7 Reasons to Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And embrace this New Theory
- Thread starter andrewgray
- Start date
Well, I would certainly look better if I had known that thing about momentum. Even so, there seems to be no good reason to believe that something is off when a photon that has this much energy impacts an object and that object releases an electron with seven tenths that much energy.
Other interesting things come from the fact of conservation of momentum. It's one of those simple rules that can fool you. An extremely small mass times an extremely high velocity equals an extremely high kinetic energy with a small momentum, so photons transfer very little momentum to a reflective surface even when they are very energetic. I've been stuck before on the problem of why billions of watts worth of photons could only produce a few pounds of force and here it is, in the very basic equations.
andrewgray
Registered Senior Member
OK Pete,
I have changed my mind on Thermal (Blackbody) Radiation thanks to you (& others). I spent a long time this weekend thinking about everything that you all said. Here is what changed my mind:
Here is where my theory kicks in:
Thermal radiation is probably the result of "banging around the outer electrons" and making them emit their resonant frequencies. My mistake, I believe, is that I was assuming that thermal agitation would stimulate inner orbitals at higher frequencies. I see now that this assumption was probably incorrect.
So this implies that the outer electron orbital frequencies of many materials are InfraRed (IR). At room temperature, atoms do indeed radiate IR since their outer orbitals are being banged around a little bit. As the temperature goes up, the thermal agitations get more violent and orbitals deeper in the atoms are affected. These orbitals are at higher frequencies. So just beneath the IR orbitals are orbitals with visible frequencies. Very similar to hydrogen:
So Thermal (Blackbody) radiation corresponds to the depth dependence of atomic orbital frequencies.
Pete (& others), what do you think? Plausible?
Andrew A. Gray
I have changed my mind on Thermal (Blackbody) Radiation thanks to you (& others). I spent a long time this weekend thinking about everything that you all said. Here is what changed my mind:
- 1) Heat iron or steel. They are metals and they are reflectors (not blackbodies).
- 2) They get Red Hot, then they get White Hot.
- 3) They probably will melt before they get UV Hot.
Here is where my theory kicks in:
Thermal radiation is probably the result of "banging around the outer electrons" and making them emit their resonant frequencies. My mistake, I believe, is that I was assuming that thermal agitation would stimulate inner orbitals at higher frequencies. I see now that this assumption was probably incorrect.
So this implies that the outer electron orbital frequencies of many materials are InfraRed (IR). At room temperature, atoms do indeed radiate IR since their outer orbitals are being banged around a little bit. As the temperature goes up, the thermal agitations get more violent and orbitals deeper in the atoms are affected. These orbitals are at higher frequencies. So just beneath the IR orbitals are orbitals with visible frequencies. Very similar to hydrogen:
So Thermal (Blackbody) radiation corresponds to the depth dependence of atomic orbital frequencies.
Pete (& others), what do you think? Plausible?
Andrew A. Gray
Andrew, I think that contemporary theory is on the money here. Photons are emitted when an electron descends to a lower energy level. It may have something to do with some kind of "resonant frequency" but the trouble is we are talking about discrete events. A discrete amount of energy is released and that energy forms a photon. There isn't a resonant frequency involved, just a discrete packet of energy.
Andrew, re your on/off electron:
I was playing with moebius strips the other day. I started by drawing a line of plusses on one side of the paper ++++++++ and a line of minusses on the other -----------. When I made my moebius strip I saw what looked like a plus going to a minus, and could imagine On Off On Off etc.
Next I took a new strip and drew a long flat X on it to represent half a sine wave of electric and magnetic force. Look along the left of this image and see the slanted X that's in the middle of the first wavelength.
I labelled each corner with an E or an M as appropriate. Then I turned the strip over and repeated. Now when I made the moebius strip I found the E became the M and vice versa. The twist became the turn, as it were. It felt interesting.
I was playing with moebius strips the other day. I started by drawing a line of plusses on one side of the paper ++++++++ and a line of minusses on the other -----------. When I made my moebius strip I saw what looked like a plus going to a minus, and could imagine On Off On Off etc.
Next I took a new strip and drew a long flat X on it to represent half a sine wave of electric and magnetic force. Look along the left of this image and see the slanted X that's in the middle of the first wavelength.
I labelled each corner with an E or an M as appropriate. Then I turned the strip over and repeated. Now when I made the moebius strip I found the E became the M and vice versa. The twist became the turn, as it were. It felt interesting.
andrewgray
Registered Senior Member
Next, I want to discuss
[size=+1]
The Zeeman Effect[/size]
We can finally understand the Zeeman effect much more simply, and in terms of
modified resonant frequencies instead of quantized energy level changes.
H. A. Lorentz actually had the correct concept for the Zeeman effect in
1902 (for which he won the Nobel prize with Zeeman), and predicted the correct
polarizations of the Zeeman spectral lines. His so called Lorentz triplets, appear in spectral lines
when the atoms are subjected to a strong magnetic field However, Lorentz’s theory had to be
abandoned because it had orbiting atomic electrons, a problem that the theorists of that time
could not overcome. We have solved the orbiting electron problem and have come full circle,
back to Lorentz’s original ideas.
When an atom is placed in a strong magnetic field, the angular momentum of the
optically active electron is induced into a state that is generally, on the average, either “up” or
“down”. The New Stern Gerlach Experiment will prove this. Once the electron’s angular
momentum is in one of these two states, Larmor’s theorem explains the shifts in the natural
frequencies. We quote Herbert Goldstein from his book Classical Mechanics 2nd Ed. (p. 235):
Larmor’s theorem “states that to first order in B, the effect of a constant magnetic field on a
classical system is to superimpose on its normal motion a uniform precession with angular
frequency ω[sub]L[/sub]” (= -eB/2mc). (The reader should note that Goldstein is careful to add the word
“classical” to his statement. Quantum physicists have arbitrarily doubled the gyromagnetic ratio
of the electron’s charged material to “make things work”. In that scenario, the natural
frequencies associated with the precession of the “electron spin” are ½ that of the Larmor
frequency shifts appearing in the spectral lines. However, with the addition of arbitrary
“selection rules” and Thomas precession, the theory is made to accommodate this.)
For simplicity, consider a hydrogen atom in a strong magnetic field. The atom’s angular
momentum is induced by the field into one of two states. One that is generally “up”, or one that
is “down”. In these two states, the effect of the magnetic field is either to speed up/shrink the
orbit, or slow down/expand the orbit. The change in the orbital frequency will be ± ω[sub]L[/sub] as given
by Larmor’s theorem. Figure 6.13 illustrates this. Thus, in the spectral lines, we would expect at
least the two frequencies ω[sub]o[/sub] + ω[sub]L[/sub] and ω[sub]o[/sub] - ω[sub]L[/sub].
This is indeed the case. And the polarizations are correct (as Lorentz predicted).
To explain this, we must use two radiation principles that in general apply to the
radiation from nonrelativistic charges:
If we view them from above looking down the orbital axis, the radiation
should be circularly polarized, which it is. We see both clockwise and
counterclockwise circular polarizations as expected, since the polarization is in the same
direction as the centripetal acceleration of the electron. Viewed from the side, looking along the
orbital plane, the radiation should be linearly polarized. Again, since the polarization is in the
same direction as the centripetal acceleration, it should be horizontally polarized, perpendicular
to B, which it is.
However, this is not the end of the story. We see that a vertically polarized line remains
at the original frequency in the center with frequency ω[sub]o[/sub] as viewed from the side. This is shown
in figure 6.14.
This unshifted spectral line is not hard to understand. There exists a quasi-stable
precession of hydrogen in a strong magnetic field. This is the state where hydrogen's
angular momentum is tilted 90[sup]o[/sup], halfway between “up” and “down”. In this state, the
hydrogen still nutates, but the nutation is balanced. The resulting radiation damping forces
favor neither the “up” direction nor the “down”, and the hydrogen stays in this quasi-stable position
for a short time, like a pendulum balanced upside down. The resulting radiation is mostly
vertically polarized, and the frequency of the radiation is unaffected by the precession since the
precession axis is perpendicular to the orbital axis. Consider the hydrogen orbits shown in
figure 6.15. Again, we will use our two radiation principles stated on the previous page.
In figure 6.15A, we see that one way for the electron to emit radiation to the side is
at the top and bottom of its orbits. All orbits inclined at 90[sup]o[/sup] radiate in this fashion.
In this case, the polarization is vertical, with the original frequency ω[sub]o[/sub]. The
radiation is mostly in the horizontal planes shown.
In figure 6.15B, we see that the other orientation that the electron
orbit can emit radiation to the side. This is one of just two orbits of this type
that observer O[sub]B[/sub] looking from the side would tend to see. Thus we see that the central
spectral line is not vertical polarization pure. A very small percentage of the radiation is
circularly polarized both clockwise and counterclockwise. Analogously, there must be a
faint spectral line in the center as viewed from the top whose linear polarization slowly
rotates at the Larmor frequency. It would be interesting to know if this quasi-stable central
frequency was still present in the absorption spectrum while in the presence of a
strong magnetic field.
This is still not the end of the story. Upon looking more closely at the spectral lines with
a more refined spectrometer, one sees that the outer lines are split once again. This is depicted in
figure 6.16. In all theories for the hydrogen atom, all the degrees of freedom were exhausted to
account for such fine splitting.
First, Sommerfeld submitted his relativistic corrections to Bohr's theory to explain the fine structure,
and he introduced the fine structure constant α. Later, Sommerfeld's theory turned out to just be
experiment matching, as no one believes it anymore.
Imagine: the defining theory for the fine structure constant α was extremely accurate and is
nothing but gobbledygook.
[size=+1]
The Fine Structure of Hydrogen[/size]
It is now much easier to understand the fine structure of hydrogen. As was pointed out earlier in this
thread, hydrogen gas exists mostly as a molecule. Thus, the spectral lines that we see are from molecular
hydrogen, not atomic hydrogen. All of the previous analysis about the Zeeman effect still applies to
molecular hydrogen. The spectral lines of molecular hydrogen are still split by a magnetic field.
But with no magnetic field, one would not expect that the spectral lines would be split, right?!
Well, this is indeed the case. It must be pointed out that
there is no fine structure splitting in the absorption spectrum of hydrogen.
Here is another rarely mentioned failure of QM.
QM predicts energy levels. But for the emission spectrum to have fine splitting between the levels
and the absorption spectrum to not have them is a QM paradox. For QM'ers, are those fine structure
energy levels there or not? If they are, then they should show up in the absorption spectra, right?
They don't.
To be continued . . .
[size=+1]
The Zeeman Effect[/size]
We can finally understand the Zeeman effect much more simply, and in terms of
modified resonant frequencies instead of quantized energy level changes.
H. A. Lorentz actually had the correct concept for the Zeeman effect in
1902 (for which he won the Nobel prize with Zeeman), and predicted the correct
polarizations of the Zeeman spectral lines. His so called Lorentz triplets, appear in spectral lines
when the atoms are subjected to a strong magnetic field However, Lorentz’s theory had to be
abandoned because it had orbiting atomic electrons, a problem that the theorists of that time
could not overcome. We have solved the orbiting electron problem and have come full circle,
back to Lorentz’s original ideas.
When an atom is placed in a strong magnetic field, the angular momentum of the
optically active electron is induced into a state that is generally, on the average, either “up” or
“down”. The New Stern Gerlach Experiment will prove this. Once the electron’s angular
momentum is in one of these two states, Larmor’s theorem explains the shifts in the natural
frequencies. We quote Herbert Goldstein from his book Classical Mechanics 2nd Ed. (p. 235):
Larmor’s theorem “states that to first order in B, the effect of a constant magnetic field on a
classical system is to superimpose on its normal motion a uniform precession with angular
frequency ω[sub]L[/sub]” (= -eB/2mc). (The reader should note that Goldstein is careful to add the word
“classical” to his statement. Quantum physicists have arbitrarily doubled the gyromagnetic ratio
of the electron’s charged material to “make things work”. In that scenario, the natural
frequencies associated with the precession of the “electron spin” are ½ that of the Larmor
frequency shifts appearing in the spectral lines. However, with the addition of arbitrary
“selection rules” and Thomas precession, the theory is made to accommodate this.)
For simplicity, consider a hydrogen atom in a strong magnetic field. The atom’s angular
momentum is induced by the field into one of two states. One that is generally “up”, or one that
is “down”. In these two states, the effect of the magnetic field is either to speed up/shrink the
orbit, or slow down/expand the orbit. The change in the orbital frequency will be ± ω[sub]L[/sub] as given
by Larmor’s theorem. Figure 6.13 illustrates this. Thus, in the spectral lines, we would expect at
least the two frequencies ω[sub]o[/sub] + ω[sub]L[/sub] and ω[sub]o[/sub] - ω[sub]L[/sub].
This is indeed the case. And the polarizations are correct (as Lorentz predicted).
To explain this, we must use two radiation principles that in general apply to the
radiation from nonrelativistic charges:
- The radiation of an accelerated charge is always
polarized parallel to the acceleration. - This radiation is emitted the strongest in the
plane that is perpendicular to the acceleration.
If we view them from above looking down the orbital axis, the radiation
should be circularly polarized, which it is. We see both clockwise and
counterclockwise circular polarizations as expected, since the polarization is in the same
direction as the centripetal acceleration of the electron. Viewed from the side, looking along the
orbital plane, the radiation should be linearly polarized. Again, since the polarization is in the
same direction as the centripetal acceleration, it should be horizontally polarized, perpendicular
to B, which it is.
However, this is not the end of the story. We see that a vertically polarized line remains
at the original frequency in the center with frequency ω[sub]o[/sub] as viewed from the side. This is shown
in figure 6.14.
This unshifted spectral line is not hard to understand. There exists a quasi-stable
precession of hydrogen in a strong magnetic field. This is the state where hydrogen's
angular momentum is tilted 90[sup]o[/sup], halfway between “up” and “down”. In this state, the
hydrogen still nutates, but the nutation is balanced. The resulting radiation damping forces
favor neither the “up” direction nor the “down”, and the hydrogen stays in this quasi-stable position
for a short time, like a pendulum balanced upside down. The resulting radiation is mostly
vertically polarized, and the frequency of the radiation is unaffected by the precession since the
precession axis is perpendicular to the orbital axis. Consider the hydrogen orbits shown in
figure 6.15. Again, we will use our two radiation principles stated on the previous page.
In figure 6.15A, we see that one way for the electron to emit radiation to the side is
at the top and bottom of its orbits. All orbits inclined at 90[sup]o[/sup] radiate in this fashion.
In this case, the polarization is vertical, with the original frequency ω[sub]o[/sub]. The
radiation is mostly in the horizontal planes shown.
In figure 6.15B, we see that the other orientation that the electron
orbit can emit radiation to the side. This is one of just two orbits of this type
that observer O[sub]B[/sub] looking from the side would tend to see. Thus we see that the central
spectral line is not vertical polarization pure. A very small percentage of the radiation is
circularly polarized both clockwise and counterclockwise. Analogously, there must be a
faint spectral line in the center as viewed from the top whose linear polarization slowly
rotates at the Larmor frequency. It would be interesting to know if this quasi-stable central
frequency was still present in the absorption spectrum while in the presence of a
strong magnetic field.
This is still not the end of the story. Upon looking more closely at the spectral lines with
a more refined spectrometer, one sees that the outer lines are split once again. This is depicted in
figure 6.16. In all theories for the hydrogen atom, all the degrees of freedom were exhausted to
account for such fine splitting.
First, Sommerfeld submitted his relativistic corrections to Bohr's theory to explain the fine structure,
and he introduced the fine structure constant α. Later, Sommerfeld's theory turned out to just be
experiment matching, as no one believes it anymore.
Imagine: the defining theory for the fine structure constant α was extremely accurate and is
nothing but gobbledygook.
[size=+1]
The Fine Structure of Hydrogen[/size]
It is now much easier to understand the fine structure of hydrogen. As was pointed out earlier in this
thread, hydrogen gas exists mostly as a molecule. Thus, the spectral lines that we see are from molecular
hydrogen, not atomic hydrogen. All of the previous analysis about the Zeeman effect still applies to
molecular hydrogen. The spectral lines of molecular hydrogen are still split by a magnetic field.
But with no magnetic field, one would not expect that the spectral lines would be split, right?!
Well, this is indeed the case. It must be pointed out that
there is no fine structure splitting in the absorption spectrum of hydrogen.
Here is another rarely mentioned failure of QM.
QM predicts energy levels. But for the emission spectrum to have fine splitting between the levels
and the absorption spectrum to not have them is a QM paradox. For QM'ers, are those fine structure
energy levels there or not? If they are, then they should show up in the absorption spectra, right?
They don't.
To be continued . . .
That's interesting. Do you have a reference for this in the mainstream literature where I can read more?
andrewgray
Registered Senior Member
I must admit that I cannot find my reference to the fine structure in the
absorption spectrum of hydrogen. Can anyone help us out here with a reference?
Andrew A. Gray
absorption spectrum of hydrogen. Can anyone help us out here with a reference?
Andrew A. Gray
Andrew Gray,
I must say, you are a fucking genius to proove the non-reality isomorphism of the imagination based consistency of Quantum Mechanics.
It is a theory foolishly based on a fantastic, but ultimately useless imagination and ego.
I must say, you are a fucking genius to proove the non-reality isomorphism of the imagination based consistency of Quantum Mechanics.
It is a theory foolishly based on a fantastic, but ultimately useless imagination and ego.
Not so. By necessity the source material is excited for emission, but not for absorption in most cases. When the lower level of the transition is not populated, there will be no absorption corresponding to it.
I think that some experiment on absorption in gas that is emitting with fine structure do show fine structure "resonate scattering" which is absorption followed by essentially immediate re-radiation of the beam sent in. I have seen demonstration of laser light passed thru small volume of gas that absorbs it (but probably was not any thing directly related to fine structure) make the entire volume glow with the laser light. It is in this type of situation that the absorption fine spectra can be seen, I am almost certain.
Also, I think it is easy, or would be*, to demonstrate that hydrogen gas will resonantly absorb / re-radiate = scatter the 21 cm line, which corresponds to the nuclear spin flip of the one nucleus in the molecule H2. (The fine structure is related to these nuclear spin orientations, as I recall.) Part of the problem is, I think, also related to need to have highly resolved luminous sources for demonstration that the fine structure is active in absorption.
I am quite rusty on all this, but perhaps some one who is not can comment/contribute along these lines.
---------------------------------
* because of the wavelength, it might take a room full of hydrogen to from a well defined beam of 21cm waves passing thru small part of room - perhaps too dangerous to have been done?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi, I have read almost all of your proposed theory and I find it very interesting! Do you abandon the quantum mechanical wave function in favor of a classical description of particles? If so, how are you able to account for the tunnel effect? I think this is what will ultimately break your theory.
Last edited:
Yes, it is absorbed in the radio/microwave spectrum of energies. This is how nuclear magnetic resonance is based off.
Would you explain a little more what you say here, please. I think this is at best misleading.
In absence of magnetic field some energy levels are "degenerate." That is in the "equal partician of energy" or Boltsman probablity distribution distribution of population of the various energy levels there is an interger, usually with symbol "g", which tell how many times extra that "degenerate" level will be populated.
Now these degenrate levels are "split" when the magnetic field is applied to become new levels of slightly (initially linearly related to the mag field strength) different. I.e the Zeeman effect.
If the mag field is increased enough this linearity is destroyed. Is that all you are saying?
I.e. the Hamiltonian with field, which allows, at least in principle, the energy levels to be computed is initially only a slight linear modification of the zero field Hamiltonian. But when the field is stronger, the recognition of the new levels that correspond to the old degenerate levels gets complex, cetainly is not the nice symetric spliting of the levels called the Zeeman effect.
I object to your implication that it is any "disappearance" of the Zeeman effect as really it is just a very stong and confused Zeeman effect. Do you not agree?
Andrew Gray,
Let me begin by saying that Ive been following this thread for a few days and I believe that your theory has great potential. You have made some very insightful remarks that have sparked my curiosity. How far are you from being ready to publish something? Is there anyway I can help? Clearly Im not as well versed in the subject as you, but I have just recieved my undergraduate degree in physics and will soon be attending graduate school.
I do also have a few questions/concerns:
I realize that I may be jumping ahead quite a bit... forgive me.
1)In your discussion on electron structure you obviously abandon the point particle interpretaion of the standard model. What do you believe to be the fundamental ingredients of matter?
2)While your theory resolves many issues of QM, I haven't heard any mention of nuclear structure and the strong force. Does your theory also encompass QCD?
3) This is an extention of questions 1 and 2. You discuss the structure of an electron but what about hadrons? The proton in your hydrogen atom on page 1 also "pulsates". Does it have the same structure as electrons? If so you are contradicting the orgin of the strong force. If not then what is the pulsating mechanism?
More to come later...
Let me begin by saying that Ive been following this thread for a few days and I believe that your theory has great potential. You have made some very insightful remarks that have sparked my curiosity. How far are you from being ready to publish something? Is there anyway I can help? Clearly Im not as well versed in the subject as you, but I have just recieved my undergraduate degree in physics and will soon be attending graduate school.
I do also have a few questions/concerns:
I realize that I may be jumping ahead quite a bit... forgive me.
1)In your discussion on electron structure you obviously abandon the point particle interpretaion of the standard model. What do you believe to be the fundamental ingredients of matter?
2)While your theory resolves many issues of QM, I haven't heard any mention of nuclear structure and the strong force. Does your theory also encompass QCD?
3) This is an extention of questions 1 and 2. You discuss the structure of an electron but what about hadrons? The proton in your hydrogen atom on page 1 also "pulsates". Does it have the same structure as electrons? If so you are contradicting the orgin of the strong force. If not then what is the pulsating mechanism?
More to come later...
andrewgray
Registered Senior Member
QUOTE:
"Hi, I have read almost all of your proposed theory and I find it very interesting!
Do you abandon the quantum mechanical wave function in favor of a classical
description of particles? If so, how are you able to account for the tunnel effect?
I think this is what will ultimately break your theory".
Yes, the QM wave function has been abandoned in favor of a pulsating (not classical)
description of particles.
This theory accounts for tunneling in a very satisfactory way! For example, consider
the hydrogen atom. Both the electron and the proton are pulsating. While the proton
is "OFF", the electron can be quickly moved away without much added energy.
Perhaps this sort of tunneling could explain the energy deficiencies found in neutron decay.
Instead of postulating neutrinos to make up the difference, one could realize that the neutron is
made up of an electron and a proton which can "tunnel" away from each other without strictly
conserving macroscopically defined energy. This is because the proton could either be "OFF"
while the electron moved signicantly away from it, or it could be "ON" mostly while the electron
moved away from it, changing the amount of energy given to the electron.
Andrew A. Gray
"Hi, I have read almost all of your proposed theory and I find it very interesting!
Do you abandon the quantum mechanical wave function in favor of a classical
description of particles? If so, how are you able to account for the tunnel effect?
I think this is what will ultimately break your theory".
Yes, the QM wave function has been abandoned in favor of a pulsating (not classical)
description of particles.
This theory accounts for tunneling in a very satisfactory way! For example, consider
the hydrogen atom. Both the electron and the proton are pulsating. While the proton
is "OFF", the electron can be quickly moved away without much added energy.
Perhaps this sort of tunneling could explain the energy deficiencies found in neutron decay.
Instead of postulating neutrinos to make up the difference, one could realize that the neutron is
made up of an electron and a proton which can "tunnel" away from each other without strictly
conserving macroscopically defined energy. This is because the proton could either be "OFF"
while the electron moved signicantly away from it, or it could be "ON" mostly while the electron
moved away from it, changing the amount of energy given to the electron.
Andrew A. Gray
Eflex tha Vybe Scientist
Registered Senior Member
absolutely brilliant.