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

[Pete]

A quick search on the web revealed these about dark skin:

www.modelofreality.org/UV1.gif

www.modelofreality.org/UV2.gif

(be sure to zoom in if necessary).

Hi Andrew,
I'll see your random websites and raise you some real references.

K.F. KÖLMEL, B. SENNHENN, K. GIESE (1990), Investigation of skin by ultraviolet remittance spectroscopy, British Journal of Dermatology 122 (2), 209–216.:

"The increase in melanin content... lowers the remittance at all UV wavelengths"​

Angelopoulou, Elli, 1999, The Reflectance Spectrum of Human Skin, Technical Report MS-CIS-99-29, GRASP Laboratory, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~elli/tech-report.skin.pdf

"In general, the reflectance spectrum of melanin in the visible range is monotonically increasing with wavelength with maximum absorption occurring in the UV range. Buckley and Grum [1] who compared non-pigmented versus healthy adjacent patches of skin in vitiligo patients observed a similar melanin reflectance curve."​

Tadokoro, T, Kobayishi, N, Zmudzka, B, Ito, S, Wakamatsu, K, Yamaguchi, Y, Korossy, K, Miller, S, Beer, J, and Hearing, V, UV-induced DNA damage and melanin content in human skin differing in racial/ethnic origin, FASEB J. 2003 17: 1177-1179.
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/17/9/1177.pdf

"Melanin can absorb UV efficiently at most wavelengths"​

But it only makes sense. UV absorption is responsible for Vitamin D production.
So Blacks get rickets in Northern Europe since they reflect UV radiation.
Blacks don't sunburn so easily near the equator. That's because they reflect the damaging UV "rays".

The UV is absorbed by the melanin, which prevents it reaching the skin cells. The difference isn't whether the UV is absorbed, it's what absorbs it.

Now Lampblack. I actually wanted to measure the UV reflectivity of this material in the UT physics lab, but as I said earlier, it did not work out. So this experiment is one which I hope someone will do very soon.
This is one of my suggested "New Experiments".

I'd be pretty surprised if fit hasn't been done. UV spectroscopy isn't that hard, is it? Have you done a thorough search of the literature? Have you asked someone in that field?

Try someone in materials science. Carbon black is used in paint pigments, and UV reflectance of paints is a health issue.
This rather large pdf from a paint manufacturer says:

Durability - The ability of the paint film to stand up to the ravages of exposure to the elements and physical abuse is a measure of durability. Carbon black’s excellent absorber of all wavelengths of light make it a good choice for providing UV protection for the paint system it is dispersed in. Finer blacks tend to absorb more UV than coarser ones, thus finer blacks are preferred where UV protection is required. Increased loadings also result in increased UV absorption."​

Here's something else of interest. Not specifically about lampblack, but at least it has measurements:

http://opt.pacificu.edu/ce/catalog/15719-GO/UVCitek.html​

Lampblack seems to be well known for its "UV stabilizing" properties.
UV resistance makes one think that Lampblack is a UV reflector, right?
If it was an absorber of UV, degradation of the material would certainly occur. Hmmm. . .

Why do you think it's certain? Do you suggest that all absorbed radiation causes degradation in all materials?
I think that carbon black is good at protecting materials from UV for the same reason that melanin is good at protecting skin cells.

I want to hear all of your objections.

Didn't you get enough of that at PhysicsForums?

You're obviously a smart and well-educated guy, Andrew... but I have the suspicion that maybe you've stepped beyond your field of expertise, and are blinded by your own brilliance.

Be honest now... have you seriously tried to find out whether melanin and carbon black are good UV reflectors? Or have you only looked for information that support your pet theory?

 

[andrewgray]

Pete,

You are making me laugh.

QUOTE:
"Didn't you get enough of that at PhysicsForums?"


No, I did not. As soon as my thread at physicsforums reached 10,000 views, it became the "most popular" thread on the whole site. It was being sent out as such in their weekly e-letter. This did not sit well with the moderators, who promptly instituted a case of physux interruptus and shut their whole "New Theories" section down! I was out of business, and the reason for their change in policy.

Again, Pete you are making me laugh. I'll "see" your reference and raise $100:

Since this one was done by physicists, I believe this one. That is, dark skin reflects UV (1-400 nm) more than white skin as I previously stated.

Surely, you do not mean to imply that Blacks can't produce vitamin D because they absorb UV better. Perhaps melanin is absorptive in the 300-400 nm range, and that triggers the dark pigmentation, which is more reflective in the 1-300 nm range.

In this plot, the asphalt is the only relevent one:

We see that petroleum tar is actually a good absorber of UV radiation according to this plot, at least down to 200 nm. It degrades significantly in direct sunlight. On our commercial roof, all tar must be covered with gravel to keep it from degrading. This makes my assertion that [absorbing UV = bad] at least plausible.

It's a shame that petroleum tar catches fire when heated, or it could be used in BlackBody experiments.


QUOTE:
"Be honest now... have you seriously tried to find out whether melanin and carbon black are good UV reflectors?"


To be honest, I thought that Blacks reflecting most UV was common knowledge, due to rickets stories I heard many years ago. I do not know if Lampblack and Carbon Black are actually good reflectors of UV or not. I just suspect that they are since they are "UV protectors". I cannot imagine a "UV protector" that actually absorbs the damaging UV radiation.


Andrew A. Gray

 

[Pete]

Since this one was done by physicists, I believe this one.

You mean you agree with it since it agrees with your opinion

That is, dark skin reflects UV (1-400 nm) more than white skin as I previously stated.[/size]
The relevant range in that study is 250nm to 300nm. Since they tested up to 700nm, it seems to imply that pigmented skin did not reflect more strongly in the UV range 300nm to 400nm.

Surely, you do not mean to imply that Blacks can't produce vitamin D because they absorb UV better.

Come on, think it through. If you paint a window black, it stops visible light entering the window. Does this mean that the paint reflects all incident visible light? Or does it absorb it?
UV stimulates vitamin D production when it is absorbed by cetain chemicals in the skin. If the UV is absorbed by melanin instead, it does not stimulate vitamin D production.

We see that petroleum tar is actually a good absorber of UV radiation according to this plot, at least down to 200 nm. It degrades significantly in direct sunlight. On our commercial roof, all tar must be covered with gravel to keep it from degrading. This makes my assertion that [absorbing UV = bad] at least plausible.

We also see that sand is a good absorber of UV radiation. But sand does not degrade significantly in direct sunlight. This means that your generalisation that [doesn't degrade in UV = reflects UV] is wrong.

It's a shame that petroleum tar catches fire when heated, or it could be used in BlackBody experiments.

Try it in an oxygen free environment.

To be honest, I thought that Blacks reflecting most UV was common knowledge, due to rickets stories I heard many years ago. I do not know if Lampblack and Carbon Black are actually good reflectors of UV or not. I just suspect that they are since they are "UV protectors". I cannot imagine a "UV protector" that actually absorbs the damaging UV radiation.

Well, I hope I've inspired you to investigate with an open mind.

 

[Pete]

I cannot imagine a "UV protector" that actually absorbs the damaging UV radiation.

Why not?

Do you accept that a black cloth both absorbs visible light and protects anything light sensitive that it covers?

Have you thought about the mechanism of UV damage, and whether it would apply to amorphous carbon? UV does damage by breaking molecular bonds, I think. But that won't have any affect on amorphous carbon, right?

 

[James R]

andrewgray:

Have any of your new physical theories been published in peer-reviewed physics journals?

If so, could you provide references, please?

Thankyou.

 

[Vern]

andrewgrey

I like your approach, don't give up. I have been watching the development of QM since it's inception back when Einstein argued against it as a final theory.

The pulsing electron of yours seems unnecessary to me. I suspect the electron is simply a photon of the correct frequency trapped in a resonant cavity formed by its own electromagnetic fields.

Let's keep in touch; there may be ways to test your concepts.

Vern

 

[(Q)]

QUOTE:
"Didn't you get enough of that at PhysicsForums?"


No, I did not. As soon as my thread at physicsforums reached 10,000 views, it became the "most popular" thread on the whole site. It was being sent out as such in their weekly e-letter. This did not sit well with the moderators, who promptly instituted a case of physux interruptus and shut their whole "New Theories" section down! I was out of business, and the reason for their change in policy.

From the link, quoted by DrChinese, Contributor and Science Advisor:

"Andrew is not here to listen. He is on an ego trip, and gaining adherents who don't know any better is his objective. All of his ideas are 100% known to be wrong: This can be easily be seen by his ongoing list of experiments which have yet to be performed (avoiding the day of reckoning) and his complete disavowal of all evidence which refutes his ideas (he denies neutrinos, for example, as a giant conspiracy).

Sadly, my advice is: move along, folks. Nothing to see here..."

That pretty much nails it.

 

[Vern]

Encephalonean; why try to destroy an original thinker? I know his theory is flawed just as QM theory is flawed. Some of us read and remember. Others of us think.

I think it is also good to think.

Vern

 

[andrewgray]

QUOTE:
"Have any of your new physical theories been published in peer-reviewed physics journals?

James R,

Are you kidding me? I believe that I have put forth nothing but honest logic, and mostly what I get back is hostility (see the above posts.) Submitting this New Theory for peer review would be like submitting the Book of Galileo to the Pope for publication in the Bible.

Both Q and Vern somehow imply that my New Theory is flawed, but they do not mention just what those flaws are.
I have shown major flaws in QM, but nobody seems to want to step up and explain them: the QM photoelectric paradox, for example.

Vern, if my theory is flawed, I want to know how.

A much better strategy, it seems to me, would be to reach the younger minds that tend to be on these forums, rather than fight the "Popes of Physics" who probably will not be convinced. As Planck himself said:

QUOTE:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

And Galileo:

QUOTE:
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual".


Oops, well Dr. Chinese at PhysicsForums didn't think that I was so humble, but "single individual reasoning"=yes.


Andrew A. Gray

P.S. Are we having fun yet?

 

[(Q)]

Both Q and Vern somehow imply that my New Theory is flawed, but they do not mention just what those flaws are.

Why repeat what you've already ignored?

I have shown major flaws in QM

What you've imagined to demonstrate and what you've actually demonstrated are two different things.

A much better strategy, it seems to me, would be to reach the younger minds that tend to be on these forums, rather than fight the "Popes of Physics" who probably will not be convinced.

So, go after those who might be easily swayed by nonsense?

Oops, well Dr. Chinese at PhysicsForums didn't think that I was so humble, but "single individual reasoning"=yes.

DrChinese called you out for what you are. And he was right.

 

[James R]

Have any of your new physical theories been published in peer-reviewed physics journals?

Are you kidding me? I believe that I have put forth nothing but honest logic, and mostly what I get back is hostility (see the above posts.) Submitting this New Theory for peer review would be like submitting the Book of Galileo to the Pope for publication in the Bible.

Have you even tried to get published?

 

[Gently Passing]

While I agree that assuming the behavior of the universe at all levels, microscopic, macroscopic or otherwise must make some logical sense, and that QM is certainly challenging to our traditional logic - its mathematics and even the raw concepts seem to build and build upon themselves as if "trying" to make the theory work - I am going to take the stance that I will wait for experiment to verify your hypothesis before I "embrace" anything.

So far experiment has supported QM as far as I know. Is it probably premature, underdeveloped, fundamentally flawed?

Certainly. But overturning the whole thing with one idea? That's like Einstein ambitious.

So why you?

Sorry, I'm not an advanced Physicist or anything. Just a skeptic. I like that you are questioning prevailing consensus - but still, prove it.

 

[Vern]

Hi Andreewgrey; the basic flaw I saw in your theory as far as I understand it is the same as the basic flaw with Quantum Mechanics. There is no basic, in gut, prediction of the phenomenon of relativity in it.

 

[Gently Passing]

Hi Andreewgrey; the basic flaw I saw in your theory as far as I understand it is the same as the basic flaw with Quantum Mechanics. There is no basic, in gut, prediction of the phenomenon of relativity in it.

Are the velocities involved large enough to warrant an application of relativity? Mass is also quite low.

One point I wanted to raise is that hydrogen is a nice, simple molecule. I would be curious to find out if he can apply this "theory" to a benzene ring, or even an isolated atom with a d orbital.

 

[Vern]

Gently Passing; yes the velocities are great enough. Relativity must apply at any velocity. But, just now, thinking about it, I think QM theory might predict relativity phenomena. I'll start a new thread to kick that notion around.

 

[Pete]

Andrew
You seem to have missed my previous post? Easy to do, I know, when you have multiple respondents to handle .

Anyway, I'm quite concerned about your rationality regarding blackbody radiation.

Does you theory predict a different spectrum for blackbody radiation than the current model?

Do you maintain that currently accepted blackbody spectrum measurements are flawed?

 

[James R]

Andrew:

Back in 2004, you said you were planning to wait 2 years before doing any experiments that would either confirm that your theory is correct or disprove it.

How many experiments have you now done in an attempt to disprove your theory?

 

[MetaKron]

Reason number 8: Quantum theory is treated much more like a religion than a science when people confront its flaws.

 

[andrewgray]

QUOTE:
"Have you even tried to get published?"

James R,

I learned this way:
When I first made the discovery and figured it was too radical for "peer-review", I decided just to run an advertisement in Physics Today, to solicit some opinions and possibly some help. They took my $2000 for the ad, and it was to be on page 57, if my memory serves me. One week before the magazine came out, the publisher himself called me and said that he was pulling the ad and refunding my money. A paid advertisement.

So I tried Science. They took my money and the ad copy and it was to come out the next month. The ad was delayed for four months. They would not tell me why of course. But I later heard rumors that the physics staff was adamant about not running it, while the publisher wanted to. Luckily, the publisher is the boss, and the ad finally ran. (Science Feb 21, 2003, p. 1157 ).

I was so naive. I had no idea what I was messing with. To put it nicely, it was just the opposite of the excitement that I felt in finding a New Way that was based on "local reality".

So, no, I have not submitted anything for publication yet. And here's why: it is not ready for prime time yet. Don't you see that what I am proposing is radical and not so good for capitalistic physics if I am correct? Would you approve such a publication on this New Theory based on what you have seen here? Answer honestly.

So I have decided to try out the theory on these forums (where younger minds reside) before I decide whether to submit something official or not. And indeed, I have learned a great deal from these forums, and have corrected many of my own mistakes!

This New Theory has to be almost completely correct before submission, in my opinion, or it will not be succeed. It is getting there, though, because when I ask for flaws, nothing much really comes back.


QUOTE:
"How many experiments have you now done in an attempt to dis[?]prove your theory?"

James R,

I actually cut my job at Avtec Corporation in half and re-enrolled at the University of Texas Physics Grad School to do these experiments. I even brought about $15,000 with me and offered to "pay for anything extra that might be needed". Again, I was so naive. Let's just stay nice and pleasant here and let the reader imagine what happened.

Answer: None. I figure that the New Stern Gerlach Experiment would cost about $20,000 to do in my basement. I really don't care that much anymore.

I have taken Dr. Phil's advice to heart:

QUOTE:
"You can be right or you can be happy."

I choose to be happy, and to take all of this physics stuff much less seriously.


QUOTE:
"Does you theory predict a different spectrum for blackbody radiation than the current model?"

Yes, it does. This New Theory predicts that the Thermal Radiation curve will follow the absorption curve for that material. The logic behind this is as follows:

This theory predicts that resonant frequencies of a material actually exist in that material. Atomic frequencies are the actual orbital frequencies, and molecular frequencies are the actual vibratory frequencies. So for example, hydrogen absorbs Lyman frequencies. These orbital frequencies actually exist in the hydrogen molecules. Hence, they will emit these Lyman frequencies as Thermal Radiation when you disturb them. Another example: if a material absorbs 95% incident UV radiation, then this material must have UV resonant frequencies that actually exist in the material. Hence, it will emit this UV radiation when heated. Analogy: if you bang on a box full of bells, then the bells will emit their natural resonant frequencies. See also: “Material Emits More Than Planck Predicts”, EDN Magazine, August 7, 2003, p. 26.

This New Theory also predicts that the deeper that one goes into an atom, the higher will be the frequencies that one will find. So as the temperature increases, new resonant frequencies will emerge as the atom is disturbed deeper and deeper near higher frequencied orbits.

QUOTE:
"Do you maintain that currently accepted blackbody spectrum measurements are flawed?"

No, not at all. The only thing that is missing is that one must also plot the absorption and reflectance of these materials to make sure that they actually are "black" in the range of frequencies that one is measuring. Again, I suspect that the lampblack materials used to find the "ultraviolet catastrophe" are actually reflective of UV radiation, since they do not emit UV when heated, and because Lampblack coatings make excellent "UV protectants".


QUOTE:
"Are the velocities involved large enough to warrant an application of relativity? Mass is also quite low.
One point I wanted to raise is that hydrogen is a nice, simple molecule. I would be curious to find out if he can apply this "theory" to a benzene ring, or even an isolated atom with a d orbital."

Gently Passing,

Good questions. Velocities: Atomic electron velocities are low generally. Relativity is Generally not needed here, except perhaps at the inner "x-ray" frequencied orbitals deep inside a heavy atom. However, the velocities for "material" found inside pulsating charges may be considerable, again calling for relativity.

Yes, the mass of the electron is low. I have shown in a previous post that the electron's "mass function" is actually pulsating between positive and negative. So the "mass of the electron" is actually the time-averaged mass, according to this New Theory. The "amplitude" of the pulsating mass is actually very large. However, it time-averages to almost nothing just like the DC voltage of a Gigavolt AC voltage time-averages to almost nothing.

In regard to the benzene ring, I guess you want me to discuss the carbon bond?

Well, I have not done any simulations. However, I would expect the following from purely logical reasoning. If, for example, a hydrogen atom were to come near a carbon atom, one would expect that coulomb forces would bring them together, very similarly to hydrogen-hydrogen bonding. After four hydrogen are bonded, one might end up with a scenario like this for methane:

Since we know carbon is tetrahedral, one would expect that the four outer electron orbitals "would be drawn out" of the carbon towards the hydrogen nucleus, and the hydrogen electrons would be drawn to carbon nucleus. They would be bound by coulomb forces, just like the H-H bond. There would be some interaction between a hydrogen nucleus and other bonds, but from symmetry, they would cancel. They would make the bond axis "bounce around a little bit periodically though".

Benzene's carbon-carbon bonds would be very similar. Perhaps I will be motivated to run simulations once I get past all the initial hostility.


QUOTE:
"Hi Andrewgray; the basic flaw I saw in your theory as far as I understand . . . is [there is] no basic, in gut, prediction of the phenomenon of relativity in it."

Vern,

This New Theory uses relativity in its foundations, but indeed, it does not predict relativity. There are no incompatibilities with Relativity in this New Theory like there are in QM. I do not understand why you view this as a flaw. Please explain.


QUOTE:
"So far experiment has supported QM as far as I know. Is it probably premature, underdeveloped, fundamentally flawed?"

Gently Passing,

Experiment has not supported QM. Take the QM Photoelectric Paradox just given. Let me repeat: QM has failed. So stop saying that it hasn't. Look in the above posts for more examples.


QUOTE:
"But overturning the whole thing with one idea? That's like Einstein ambitious. So why you?"

It is ambitious. It has taken me over Two Decades to get this far.

Why me?

Because I am the first combination of Mathematics, Physics, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, and Common Sense required to figure the dam thing out.



Andrew A. Gray

 

[andrewgray]

QUOTE:
"Reason number 8: Quantum theory is treated much more like a religion than a science when people confront its flaws."

MetaKron,

This may or may not be true in all cases with all people. However, the reality discovered is that change is usually not welcomed. Tweaking peoples' logic like this may or may not be useful either. The jury is still out.


Andrew A. Gray