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

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

What about the other Maxwell equation, displacement current and curl of B? Unless you conjecture the electron's charge flowing in and out (which would neatly solve Will's objection) you would have the curl of B oscillating in time and tangently propagating the displacement current's oscillations. I'm having a spot of trouble imagining this being spherically symmetric though. Integrating might be tricky, I 'll give it a thought.

Qfwfq,

Here is the spherical symmetry:



Just imagine the charge "turning on suddenly, then turning off". It has spherical symmetry just like a static electron model does.

Technically, if one defines charge in the "old Maxwell way" as being related to the , then both positive and negative "charge" travels out with each pulse, since the is related to lines of E that end somewhere.

These modified "Microscopic Maxwells Equations" are going to be complicated. Are you interested in helping me write them down, or are you hostile to the idea in any way?

Finally, let me say that we know that Maxwell's equations can be derived from simply assuming that some radial Coulomb force law exists in the rest frame of one charge, and that the force on another charge is then radial and velocity independent. Once these assumptions are made, then all of Maxwell's equations are completely predicted.

The same is true in this case. All one needs to do is sit down and write a modified Coulomb's Law. Then all modified Maxwell's Equations follow mathematically.


Andrew A. Gray

[coldcreation]

Interesting Andrewgray,
I still have to read all the text.

Question: Aside from the details mentioned above, what globally changes within the standard model if you are correct in your hypothesis, i.e., what are the consequences, say, on cosmology, astrophysics, celstial mechanics, if any. Why should the mainstream abandon QM to adopt you new view? Are there any practical (or economically advantageous) applications to be derived from your model?

Thanks

CC

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by ColdCreation

Why should the mainstream abandon QM to adopt you new view? Are there any practical (or economically advantageuos) applications to be derived from your model?

ColdCreation,

QM has "non-local reality". This is now accepted. This means that QM does not "actually describe what is really going on".

A New Theory that works and describes what is actually going on is superior. That is all there is to it. In order to get to the next level of understanding, one must know what is "really going on".

So the mainstream should adopt this New Theory so we can get to the next level of understanding, knowing what is really going on.

Economic applications? Well, this would be similar to asking Einstein if there were any economic applications to his rebellious E=mc². He wouldn't have had a clue, now would he?

Originally Posted by ColdCreation

. . . what globally changes within the standard model if you are correct in your hypothesis, i.e., what are the consequences, say, on cosmology, astrophysics, celstial mechanics, if any?

The biggest consequence that this New Theory has on cosmology and astrophysics is its impact on Thermal (blackbody) Radiation theory, and the assumptions made from it on the Cosmic Background Radiation data.

As you probably recall, Thermal (blackbody) Radiation Theory came from:

1) Rayleigh-Jeans counting standing wave modes in a cubic cavity of a "black-body". Their energy density diverged due to the infinite number of ways to put small wavelengths in a cavity.

2) Planck "quantizing" the number of ways to put radiation in the cavity, allowing the energy density to converge.

3) Choosing Planck's constant to match experimental data.

This New Theory sheds new light on Thermal Radiation.


Andrew A. Gray

[Erasmus00]

Your blinking charge, as you have said, is incompatible with maxwells equations (maxwell's equations imply strictly conserved, not on average conserved charges). Hence, if your theory is right Maxwell's equations need to be reexamined.

One important consequence of Maxwell that you are invoking to show no radiation can be summarized as "no monopole radiation" i.e. no spherically symmetric radiation field. HOWEVER, this is a consequence of the conserved charge, in order to change a field we must move charges from one point to another (creating dipole or higher order radiation).

In your theory, however, a field DOES change without moving one particle from another. I believe this can lead to radiation. Consider that the abrupt field changes will lead to large derivative of E terms, which should lead to displacement current, hence magnetic fields.

Also, your theory would hae only local "hidden variabes" and aspect type experiments, I believe, have demonstrated the non-local correlations of reality.
-Will

[arkain101]

I've been contemplating various expermental apparratus' of which would be ideal for testing out many of the QM weak spots you pointed out.

One of which is to test the particle-wave double slit experiment without film. Instead, one would use various kinds of detectors, to pick up currents, or what have you. As you point out photo film is a crude method for this particular experiment, and has far too much room for error to form any kind of emperical evidence.

Another thought was to run this sort of test with more than 1 set of slits.

There must be other tests that can be done to further understand the nature of light and matter. (that would be my main point)

[andrewgray]

Will,

I understand what you are saying regarding changing E fields. However, consider this:

If any vector field is spherically symmetric, then it must be completely radial. There is no way to have any tangential vector field anywhere if spherical symmetry is demanded.

Yes, there are "displacement currents", but they are radial and spherically symmetric also. All the magnetic fields coming from these "displacement currents" cancel out.

Agreed?



Next,

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

. . . Aspect type experiments, I believe, have demonstrated the non-local correlations of reality.

Yes, if one assumes that two correlated photons emerge from these Aspect sources, then local reality cannot exist. In my "logic discussion" in the first post, I discuss this as one of the main reasons for abandoning the photon hypothesis.

If the photon hypothesis is abandoned, then we are back to having local reality.

There is no way to come up with any kind of "reality-based" local "hidden variables" to explain the Aspect Experiments if photons are demanded to exist. Therefore, photons cannot exist. It is simple logic, if one demands reality.


Andrew A. Gray

[andrewgray]

akrain,

Yes, there finally are experiments to displace QM. To discuss these experiments, we need to discuss:

Magnetic Moments of Atoms

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



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:



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_z 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.


For example, if silver atoms enter a strong magnetic field with continuous values of L_z, 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



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_z to be deflected without a huge B field inducing them all towards the totally UP or DOWN states. This would allow


the continuous L_z spectrum to be recovered, proving space quantization and quantized spin incorrect.



Andrew A. Gray

[arkain101]

Very interesting.

Though, a bit out of my league, but I still find some interest in this with some of my past work.

This animation I put together shows a form of space-time geomerty of individual units of matter.

Assume the Red line is E field and the Black line is the B field. The purple line is the Time. As such the motion of the time, is in sync with the motion of the fields.

Each Line rotates on its own plane. These are X, Y, Z.

There is more to it than this but I thought for now I would share this untill later.

http://www3.telus.net/hill/3line3fps.swf

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by andrewgray

Will,
Yes, there are "displacement currents", but they are radial and spherically symmetric also. All the magnetic fields coming from these "displacement currents" cancel out.

From Maxwell,

If you have a changing E field, classically, you have to have a non-zero B field somewhere.

Now, in playing with your theory, I have encountered a few problems. The first is that non-strictly conserved charge totally destroys the concept of U(1) gauge invariance and E/M. Admittedly, you might argue that this isn't all that fundamental- but its probably the only guide to writing down a lagrangian for the theory.

If we use a force law of the form F = E(t)q(t) we have more trouble. Its difficult to conserve energy unless we assume that the stationary charge is monopole radiating. (i.e. the switching field carries some energy). However, I'm sure that you don't want this to be the case. However, changing the force law seems to be destroying the whole idea of charge and electric field, which I'm sure you also don't want.

Also, in doing away with quantum mechanics we do away with anti-particles and any reasonable understanding of them. How does your theory explain electron/positron annihilation?
-Will

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

From Maxwell,



If you have a changing E field, classically, you have to have a non-zero B field somewhere.

Now, in playing with your theory, I have encountered a few problems. The first is that non-strictly conserved charge totally destroys the concept of U(1) gauge invariance and E/M. Admittedly, you might argue that this isn't all that fundamental- but its probably the only guide to writing down a lagrangian for the theory.

Erasmus,

I admittedly have not sat down and derived the New Maxwell's equations and potentials. So I do not know if there is any "New Gauge Invariance" or not. I would not be too worried if writing down a Lagrangian was extremely complicated. The real world is complicated. Wouldn't you be surprised if it wasn't?

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

If we use a force law of the form F = E(t)q(t) we have more trouble. Its difficult to conserve energy unless we assume that the stationary charge is monopole radiating. (i.e. the switching field carries some energy). However, I'm sure that you don't want this to be the case. However, changing the force law seems to be destroying the whole idea of charge and electric field, which I'm sure you also don't want.

Ah, you are getting somewhere now. Yes! There is "tunneling" in this New Theory. Microscopic Conservation of Energy is only conserved for charged particles that do not have pulsation correlations. Usually, if there are no pulsation correlations, then the time-averaged electric forces yield a conservation of energy. I believe, for example, that beta decay (with its uneven energy spread for the resultant particle energies) proves this, and that neutrinos probably do not really exist. Neutrinos were invented to make up for the tunneling observed in beta decay.

"Monopole Radiation", as I mentioned previously, would be impossible unless the radiation were longitudinal. This is because a spherically symmetric vector field must be completely radial. I have serious doubts if longitudinal electric fields can carry away momentum and energy.

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

Also, in doing away with quantum mechanics we do away with anti-particles and any reasonable understanding of them. How does your theory explain electron/positron annihilation?

A positron would still be identical to an electron, except the electric forces would be reversed. Electron-Positron annihilation would still be the conversion of bound electromagnetic energy into unbound. Are you interested in seeing the analysis for the structure of the electron in this New Theory?

Andrew A. Gray