquist Magic Formula and expecting the perfect Bremsstrahlung spectrum to emerge. It still seems to me that your idea creates more problems than you claim it solves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

andrewgray Posted September 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 (edited) On 8/30/2010 at 6:22 AM, Qfwfq said: Great, but that's a reason why you should be aware that you ought to show exactly how the spectrum forms, how it gets "chopped off" without the electronic devices with their LC cells and all that jazz. You ascribe plenty of reality to the waves ... you talk about a reality based theory; you really can't let any waving of magic wands slip into it. And yet, you seem to be reciting Nyquist's magic formula and letting him wave his wand. Qfwfq, it seems to me that I have not made this Nyquist thing very clear if you are saying such things. I did not realize this. Perhaps others do not understand this Nyquist concept as well since you are one of the "smart dogs". I promise you that I am not "wand waving". OK, I have made some animations. Perhaps these will clear things up. The first animation is of a "static electron charge" accelerating up and down (sinusoidally) in such a way to give off radiation. Notice that the radiation is emitted in the direction perpendicular to the acceleration, and that the frequency of the radiation is the same as the frequency of the sinusoidal motion: This is not how real electrons radiate. Next, we assume that (instead of a "static electron charge") we have a pulsating electron charge. This next animation has the frequency of the electron's pulsaton 3 times that of the sinusoidal motion (not past the Nyquist Limit of 2X). So we expect that the wave will be generated since it is not close to the limit of 2X. This is how real electrons radiate. Notice that the emission from this single electron is chopped, but the wave is generated. Imagine how a macroscopic wave generated by a group of these electrons would act like a normal wave with the correct frequency when it went through an interferometer, for example. This next animation has the frequency of the electron's pulsation the same as the frequency of the movement (1X). This is past the Nyquist Limit, so we do not expect the wave to be generated. This is what it would look like: Notice that the wave is not generated. It wouldn't matter if a group of these electrons were radiating, the correct frequency would not be generated, and it would not act like a wave with the correct frequency when it went through an interferometer. At even lower ratios, it might even behave like a wave with a lower frequency. This is called aliasing (see this link). In summary, an EM signal of frequency v can only be generated by an electron that is pulsating at a frequency of at least 2v. Qfwfq, do you now at least understand what I am saying? (Even though you may not agree). This seems very clear to me. I hope this takes away your "wand waving" claim. Quote How about results with Stern-Gerlach magnets on a beam of electrons? Qfwfq, you are getting really sloppy here. You know that one cannot put a "beam of electrons" through a Stern Gerlach machine. The electrons would simply be bent by the magnetic field and exit the machine. Only neutral particles, like silver atoms, can be put through a Stern Gerlach machine. As a matter of fact, there is no direct way to measure a charged particle's magnetic moment. One can only infer through 3rd-removed theoretical frameworks. So just what does this new theory say about the so-called "quantized angular momentum" of silver atoms in the Stern Gerlach experiment? Well, we discussed this in a previous post, but we should go over this again in greater detail. To be continued ... Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Qfwfq Posted September 7, 2010 Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 This is not how real electrons radiate. ................................................................... This is how real electrons radiate.On what grounds do you make this claim? This is called aliasing (see this link). In summary, an EM signal of frequency v can only be generated by an electron that is pulsating at a frequency of at least 2v.That .pdf gives some fine examples of the things I was thinking of, in raising doubts about your presentations. Qfwfq, do you now at least understand what I am saying? (Even though you may not agree). This seems very clear to me. I hope this takes away your "wand waving" claim.I understand what you post but it doesn't lack the hand waving. I just don't see how you can justify having sampled fields when you discuss how they are produced and continuous ones where you need them without providing an adequate mechanism by which conversions would occur. Qfwfq, you are getting really sloppy here. You know that one cannot put a "beam of electrons" through a Stern Gerlach machine. The electrons would simply be bent by the magnetic field and exit the machine.You are nitpicking here; you should be aware that, firstly, it doesn't change the matter conceptually and, secondly, it is possible to rig things so as to avoid the obstacle. The very first result in a google search shows how the problem can even be neatly overcome, without a need to take great pains in making the deflection due to charge as small as possible in ratio to that due to magnetic moment. In any case they are at right angles to each other, it isn't such a huge problem to distinguish the spin states, so long as the deflection due to charge isn't overwhelming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

HydrogenBond Posted September 7, 2010 Report Share Posted September 7, 2010 One valid question is, although we observe quantum effects and can quantify them, why do quantum effects occur in the first place? A valid answer to this fundamental question, would provide a foundation theory that would compact everything else. Let me try to give an analogy using genetics. Say we did not know about the foundation of life being a function of genetics. We can still observe the diversity of nature and model it as a series of unique events. But since we don't really know how to answer the fundamental question (hypothetically), will all our models still line up with the eventual understanding of genetic theory? Once we add genetic theory, as the fundamental foundation, we can still use the same observational data, but now all the data would all have to touch bases with genetic theory, potentially altering all the analysis by adding these new words to the blend. There would be a huge compaction of all the pocket theories that formerly describe all the details. No matter what pocket one investigated, and the unique angle needed to describe this pocket, now all pockets are special cases of genetics. I tend to think that many are sensing the eventual compaction, but pocket theory is entrenched until the why is answered. Answer why there are quantum effects in a simply way and then the compaction will occur since they all touch this base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

andrewgray Posted September 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2010 You are nitpicking here; you should be aware that, firstly, it doesn't change the matter conceptually and, secondly, it is possible to rig things so as to avoid the obstacle. The very first result in a google search shows how the problem can even be neatly overcome, without a need to take great pains in making the deflection due to charge as small as possible in ratio to that due to magnetic moment. In any case they are at right angles to each other, it isn't such a huge problem to distinguish the spin states, so long as the deflection due to charge isn't overwhelming.Qfwfq, the deflection of an electron (in a Stern Gerlach machine) due to charge in the magnetic field is overwhelming. Your link that you sited has made the same mistake that you have. For a given magnetic field, the radius for movement for an electron is given by [math]r=\frac{mv}{qB}[/math]. This is less than a micron (or even smaller) for any reasonable Stern Gerlach setup. So sorry, no can do. The electron simply goes into the B field and spirals around with a radius less than a micron. It won't go through. Plug some numbers in and see for yourself, or site a more sophisticated paper that has done this measurement. It does not exist. I understand what you post but it doesn't lack the hand waving. I just don't see how you can justify having sampled fields when you discuss how they are produced and continuous ones where you need them without providing an adequate mechanism by which conversions would occur.Not sure what exactly you mean by this, but I think you are asking how pulsating EM fields turn into continuous ones at a macroscopic level. Well, this is simple. Any macroscopic EM radiation field would be the sum of quadrillions (or more) of individual radiations from individual electrons. Thie resultant EM field would be the sum of these quadrillions of individual fields. This sum would definitely smooth out and any sign of pulsations would not be apparent at the macroscopic level, and Maxwell's Equations would still hold. Hydrogen Bond, "Why do quantum effects occur in the first place?" Well, a better way to describe these effects would be "resonances". For example, the hydrogen spectrum is a set of resonant frequencies for non-radiating electron orbits. There are no "quantum effects" here (no "quantum jumps"), just resonances. To be continued . . . Andrew Gray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Qfwfq Posted September 13, 2010 Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 For a given magnetic field, the radius for movement for an electron is given by [math]r=\frac{mv}{qB}[/math].You are not defeating the argument. An electric field can be adjusted so that it offsets the force due to charge and, if it is done appropriately, the separation for spin component can even be enhanced by a component at right angles. The Stern-Gerlach magnet is not the only way of demonstrating the spin. For instance, once you know that ferromagnetism is essentially due to spin and not orbital angular momenta, what does your model say about it? The dipole moments can be related to angular momenta by macrosopic mechanical effect, the first to pulish this was Richardson in 1908. You need to account for all of these things and the quirky one to explain is the Landé g factor. Any macroscopic EM radiation field would be the sum of quadrillions (or more) of individual radiations from individual electrons. Thie resultant EM field would be the sum of these quadrillions of individual fields.There are experiments involving single photon emissions, your model would be in difficulty to match up with them. Well, a better way to describe these effects would be "resonances". For example, the hydrogen spectrum is a set of resonant frequencies for non-radiating electron orbits. There are no "quantum effects" here (no "quantum jumps"), just resonances.This is quite how the Schrödinger equation for an atom describes things, except I wouldn't say there are no quantum effects, just that there are no "jumps" (the idea of which is just a relic from the various versions of the Bohr model). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

andrewgray Posted September 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2010 (edited) Qwfwq, You claim. Quote An electric field can be adjusted so that it offsets the force due to charge (in a Stern Gerlach machine). . . I disagree with this. A Stern-Gerlach magnetic field has both an x-derivative and a z-derivative. An electric field would only be able to "cancel" one of these effects, resulting in wild electron movements. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one until you come up with a reference showing that this has been done. Quote . . .once you know that ferromagnetism is essentially due to spin and not orbital angular momenta Again, I disagree with this whole premise. Magnetism due to electrons is all orbital in nature. As shown before, "electron spin" is impossible because the electron is too small to have this so-called spin without its surface velocity exceeding the speed of light, c. Thus, electron spin is not reality-based, and is thus just a myth for the faithful. However, electron paramagnetic resonance, the Zeeman effect, etc., can indeed be explained with orbital angular momentum (without spin). Orbital electron paramagnetic resonance, for example, gives the correct Larmor resonance frequency without the Quantum Fudge Factor of 2 that is required when QM adds the so-called g factor of 2. Orbital angular momentum gives the correct result natively without this Fudge Factor. The Zeeman effect can also be explained with simple electron orbital principles without spin. The whole "energy level difference" concept is rejected in favor of "resonance frequency changes". Quote There are experiments involving single photon emissions, your model would be in difficulty to match up with them. Qwfwq, I have previously described "one-photon-at-a-time" claims, but it is worthwhile to go over them again. For example, let us again consider the classic "one-photon-at-a-time" double slit experiment. It was discussed in frame #1 of this thread. Here is the output: Is this really "one-photon-at-a-time"? Consider this. For a typical film, "minimum blackening" is .004 lux-sec, or 0.27 millijoules/cm². See: Radiometry and photometry in astronomy So take 1% of this minimum blackening illumination, and consider 0.0027 mJ/cm². This illumination is below the threshold of the film. In other words, this illumination is so weak that no dots are formed on the film. Now, one visible photon has an energy of about 5 x 10^{-19} Joules. If you do the division, you get that about 5 quadrillion photons can strike a cm² of the film without producing a film dot. Think about this for a moment. 5 quadrillions-worth of photon-energy can strike a cm² of the film and not produce a single film-dot. So "one-photon-at-a-time" claims are a serious exaggeration. Off by a factor of 5 quadrillion! How do you spell incompatence? Incompitance? Incompetince? Incompotaince? Oh, yeah, incompetence. The lesson learned here is that One film dot ≠ One photon. And indeed, it now seems that photons don't exist from new photoelectric experiments and the new experiments that I have proposed for the future. To the young minds out there: Do not let the "old dogs" out there allow your mind to cast out the logic that you know deep down is there. There is no "Quantum Mysticism", and there is Local Reality. Andrew Gray Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Qfwfq Posted September 14, 2010 Report Share Posted September 14, 2010 A Stern-Gerlach magnetic field has both an x-derivative and a z-derivative. An electric field would only be able to "cancel" one of these effects, resulting in wild electron movements.I did not say that the electric field can cancel either of the derivatives. Indeed this is exactly why I said it could even enhance the separation. You could use a high momentum beam, short blades, scale down the magnetic field and tune the electric, you can expect to get the pair of dots on the screen of your CRT with separation having a component at right angles to the magnetic field and don't forget: If Mohammed can't go to the mountain, the mountain can come to Mohammed; you can even make the SG magnet blades curved to suit the trajectory, once it isn't too tightly curved for the length of the blades. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one until you come up with a reference showing that this has been done.No. It doesn't make any difference if it has or hasn't been done. Even if it isn't easy to fine tune things, it remains feasible in principle. Magnetism due to electrons is all orbital in nature.Back this claim up. As shown before, "electron spin" is impossible because the electron is too small to have this so-called spin without its surface velocity exceeding the speed of light, c.Actually, the real hurdle is the Landé factor, which cannot be explained semiclassically by orbital motion of the charge. This is exactly what made it so mysterious until described in terms of [imath]SU(2, \mathbb{C})[/imath] (which is a quirky representation of rotations). How would your model explain that factor for a non composite body? Remember, it is a tangibly observed thing that could scarcely be called a fudge factor. Thus, electron spin is not reality-based, and is thus just a myth for the faithful.How do you alternatively explain the wealth of phenomenology in which it plays a role according to the usual model? However, electron paramagnetic resonance, the Zeeman effect, etc., can indeed be explained with orbital angular momentum (without spin). Orbital electron paramagnetic resonance, for example, gives the correct Larmor resonance frequency without the Quantum Fudge Factor of 2 that is required when QM adds the so-called g factor of 2. Orbital angular momentum gives the correct result natively without this Fudge Factor. The Zeeman effect can also be explained with simple electron orbital principles without spin. The whole "energy level difference" concept is rejected in favor of "resonance frequency changes".Have you worked out all the math without a lot of hand waving? One film dot ≠ One photon.Who needs photographic emulsion film when we have photon counters? When I performed the Young double slit experiment with two co-students for our fourth year lab assignment, we used a photon counter inside an iron casing, cooled with liquid nitrogen and other contrivances against spurious counts. It worked fine. Speaking of the above, I'm still curious as to how your model could explain the optical aspects of electron phenomena. And indeed, it now seems that photons don't exist from new photoelectric experiments and the new experiments that I have proposed for the future.That's what Max Planck thought, when he made the bold [imath]h\nu[/imath] hypothesis. He called it a mathematical contrivance and speculated that maybe there is some reason for which all emmissions and absorbtions occur strictly according to this rule. Presumably in the light of optical phenomena including what he was "taming", he understandably abhorred the idea of corpuscles being the cause of his quantization. When Einstein analysed Lenard's odd results of the potoelectric effect, he called the adoption of the same rule "a heuristic" and was very cautious about it, but gave some arguments of plausibility for it being in the very nature of the radiation (vaguely speculating that the optical behaviour could be due to statistics over large numbers of the tiny little buggers, a speculation nobody has yet fulfilled). And so on..... In the description of quantum field theory, bosons and fermions alike are neither fish nor fowl. The most understandable (or least troublesome) part of the description makes it look like they are quantized oscillations that propagate, with coupling between the different kinds and the quantization analougous to that of single harmonic oscillators (especially for bosons, not as similar for fermions). This however does not suffice to explain all that can be observed about the "chunky" aspect, there are certain facts that match up with the corpuscular description, with the field or wave nature being just a complex valued smearing, or distribution of potentiality, as Heisenberg put it. To the young minds out there: Be objective and critical, avoid jumping to conclusions before having adequate evidence and solid grounds. If there are things that don't seem to match up, be careful about what to discard; avoid knocking down the entire palace because the way between some of the rooms is too roundabout and hard to find. Perhaps corridors can be improved, at the cost of giving up a room here and there but, if the foundations are well rooted in solid ground and the structure sound, maybe you should keep them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

andrewgray Posted September 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 (edited) OK, Qwfwq, Let's start with the Zeeman effect, for example. We will show that this effect on the atomic spectral frquencies in a magnetic field results in a resonant frequency change, and has nothing to do with energy level differences and "photon emmissions". The setup is as follows. An atomic spectrum is observed, then afterward a magnetic field is added. The spectral frequencies are observed to change slightly. Here is what is really going on. We start with Goldstein, pp. 234-235: Thus, we really see here that the change in spectral frequencies is actually a resonant frequency shift, and not an "energy level difference" with "photon emissions". So here is the scenario in the case for a simple hydrogen atom. So this new theory correctly predicts the Zeeman resonant frequency shifts and polarizations, and no complications from "photons" are needed. Andrew Ancel Gray To be continued . . . Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

watcher Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 That is, an electron turns its electric field ON and OFF. And its does so according to De Broglie: what do you mean "according to de broglie"? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Qfwfq Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 So this new theory correctly predicts the Zeeman resonant frequency shifts and polarizationsI don't see how you are getting around the gyromagnetic ratio problem. :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

andrewgray Posted September 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) Watcher, Well, in 1924, Louis De Broglie proposed that electrons have a "wavelike" character. Now in this new theory, an electron is not a wave, but it does have a pulsation length [math]\lambda_e[/math] and a pulsation frequency [math]\nu_e[/math] so that the electron's velocity is [math]V_e=\lambda_e \nu_e[/math] . This is very close to De Broglie's hypothesis (to his credit). But we stress that the electron is a pulsating particle, and not a wave. And we have discovered the De Broglie-like relationship that actually works: where we use the symbol when the "rest" pulsation of the electron is negligible. When it is not, we write: (See earlier posts). The extra factor of [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] in the equations comes from the fact that the frequency of light is ½ of the frequency of electron pulsation when a non-acceleration resonance occurs in the photoelectric effect. We also see the extra factor of ½ coming from the Nyquist Theorem and the limiting frequency in the x-ray Bremsstrahlung cutoff experiment (again, see earlier posts). The term can be associated with the traditional "work function", , in the photoelectric effect, because as we stated, the frequency of light is ½ the pulsation frequency of the electron at non-acceleration resonance. Thus, if we substitue into the above equation we get that the max energied electron in the photoelectric effect has kinetic energy: and now we can see 's origin. Andrew Ancel Gray Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

andrewgray Posted September 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 (edited) Qwfwq, The non-unity g-factor in the QM gyromagnetic ratio is a Quantum Fudge Factor (QFF) , and is not a problem in this new theory. As you recall, the gyromagnetic ratio is the ratio of the magnetic moment to the angular momemtum L, or For "sane, nonQFF, charged electron material", we have that as expected, which is obtained by dividing the normal magnetic moment of electron motion by its normal angular momentum. In circular orbital motion, for example, we have that Recall in the QM "electron spin" explanation for the Zeeman effect, in order for things to be "experiment-matched", one has to "make up" something so an extra factor of 2 can be put in the equation by arbitrarily claiming that the electron structure is such that its QM gyromagnetic ratio is supposedly: However, today we know that the electron is so small that is impossible for any electron structure to have this magnetic moment without the surface velocity exceeding the speed of light. Today, quantum theorists say: Quote Electron spin is not something spinning. How dumb is this? In addition, there are other Quantum Fudge Factors called "transition rules" that need to be added to make things work. In summary, the QM g-fudgefactor of 2 was put in to "experiment-match" a dumb QM theory that was already entrenched, and was stubbornly kept even though logic was thoroughly against it, and even after it was proven that an electron could not "be spinning" as described by QM. Again, how dumb is this group think (see link)? This new theory simply uses the "natural gyromagnetic ratio" of ordinary electron magnetism divided by ordinary electron angular momentum. Duh. Andrew Ancel Gray Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

watcher Posted September 27, 2010 Report Share Posted September 27, 2010 Watcher, Well, in 1924, Louis De Broglie proposed that electrons have a "wavelike" character. Now in this new theory, an electron is not a wave, but it does have a pulsation length [math]\lambda_e[/math] and a pulsation frequency [math]\nu_e[/math] so that the electron's velocity is [math]V_e=\lambda_e \nu_e[/math] . This is very close to De Broglie's hypothesis (to his credit). But we stress that the electron is a pulsating particle, and not a wave. And we have discovered the De Broglie-like relationship that actually works: [math]E_e \approx \frac{1}{2}h\nu_e[/math] where we use the [math]\approx[/math] symbol when the "rest" pulsation of the electron is negligible. When it is not, we write: [math]E_e = \frac{1}{2}h\nu_e - \frac{1}{2}h\nu_o[/math] (See earlier posts). The extra factor of [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] in the equations comes from the fact that the frequency of light is ½ of the frequency of electron pulsation when a non-acceleration resonance occurs in the photoelectric effect. We also see the extra factor of ½ coming from the Nyquist Theorem and the limiting frequency in the x-ray Bremsstrahlung cutoff experiment (again, see earlier posts). The term [math]\frac{1}{2}h\nu_o[/math] can be associated with the traditional "work function", [math]\phi[/math] , in the photoelectric effect, because as we stated, the frequency of light is ½ the pulsation frequency of the electron at non-acceleration resonance. Thus, if we substitue [math]\nu_{light}=\frac{1}{2}\nu_e[/math] into the above equation we get that the max energied electron in the photoelectric effect has kinetic energy: [math]E_e = h\nu_{light} - \frac{1}{2}h\nu_o[/math] and now we can see [math]\phi[/math]'s origin. Andrew Ancel Gray well de broglie's association of waves in matter is not the same as it is a pulse of an electron, although of course you can always associate the pulse wave with its electron. also the velocity you derived as the product of wavelength and frequency is the phase velocity of the pulse and not that of the particle/electron. the association was his explanation to the discrete state of the system. but since you would deny QM, you would probably deny the discrete state. as it was clear in your animation, the electron is in "continuous motion" at it pulse and in your atom model, the electron moves continuously and does not "jump" from one orbit to another. 1. am i correct to assume that the electron's pulse is the the same spherical field imagine by lorentz and einstein and that the only difference is that instead of a spherical continuous field , it pulses? to me this is a welcome development 2. does this pulse of spherical wave obey's huygens principle of wave fronts? since you have associated electron's the pulse wave to de broglie wave, this is might be a inevitable conclusion since de brgolie waves is associated with standing waves 3. why do you still use plancks constant in your equation? isn't this imply wave particle duality? 4, if the energy of the dissipating pulse is equal to that of the electron, why do you assume that the electron still exists when it is off pulse?iow, is it also possible that the electron only appears as a pulse? so that in no pusle here is also no electron? thereby making the motion of electron discontinuous (jumpy) ,. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

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