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

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by andrewgray

I am not familiar with a QM polarization explanation in the Compton Effect. Do you have a reference or do you care to explain? How does the Compton effect vary with polarization? I have made some predictions about this and it would be very interesting to see if they are true.

Look up the Klein-Nishina formula for Compton scattering and, if you're interested in the matter of polarization, you might like to go through these search results. It can be derived from a simple, loopless Feynman diagram which makes it a comparatively simple, and certainly trouble-free, computation and you can find it done in detail in Itzykson-Zuber, Quantum Field Theory 5-2-1 (Elementary Processes) with a discussion of how it relates to the non-relativistic formula, the unpolarized case and Thomson scattering.

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

What do you mean by "pure microscopic"? What do you mean by "non strict" [conservation of energy]? Without either the neutrino or some other garbage bin, we'd have to conclude that energy is consistently disappearing. Not even average conservation.

Qfwfq,

By "pure microscopic" I mean that strict conservation of energy would be a "macroscopic" law. Microscopically, in my opinion, tunneling allows the law of energy conservation to be cheated sometimes. That is, when charges have correlations in their pulsations, they can escape from one another without strict conservation of energy (beta decay, for example).

By "non-strict", I mean that usually, microscopic charges do not have pulsation correlations, and usually conservation of energy holds on the time average.

Energy would not necessarily be "consistently disappearing", since reverse tunneling would also be possible. That is, sometimes microscopic charges could escape from each other with more energy than expected due to a more favorable correlation in their pulsations. So on the average, energy still would tend to be conserved.

Andrew A. Gray

[Qfwfq]

You would have to explain how energy would be conserved on the average in beta decay. The outcooming particles excluding the neutrino never total more than the incoming energy.

Originally Posted by andrewgray

Microscopically, in my opinion, tunneling allows the law of energy conservation to be cheated sometimes. That is, when charges have correlations in their pulsations, they can escape from one another without strict conservation of energy (beta decay, for example).

By "in my opinion" you apparently mean according to your theory, but initially you seemed to be upholding tunnelling as a justification for it. Isn't it becoming somewhat bootstrap here?

[arkain101]

I would be interested to see how or where this theory attempts an explanation to what 'fundamental' objects are.

What are these things made of? Light, electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.

Is the universe a physical machine like place (fundamental material forming the reality) in the view of this theory...

or..

Is every small object considered a interpratation reflected on the macroscopic knowings of things.

Let me try to ask a little more clearer.

In the view of the theory...

What is the source (small quantum/atomic world) of existence made of?

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

You would have to explain how energy would be conserved on the average in beta decay. The outcooming particles excluding the neutrino never total more than the incoming energy.

That is correct. Beta decay would tend to be energy deficient. This is one choice.

The second choice is to hypothesize an almost massless particle that moves at lightspeed, that can traverse 150 miles of solid rock without much of an interaction, and needs to magically change into something else to match reasonable QM theoretical predictions.

This choice, the neutrino hypothesis, is not very good science, it seems to me. The first choice, this New Theory's tunneling, though unpalatable, seems more promising. Especially since it explains why the tunneling is energy deficient.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

By "in my opinion" you apparently mean according to your theory, but initially you seemed to be upholding tunnelling as a justification for it. Isn't it becoming somewhat bootstrap here?

Apologies if unclear expression. Yes, by "in my opinion", I mean "my interpretation of this New Theory".

And "Yes", this New Theory will have to be bootstrapped. This is because we are changing the very foundations of physics in this New Theory. These foundations are changing:

1) Charge. Electric charge is no longer believed to be static.
2) Light. Light is no longer believed to have a particle nature.
3) Particles. Particles are no longer believed to have a wave nature. Only pulsating pseudo-waves.

With these changes, isn't it reasonable that one would have to go back and bootstrap the New Theory from scratch?


Andrew A. Gray

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by arkain

I would be interested to see how or where this theory attempts an explanation to what 'fundamental' objects are.
What are these things made of? Light, electrons, neutrons, protons, etc.
What is the source of existence made of?

Arkain,

According to this theory, there is electrical influence and gravity.

Light is the rippling of accelerated electrical force centers (charge).
Electrons are pulsating electrical influence. The same for protons. Neutrons are probably bound protons and electrons, as a neutron decays into a proton and an electron after a few seconds. (Qfwfq of course disagrees, as he says that DIS shows that there are 3 charges in a neutron. I would like to see this evidence).


The source of existence is electrical influence bound together by gravity. This is possible since the mass function for pulsating charges oscillates between positive and negative. So even though the time average for gravity forces is extremely weak, the amplitude of the gravity force can be huge. It must only time-average to small to agree with reality.


Andrew A. Gray

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by andrewgray

and needs to magically change into something else to match reasonable QM theoretical predictions.

Magically? The conjecture is that a neutrino changes from one flavour to another, and I believe it contemplates the same basic mechanism of RQFT as for other phenomenology. The only trouble conceptually is that of supposing a particle to be not perfectly massless while it is known to be chiral. Personally, I've thought of my own Alternative Theory to that and it would seem much more reasonable, but I won't discuss it here and probably no time soon.

Originally Posted by andrewgray

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

lol that's a good one!!!

You'll be needing to hire Michelangelo, Tiziano, Raffaello, Dalì, Picasso, Van Gough, Vermeer, Klee, Mirò, Kandinsky... the whole works of them!

[arkain101]

Sometimes one does not see the whole picture until after the whole picture is painted.

Ah, but what if the picture is already painted and the painting is lost when one attempts to see how the strokes of the brush were layed...

I suppose I will start a new topic based upon this philisophical and theoretical view of my own.

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

You'll be needing to hire Michelangelo, Tiziano, Raffaello, Dalì, Picasso, Van Gough, Vermeer, Klee, Mirò, Kandinsky... the whole works of them!

You are correct. Rewriting Modern Physics will be a big job. Hopefully, there will be some "artists" who are still living working on the project.

So we wish to continue with our painting of "The Whole Picture". The next most important foundation of physics that we wish to cover is Thermal Radiation, commonly misnamed Blackbody Radiation.

To review, Planck's Blackbody Radiation formula started it all. Raleigh-Jeans had first devised a theory that counted standing waves in a cubical "blackbody cavity". This theory made the silly prediction that small wavelength energy would be infinite in the cavity since there are an infinite number of ways to put smaller and smaller wavelengths in the cavity. Planck saw the data, so he decided to "quantize" the harmonic oscillators in the walls to justify changing Rayleigh-Jeans' infinite integral into a convergent sum. Then he experiment-matched his famous "Planck's Constant" to the data. The rest is history.

However, now that we have "the whole picture", we believe that Thermal Radiation has nothing to do with counting standing wave modes in a cubical blackbody cavity.

1) Take a chunk of steel (without a cavity) at room temperature. See that it emits InfraRed Radiation.

2) Take a torch and heat this steel and watch it as it glows Red ("red hot").

3) Continue to heat the steel and watch it as it starts to glow white ("white hot").

4) The steel melts before it can become "UV hot".

So what is happening here? Clearly, this is an example of "thermal radiation", and clearly it has nothing to do with black coatings or cavities of any kind.

So what is happening here? Well, when we discussed hydrogen, we saw that as the orbital radius became larger, the frequency became lower:



So consider a solid's crystalline lattice at room temperature. The atoms have an average vibrational amplitude:



This makes their outer electron orbitals overlap. At room temperature, these affected orbitals are the outer InfraRed frequencied orbitals, so these are the orbitals that are disturbed and radiate. Thus, we see InfraRed radiation at room temperature.

Next, as one heats the solid to a higher temperature, the amplitude of the thermal vibrations increases:



Thus, the next layer of orbitals are disturbed. These would be the ones that have low visible frequencies. Thus the thermal radiation becomes visible Red.

As the lattice is heated to an even higher temperature, the deeper orbitals that have higher visible frequencies are seen. The solid becomes "white hot".

If one heats the object further, typically it melts. However, if it did not, then it would become "UV hot".

In my opinion, this explanation is the reality-based physics that we need to explain thermal radiation, and is superior to counting standing wave modes in cubical blackbody cavities. That is, thermal radiation has nothing to do with cubical cavities, and nothing to do with black coatings. Thermal radiation is caused by thermal vibrations disturbing deeper and deeper orbitals that have higher and higher frequencies.

Andrew A. Gray

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by andrewgray

In my opinion, this explanation is the reality-based physics that we need to explain thermal radiation, and is superior to counting standing wave modes in cubical blackbody cavities. That is, thermal radiation has nothing to do with cubical cavities, and nothing to do with black coatings.

I think you misunderstand the typical blackbody derivation- the reason you assume a "black" body is so that you don't have to deal with reflected light, only emitted. If you wish to only consider thermal radiation, you had better be experimenting with something "black" in the frequency regions you are considering.

As to the cavity you put the object into, while its a convenient visualization technique, its unnecessary to the derivation. It merely supplies the boundary conditions for your light, and the cavity can be "removed" merely by taking the limit that the volume of the cavity goes off to infinity.

Also, what you are suggesting is a model of continuum electromagnetic radiation interacting with a "quantized" electron/atom. This is well developed, and I'm sure you can find some information by google-ing around. I think its a rather hard theory to hold on to in light of recent quantum optics research.
-Will

Edit:Afterthought- care must be taken to interpret the limit of your cavity as the walls go to infinity. Statistical mechanics only applies to equilibrium/steady state situations. Just clearing up a subtlety.