7 Reasons to Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And embrace this New Theory

[andrewgray]

This discussion has been moved here:

7 Reasons to Abandon Quantum Mechanics





Here are the biggest problems with QM as I see it and the solution to these problems:

1) The Photoelectric Paradox.


The photoelectric effect setup for a 10 eV UV photon is like this:

A UV photon is incident on a metal plate with an energy of approximately 10 eV. An electron with the max energy is ejected with an energy of approximately

E[sub]max[/sub] = hv - Ф = 10 eV - 3 eV = 1.12 x 10[sup]-18[/sup] J

This implies that the photoelectron has a momentum of P[sub]e[/sub] = √(2mE[sub]max[/sub]) , or

|P[sub]e[/sub]| = 270 |P[sub]UV[/sub]|

Check the arithmetic yourself. This is no arithmetic error. The photoelectron ends up with 270 times the momentum of the UV photon. Think about this for a moment...

Now, it is possible for QM theory to conserve momentum in this case by giving the metal plate a huge momentum in the "backwards" direction. This is how QM must respond. The metal plate recoils with a large momentum in the "backwards" direction, away from the photoelectron:

Just how the photon in QM theory gives the metal plate such a large momentum in the transverse direction is not exactly clear, and a little doubtful in my opinion. However, this is not all.

It is also fairly well known that the most likely angle for the electron ejection is at 90[sup]o[/sup]. See

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v37/i10/p1233_1

So this phenomena seems like a transverse electric force reaction, plain and simple. And not a particle collision. If this is the case, then the polarization of the wave must come into play:

If I am correct, then the UV light that is polarized perpendicular to the metal plate will eject electrons much more readily than UV light polarized in the horizontal plane. (We will see how this works later).

And indeed, this is the case!

Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servle...GkrV/861260.PDF

The QE dependence on angle of incidence and light polarization is a long standing problem [4–8] that largely remains to be understood.

A QE enhancement is found for light with electric field perpendicular to the sample’s surface, showing a vectorial photoelectric effect.

We see that Quantum Mechanics has absolutely failed here with this new information!

It appears that the polarization of the wave must be brought into consideration, but QM has treated this as a particle interaction. Bohr's Principle of Complementarity does not allow the wave nature to be brought in:

"a single quantum mechanical entity can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never simultaneously as both."

And since photons in QM theory are circularly polarized with a "spin" equal to 1, this portion of the theory has failed in this paradox as well, as vertically polarized EM radiation is required to solve this paradox!

What is required is a new theory which we will see in a moment.

 

[andrewgray]

2) The Bremsstrahlung Paradox.


The setup for a 25 KeV x-ray machine is like this:

X-rays are emitted when 25 KeV electrons are blasted onto a metal plate. The electrons enter the surface and bounce around, probably thousands or millions of times like "Ricochet Rabbit", emitting radiations of all frequencies up to a cutoff frequency, called the Bremsstahlung Cutoff Frequency, in all directions. According to QM, this maximum frequency is given by the equation

$$E = h \nu_{max}$$

But does this really make sense?

Suppose that an x-ray photon with almost the maximum frequency is given off. This implies the following scenario:

Think about this scenario for a moment. To have an interaction that creates a photon with nearly the max energy, a single interaction must nearly stop the electron and produce the max energy photon.

But these are conservative Coulomb fields that the electron is interacting with. If an electron comes in for a close encounter with a nucleus or another electron, it leaves the encounter with approximately the same speed that it came in with. We know this from scattering experiments. A single encounter that stops the incoming electron is just not feasible. It's just not going to happen. It's probably going to take millions of deflections to stop the electron. Check it yourself.

So again, Quantum Mechanics has failed. A single interaction to mostly stop the Bremsstahlung electron is just not feasible.
(What really is happening comes later)


3) Electron Spin


It was in the latter part of the last century that electrons were discovered to be smaller than 10[sup]-15[/sup] cm from electron scattering experiments. This was a problem because it then became impossible for the electron to have a magnetic moment without it's surface velocity exceeding the speed of light. So the statement in modern physics is that:


"Electron spin is not something spinning".


Many 1st year QM students do this calculation. But there is another problem with electron spin that has surfaced. Recall that magnetic moments precess in a magnetic field. There are many instances in modern physics where this is used. However, it is known that a precessing magnetic moment would radiate. Whenever there are time dependent fields, there is radiation. Whenever there is an acceleration involving charges, there is radiation. Precessing magnetic moments radiate, that's all there is to it. But atomic electrons do not radiate in a magnetic field. Hence, it seems to me that electrons probably do not have a magnetic moment, and hence do not have angular momentum. So we now have two oxymorons:


"Electron spin is not something spinning".
"Electron magnet moment is not a moment."


A point particle just cannot have "something spinning", and a point particle cannot have a "moment" of any kind.
This is just not acceptable to the purely logical mind, and if you will open it, you will see that this New Theory is much better.

 

[andrewgray]

4) Wave Particle Duality


One thing unique to QM theory is its invention of the wave-particle paradox. It seemed like wave-particle duality was necessary because the evidence was mounting for the baffling behavior of both light and electrons. In particular, the most baffling of these was the low intensity double slit experiment. Look on the net and see that this experiment is still being argued around after nearly a century.

The double slit output:

Questions:


1) How can the "photon" know about the other slit if it goes through just one?

2) How can the "photon" interfere with itself it if it just goes through one slit?


The first myth that needs to be cleared up is cleared up with the following statement:

One film dot ≠ One photon detection.

Many QM books have pictures of film dots accumulating like the above picture. Well consider this:

For 200 ISO film, minimum blackening is .004 lux-sec, or 0.27 millijoules/cm². See:

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

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[sup]-19[/sup] 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 these pictures, like the one above, in first year QM books are a serious exaggeration.

So what would happen if an extremely low intensity wave were incident on some ISO 200 speed film? Well, film has tiny silver bromide crystals. These crystals must have crystal defects, or they are not light sensitive at all. So a lot of light could hit these crystals with no effect.

But some crystals have defects, some with more defects than others. These are the most light sensitive crystals. These "most sensitive" crystals are randomly distributed across the film. When the incident light wave intensity just reaches the threshold for film-dot production, it is these "most sensitive" crystals that are randomly activated first. This random activation of the "most sensitive" crystals would start to make a pattern like that seen in figure 5.25A from being struck by a low intensity wave.

A low intensity wave incident on film would produce the patterns seen in the above figure because the film is discrete crystals.


No harm done, you say as you consider yourself an advanced physicist? OK, then let's move on to the next best "one-photon-at-a-time" claim, photomultipliers. The double slit can be done with supposedly "one-photon-at-a-time" photomultipliers:

http://www.wm.edu/physics/SeniorThesis2005/TarSeniorThesis.pdf

The polarizing filters are used to cut the light down to an intensity low enough that only one photon is in the apparatus at a time. . . Using the detector slit, the photomultiplier tube measures photon counts at different positions of the screen. Counts can be plotted with respect to X and the interference pattern constructed.

The same myth needs to be cleared with the following statement:

One photomultiplier tick ≠ One photon detection.

The same reasoning applies to this apparatus. Photomultipliers, like any detection device (be it film, digital camera, etc) has a threshold illumination below which no detection takes place. For example, take the photomultiplier tube in the above paper, with, for example, a blocking area of 10 μm². put it 1 meter away from the double slit and set the crossed polarizers so that the illumination is so low that the photomultiplier ticks once per second. Now move that photomultiplier 100 meters away from the double slit, and increase the blocking area proportionately so it is looking down the same solid angle.

Theoretically, according to QM, the same number of photons going down the solid angle at one meter will still be going down the solid angle at 100 meters. So the number of ticks supposedly will be the same. Wrong, the intensity at 100 meters is so low that the photomultiplier will not record one tick per second. It will record nothing but noise. Not convinced? Try it yourself. Next, try moving the photomultiplier a kilometer away and see if it will tick while looking down the same solid angle.

Again, to the purely logical mind, wave-particle paradox is not acceptable, and if there is a better way, the purely logical mind would be open to it.



Next, consider "one-electron-at-a-time" double slit experiments in a electron microscope. Here is A. Tonomura video:

http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/em/movie/doubleslite-n.wmv

And here is the picture:

Look familiar? Well, they had to use film in this experiment as well. Again, the myth needs to be cleaned up by this statement:

One film dot ≠ One electron detection.

Many electrons can strike a film crystal with no crystal defects and produce no dots. In addition, "cross-the-gap" high voltage currents tend to surge. They build up on the electron gun tip, surge across the gap as a group, then start to build up again. Think about a thunderstorm and lightning. A huge charge builds up in the clouds at high voltage. Does it flow smoothly across-the-gap to the ground? No! There are plenty of electrons to interfere with each other as they high voltage surge "across-the-gap" like a lightning strike.

These one-particle-at-a-time claims are not realistic. QM is not needed to explain wave particle duality, and again, if a more logical explanation were available, the truly open mind would at least look at it.


5) Quantum Entanglement.


The famous EPR paper started it all. (Einstein, Podalski, & Rosen). Then came J.S. Bell's paper and his now famous "Bell's Inequality". And finally Alain Aspect's experiments using Bell's Inequality applied to "photons". The bottom line of all this came to the QM concept that:


Bell's Inequality places restrictions on probabilities based on local realities. Since Bell's inequality is violated, then local reality is impossible.


So now we will have a discussion about raw logic. In mathematics if we have a hypothesis and come to a point in its proof where we get:

4+1 ≠ 5

Well, we simply abandon the hypothesis as incorrect. Like electron spin. Electron spin was hypothesized by two graduate students in 1925. Later we found out that

Electron Spin ≠ Something Spinning

So likewise in this case, we need to abandon the electron spin hypothesis as incorrect. BUT! The spin Nobel Prize has already been awarded and one must not say that this Nobel Prize is wrong. (Even though a purely logical mind might be tempted).

So here we find ourselves with yet another QM oxymoron:

Local Reality ≠ Reality

So we start out with a hypothesis about photon polarizations and find that there is no reality. So if you ask Mr. Vulcan, just based on pure logic, he will say that there is some hypothesis that needs to be abandoned.

Which one?

The Photon Hypothesis needs to be abandoned. The only reason it has not been abandoned until now is that there has not been a suitable replacement. Now there is.



6) Renormalization.


The electron's mass-energy is roughly 1/2 MeV. This mass-energy is the amount contained in a static electric field emanating from a charge with a radius roughly

r[sub]c[/sub] = 2x10[sup]-13[/sup] cm

An electron, however, is known to be more like

r[sub]e[/sub] = 2x10[sup]-15[/sup] cm

or smaller. The electric field energy from such a small particle is roughly 50 MeV. This is troublesome to say the least. If the resultant mass-energy of the electron is indeed just 1/2 MeV, then the mass function for a static electron must go negative below this "classical electron radius".

So once again we have a logical contradiction:

A static electron's actual size < minimum permitted size

So how has QM handled this paradox? With Renormalization. Renormalization is a process where one is faced with infinities in equations. To rid these infinities, one plays games so that a +∞ integral can cancel out a -∞ integral. A Nobel Prize was actually awarded to Gerardus 't Hooft for a particularly clever way to cancel infinities. But listen to what the famous physicist Paul Dirac had to say about renormalization:


QUOTE
"I am very disturbed by the situation because the so-called good theory quantum theory does involve neglecting infinities in an arbitrary way. This is not sensible. Sensible Mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it's small; not because it's infinitely great and we do not want it."


As soon as he started to criticize the mainstream for illogic, he was out of there. It appears that raw logic will not necessarily advance your physics career.

Next, listen to what the inventor of renormalization had to say about it:


QUOTE
"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent."

"I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."

Richard Feynman


So again we are faced with the raw logic of having to abandon some hypothesis. The point particle electron is logically inconsistent. But which hypothesis do we abandon?

Well, we have only one choice.

The static electron viewpoint must be abandoned. Raw logic dictates that the structure of the electron must be dynamic. A static negative mass function cannot be possible. We shall abandon the static electron for a New Theory with a dynamic electron structure!

 

[andrewgray]

7) A better theory is now possible.

So we now have the fundamental criteria for the new theory.

1) The electron's structure must be dynamic.
2) It must cover the photoelectric effect.
3) It must cover the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.
4) It must have stable, nonradiating atoms, especially in a B field.
5) It must allow for electron interference.
6) It must allow for Compton Scattering, Hydrogen Spectra, etc. . .


The first four fundamental criteria give us no choice but to insist that an electron be a pulsating particle.

That is, an electron turns its electric field ON and OFF. And its does so according to De Broglie:

The faster an electron in accelerated, the faster it pulsates:

When the electron is ON, it is susceptible to a greater force in an electric field than when it is off. ( the justification for all this exists. Later . . . )

This pulsating particle scenario allows for a stable, nonradiating atom:

Why does this atom not radiate? Because radiation comes from accelerating charges. The electron is only accelerated
while it is OFF. When it is ON, it travels in a straight line. Hence, this atom will not radiate.

Now for the fascinating parts.

The photoelectric effect.

Consider a free electron in a metal, pulsating with a certain frequency.
When visible light is incident on the electron, what does it do?

Remember this: If an electron is static, then when an oscillating electric force hits the electron,
it simply moves up and down going nowhere.

However, this is not true if the electron is pulsating. If the electron is pulsating just right, it might take off either up
or down. This depends on the correlation of electron pulsation frequency with the light. If the electron is ON in
phase with the peaks of the light wave, then the electron will simply go UP and DOWN, also going nowhere. However,
if the electron is ON only during the UP part of the light wave, and OFF during the DOWN part of the light wave,
then the electron will move upwards very rapidly. It is influenced less by the down part of the light wave, since
the electron is OFF! So the electron is accelerated upwards.

Now the electron pulsations start to quicken according to De Broglie:

$$E_e = \frac{1}{2}h\nu_e$$


(the factor of ½ will become clear later) The electron starts to pulsate faster and faster until it no longer is in phase
with just the UP part of the light wave. When it becomes fast enough so that the electron is ON in phase with both
peaks of the wave, the acceleration is over. The electron returns to just going UP and DOWN in its co-moving inertial
frame. A non-acceleration resonance has occurred! This resonance occurs at the moment that ½ the electron's
De Broglie frequency reaches the frequency of the light wave. The electron stops accelerating when

$$\frac{1}{2}\nu_e = \nu_{light}$$

or when

$$E_e = h\nu_{light}$$

Stop and imagine this for a moment. Packets of energy hν[sub]light[/sub] given to a charged particle
without photons! No momentum considerations!

And finally take note: This pulsating theory succeeds in explaining the vectorial photoelectric effect
while Quantum Mechanics fails.

 

[andrewgray]

Next, the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.

Imagine that a 25 KeV electron collides with a metal plate and goes through the following motion:

For a brief moment in the diagram above, the Bremsstrahlung electron goes through an oscillitory motion with a period of about 1x10[sup]-18[/sup] seconds. This is certainly possible, as almost any random motion would be possible to imagine. Thus, the electron must briefly radiate with a frequency of 1x10[sup]18[/sup] Hz. There is just no logical way around this. And this radiation's frequency is below the limiting ν[sub]max[/sub]=E/h. You want a 25keV electron to radiate at a certain frequency below the limit? Well, just move it back and forth at a lower frequency, and it must radiate at this frequency. No way around it.

So the question again becomes:

If the electron gets moved back and forth at a frequency higher than the limit, then why doesn't it radiate at this frequency?

The answer is the Nyquist Frequency Limit. Here is a simple explanation. Lets say that a Bremsstrahlung electron goes through the following motion:

where we have included in the diagram where the Bremsstrahlung electron has pulsed ON proportional to De Broglie. We see that since the movement frequency is less than the De Broglie frequency, then the motion and radiation approximate what we usually associate with an oscillating charge. The radiation frequency closely approximates the movement frequency. No surprise here.

But now lets say that the Bremsstrahlung electron gets moved around much more radically with a much higher movement frequency, like this

We see that the movement frequency is much higher than the pulsation frequency, and the radiation cannot be generated at this frequency. The charge is "OFF" during much of the acceleration. Thus, the radiation cannot follow the movement, and the radiation is aliased down to a lower frequency. This emitted frequency limit is called the Nyquist frequency limit. It is half the electron pulsation frequency. (hence the factor of ½).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

Now this Nyquist frequency chopping is different than frequency modulation. Here is the difference:

 

[andrewgray]

If you modulate a frequency at 10[sup]22[/sup] Hz with a frequency of 10[sup]18[/sup] Hz, the resultant frequency is basically still at 10[sup]22[/sup] Hz.

The modulated wave still acts like a 10[sup]22[/sup] Hz wave, while the chopped wave aliases back down to 10[sup]18[/sup] Hz.

For example, if the modulated wave went through a Bragg diffraction crystal lattice (x-ray spectrometer), it would still act like a 10[sup]22[/sup] Hz wave. But if the chopped wave went through, it would act like a 10[sup]18[/sup] Hz wave.

So back to the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency. If an electron were pulsating at a certain frequency and generating radiation, we would expect the radiation to be limited to ½ that frequency. The Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency!

$$E = \frac{1}{2}h\nu_e = h\nu_{max}$$

So imagine this for a moment. We have gotten a Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency without using photons, while even allowing for thousands of bumps and ricochets!

This is a much more logical explanation, and I hope you will open your purely logical mind to it.


The Hydrogen Spectra


Recall that this new theory has allowed us to have stable, nonradiating electron orbits.

These orbits do not radiate because the electron is not accelerated while it is ON. We must conclude that the requirement that the electron only be ON while the proton is OFF establishes only certain allowed orbits. If the electron deviates from these allowed orbits, then it will be ON while the proton is ON, and in this case, it will radiate energy. This radiation friction and the huge increase in the force between them will disrupt the trajectory until the electron returns to an allowed orbit.

The advantage of this pulsating model for the hydrogen atom is that the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation actually exists within the atom. In all physical systems, the system’s resonant frequencies actually exist within the system! That is, something is vibrating at these frequencies! In the Schrodinger theory for the hydrogen atom, the electron is normally in a ground state which is actually spherically symmetric and static! The Schrodinger/Born picture has resonant frequencies which do not exist in their static system.

We start the new scenario by assuming that the electron orbits are quasi-circular (not necessarily the case, but most likely). Let v[sub]e[/sub] be the unknown De Broglie frequency of the pulsating electron for some allowed orbit. Let v[sub]p[/sub] be the De Broglie frequency for the proton. Then for stable, quasi-circular orbits we must have


$$n_p\nu_e = n_e\nu_p$$

or

$$n_pT_p =n_eT_e$$

where T[sub]p[/sub] and T[sub]e[/sub] are the proton's/electron’s pulsation periods and n[sub]p[/sub] and n[sub]e[/sub] are integers. This condition keeps the electron in sync with the proton so that they never are ON at the same time.

Since the electron’s allowed orbits only have the proton’s E field ON while the electron is in its OFF state, the average electric force between them may be different than the time averaged Coulomb’s Law. We write

$$\frac{m_eV^2}{r} = k'\frac{e^2}{r^2} $$

where mV²/r is is the average centripetal force on the electron, and k’ is some fraction of the normal Coulomb force constant.

Next, we assume that the resonant frequencies of the hydrogen atom are simply the orbital frequencies of the electrons in their allowed orbits. That is, if an electron in a hydrogen atom were subject to a force that perturbed it, then it would tend to radiate electromagnetic energy that was at these resonant orbital frequencies. Conversely, if electromagnetic radiation were incident on an atomic electron at its resonant orbital frequency, then the atom would start to absorb energy from the resonant wave.

To get the approximate radii of the corresponding electron orbits, we set V= rω
where ω is the orbital angular frequency of the electron. Solving for ω we get

$$\omega^2=k'\frac{e^2}{mr^3} $$


Substituting in the empirical Rydberg relation gives:

$$r^3=\frac{k'e^2}{4\pi^2c^2R^2m_e}\left( \frac{1}{m^2} - \frac{1}{n^2} \right) ^{-2} $$


The general trend in this new scenario is exact opposite that of Bohr’s atom. In Bohr’s theory, the 6th orbit corresponds to 36r[sub]o[/sub] (r[sub]o[/sub]=Bohr radius of .53A) , or about 19 angstroms. It seems unlikely that such a large orbit would play much of a part in the Lyman series. But the (1,6) Lyman spectral line is strong.

So in this new scenario, the higher the resonant orbital frequency, the smaller the orbital radius.

In this new scenario, these are the actual radii of the electronic orbits, with the exact orbital frequencies being the same as the resonant light frequencies:

Orbital Electron Frequencies = Hydrogen Spectrum Frequencies

So if you heat hydrogen gas, or run a current through it, these orbits will be perturbed. These perturbations will disturb the orbits so that the electrons are accelerated while ON, and hence they will start to radiate at their natural frequencies!

It cannot be stressed enough here. These natural frequencies exist within the atom and these natural frequencies are stimulated by perturbations, just like all physical systems with resonances.

 

[andrewgray]

In order to keep the new theory's explanation simple, I have neglected to even mention the hydrogen molecule.
Here is how this new pulsating model views the hydrogen molecule:


The Hydrogen Molecule and the Reality-Based Covalent Bond


It is now much easier to understand the hydrogen molecule. Hydrogen is a magnetic dipole.
It is attracted to another hydrogen atom like two magnets are attracted to each other.
From a distance, the hydrogen atom appears electrically neutral. The magnetic forces still exist, though.
Thus, two hydrogen atoms would be pulled towards each other with a relatively small magnetic force
until the Coulomb forces come into play. If a collision occurs with a small enough separation distance,
an H[sub]2[/sub] molecule is formed by Coulomb forces.

A stable hydrogen molecule can be constructed using Coulomb attraction as shown in the figure.
The two electrons circulate in the same direction in between the two protons, their separation vectors
forming two equilateral triangles.

The four pulsating particles are synchronized, allowing only for certain electron orbits so that the stable
molecule does not radiate. We finally are able to see a reality-based covalent bond!
The two electrons are shared by and are in between the two hydrogen nuclei.

So I believe that when you run a current through hydrogen gas, it is the molecular hydrogen spectra that you are
seeing. This would make sense because the majority of the hydrogen gas is in the diatomic molecular state. So the
relative proportions of how the electrons are distributed into the orbitals is predicted by the absorption spectrum of
hydrogen. Since the Lyman series is the only series seen in the absorption spectrum of hydrogen, then one would
suspect that the electrons would be distributed across the Lyman orbitals at room temperature. (And not mostly in
one ground state). The relative intensities of the Lyman absorption spectrum would be proportional to how many
electrons were in each Lyman orbital (of molecular hydrogen).

Energy conservation is fascinating in this pulsating theory. On the macroscopic level, all the pulsations of gazillions of
particles time-average to Coulomb's Law, and everything is as expected. But on the microscopic level we have
tunneling in this theory! Suppose the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is momentarily OFF. Then at that moment,
the electron can be quickly moved to a higher orbit without much energy being expended. The electron can
"tunnel" to a higher orbit while the nucleus is OFF! So, for example, during collisions with spectrometer
current-electrons, the hydrogen's electrons can be moved to different orbits sometimes without having to fight the
full centripetal nuclear Coulomb forces.

And when a spectrometer electron collides with the hydrogen electrons, the electrons become "out of sync"
with the nuclei, and radiation results. This radiation is at the frequency of electron revolution. This radiation causes
"radiation friction". This friction cannot last forever, as the electrons start to feel the nuclear forces while they are ON.
Something will change. The orbits will either change or the electrons will decay into the nuclei. Since we do not see
spontaneous neutron production, it is safe to assume that the orbitals change back to stable orbits, with or without
tunneling.




Electron Interference



This pulsating model for electrons allows a more reasonable picture for electron interference. Here is the setup:

We have already discussed how high voltage cross-the-gap-currents tend to surge. So a pulse of
coherent electrons emerges from the tip of the electron gun. They make their way towards the positively charge
filament, pulsating in unison since they are coherent. Now when they are bent around the filament, the two sides will
cross in only one place. If the electrons are ON when they cross, a tremendous repulsive force will keep them from
continuing on their way, and they will not strike the film on their original path (a minimum). If the electrons are OFF
when they cross, they will continue on to the screen and hit the film on their original path (a maximum).



This New Theory covers all the fundamentals of microscopic physics. It is hoped that our logical minds
can simply take this a new theory as something that can just be tried and tested, no big deal.


Andrew A. Gray

 

[BenTheMan]

So how do you account for the fact that the fine structure constant is the most accurately measured quantity in all of physics---the experiment and theory agree to better than 13 decimal places, a result which requires normalization to achieve?

 

[temur]

Interesting. How about charge conservation? Probably you would have to modify classical electrodynamics because varying charge also generates EM wave.

 

[andrewgray]

QUOTE:
"How about charge conservation? Probably you would have to modify classical electrodynamics because varying charge also generates EM wave."

Well, the macroscopic Maxwell's Equations would not have to be altered. Practically speaking, one could not tell if gazillions of electrons were pulsating or not. The time average would mask any effect.

However, microscopic electrodynamics would be slightly different. In this New Theory, microscopic charge is conserved only over a time average. This is obvious since it turns ON and OFF.

However, pulsating charges do not generate radiation. Why is this? Take the Maxwell equation:

$$\bf {\nabla \times E} + \frac {\partial \mathbf B}{\partial t} = 0 $$

Consider a pulsating charge with its E field turning on and off. This electric field is time dependent, but it is strictly radial. That is,

$$
\bf E = \mathbf E (r)
$$

The curl of anything strictly radial is zero. Therefore, there is no changing magnetic field (actually no magnetic field at all). No changing magnetic field implies no radiation.

So the only Maxwell equation that really changes is microscopic charge conservation.

And I might point out, this change is absolutely necessary if we are going to have a microscopic theory based on "local reality".


QUOTE
"So how do you account for the fact that the fine structure constant is the most accurately measured quantity in all of physics---the experiment and theory agree to better than 13 decimal places, a result which requires normalization to achieve?"

Ben,

The fine structure constant is defined

$$\alpha = \frac {k e^2}{\hbar c} $$

In this New Theory, all of these quantities still exist. So at least having the fine structure constant around and having a value for it is not a problem.

But agreement of experiment and theory to 13 decimal places does seem to give good evidence for QM theory, right?

I do not want to say alot about this for fear of alienating people, but the key words that describe this are:

"confirmation bias"

This is a fascinating human behavior subject, and I will be interested in hearing the same explanation in 30 years when QM theory has been abandoned.

In a nutshell:

α's "most accurate measurement" is not based on measuring the constants k, e, hbar, and c.

So α's value becomes bootstrapped with QM theory and becomes separated from k, e, hbar, and c.

Now you have all the freedoms of a theory that is not based on "local reality".


Andrew A. Gray

 

[BenTheMan]

I do not want to say alot about this for fear of alienating people, but the key words that describe this are:

"confirmation bias"

Well, I think the statement is that we can formulate local quantum field theories, which are fully consistent with the Poincare group, and which also happen to contain divergences to all orders in perturbation theory. When we regulate the divergences in a careful manner (i.e. subtracting off infinite constnats, which is completely allowed from classical mechanics), we end up with a prediction of the fine structure constant to 13 decimal places.

α's "most accurate measurement" is not based on measuring the three constants e, hbar, and c.

So α's value becomes bootstrapped with QM theory and becomes separated from e, hbar, and c.

Now you have all the freedoms of a theory that is not based on "local reality".

As far as I know, \alpha's measurement is based on the electron's magnetic moment, or possibly the hyper-fine splitting in the hydrogen atom. What difference does it make if we measure \alpha or \hbar or c?

 

[andrewgray]

Ben,

Here is one measurement that I know of:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00097000003030802000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

QUOTE
Quantum electrodynamics (QED) predicts a relationship between the dimensionless magnetic moment of the electron (g) and the fine structure constant (alpha).

The irony of this is that I have asserted that the electron cannot have a "quantized" magnetic moment.

The proof of this will be from the New Stern Gerlach experiments.


Andrew A. Gray

 

[andrewgray]

Magnetic Moments of Atoms


A magnetic moment μ in a magnetic field is known to precess. The torqe

$$\mathbf \tau = \frac {d \mathbf L}{dt}$$ → $$\mathbf \mu \times \mathbf B $$

is perpendicular to L and makes it precess.

For a body that is rigid and has a magnetic moment, this precession can be smooth and uniform. However, electrons in orbit around an atom cannot be modeled as rigid. Consider the hydrogen atom in a magnetic field B, for example. The electron below is shown in five different places along its orbit:

The torque that causes the precession goes as:

$$\mathbf \tau = \mathbf r \times \mathbf F $$ → $$\mathbf r \times ( \mathbf V \times \mathbf B ) $$

It is amazing to see that the torque at positions 2 & 4 vanishes!

Also, the torque at positions 1 & 3 is at a maximum!

The torque at position 5 has a z component!

(Take note: This means that L[sub]z[/sub] is not constant for a non-rigid magnetic moment precessing in a magnetic field).

This means that the motion of electrons around an atom
in a B field is not a smooth and uniform precession as we have
been lead to believe!

The magnetic torque changes from max to zero twice with every orbit, and has z-components.

This motion is actually a wild nutation/precession, with the z-component of the angular momentum changing periodically.

This scenario will radiate, there is no question about it. Radiation friction will be generated. Now it is well known that nutational precessions accompanied by friction tend to change rapidly. Spin a top. Watch it precess and wildly nutate at first. The friction immediately dampens the nutation so that it goes into a smooth, stable, precession. The friction dampens the wild nutations first.

The same thing will happen here. The radiation friction will dampen the nutations in such a way that the electron is forced into a stable orbit. Otherwise, the electron will either decay into the nucleus, or be cast away in ionization. These don't occur, so the electron must be forced into a smooth, stable orbit. And there are just two stable orbits, one with L UP and one with L DOWN.


We finally see that angular momentum and magnetic moments are not "quantized" by the strong magnetic fields of the Stern Gerlach experiment. They are induced.


That is, the silver atoms enter the strong magnetic field with continuous values of L[sub]z[/sub], then they are immmediately induced into either the UP or DOWN states.

Remember: Induced, not quantized.





The New Stern Gerlach Experiments

The usual Stern Gerlach Experiment setup is like this:

A huge magnetic field with a large derivative in the z-direction is used to separate the UP and DOWN magnetic moments of silver atoms. We see that the output is induced into the "UP" or "DOWN" states as predicted.

But notice that it is the derivative of the B field

$$\frac {dB_z} {dz}$$

that does the separation, and not the B field itself. However, it is the B field itself that does the inducements. So what we need is:


We need a B field that has a strong z derivative,
but the B field itself is small.


This way, the small B field will not be able to induce the silver atoms to the UP and DOWN states, but the z-derivative will still deflect the atoms. Such a B field is possible. If one could superimpose magnetic fields (this is more difficult than it sounds), then:

one could end up with a field that had a large z-derivative, but a small value for the field itself. This would allow the silver atoms with their continuous values for L[sub]z[/sub] to be deflected without a huge B field inducing them all towards the totally UP or DOWN states. This would allow


the continuous L[sub]z[/sub] spectrum to be recovered, proving space quantization and quantized spin incorrect.


Andrew A. Gray

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

MY MY.... this is the most fascinating thread ive seen in a long time.

very good.


but, i must ask...

is it not true, that hydrogen gas, in deep space.... at 2 degrees kelvin...

radiates... 22 cm radiation... due to its electron orbits..

i.e... all atoms... radiate energy... the frequency of which, is dependant on their tempurture.

at 2 degrees kelvin.... hydrogen radiates... 22 cm radiation.


in this case.... there are NO non-radiating atoms.

i have more.... but i will await this answer..

either way.... i love your work.... fascinating.

the pulsing concept, has greatly stimulated my mind.


-MT

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

When I first saw the title, I thought "ok, here's another woo-woo post, but I'll check it out just in case."

Very intersting reading. You've pointed up the many 'problems' with existing theory, though your take likely has many problems of its own.

Do you plan to work with the ILAC?

What experiments do you plan to test your ideas?

 

[andrewgray]

Mosheh,

Thanks for the encouragement.


QUOTE:
is it not true, that hydrogen gas, in deep space.... at 2 degrees kelvin...
radiates... 22 cm radiation... due to its electron orbits..
i.e... all atoms... radiate energy... the frequency of which, is dependant on their temperature.


I believe you refer to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

The short answer is "yes". All atoms emit thermal radiation, dependent on temperature.

First a few words about Planck's BlackBody radiation formula. Planck's BlackBody radiation formula is based on counting standing waves in a blackbody cavity. However, this is a silly contradiction in its initial assumptions. A standing wave is formed by reflections at the cavity walls. However, a blackbody is defined to be without reflections. Clearly, this formula is the greatest example of famous formulas that are experiment matched.

So what is thermal ("blackbody") radiation? Well, this is a simple. If you perturb an electron in a stable atomic or molecular orbit, it will start to radiate at its natural orbital frequency for a while. If a air molecule hits the side of a vessel, its electrons are momentarily accelerated, and momentary radiation will result at their orbital or vibratory frequencies. In addition, the hotter it gets, the more radical the radiation, and the deeper higher-frequencied orbits are affected. Thus, as the temperature goes up, so does the frequency of the thermal emissions.

Now what about the "ultraviolet catastrophe" seen in the above typical blackbody plot? Well, again, this is simple. The black pigments used in the BlackBody experiments absorb visible light, but they reflect UV light! That means that they are not "black" in the UV frequency range.

It is well known that black coatings are reflective of UV light! It is even more well known that dark African-Americans are reflective of UV light. That is, dark pigments usually reflect UV light.


If something reflects UV light, then there are no resonant frequencies to absorb it in the atoms of the material, and you would not expect it to radiate UV when heated! Put a UV-absorbing coating on a body and watch it radiate UV energy like crazy when heated!

So finally, if the hydrogen molecule has vibratory frequencies near the 22 cm range, then it will emit this frequency when perturbed.


Andrew A. Gray

 

[andrewgray]

QUOTE:
"Very intersting reading. You've pointed up the many 'problems' with existing theory, though your take likely has many problems of its own."

"What experiments do you plan to test your ideas?"


Walter,

There are no problems yet. However, this is exactly the reason that I have put this theory up on this forum before I officially publish. So . . .

What problems do you see?

As far as experiments go, I actually went back and re-enrolled in the University of Texas physics grad school to do my proposed experiments. What I learned is:

Physics grad students are "slave labor". "How dare you propose some of your own experiments."


Oops. This did not work out. But here are the most pressing experiments that need to be done:

1) The New Stern Gerlach Experiment.
. . . . .This experiment still uses a strong z-derivative in B[sub]z[/sub],
. . . . .but the magnetic field itself is small. This will allow
. . . . .the continuous spectrum of L[sub]z[/sub] to be recovered,
. . . . .since the silver atoms will not be induced into the
. . . . .UP and DOWN states by a strong B field.
2) The New BlackBody Experiment
. . . . .This experiment will disprove the ultraviolet catastrophe
. . . . .by looking at the radiation from a heated body that has
. . . . .a UV absorbing coating.
3) The New Lyman Absorption Experiment
. . . . .Since the Lyman UV spectrum is the only hydrogen absorption
. . . . .spectrum, if we shine Lyman (1,2) UV light on hydrogen gas,
. . . . .then we should induce many Schrodinger E[sub]2[/sub] "energy levels",
. . . . .according to QM, allowing Balmer absorption. The absence of Balmer
. . . . .absorption is this case will prove Schrodinger theory incorrect.
4) The New Matter Wave Experiment
. . . . .An electron interference setup:

. . . . .Since the interference occurs while the electrons are "in flight",
. . . . .then it should be possible to increase the filament voltage until
. . . . .a gap opens in the middle of the pattern, but interference still
. . . . .occurs. This will prove that the interference happens "in flight"
. . . . .instead of at the film.

5) The New Compton Scattering Experiment
. . . . .A Compton setup with polarized x-rays:

. . . . .There is a distinct difference in x-ray diffraction with horizontally polarized
. . . . .x-rays. Not much at 90[sup]o[/sup]. Therefore, if the electron that requires a
. . . . .90[sup]o[/sup] "photon" is still present, we have a contradiction.


Andrew A. Gray

P.S. I am not familiar with ILAC.

 

[Farsight]

Excellent thread, andrewgray. I was with you all the way until your on/off electron. I'm somehow unhappy with it because rightly or wrongly I just can't get any grasp on how it works or what the electron actually is. I've previously seen the model below, which I thought accounted for wave/particle duality rather nicely. Apologies if I've mentioned it before, but can you see any way it might fit your thinking?

http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf

Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
We study the properties of a simple semi-classical model of a photon confined in periodic boundary conditions of one wavelength. The topology of this object, together with the photon electric field, give rise to a charge of the order of 10-19 Coulomb and a half-integral spin, independent of its size. The ratio of the electromagnetic energy inside and outside the object leads to an anomalous spin g factor which is close to that of the electron. Although a finite size of order 10-12 meters arises in a natural way, the apparent size of the object will be much smaller in energetic scattering events...

 

[andrewgray]

QUOTE:
"Excellent thread, andrewgray."

Thanks. I appreciate the encouragement.

QUOTE:
"I'm somehow unhappy with it because rightly or wrongly I just can't get any grasp on how it works or what the electron actually is."

Farsight,

I have not covered the internal structure of the electron yet. This is a cumbersome derivation though not too awfully bad. Are you interested in seeing this? It is only worth going through it if you are convinced that this New Theory is worth your time in that it offers much more logical explanations for microscopic physics.

QUOTE:
"Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?"

No.



Andrew A. Gray

 

[Farsight]

Yes, I'm very interested in seeing it. Thanks in advance.