new theory of light

[Peter Pan]

I found this in another thread. Someone requested that it be moved here. The author never moved it, so I hope he or she isnt angry that I did it for them.

This theory is interesting. Please tell me if it holds any water.

Quote......
Yes. We at Model of Reality, www.ModelOfReality.org, finally have a reality-based theory for light. In this new theory, the emitters of light (mostly electrons) are modeled as tiny micropulsars (charges that turn ON and OFF very rapidly) so that light is emitted as a choppy WAVE.

Finally, we have a theory that explains both the wave and particle nature of light. The "photon" in Einstein's photoelectric effect is actually explained by the electron's pulsation frequency reaching a forward non-acceleration resonance with the incident light wave. Once the electron's pulsation frequency reaches that of the incident light wave, the electron's forward acceleration is essentially over. The light then cannot transfer any more energy to the electron, fooling physists (and you thought Einstein was SO smart) into thinking that light traveled as particles.

The lower frequencied "photons" in Compton's xray scattering are explained by a simple Doppler shift as the electrons retransmit the xrays while receding from the observer. It is amazing that no one has noticed before that the ejected electron velocities in Compton's experiment were exactly the velocities needed to Doppler shift and obtain the lowered frequencies seen in the experiment. (See A. Bless's "Recoil Electrons From Aluminum", Physics Rev, Dec 1927 p.871. See also www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_2.html ).

The "photons" in the Bremstrahlung xray frequency cutoff experiments are explained using Nyquist's point of view. Electrons pulsating at a certain frequency v cannot emit radiation with a frequency of more than v/2. The easiest way to understand this is from recording digital audio. The sampling frequency for digital audio is 44 kHz. This 44 kHz sampling frequency is used so it possible to record the audible frequencies from 0-22 kHz. (see the literature on the Nyquist frequency. See also www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_3.html ). Thus, when an electron that is pulsating at a certain frequency v strikes an aluminum plate, this electron can emit all frequencies up to the the limiting frequency v/2.

The usual explanation for the xray Bremsstralung cutoff frequency is that all the electron's K.E. is completely converted into a high frequency xray "photon". This seems unlikely because this limiting frequency is emitted in all directions, making conservation of momentum impossible, especially for "photons" emitted at 90 degrees with all the kinetic energy. (Why hasn't anyone noticed this discrepancy before?) With the our pulsating model, the limiting frequency would be emitted all directions, thus avoiding the 90 degree momentum paradox.

The wave nature of light is just as one would expect, except for that the light transmitted from a single electron would be choppy, and Coulomb's and Maxwell's relations then would then only be true for macroscopic averages.

Want more? We have given a reality-based explanation for essentially all key "photon" phenomena. We have also proposed Photon Killer Experiments to prove this theory. (Put up or shut up, isn't that what they say?) See www.ModelOfReality.org for more info.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes glass transparent?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Now that a model of reality exists, this question is much easier to answer! We are taking light to be a wave, not a particle. We also have shown that planetary atoms are possible to imagine with pulsating particles! (See www.ModelOfReality.org/Sect6_1.html). Thus, transparency is explained by simple resonance conditions. If the glass does NOT contain atoms that have orbital frequencies that match that of the light, then the atoms in the glass will NOT resonate and rebroadcast the light with phase shifts that tend to cancel the proceeding wavefront. However, take GREEN glass, for example. This glass has atoms that have electrons that orbit with RED and BLUE frequencies, but not GREEN frequencies. Thus, the RED and BLUE wavefronts are canceled by the phase-shifted rebroadcast of these frequencies. The GREEN light passes through because there are no atomic electrons near this orbital frequency.

This may be easier to understand if one thinks about how ceilings and walls are transparent to cell phone transmissions. Cell phone usually transmit at say 800 mHz. Obviously, one would not expect there to be 800 mHz atomic frequencies in bricks and sheetrock. Therefore, cell phone transmissions go right through bricks and sheetrock just like light travels through glass.

However, metals are different. Metals have free electrons. Both light AND cell phones cannot penetrate metal, because the free electrons in metal can vibrate with just about any frequency of light/EM emission, and these vibrations would have the necessary phase shifts to cancel most wavefronts that tried to travel through it.


Andrew Gray

Any comments would be appreciated:


if this is real, dosent fly in the face of modern physics?

[andrewgray]

I found this in another thread. Someone requested that it be moved here. The author never moved it, so I hope he or she isnt angry that I did it for them.Mr. Pan, this is Andrew Gray. I must say that moving things around is a bit confusing. OK, put this into "Skepticism and Debunking" (I'm not angry). My first question was, Where in the heck is "Skepticism and Debunking"? Where is "Theory Development" where you moved my other stuff?

Sugggestion: In your list of forums on the main page, PUT THE SUBFORUMS THERE TOO! Or at least give the option to see the expanded tree, kinda like Explorer in MS Windows. You really need a complete list of forums and subforums. For the life of me I couldn't find "Theory Development". Am I just blind, so I just didn't see this list? It should be visible from the main page, in my opinion.
if this is real, doesn't this fly in the face of modern physics?Mr. Pan, I must say that that Model of Reality is real. Fly in the face of Modern Physics? Well, let's be nice, OK? Quantum mechanics is an evolutionary theory with foundations over 100 years old. If only Planck, Heisenberg, and Bohr could have seen all the experiments before they set out on their theoretical way. Then once the Nobels were given, then these theories were cast in stone too early.

I think that almost all physicists will admit that there are quantum paradoxes in this hodge-podge quantum theory. These paradoxes and inconsistencies were what I sought to eliminate. I believe that I have done it with a complete, self-consistent theory with proposed experiments to prove it. Also, there is a completed book, Model of Reality, that goes through this theory in detail with good explanations for everything.

Hopefully, the physics community will not be like Sgt. Schultz (of Hogan's Heroes fame) and try to ignore the inevitable. Perhaps after I am dead...


Sincerely,

Andrew Gray

andrewgray AT modelofreality.org
www.ModelofReality.org

P.S. Thanks for putting the time into this forum. I know everyone appreciates it.

[einsteinian77]

Interesting ideas I want to hear more please

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by einsteinian77
Interesting ideas I want to hear more please

I don't.

[einsteinian77]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't.

I didn't know what to say [:D]

[krab]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't.

Neither do I.

[andrewgray]

Interesting ideas I want to hear more pleaseI don'tI didn't know what to sayNeither do IAll I can say is that you guys are "colorful".

Keep the company of those who seek the truth and run from those who have found it.I didn't say that I have the truth, I just said that I had proposals
for the truth. Big difference. These proposals are totally unproven
and need experimental verification. And I have proposed the
experiments that will prove or disprove this theory. I just
wish that you guys would consider a sincere set of proposals,
set forth in good faith. Please?




Andrew Gray

andrewgray AT avtec.austin.com

P.S. So einsteinian77, do you want to know more? I cannot tell.

Here are some very brief summaries:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10106&highlight=Andrew+Gray
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8965&highlight=Andrew+Gray ...(the 7th message)
The complete proposal:
www.ModelOfReality.org

[Ivan Seeking]

finally have a reality-based theory for light

you just lost half your readers.

the emitters of light (mostly electrons) are modeled as tiny micropulsars

whoops, there goes the other half [;)]

Theory development is the proper place for this thread. Good luck.

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

How about this:

Photons are omnipresent - They exist everywhere.

We live in a Universe that is actually a photon ocean.

Information (in the form of energy such as EM etc.) is transmitted from one photon to the next in waveform.

A beam of light is not a constant stream of photons - It is a constant information exchange between stationary photons, that we detect as a wave, and then mistakenly think it is the particle that moves.

We have only ever measured the Speed of Light in curved spacetime!
I suggest that the SoL is instantaneous in 'non-warped' spacetime. The photon has no age. It knows no time. The information exchange across vast distances of non-curved interstellar space is instantaneous. This suggests that the Universe is not as 'big' as we think - nor as old.

Creationists come out of your woodwork!
[6)]

[Doc Al]

Originally posted by andrewgray
I think that almost all physicists will admit that there are quantum paradoxes in this hodge-podge quantum theory. These paradoxes and inconsistencies were what I sought to eliminate. I believe that I have done it with a complete, self-consistent theory with proposed experiments to prove it. Also, there is a completed book, Model of Reality, that goes through this theory in detail with good explanations for everything.

Does your model provide a "local realistic" explanation of the correlations of entangled particles (such as in EPRB/Aspect experiments) that violate Bell's theorem? I would love to see details of that.

[andrewgray]

Does your model provide a "local realistic" explanation of the correlations of entangled particles (such as in EPRB/Aspect experiments) that violate Bell's theorem? I would love to see details of that.Yes, I have proposed a reality-based explanation to all the EPR/entanglement craziness. Here are the logical steps. I will summarize and quote, so if I leave out something, my apologies.

1) The Stern-Gerlach apparatus is an inducer, not a measurer.
. . .The Stern-Gerlach Killer Experiment is designed to prove this:

. . .http://www.modelofreality.org/advertisement.gif
. . .www.modelofreality.org/Sect8_1.html

This experiment's purpose is to show that angular momentum is not quantized. Once this has been shown, we will be rid of quantized angular momentum. Now you have to go with me here, as this experiment certainly has not been done and nothing proven yet. Next, it is well known (I guess) that the electron's angular momentum cannot be "something spinning" and the electron's magnetic moment cannot be a "moment". The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm. Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light? Andrew GrayYes, that is a calculation that every beginning student of modern physics is asked to do. Tom, PF MentorOne of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...Heumpje You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

...in addition to the impossibility of concentrating angular-momentum inside an electron's volume to make electron "spin", there is no room inside an electron for any electric current (with charge e) to have a large enough "moment" to make up a "1/2 quanta of magnetic moment".

Therefore, the electron's magnetic "moment", if it exists, is not a "moment".

Seems inconsistent to me.
We see that there are so many inconsistencies to electron spin, that any reality-based theory cannot have it. So we have eliminated it. Again, you will just have to go with me here, as nothing is proven yet.

2) Once the Stern-Gerlach apparatus is proven to be an inducer,
. . .then Bell's inequality is totally meaningless for Stern-Gerlach type
. . .angular momentum systems.
. . .Repeat: Meaningless. One cannot be inducing characteristics
. . .onto a system and simultaneoulsy claiming that one is
. . .measuring something in the system.
. . .The Stern-Gerlach Killer apparatus will satisfy normal
. . .angular momentum theory, as Bell's inequality
. . .requires binary outputs and does NOT apply here.

3) No reality-based theory can have wave-particle paradoxes
. . .hanging around.
. . .In our new theory, electrons are pulsating particles, and
. . .light is a wave. The quantum phenomena are then are readily explained.
. . .Read Model of Reality's Overview:
. . .www.ModelofReality.org/overview.html

Basically, there are too many inconsistencies with "photons" for them to be included in any reality based theory. First, "photons" DO NOT act like particles in the photoelectric effect. Why? Because they are claimed to be inelastically absorbed by the photo-electrons. Now go look up an inelastic absorption in an elementary physics book. What is conserved in an inelastic collision?

Kinetic Energy?
NO!
Momentum.

Momentum is what is conserved, not kinetic energy. So claiming a complete transfer of energy in a particle-like "absorption" is inconsistent with its very definition.

Now look at the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency in xray tubes, where electrons are smashing into an aluminum plate. This limiting frequency is claimed to be because no "photons" with energy greater than hv can be created. But if one looks closer, one sees that these limiting frequencies are emitted in all directions, a real problem for conservation of momentum in this experiment if light really is a particle. How about the xray emissions at 90 degrees? Since this direction is perpendicular to the deceleration, this is where one would expect most of the radiation to be. But if the electron gives up all its energy to a limiting "photon", this "photon" must logically be in the forward direction, if particle conservation laws are going to remain sane.

Now read Model of Reality's explanation for the two slit paradox:

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect5_6.html

After reading this, perhaps you are beginning to see just how we have successfully explained all the "photon" evidence away. So basically, NO PHOTONS. (See Model of Reality's "Photon Killer Experiments").

Now back to A. Aspect and entanglement.However, we still must talk about these “photon correlation” experiments. Even though “photons” do not exist, what does exist are two correlated electromagnetic pulses that modern physicists (incorrectly) call “photons”. But when we measure the polarization of these two pulses, are we in fact measuring anything associated with them? That is, how does a polarizer work?

To the contemporary quantum physicist, a polarizer either “absorbs the photon” or “lets it pass through”. This “absorption” or “passing” is simply given a probability. But this viewpoint is extremely naive. A polarizer works by re-emitting polarized radiation with a phase shift that tends to cancel one component of the incident wave. A polarizer does not just absorb or pass a light pulse. The pulse that emerges on the other side of the polarizer is the sum of the original radiation plus the phase shifted re-emitted radiation from the polarizer material that tends to cancel one component of the incident pulse. Thus, what emerges from a polarizer is not the original pulse at all. Something is induced upon the system, again making the measurement a quantum inducement, not a measurement. So talking about whether the original pulse (“photon”) was either “absorbed” or “passed” is the wrong way to look at it.This quote taken from

www.modelofreality.org/Sect6_8.html

So in summary:

1) The Stern-Gerlach apparatus is an inducer.
2) Angular momentum will be shown to be not spacially quantized.
3) The Stern-Gerlach Killer apparatus will satisfy normal angular momentum theory.
4) This solves the "particle entanglement problem".
4) The "Photon Killer Experiments" are designed to prove that "photons" do not exist.
5) This will solve the "photon" entanglement problem.


Andrew Gray

[Doc Al]

Originally posted by andrewgray
Yes, I have proposed a reality-based explanation to all the EPR/entanglement craziness. Here are the logical steps. I will summarize and quote, so if I leave out something, my apologies.
...

Now back to A. Aspect and entanglement.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we still must talk about these “photon correlation” experiments. Even though “photons” do not exist, what does exist are two correlated electromagnetic pulses that modern physicists (incorrectly) call “photons”. But when we measure the polarization of these two pulses, are we in fact measuring anything associated with them? That is, how does a polarizer work?

To the contemporary quantum physicist, a polarizer either “absorbs the photon” or “lets it pass through”. This “absorption” or “passing” is simply given a probability. But this viewpoint is extremely naive. A polarizer works by re-emitting polarized radiation with a phase shift that tends to cancel one component of the incident wave. A polarizer does not just absorb or pass a light pulse. The pulse that emerges on the other side of the polarizer is the sum of the original radiation plus the phase shifted re-emitted radiation from the polarizer material that tends to cancel one component of the incident pulse. Thus, what emerges from a polarizer is not the original pulse at all. Something is induced upon the system, again making the measurement a quantum inducement, not a measurement. So talking about whether the original pulse (“photon”) was either “absorbed” or “passed” is the wrong way to look at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of how the polarization measurements are interpreted--- whether as a measure of something already existing, or as something induced by the polarizers---would you not agree that the results of the Aspect experiments (and others) do show correlations that agree with the predictions of QM? If so, can your model reproduce these predicted correlations in a local manner?

By "local" I mean two things: that your model satisfies "parameter" independence and "outcome" independence. By parameter independence I mean that the result of a measurement of photon A does not depend on the orientation of the polarizer at photon B; by outcome independence I mean that the result of a measurement of photon A in your model does not depend on the outcome of a measurement of photon B.

Perhaps my meaning of "local" is overly restrictive. In any case, I ask you:
1) does your model satisfy this definition of local? and
2) does your model reproduce the predicted (and observed) correlations?

I am particularly interested in the so-called "double delayed" version of these experiments in which the orientation of the polarizers are randomly chosen while the "photons" are already in flight.

[andrewgray]

would you not agree that the results of the Aspect experiments do show correlations that agree with the predictions of QM?First let me say that a non-reality based theory agreeing with experimental observables has philosophical consequences. The extreme example is the Greek's explanation for the sun's movement. Helios is the young Greek god of the sun. Each dawn Helios rises from the ocean in the East and rides his chariot pulled by four horses through the sky to descend at night in the West.(citadelofthedragons.tripod.com)This non-reality based theory agreed with all experimental observables for the sun's movement obtainable by the Greeks at the time. So in this spirit, YES! The QM predictions for the Aspect experiment agree very well with experimental observables obtainable at the present time!...measurement of photon A does not depend on the orientation of the polarizer at photon BLet me first emphasize two things:

1) A reality-based theory cannot have "photons", in my opinion.
We have eliminated "photons" from the picture.

2) In the Aspect experiment, one can only talk about correlated pulses in a system where the "measuring" devices are adding electromagnetic energy to the pulses (in my opinion).
So it would be trivial to work backwards and come up with some hypothetical polarizer material model that adds just the correct amount of radiation to agree with the Aspect results.does your model reproduce the predicted (and observed) correlations?
However, I have not done the calculation where one starts from theoretical scratch. Perhaps it would be interesting to start from scratch, assuming some kind of polarizer material model, and see what kind of results it gives. I think that I will do this. Thank you for the suggestion. I would have never thought of it.

However, one must be forewarned that there are a multitude of assumptions that need to be made to set up such a complex problem. In this case, a statistical approach, similar to QM, seems like a practical choice, and a choice that a majority of physicists have chosen. I just wish that this statistical approach wasn't taken so seriously on a deep philosophical level.

The key difference here though, is that the system is not closed, as the polarizers are inducers, not measurers. Bell's inequality requires a binary measurement of "hidden characteristics", not a binary inducement. The "hidden characteristics" of the objects are destroyed by the "measurement", and no longer exist afterward. By parameter independence I mean that the result of a measurement of photon A does not depend on the orientation of the polarizer at photon BOk. If you replace your "photon" with "{correlated EM pulse + induced radiation}", then we can talk. The answer is yes, my theory is local. The "measurement" of {pulse A + induced radiation} does not depend on the orientation of of polarizer B. And the result of the "measurement" of {pulse A + induced radiation} does not depend on the outcome of the "measurement" of {pulse B + induced radiation}.

The "double delayed" stuff then is not necessary to talk about in this context since my theory is local. All that "action at a distance stuff" goes away.


Andrew Gray

[pallidin]

O.K. this is way too bizzare. Happy space, happy space.

[andrewgray]

Andrew Gray: I finally have a reality-based theory for light.Ivan Seeking: you just lost half your readers.I guess that I am the most disappointed
that a claim to a reality-based theory
yields this comment. Using non-reality
based explanations and theories does not
satisfy my deep-rooted curiosities about
things.Andrew Gray: the emitters of light (mostly electrons) are modeled as tiny micropulsars.Ivan Seeking: whoops, there goes the other half.The necessity for the use of pulsating particles will become clear soon. For example, I have explained in other threads in this forum that the current "photon" explanation for the xray Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency does not work. The 90 degree radiation of the limiting frequency is a "light-particle" contradiction. I repeat, the QM explanation for 90-degree Bremsstrahlung xrays is self-contradictory. One is forced into the conclusion that the electrons are pulsating from this experiment. Perhaps I will have to get into the lab myself soon to prove this.
Pallidin: O.K. this is way too bizzare. Happy space, happy space. Happy space? Happy space? Is this some sort of Bob Marley tune? ("don't worry, just be happy)? Well, I hope that one day that you will be in a happy space with this new theory.



Andrew Gray
andrewgray AT avtec.austin.com

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by andrewgray
[color=green]I guess that I am the most disappointed
that a claim to a reality-based theory
yields this comment. Using non-reality
based explanations and theories does not
satisfy my deep-rooted curiosities about
things

The unavoidable implication that our current interpretation of physics is not reality based is ridiculous. This only shows a serious lack of understanding of the subject on your part.

One must be able to think inside of the box before looking outside.

[andrewgray]

Ivan,

I must politely disagree with you.
The "proof" that physical reality is "non-local" and
cannot be described by "local hidden variables"
is precisely what I am talking about. Read this paragraph,
taken from

http://www.enspirepress.com/writings_on_consciousness/quantum_consciousness/quantum_consciousness.html Although the EPR experiment was theoretically plausible the hidden-variables theory was not taken seriously until 1966, by John Stuart Bell. John Bell discovered a mathematical mistake made by mathematician John von Neumann in 1932 (known as von Neumann's silly mistake) which falsely conceded that hidden variables could not be possible. Upon discovering the mistake, Bell finally proved that hidden variables could describe quantum events if non-locality was included.16 Intrigued with impossibility proofs, Bell managed to devise one that rejects all models of reality based on locality. The proof (Bell's theorem) states that the assumption of locality must satisfy a mathematical inequality, known today as Bell's inequality. In general, "Bell's theorem says that reality must be non-local."17 For Henry Stapp quantum non-locality means that, "the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time but generates events that can be located in space-time." 18Don't you see just what things have come to?

" ...non-locality?"
" ...reject all models of reality based on locality?"
" ...the fundamental process of Nature lies outside of space-time...?"
" particle entanglement and conveying of info faster than c?"

If this is "based in reality", then we need to get into definitions and semantics.


In summary, just let me say that the big picture problem
with QM (keeping it from reality) is that our current
experimental detectors are "inducers" not "measurers".
This error in interpretation has led to philosophical
errors in the theory like wave-particle duality problems
and Bell's Theorem.

So I must say that Bell's Theorem might have some merit if
one would replace the word "measurement" in all discussions
with the word "inducement". For example, in the discussion
of Stern and Gerlach's results, one might say that

"The Stern-Gerlach apparatus induces the silver
atoms into one of two "up or down" states.
(The Stern-Gerlach Killer apparatus will not have this limitation).

One final last word. Let me apologize if it seems like I am
relentlessly attacking QM in an impolite manner. QM, in my
opinion, is a useful statistical approach to solving
complex problems in complex systems. I just think that it has
finally reached its philosophical limit and must be interpreted
as just a statistical approach, not associated with what is
actually going on at the atomic level.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gray

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay better, but your intro was a loaded statement. That was my original point.

Next, that we "induce" results when we "measure" is standard stuff. See Heisenberg.

You use a hynotherapy site as a physics reference?

Don't you see a problem with that?

[yanniru]

I apologize for inserting a string model of epr into your discussion, but a presentation of it on the string subforum did not get a response. One of you might care to respond.

In string theory it takes extra dimensions to create a particle-pair at a point as in the EPR experiments. These extra dimensions are compactified according to string theorists.

So as the particle pair separate and fly off in opposte directions, I hypothesize that they may continue to be connected by a thread containing the compactified dimensions, and as such, they continue to act as one particle until one or the other is disturbed.

So my question is: It is at all possible that the EPR experiments verify the higher dimensionality of space inherent in string theory?

Thanks

[Nereid]

Mr Gray,

A quick skim of your posts and the links therein and I see that you claim that your new idea matches the results from a number of classic physics experiments as well as the 'textbook' explanations. These include:
- photon double slit (photon wavelengths not specified)
- Stern-Gerlach experiment
- Compton scattering
- Bremsstrahlung radiation.

However, one thing I wasn't clear about from my reading, and wonder if you'd be so kind as to clarify - for which experiments involving photons does your idea predict an 'answer' that is different from that predicted by QM, SR, GR, etc? Where your idea does predict something different, please state the difference simply. For example, if you think the observed gravitationally induced deflection of a photon's path is frequency-dependent, "the apparent angular displacement of a distant object, at an apparent radial distance from the centre of the Sun, is x arcsecs at a frequency of y Hz, and z arcsecs at z Hz, per this equation: {equation}"

Nereid

[8LPF16]

While I agree that there are problems in the current interpretation of the double slit experiment, in your model, the light reflecting off of a 10nm crystaline form would produce a definate pattern, and sequence. In the classic test, the white dots appear randomly.


LPF

[andrewgray]

First, to Ivan:

Yes, Heisenburg, et al., all talk about inducements in measurements, and others talk about the "collapse of the wave function" during a measurement. OK.

Where I draw the line is when J.S. Bell takes experimentally induced results and writes a theorem claiming that the non-induced physics cannot exist or be explained. I can't go there with him.

The site quoted from seemed to have the best and most concise summary of Bell's ideas, and seemed correct as best as I could tell. If an apology seems necessary, my apologies.


Next to Yanniru:

Yanniru, I am so glad you brought up string theory and its extra dimensions here. In my opinion, string theory is the pinnacle of non-reality based physics, and stands for everything that I seek to eliminate in physics. Yanniru, my apologies for such a strong personal opinion. But non-reality based explanations just don't do anything for me. Don't you see what it's come to? Do you really believe that "the fundamental process of Nature lies outside of space-time" in "extra dimensions"? Seems like a last-ditched and desperate attempt to force a theory on experimental data that says the current theory is wrong.

In analogous words, we have reached a point in our theorem where we have shown that 4=5. Therefore, we need to just start over. But we are just continuing to try to prove that 4=5, and we will use extra dimensions to do so if necessary.

To directly answer your question about EPR and entanglement:

It is at all possible that the EPR experiments verify the higher dimensionality of space inherent in string theory?

I do not believe this. In my opinion, the Stern Gerlach Killer apparatus will solve particle entanglement in a sane way, and correlated EM pulses will prove not be be particles.


Next to Nereid:

Where does Model of Reality predict something different for "photons"? OK. All of this can be found at Model of Reality's "Photon Killer Experiments" starting at:

www.modelofreality.org/Sect9_1.html

In summary:

1) The Bremsstahlung Killer Experiment will show that the electrons must have been pulsating, and will contradict the "photon" relation, Emax = hv. This in contrast to QM's "photon" hypothesis where the limiting frequency is even emitted at 90 degrees to the beam path (a contradiction for "particle" conservation of momentum).

2) The Compton Killer Experiment will show that the Compton shift in wavelength is simply due to a Doppler shift as the ejected electrons rebroadcast the xrays while receding from the observer. This experiment will also show that the electron velocity distributions will agree with the doppler explanation, and not Compton's.

3) The Photoelectric Killer Experiment will show that Einstein's "photon" relationship fails after the forward non-acceleration resonance frequencies for 1/n=1 have been surpassed. This will be, not surprisingly, in frequencies just above where most presented photoelectric data stops (in other words, the experimenters did not present data on up into the UV, as it probably started to disagree with Einstein's relationship. This would then be a good example of quantum confirmation bias, if this is true).

4) Finally, the Blackbody Killer Experiment will show that blackbody radiation simply originates from agitated electron frequencies that actually exist in the "black" coating. That is, if one puts in a coating that has ultraviolet resonant frequencies, then there indeed will be ultraviolet radiation in the cavity, contradicting the so-called "ultra-violet catastrophe" found in the quantum literature. See also: “Material Emits More Than Planck Predicts”, EDN Magazine, August 7, 2003, p. 26.

5) The Stern Gerlach Killer aparatus will show that magnetic moments actually have a continuous spectrum, as opposed to QM's binary "up" or "down" induced states. If this experiment is confirmed, then "quantized angular momentum" is in trouble.

6) See below for the "Double Slit Experiment".

Nereid, I do not believe that I mention frequency dependency for gravitational bending in my book, but I am with Einstein on this one. In my opinion, the only way the deflection could be frequency dependent is if plasmas surrounding the gravitational bodies somehow got involved.


Next, to LPF:

In response to your statement:

...the double slit experiment, in your model, the light reflecting off of a 10nm crystaline form would produce a definate pattern, and sequence. In the classic test, the white dots appear randomly.

LPF, read this analogy found in my book:

www.modelofreality.org/Sect5_6.htmlSuppose a sea wall is constructed just off shore on a beach in the Carribean Sea. Two openings in the wall allow the waves to pass through and interfere as they head towards the beach. The wind is steady at 15 kilometers per hour. This gives an average wave height of 1 meter. In the vicinity of the maxima in the interfering waves, the wave height is approximately 2 meters. Inside the seawall, an array of small metal pipes is driven into the sand, approximately .2 meters apart. The pipes have holes drilled into them so that water can enter. A ping pong ball is put inside each pipe. The water inside the pipes makes the ping pong balls rise and fall with the waves. At the top of the pipes, at a height of 3 meters, small battery powered buzzers are mounted. Whenever a ping pong ball gets up to 3 meters, the buzzer goes off. The weatherman has called for the winds to be increasing. But at this time, no buzzers are going off. The wave height is below the threshold height required for a buzz. The waves do get higher until they are just under 3 meters, on the average. Eventually, near the maxima of the interfering water waves, some of the buzzers in the pipes start to go off. And not all at once. An observer on the shore maps the buzzes. A few more buzzes appear near the maxima. Just a few here and there, analogous to figure 5.25A. The slow accumulation of buzzes continues for a few hours. A diffraction pattern is just starting to appear on the buzzer chart, analogous to figure 5.25B. And there have been no buzzes in the minima areas. After waiting the whole afternoon, the buzzers have gone off slowly and steadily. A buzzer pattern analogous to figure 5.25C appears. After an even longer long time, a “continuous” buzzer pattern is charted, just like figure 5.25D. But the interference pattern was built up just one buzz at a time. And the incident water wave is essentially continuous. It is the detectors (the pipes with buzzers, spaced .2 meters apart), that are quantized! There are no “water wavons” that are colliding with the pipes. The incident wave is continuous, but as it nears the threshold wave height, the buzzers start to go off. If the observer could not see the water interfere, but could only hear the buzzers, he might conclude that “water wavons” exist. Suppose that the only way that one could detect water waves is with discrete buzzers. One might falsely conclude that water waves were quantized into packets of “water wavons”!In this anaolgy, the ocean water is a wave. The ocean waves are "fairly uniform", but obviously not all exactly the same. As the ocean waves near the threshold height, discreet buzzers start to go off, and in a random fashion. Analogously, light is a wave. Light waves that strike a double slit apparatus are "fairly uniform", but obviously not all the exactly the same. As the intensity of the light waves nears the threshold for making spots on the film, the film starts to produce random spots, just like the analogy for water waves.

The big picture here is this: If a wave strikes a detector that is quantized, then at the threshold level, the quantized detector will start producing random spots, fooling some scientists into thinking that the wave is made up of "particles". Don't you see that the "randomness" comes not from "light particles", but from the incident waves being non-uniform and causing random over-the-threshold events in the quantized detectors?


Andrew Gray

[Nereid]

andrewgray wrote:Next to Nereid:
Where does Model of Reality predict something different for "photons"? OK. All of this can be found at Model of Reality's "Photon Killer Experiments" starting at:

www.modelofreality.org/Sect9_1.html

In summary:

1) The Bremsstahlung Killer Experiment will show that the electrons must have been pulsating, and will contradict the "photon" relation, Emax = hv. This in contrast to QM's "photon" hypothesis where the limiting frequency is even emitted at 90 degrees to the beam path (a contradiction for "particle" conservation of momentum).

2) The Compton Killer Experiment will show that the Compton shift in wavelength is simply due to a Doppler shift as the ejected electrons rebroadcast the xrays while receding from the observer. This experiment will also show that the electron velocity distributions will agree with the doppler explanation, and not Compton's.

3) The Photoelectric Killer Experiment will show that Einstein's "photon" relationship fails after the forward non-acceleration resonance frequencies for 1/n=1 have been surpassed. This will be, not surprisingly, in frequencies just above where most presented photoelectric data stops (in other words, the experimenters did not present data on up into the UV, as it probably started to disagree with Einstein's relationship. This would then be a good example of quantum confirmation bias, if this is true).

4) Finally, the Blackbody Killer Experiment will show that blackbody radiation simply originates from agitated electron frequencies that actually exist in the "black" coating. That is, if one puts in a coating that has ultraviolet resonant frequencies, then there indeed will be ultraviolet radiation in the cavity, contradicting the so-called "ultra-violet catastrophe" found in the quantum literature. See also: “Material Emits More Than Planck Predicts”, EDN Magazine, August 7, 2003, p. 26.

5) The Stern Gerlach Killer aparatus will show that magnetic moments actually have a continuous spectrum, as opposed to QM's binary "up" or "down" induced states. If this experiment is confirmed, then "quantized angular momentum" is in trouble.

6) See below for the "Double Slit Experiment". Thanks.

Just so I'm perfectly clear:
- it's only these six experiments where your idea and 'textbook physics' would differ; not any other experiments?

- in all these six cases, a diligent researcher could, in principle, perform the experiments (again), and clearly determine from the results that
a) 'textbook physics' CANNOT match the observations, and
b) your idea CAN? (this last one is actually 12 questions)

- to be boringly repetitive (please bear with me, I'm in the slow class), the differences can be seen IN THE DATA from the experiments, not interpretations of the data? (again 6 questions)

[Doc Al]

Originally posted by andrewgray
...
Where I draw the line is when J.S. Bell takes experimentally induced results and writes a theorem claiming that the non-induced physics cannot exist or be explained. I can't go there with him.


Any progress in using your local model to reproduce the correlations that are observed in the double delayed choice (EPR) experiments?

[andrewgray]

First to Nereid:

"Just so I'm perfectly clear:
- it's only these six experiments where your idea and 'textbook physics' would differ; not any other experiments?"

Presently, there are 9 proposed Quantum Killer Experiments.

"- in all these six [nine] cases, a diligent researcher could, in principle, perform the experiments (again), and clearly determine from the results that
a) 'textbook physics' CANNOT match the observations, and
b) your idea CAN? (this last one is actually 12 questions)

- to be boringly repetitive (please bear with me, I'm in the slow class), the differences can be seen IN THE DATA from the experiments, not interpretations of the data?" "

Yes! These experiments predict something EXPERIMENTALLY different than QM in THE DATA! Yes.

Super Brief Summary:

1) Stern-Gerlach Killer Experiment.
Continuous deflection spectrum, not binary "up" or "down".

2) Bremsstrahlung Killer Experiment.
Changes cutoff frequency to different value with the same electron beam energy.

3) Compton Killer Experiment.
Disproves Compton's formula using polarized xrays and electron velocity distribution.

4) Photoelectric Killer Experiment.
Shows Einstein's photoelectric equation incorrect as UV frequencies approached. New formula given.

5) Blackbody Killer Experiment.
Shows that the frequencies found in a blackbody only depend on the natural frequencies found in the black coating. Put a coating with UV frequencies in it, and guess what, there will be UV in the heated cavity. (Shows ultraviolet catastrophe is fictional).

6) Lyman Absorption Killer.
Shows that the Schrodinger "ionization frequency" is fictional.

7) Lyman Odd Harmonics Experiment.
Looks for odd harmonic absorption of primary emission frequencies, contradicting "energy level" theory.

8) Matter Wave Killer Experiment.
Proves that electron interference is from pulsating electron particles establishing prefered paths to the screen.

9) Neutrino Killer Experiment.
Double blind neutrino experiment involving over 100 miles of solid rock and technicians who do not know when source "is turned off".

Let me repeat. These differences are in the data, NOT the interpretation.

My theory's insight was used to devise these experiments, so of course it predicts the different results!


Next to Doc Al:

"Any progress in using your local model to reproduce the correlations that are observed in the double delayed choice (EPR) experiments?"

The reality-based Aspect work is still churning around in my head. I will share with you some of my initial thoughts (No guarantees that they are correct yet).

1) The first step is to approximate a coherent atomic emission pulse. Model of Reality predicts that this will typically be a mixture of linearly and circularly polarized light, depending on the angle from the azimuth. A statistical mixture is probably necessary. The intensities and durations are another consideration, and will also have to be statistically handled.

2) The pulse hits the polarizers. For the linearly polarized light, the polarizer emits phase shifted radiation that tends to cancel only one component of the light. Obviously, it then cannot cancel ALL of that component. A percentage efficiency must be assumed. Also, as the linear polarization of the pulse nears the polarizer's cancel angle, the intensity of the transmitted pulse approaches zero. This means that the detector will experience "marginal pulses". Unfortunately, this means that detector performance must then be taken into account.
. . .For the circularly polarized (and other types from the mixture), the polarizer "feels" an EM field that it can cancel only intermittantly. Thus, it intermittantly emits phase shifted radiation that tends to cancel the pulse only while it is "along the polarizer". Perhaps this allows a "choppy" semi-circularly polarized pulse through, or perhaps the phase shift is enough so that the pulse is elliptically polarized or something. This requires some mathematical analysis.

3) The detector has all kinds of EM pulses hitting it, along with pulses that have marginal intensity (if they were linearly polarized nearly against the polarizer). The particular detector will have to be studied and statistically modeled some way.

Doc Al, do you have any additional preliminary input?


Andrew Gray

[Nereid]

So that's nine experiments. What about the double slit experiment? In an earlier post you seem to be saying that the 'textbook' photon experiment is also wrong; in your most recent post you refer only to matter waves.3) Compton Killer Experiment. Disproves Compton's formula using polarized xrays and electron velocity distribution. What formula do you predict?5) Blackbody Killer Experiment. Shows that the frequencies found in a blackbody only depend on the natural frequencies found in the black coating. Put a coating with UV frequencies in it, and guess what, there will be UV in the heated cavity. (Shows ultraviolet catastrophe is fictional). What is the temperature-wavelength (or frequency) relationship, according to your idea, esp in the UV and above?6) Lyman Absorption Killer. Shows that the Schrodinger "ionization frequency" is fictional. What will observations show?7) Lyman Odd Harmonics Experiment. Looks for odd harmonic absorption of primary emission frequencies, contradicting "energy level" theory. What 'odd harmonic absorption' frequencies should be found?8) Matter Wave Killer Experiment. Proves that electron interference is from pulsating electron particles establishing prefered paths to the screen. What patterns do you predict will be seen on the screen?

[russ_watters]

Does your theory account for the fact that a photon can be made to interfere with itself?

[simon]

You are on a salt flat, away from the city lights, no moon and it is cloudy. It is pitch black, you cant see a thing. It is a salt flat so there is nothing for miles. You shine a torch a hundred meters in front of you onto the ground. If the light is travelling away from you at 300 kps and there is nothing to bounce off, then how can you see the light? Do the same with a laser, 500 metres, how can you see the point where the laser hits the ground, when it is travelling away from your eyes, and in a focused beam?

[8LPF16]

Russ,

What experiments have been done to show photon interference/interaction?


LPF

[Nereid]

Originally posted by 8LPF16
What experiments have been done to show photon interference/interaction? Double slit, among others. Interference is the principle behind Fabry-Perot filters (for example). The colours in a soap film are caused by interference.

[andrewgray]

First to Nereid:

What about the double slit experiment?

Well, Nereid, Model of Reality predicts that
the low intensity double slit experiment results
come from near-threshold wave events
striking a quantized detector. I do not know of
a way yet to prove this by experiment,
so it is not included in the QK Experiments.
This experiment indeed comes close to current
experimental measuring limits. How can one
measure near-threshold EM waves any better than
with film crystals?

Also, I am not saying the double slit experiment is
wrong, I'm just saying that the "photon" interpretation
is wrong.

However, I believe it is possible to prove that
electrons act as pulsating particles in electron
interference. For this reason, there is indeed
a Matter Wave Killer Experiment.

What formula do you predict... for Compton's experiment?

Model of Reality predicts that most of the electrons
will be ejected in the forward direction, and that there will not
be a close to 1-to-1 correspondence between "emitted photons" and
electron final velocity. That is, Compton's formula predicts many
more electrons ejected to the sides so that "elastic collisions"
took place which sent xray "photons off to the sides also". If
indeed most of the electrons are ejected in the forward direction,
this will all but prove Model of Reality's Doppler explanation,
which agrees extremely well with Compton's experimental data.
Also, with horizontally polarized xrays, Model of Reality predicts
that few xrays will appear at 90 degrees (and some electrons at
-44 degrees), further supporting the wave interpretation while
again contradicting Compton's "photon" interpretation.

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect9_2.html
www.ModelofReality.org/Sect5_2.html



What is the [blackbody] temperature-frequency relationship,
according to your idea, esp in the UV and above?

The temperature-frequency relationship will simply be centered
around the resonant frequencies of the coating. That is, if you
put a coating in the cavity that is "black" in the UV, then you will
get a typical blackbody curve, but centered on some value in the UV.
To me it is silly to claim an "ultraviolet catastrophe" with a black
coating that is probably not "black" in the UV. It is well known that
visible black is UV white, and vice versa. That is, dark-skinned
Africans reflect UV light, while light-skinned Europeans absorb UV.

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect9_4.html
www.ModelofReality.org/Sect6_9.html


What will Lyman absorption observations show?

The experiment will show that the {1,infinity} line is not a special
"ionization" frequency, as Schrodinger/Bohr predict. That is,
the {1,infinity} frequency may not increase current flow in
hydrogen gas. And if it does, then so will the other Lyman
resonant frequencies, contradicting Schrodinger/Bohr.

The Lyman absorption frequencies and wavelengths are listed below in table 10.1, along with their corresponding 3x frequencies and 1/3 wavelengths. Our theory predicts that these 3x frequencies may also be absorbed by the hydrogen atom. If no direct absorption is observed, we at least expect that these harmonic frequencies will cause stimulated emission of the primary frequencies. Also we note that for the Schrodinger energy level theory, since no absorption into the “energy continuum” is ever observed, these odd harmonics and stimulated emission cannot be accounted for by transitions into the “energy continuum”.

Lyman . . Wavelgth . . Frequency . . 1/3 w.l. . . 3x Frequ.
(1,2) . . 1215 A . . 2.47x1015 Hz . . 405 A . . 7.41x1015 Hz
(1,3) . . 1025 A . . 2.94x1015 Hz . . 342 A . . 8.82x1015 Hz
(1,4) . . .971 A . . 3.08x1015 Hz . . 324 A . . 9.24x1015 Hz

What patterns do you predict will be seen on the screen [for the
Matter Wave Killer Experiment]?

Model of Reality predicts that in the "double slit"
electron interference experiment (in an electron microscope)
that if the bending voltage is increased enough, then the two
beam spots will cross and separate. But there will still be
interference in the outer areas of the screen. This will prove
that the beams must have established preferred paths to the screen
while in flight, since there will be no overlapping areas
on the screen. See

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect11_1.html
www.ModelofReality.org/Sect5_7.html


for illustration.



Next to Russ_Waters:

Does your theory account for the fact that a photon can be
made to interfere with itself?

Again, what you are refering to is the low-intensity
double slit experiment.

And again, let me say that in my opinion, no reality-based
theory can include "photons". Read

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect5_6.html

The most important concept learned here isFor example, a 200 ISO film requires a “minimum blackening” illumination of .004 lux-sec, or just 0.27 millijoule/cm2. So our faint exposure of .05 millijoule/cm2 is just 20% of “minimum blackening”. Now a visible “photon”, if it existed, would have an energy of about 5x10-19 joules. So assuming that one grain of silver bromide crystal in the film has an effective area of about (10)2 nm2 , then this extremely faint exposure for this film would correspond to about 100 “photons” per grain. With this in mind, it seems naive (and almost ridiculous) to assume that one “spot” seen on a plate of film corresponds to one “photon”. It is believed that a silver ion in the silver bromide lattice becomes photo-activated when a photo-electron is knocked from a bromide ion and migrates to a silver ion to form silver metal. It is also known that a silver bromide crystal must have crystal defects, or it is not photo-sensitive at all (see for example, The Holographic Marketplace, 6th edition, chapter 6). This probably means that it is only the silver ions near crystal defects that become photo-activated. One must realize that it takes a large number of photo-electrons in the silver bromide lattice, perhaps some of them activating the special silver ions near defects, to allow the development process to leave a spot on the negative. Therefore, one must conclude that film is inherently discrete. That is, a continuous wave that is incident on film through a double slit apparatus would give the results seen in figure 5.25, if its intensity were near the threshold for producing visible spots on the film after the development process.So the big picture is that wave-particle duality is not real,
only a theoretical construct. Also, a "photon particle"
interfering with itself "as it goes through a slit" and
as it "knows of the other path" is just plain silly.


Next to Simon:

If the light is travelling away from you at 300 kps and there is nothing to bounce off, then how can you see the light? Do the same with a laser, 500 metres, how can you see the point where the laser hits the ground, when it is travelling away from your eyes, and in a focused beam?

Simon, I think you are missing the little detail that there is
air in our atmoshphere which will reflect a tiny bit of the
light. Perhaps if the experiment was done in the vacuum
of space, one could NOT see the light.


Andrew Gray

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by andrewgray
Also, a "photon particle" interfering with itself "as it goes through a slit" and as it "knows of the other path" is just plain silly. Call it silly if you want (I just call it bizarre), it is observed to happen. It is reality. Next to Russ_Waters:

Does your theory account for the fact that a photon can be
made to interfere with itself?

Again, what you are refering to is the low-intensity
double slit experiment.

And again, let me say that in my opinion, no reality-based
theory can include "photons". Double-slit among others: you can also use a beam splitter to cause a single photon to interfere with itself.

What you seem to be saying is that your model cannot account for the results of such experiments and instead of accepting that your model doesn't work, you are still saying that a model that does adequately account for the behavior of light is wrong because you are uncomfortable with its implications even though they have been directly observed to be correct. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

It also seems that in calling photons not "reality-based", you're saying you're uncomfortable with the implications of the theory. Well, it does often defy conventional logic and you're not alone in being uncomfortable with it, but that is not a reason to say its not reality based - thus far it has adequately explained every experiment ever performed on it. Uncomfortable to imagine or not, light does behave the way our current theories predict.

[andrewgray]

Double-slit among others: you can also use a beam splitter to cause a single photon to interfere with itself.Russ, I must politely disagree with you.

First of all, it is impossible to verify that 1 "photon" alone is involved in anything. Just how do you think that this is verified? By one spot on a piece of film? By one blip in a detector or on an oscilloscope? How do you know that 3 "photons" were not involved, but "2 of them canceled out" because they were out of phase? Big picture: if you verify that 1 "photon" was involved, then you have destroyed the "photon" and it did not participate in the experiment.What you seem to be saying is that your model cannot account for the results of such experiments and instead of accepting that your model doesn't work...I am saying that not only does my model account for experiment, I have thrown down the gauntlet (so to speak) and have proposed experiments to prove it.
...thus far it has adequately explained every experiment ever performed on it. 1) Russ, what about max-frequency xray Bremsstrahlung radiation at 90o to the electron beam? How do you conserve momentum in this "particle description"? All the energy is assigned to the 90o xray "photon". What about the momentum?

2) What about the fact that ALL the "photon" energy in the photoelectric effect can supposedly be transfered to the electron, but it was an absorption (inelastic). An absorption is an inelastic particle collision. Inelastic particle collisions do not conserve kinetic energy by the very definition of inelastic collision for particles. Look it up yourself. This is a blatant self-inconsistancy.

3) What about the fact that Compton used elastic collisions to describe his theory, and Einstein used inelastic absorption in his theory. Do "photons" have elastic or inelastic collisions with electrons?

4) And what about the fact that there exists a Lorentz frame to view Compton's experiment so that the bombarding light is visible. Will this Lorentz observer see inelastic (different) Compton absorption since his radiation is visible?

5) Also, there is a Lorentz frame that one can view the photoelectric light energy as xrays. Will this observer see elastic (different) photo-emission?

6) What about the fact that Planck incorporated Rayleigh/Jeans mathematical counting of the "number of standing waves in a blackbody cavity" into his theory? Standing waves imply reflections. Reflections in a blackbody is a self-contradiction, since "black" by definition means "no reflection".

Andrew Gray

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

It is very interesting, andrewgray , but I disagree with the tearing away of concept "photon".
Should notice, that a photon, certainly, it is a wave.
But.
Depending on frequency of this wave it appears as well as a particle, as gravity force, as a magnetic wave, as a magnetic dipole, as a charge, as the strong force.... as any object of our universe representing a complex combination of photons. The photon it is a many-face Janis, actually. Except for all listed properties, the photon has the singular point, which provides with energy its eternal movement.
Certainly, double-slit experiment proves the fact of interference of waves only.
90o xray "photon" is an attribute of occurrence of the properties of particle.
At higher frequencies this angle will increase (G-ray) and on frequency of hydrogen will reach 180 degrees. It means a closing of a wave in the complex form such as a ring and a Moebius's loop.

Michael.

[8LPF16]

Michael and Andrew,

You both have interesting theories. I copied a question from another thread to see if I might get your input?

I would like to get opposing views on these questions:

1. What is the energy, frequency, or wavlength of a photon. (a photon that is currently in the "white light" phase of possibilities)

2. Would the mass of a "white light" photon be less than that of a "red light" photon? (or is it correct to assume that mass increases in photons as the wavelength increases from 386nm to 772nm)


LPF

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is very interesting, [B]andrewgray , but I disagree with the tearing away of concept "photon".
Should notice, that a photon, certainly, it is a wave.
But.
Depending on frequency of this wave it appears as well as a particle, as gravity force, as a magnetic wave, as a magnetic dipole, as a charge, as the strong force.... as any object of our universe representing a complex combination of photons. The photon it is a many-face Janis, actually. Except for all listed properties, the photon has the singular point, which provides with energy its eternal movement.

Are you saying that all energy is some form of -- or unit of -- "light" that vibrates somewhere along the em spectrum ...even BEYOND that which we can't "see" with our organic sensors but can detect via special instrumentation ...on through the inevitable portions of the em spectrum we haven't as yet detected, let alone measured or named?

Also, if string theory is accurate (or, more pointedly, if my tenuous understanding of string theory is accurate) ... that at the heart of every particle is energy BEHAVING MATHEMATICALLY like strings -- and if even the quanta of the supposed force particles (like the elusive "graviton") are ALSO, at their "core", a packet of energy that's vibrating LIKE a string -- might the "strings" themselves then be a "form" of "photon" ...that is, energy vibrating at a frequency along the em spectrum that we cannot as yet -- if EVER -- detect?

Please feel free to correct any error in understanding or logic that I may have committed.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by 8LPF16
Michael and Andrew,

You both have interesting theories. I copied a question from another thread to see if I might get your input?

I would like to get opposing views on these questions:

1. What is the energy, frequency, or wavlength of a photon. (a photon that is currently in the "white light" phase of possibilities)

2. Would the mass of a "white light" photon be less than that of a "red light" photon? (or is it correct to assume that mass increases in photons as the wavelength increases from 386nm to 772nm)


LPF
8LPF16,
I’ll try to answer your questions .
For your 1.
Let's consider well-known relations:
E=mc^2 (1)
and
E=h \nu\ (2)

whence mc^2=h \nu\
or
m=k\nu\ (3)
here k= h/c^2
m – the rest mass.
Further accepting
\nu\ = f_w – f_p

where
f_w - frequency of object’s wave ( the set of photons or stretched single photon)
f_p - frequency of light photon in the middle of Red , Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue and Violet range i.e. on the border between Y and G.
we get the resulting relation :
m= k(f_w - f_p ) (4)

Let's compare the relations (3) and (4).
The relation (3) grows from the accepted relations (1) and (2), but thus CONTRADICTS theories and observations which assert that light has no the rest mass. However from (3) follows, that light has the rest mass. The theory of relativity just tries to remove this contradiction via introduction of relativistic mass.
This contradiction is absent in the relation (4) which assumes displacement of a zero point of the gravity force and magnetic force at a range of frequency of visible light.
for f_w > f_p
we have positive value of the rest mass. It is close to zero for a visible light.
for f_w < f_p
we have negative (mirror) value of the rest mass.
It is the CHARGE inside particle and MAGNET FORCE outside one. Madnet force is close to zero for a visible light too.

For your 2.
A frequency of white light is a mix of frequencies of primary colors and this fact was proved by experience with a prism. Though all range of visible light is near to a zero point of the general scale of magnetic and gravity properties of objects, the distinction between properties of light at various value of frequencies is observable and can be predicted. R, O and Y light are located in a magnetic part of a scale. It means, that they are subject to action of a magnetic field (R in the greater degree) and are not subject to action of gravity. G, B and V light are located in a gravity part of a scale. It means, that they are subject to action of a gravity field (V in the greater degree) and are not subject to action of a magnetic field.


Michael.

[Nereid]

Nereid asked: What is the [blackbody] temperature-frequency relationship, according to your idea, esp in the UV and above?
andrewgray replied: The temperature-frequency relationship will simply be centered
around the resonant frequencies of the coating. That is, if you
put a coating in the cavity that is "black" in the UV, then you will
get a typical blackbody curve, but centered on some value in the UV.
To me it is silly to claim an "ultraviolet catastrophe" with a black
coating that is probably not "black" in the UV. It is well known that
visible black is UV white, and vice versa. That is, dark-skinned
Africans reflect UV light, while light-skinned Europeans absorb UV. So what is the 'resonant frequency' of the 'coating' that gives rise to the cosmic background radiation (a.k.a. cosmic microwave background)?

How do you account for the observed spectral distribution of EM from A, B and O stars? Wolf-Rayet stars? Neutron stars (e.g. Geminga)?

Re the nine experiments: which of these have you yourself done? What were the results?

[andrewgray]

First to Michael:

It is very interesting, andrewgray , but I disagree
with the tearing away of concept "photon".
Should notice, that a photon, certainly,
it is a wave. But. Depending on frequency of
this wave it appears as well as a particle,
as gravity force, as a magnetic wave, as a
magnetic dipole, as a charge, as the strong force....
as any object of our universe representing a complex
combination of photons.

Michael, the wave/particle nature of light has now
been debated for about a century, so it is no surprise that
we have disagreement. All I am saying is that my proposed
Photon Killer Experiments will shed some light
(sorry about the pun) on whether there are "photons" or not.


90o xray "photon" is an attribute of occurrence
of the properties of particle.

Michael, apparently you did not understand what I was
saying about the 90o xray photon. What I was saying
was that the particle explanation for the 90o "photon"
is self-contradictory (cannot conserve momentum),
and therefore the xray "photon" particle is fiction.



Next to LPF:

1. What is the energy, frequency, or wavelength
of a photon? (a photon that is currently in the
"white light" phase of possibilities)
2. Would the mass of a "white light" photon
be less than that of a "red light" photon?
(or is it correct to assume that mass increases
in photons as the wavelength increases from
386nm to 772nm)


1) I guess you might have missed out on the previous
discussion that revealed that no reality-based theory
can include photons. There are too many paradoxes. So,
we have eliminated photons from this reality-based
Model of Reality . All particle-like behaviors
have simple alternative explanations. Like the
Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency. This is due to
a Nyquist cutoff frequency for the pulsating electron,
not due to the conversion of energy to light quanta.

2) Also, you may be a little confused about white light.
White light is a mixture of all the colors of the
spectrum. So even in the current (incorrect) quantum
theory, one would not talk about white "photons".
In our Model of Reality, white light is simply a wave
mixture of all the visible frequencies.




Next to M. Gaspar:

Are you saying that all energy is some form of
-- or unit of -- "light" that vibrates somewhere
along the em spectrum ...even BEYOND that which
we can't "see" with our organic sensors but can
detect via special instrumentation ...
on through the inevitable portions of the em spectrum
we haven't as yet detected, let alone measured or named?

No. I am saying that light is an
electromagnetic wave that has vibrating
electric and magnetic fields in the visible frequencies.
Remember, this is a Model of Reality. This
is a reality-based theory. We are staying in the
real world.


Also, if string theory is accurate
(or, more pointedly, if my tenuous
understanding of string theory is accurate) ...
that at the heart of every particle is energy
BEHAVING MATHEMATICALLY like strings --
and if even the quanta of the supposed
force particles (like the elusive "graviton")
are ALSO, at their "core", a packet of energy
that's vibrating LIKE a string -- might the
"strings" themselves then be a "form" of "photon" ...
that is, energy vibrating at a frequency
along the em spectrum that we cannot as yet --
if EVER -- detect?


Perhaps you also missed the previous discussion
in this thread about strings. Here is a summary
that should answer your question:

...I am so glad you brought up string theory and its extra dimensions here. In my opinion, string theory is the pinnacle of non-reality based physics, and stands for everything that I seek to eliminate in physics. Yanniru, my apologies for such a strong personal opinion. But non-reality based explanations just don't do anything for me. Don't you see what it's come to? Do you really believe that "the fundamental process of Nature lies outside of space-time" in "extra dimensions"? Seems like a last-ditched and desperate attempt to force a theory on experimental data that says the current theory is wrong.

In analogous words, we have reached a point in our theorem where we have shown that 4=5. Therefore, we need to just start over. But we are just continuing to try to prove that 4=5, and we will use extra dimensions to do so if necessary.



Next to Nereid:

So what is the 'resonant frequency' of the 'coating'
that gives rise to the cosmic background radiation
(a.k.a. cosmic microwave background)?

I would say that the microwave radiation coming to us
from the universe has nothing to do with a "blackbody".
I question using Planck's empirical blackbody relation
to relate its intensity to "temperature".

How do you account for the observed spectral
distribution of EM from A, B and O stars?
Wolf-Rayet stars? Neutron stars (e.g. Geminga)?


I must plead un-informed about such EM distributions.
I will look into it and I will give you a best-effort
"Model of Reality" opinion. Do you have any handy
references?

Re the nine experiments: which of these have
you yourself done? What were the results?

I promised to wait at least two years before I
would get back into the lab to do these experiments
myself (I am confident that truth seekers will do
these experiments). The reason for this is that the
Quantum Killer Experiments will carry less credibility
if I do them myself ("Quantum Killer Bias").


Andrew Gray

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Michael, the wave/particle nature of light has now
been debated for about a century, so it is no surprise that
we have disagreement. All I am saying is that my proposed
Photon Killer Experiments will shed some light
(sorry about the pun) on whether there are "photons" or not.
andrewgray,
I have only one question:
what the particles are “made” of?

[GRQC]

Michael, the wave/particle nature of light has now
been debated for about a century...


The wave-particle duality has been debated since the 1600s at least. Newton advanced the corpuscular theory, while Huygens proposed a wave theory (a la Huygens Principle). The particle theory dates back even further (to the time of the ancient Greeks).

[Nereid]

andrewgray: I would say that the microwave radiation coming to us from the universe has nothing to do with a "blackbody". I question using Planck's empirical blackbody relation to relate its intensity to "temperature".What gives rise to the observed spectrum of the CMB then?andrewgray: I must plead un-informed about such EM distributions. I will look into it and I will give you a best-effort "Model of Reality" opinion. Do you have any handy references?Will get you some. For now, in one sentence, the spectra of stars are accounted for, in textbook astrophysics, by blackbodies (the photosphere of the star) with absorption lines (and bands) due to a layer of plasma above the photosphere (the chromosphere). The observed luminosities (total energy across the whole spectrum) agrees well with the observed radii + blackbody temperature. The observed luminosities are also consistent with models of stars as gravitationally bound spheres of gas (with specified compositions) in hydrostatic equilibrium where energy liberated by nuclear reactions occuring inside the star is transported to the photosphere by convection, radiation (the good ol' blackbody again), or both (different layers).

[Sariaht]

Light is;

Two influence charges coming so close to eachother, rotating so quickly and attracting eachother with a such a strength that they create a wave among the etherparticles
(the +poseons and the -negeons).

Anyone got a better idea?

[andrewgray]

OK Nereid,

I am on my way to get an introductory astrophysics book.
But let me just say one thing about "blackbody radiation".
Take a collector of oscillators. Any oscillator collection.
Now bang it around or heat it up. Guess what? The oscillator
frequencies tend to appear in the disturbances around them.

So: if you heat up a collection of atomic matter, then you
will see atomic frequencies present in the radiation emitted.
And the hotter you heat it, the deeper into the atoms the
disturbance, and hence the higher the frequencies present,
since deeper electrons orbit at higher frequencies.

The source for the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation"?
Like I said, I'm off for the astrophysics book before the
universe repels itself apart with negative energy.
(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Please forgive).


To GRQC:

Yes, you are correct. The wave/particle debate has been going on
for hundreds of years. It is only wave/particle duality
that is relatively more recent.


Next to Sariaht:Light is;

Two influence charges coming so close to eachother, rotating so quickly and attracting eachother with a such a strength that they create a wave among the etherparticles
(the +poseons and the -negeons).

Anyone got a better idea?Sariah, yes I have a better idea. An idea based on reality. Light is simply oscillating electric and magnetic fields. This used to be its default definition. I want to bring this back. We got sidetracked by a few "particle-like" behaviors for light. Model of Reality has taken care of these sidetracks and brought us back to a more sensible approach (in my opinion) to electromagnetic radiation (light).
Sariah, thanks for reading and participating in this thread.

Andrew Gray

[Sariaht]

And the oscillation is caused by that Heisenberg relations made the influenceparticles between the charges rotate when they formed waves in the ether.

Anyway, that's what I think.

[andrewgray]

. . . particles between the charges rotate when they formed waves in the ether.Sarah,

You must know that the Michelson-Morley experiment
proved that there can be no ether. Einstein's
hypothesis that the speed of light is independent
from the motion of the source has been proven
over and over again.

Thus, I cannot except your idea as "reality-based",
and it suffers from the same flaw as other
"non-reality based" ideas that are common in
physics today.

The way the usual "non-reality based" story goes
is that one makes a non-reality based hypothesis
(such as yours), then tries to come up with a
mathematical framework that is matched to experiment.
Then, hopefully, it will temporarily be useful
enough to get people using it, and it will "sink in".
Then, voila, you have a "non-reality based"
standard explanation.


Andrew

[logastro]

Am i crazier than you?

[tanus5]

Originally posted by andrewgray
[color=green]Sarah,

You must know that the Michelson-Morley experiment
proved that there can be no ether. Einstein's
hypothesis that the speed of light is independent
from the motion of the source has been proven
over and over again.


Actually, the michelson-morley expirment is flawed in that it only proves the properties of the ether that the speed of light is constant regardless of its direction, or the velocity of its source. Light being defined in this case as the energy making up a quantum-photon. Red-shift proves the existance of ether if you consider the observer is made up of energy, the source is made up of energy and is forming the peaks of the waves making up light at a constant rate. If the observer is moving relative to the source when the light reaches the observer the light has the same constant speed it has at the source, but a "shifted" frequency which means the peaks are arriving farther appart. If there were no ether red shift shouldn't happen. If I take a red ball and throw it through space, its color doesn't change because the ball is the light source, but if I were to travel away from it its color would appear to change after a significant distance was traveled. If light were a particle it would behave like a ball in that it would have the same color even if I was traveling away from its source which is not the case. Ether then is simply the space above and below the wave which would also exibit wave properties, as the amount of ether below the wave increases, the amount of ether above the wave decreases.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by tanus5
Red-shift proves the existance of ether... Interesting - you say that red-shift proves ether exists, then go on to describe [accurately] how red-shift works - without using an ether, then conclude that you have proven red-shift needs an ether. [*(]

My only guess is that you are assuming that being a wave, light needs a medium through which to travel, like sound does: Nope.

[tanus5]

Originally posted by russ_watters

My only guess is that you are assuming that being a wave, light needs a medium through which to travel, like sound does: Nope. [/B]

Looks like you answered your own question. I don't recall the experiment or the proof, but it is impossible to have a perfect vaccuum. While light travels in an imperfect vaccum it is valid to assume that something un-detectible by energy and therefore not made of energy must exist for the energy to travel through. This is based on the "law" of relativity that everything must be relative to something else and energy relative to energy does not meet this criteria. All our detection devices would be made of matter (ie. energy) and therefore would be unable to detect the ether. To measure the amplitude of a wave you could simply state the height of the either below at the waves highest point. Without ether there is no means to define the amplitude of an energy wave therefore the ether must exist. Lets take voltage as an example, 0 voltage is defined as the voltage that exists between two equal charges. The charges are defined based on electrons and protons(positrons?) and the waves making up these electrons and protons require a basis other than protons and electrons. The un-detectable base would be the last valid relativity because nothing on a lower scale than it could be detected, and therefore it could be validly defined by the waves it propegates.

[tanus5]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Interesting - you say that red-shift proves ether exists, then go on to describe [accurately] how red-shift works - [b]without using an ether, then conclude that you have proven red-shift needs an ether. [*(]



An interesting challenge I will accept. Red shift is defined as the change in frequency of light from a light source as present to an observer some distance away with a relative velocity to the light source. The wave source is releasing waves which requires that the source contains a cycle aka wave. The source apon releasing the light wave relinquishes any control over its frequency, regaining control would require an external source or something traveling faster than the speed of light which isn't nessisary to try to prove because there are no reported cases of a light source changing the frequency of light it has already emitted.

Take a look at how waves travel through water. Above the water is usually a gas. Now if you were standing still in the water and something creating waves were moving away from you the freqency of the waves would decrease, if it was moving towards you the freqency of the wave increases. This is what happens when a wave is traveling through a material that can affect it. If a wave were traveling through nothing it would be a solid because it is the only thing present that could affect it, accept possibly itself which would require an inner mechanics to light.

A solid wave traveling at the speed of light would behave in a similar manner to a bent piece of metal traveling through the air. The air is not strong enough to affect the frequency formed with the metal and therefore arrives at an abserver moving relative to the frequency source (whatever released the bent metal) containing the same shape. Now removing any other forces from the piece of metal, the law of inertia states it would continue traveling at the same velocity. Taking the case where the observer is moving away from the source the observer would have a different relative velocity to the wave than the source. The detector at the observer would read such a wave as having a lowerer frequency as the source due to the difference in relative velocity between the observer-&-wave and the relative velocity between the source-&-wave. Light traveling through a vaccuum travels at a constant speed relative to the detector of the observers and sources. If the relative speed of the bent metal to the observer was the same as at the source it would read the same frequency.

Now that we have defined how a wave behaves when traveling through something that affects it, and traveling through something that does not affect it lets re-examine light. Red-shift occurs in light over a distance in relation to the relative velocity of the source and the observer. We know that light travels at a constant speed throuh space relative to the observers-detector and that it experiences a change in frequency to the observer which means light must be traveling through something that affects it.

Now we take a look at the EPR experiment. Twin photons released in opposite direction maintain similar polarization. Something must exist between the two photons for this to occur and it cannot be made up of energy because it is communicating faster than the speed of light which by existing formulas if it had mass it would place its mass at above infinity or possibly in the realm of immaginary numbers. E=MC2 applied to this would prove that what exists must not have a mass, and therefore not be energy.

The two "somethings" in the above proof have been defined in wave theory as ether. Many have disputed the existance of ether simply by defining the behaviors of it. The behaviors were different than expected and they used this as evidence that it must not exist which is a violation of logic. If I expected a pen to fall away from the earth when I dropped it and it towards the earth I couldn't use this to prove the sky didn't exist, and I couldn't use it to prove the pen didn't exist without violating logic.

"Something not behaving as expected is not proof that it doesn't exist!"
-Tanus5

note-Tanus5 is only an alias, and if that quote goes down in history I will probably lose all respect for phycists because its simple LOGIC

So here is the logic for those who don't see it!

NOT(behaving as expected) and NOT(NOT( exist))

A = Bahaving as expected
B = exist

NOT(bahaving as expected) and NOT(NOT(exist))
NOT(behaving as expected) and (exists)

We know through experiment that (behaving as expected) is false

NOT(behaving as expected = false) and (exists)
NOT(false) and (exists)
(true) and (exists)

If one item remains unknown the statement can still be true if (exists) is true.

All the evidence against the existance of something must be able to prove that it has no affect on the universe. I have provided evidence of how ether affects the universe and if no evidence can be found against both my use of EPR and Red-Shift evidence than I have proven that ether can exist. If no valid evidence exists against the existance of ether than it must exist because there is evidence that it exists.

[russ_watters]

So basically, you are operating under one big, critical misconception. Correct that and you'll be fine.

[tanus5]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So basically, you are operating under one big, critical misconception. Correct that and you'll be fine.

What is this one big critical misconception, and do you have any evidence of it? Most importantly, does it invalidate the evidence I presented as to why ether must exist? Your response was no different than stating the multiple-universe theory is the truth without any supporting evidence. As for my support of the wave theory, that is based on the ability to account for standing waves with the red shift formula. Such that red-shift could cause standing waves defined as {x>0 | sin(x*(pi/2x))=1 } where pi/2x is the variation in frequency of the incoming wave.

[Andre]

Great thread. I admit that I have not read all pages but I could not find a reference to Rainier Kühnes "second kind of light". I think that is worth another thread:


http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15324

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by tanus5
What is this one big critical misconception, and do you have any evidence of it? Your misconception is in your second sentence: that an ether must exist for light to propagate. I've shown you a number of logical inconsistencies in your posts, but really, that doesn't matter. But what it really comes down to is burden of proof. You said yourself in other posts that you've only really shown that it can exist. But you're making the jump from "can" to "must." Sorry, science doesn't work that way. If you want to argue that something exists, you must provide positive evidence of its existence. There have been dozens, perhaps hundreds of experiments attempting to detect the presence of an ether and provide this positive evidence (M&M is the most famous) and all have failed.Most importantly, does it invalidate the evidence I presented as to why ether must exist? You haven't presented any. You are assuming that ether must exist because light is a wave. If you consider an analogy to sound waves evidence, it isn't. Light is not sound.Your response was no different than stating the multiple-universe theory is the truth without any supporting evidence. Heh, good analogy, but it applies to you, not me. Which one of us is trying to prove the existence of something for which there is no evidence?

Going back a little, this paragraph of yours is very important, its actually an expansion of the misconception you are operating under:All the evidence against the existance of something must be able to prove that it has no affect on the universe. I have provided evidence of how ether affects the universe and if no evidence can be found against both my use of EPR and Red-Shift evidence than I have proven that ether can exist. If no valid evidence exists against the existance of ether than it must exist because there is evidence that it exists. You framed it almost perfectly. There is a slight inconsistency at the end when you say there is evidence that it exists - above you correctly say that your evidence shows it can exist. Not the same thing. Correct that inconsistency and this could be put directly into a textbook as the perfect example of the most common misunderstanding of the scientific method: burden of proof.

Yes, ethere can exist. A number of people have put together convoluted theories about it that nevertheless fit with experimental data. But science requires positive proof. Even setting aside the difficulty in proving something does not exist, saying something can exist in no way proves that it must. The burden of proof is still on you to provide evidence that it must exist.

The fact remains that scientists have been actively searching for an ether for hundreds of years and none have been able to find it. We are required to assume until something is found, that it doesn't exist.

Remember epicycles? They are a mathematical model of planetary motion that we no longer use. Guess what: they work. Fit enough epicycles to a planet and you can model its orbit to whatever accuracy you want. Unfortunately, no mechanism was ever found that could explain them, they couldn't make predictions about yet to be found celestial objects, and a better theory was discovered that didn't require them, so they were scrapped. Ether theory is right there with epicycles. It could work, but its a looooong way from proven and a better theory exists which is more logical and has positive evidence to back it up.

[andrewgray]

Continuing on with our discussion of reality-based physics,
I urge everyone interested to read David Mermin's:

What's Wrong With This Quantum World?

in the February issue of Physics today (p. 10). Incredibly,
Mermin explains in his article some strange things said by the
"great" Niels Bohr.When asked whether the algorithm of quantum mechanics could be considered as somehow mirroring an underlying quantum world, Bohr would answer...There is no quantum world.
There is only an abstract quantum description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.There is no quantum world? . . .
It is wrong to find out how nature is? . . .
The coup de grace is found later in the same issue of Physics
Today. Richard Henry (Maryland Space Grant Consortium)
states in a letter (p.14) thatWe know from quantum mechanics that nothing is real, except for the observations themselves.

I use the large font to try to get through to all of you.
Don't you see what it is all coming to? We have educated
men saying that "nothing is real".

Come on.

Please, before a Dark Age of Physics sets in, go to Model of Reality and
see how "nature really is", and that "everything is real". I can't
believe that I have to say that "everything is real". What is this
world coming to?


Andrew Gray

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by andrewgray
Please, before a Dark Age of Physics sets in, go to Model of Reality and
see how "nature really is", and that "everything is real". I can't
believe that I have to say that "everything is real". What is this
world coming to? The problem with what you are saying, andrew, is that QM describes what is observed to be happening to an immaculate degree of precision and accuracy. A great many people feel uncomfortable with QM as it isn't a classical (Newtonian) theory and they only think in terms of classical theories. Whether they like it or not, QM is an accurate description of the strange reality of the "quantum world." What is wrong isn't QM, its their limited perception of what "real" is.

[andrewgray]

Classical Mechanics treats charged particles
as tiny static little spheres.
Classical Electrodynamics treats charged
particles as having a static electric field.

Classical Physics is wrong.

Newtonian physics treats time as absolute.
Newtonian physics uses instanteous action at a distance.

Newtonian physics is wrong.

What I am talking about is reality-based physics.
In the context of the Bohr quote above, one that
"mirrors the underlying microscopic world".

Russ, how about that "immaculate precision and accuracy
of QM? How do you suppose that this is possible? I'll
make a logical suggestion.

Iterative ad hoc matching of experiment.

This is quite easy if you can use mathematics that
are only an "abstract description", and need not mirror
the underlying reality. Take for example, the precision
and accuracy of the "theoretical" QM hydrogen spectrum.
It usually goes something like this:

1) Take some initial set of experimental data. In this
case, the bizarre Rydberg experimental hydrogen spectrum.

2) Now do a rough ad hoc match to this data. In
this case, it was Bohr that did this first.

3) Now see that even though this theory had initial success,
it is totally deficient. Along comes Schrodinger.

4) Change to the Schrodinger theory.

5) See that this theory is totally deficient.

6) Add "spin" to the Schrodinger theory.

7) See that Schrodinger+spin is totally deficient.

8) Change to the Dirac theory.

9) See that this theory does not quite match either, and
that there needs to be arbitrary "selection rules" that are
just made up so the theory can work.

10) See that there are violations of these
"selection rules". Oh well, don't stress this.

11) Next, we add small "perturbation terms" to the theory.
These terms are usually purely additive, and strictly
independent (so as not to mess up the initial theoretical
values).

12) Try this. Try that. "Oh this one works".
(QM'ers do not have to mirror the underlying reality).
Take for example the Lamb Shift. This introduces two
"spin 1/2 coupled interactions". These "spins" are assumed
to be independent from the main fields, and besides, we are
are not assuming that these concepts mirror reality. It has
already been said that the electron "spin" is "not something
spinning", and the electron's "magnetic moment" cannot be
a moment.

13) See that we now are very, very close to the experimental
value.

14) Claim triumph.

15) Award Nobel Prize.


This ad hoc iterative QM experiment matching
probably "mirrors reality".


Andrew Gray

[russ_watters]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.
.
.
.

If you really believe all that, you'd better shut off your computer before it explodes due to the flaws in QM.

[andrewgray]

If you really believe all that, you'd better shut off your computer before it explodes due to the flaws in QM. I wish that one could give Quantum Theory the credit for the transistor, but one cannot. Walter Brattain (an experimentalist) built the first transistor in the lab while trying to hide what he was doing from Shockley. You think that Brattain was thinking something like:

"Now lets see, the wave function for the germanium would be better for this device if I cut off this triangle off at .002".

Of course not.

The transistor comes strictly from the realm of experimental physics. Then after the device was invented , the QM'ers can ad hoc experiment-match to their heart's content.


Andrew Gray

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by andrewgray
Iterative ad hoc matching of experiment.
[/color][color=green]


Wow, this is a first. A "quantum critic" is actually criticizing QM for matching experimental results.


This is quite easy if you can use mathematics that
are only an "abstract description", and need not mirror
the underlying reality.


But how would you propose that we do better? How would you know the "underlying reality", apart from measurements taken on it? It's not like you can take a peek into the microscopic and compare notes with it.


Take for example, the precision
and accuracy of the "theoretical" QM hydrogen spectrum.
It usually goes something like this:

1) Take some initial set of experimental data. In this
case, the bizarre Rydberg experimental hydrogen spectrum.

2) Now do a rough ad hoc match to this data. In
this case, it was Bohr that did this first.


That's right, he was.


3) Now see that even though this theory had initial success,
it is totally deficient. Along comes Schrodinger.


Just to fill in some details, Bohr's theory was deficient on both theoretical and experimental grounds.

On the theory side, it was what is called "paraconsistent". That is, it fused together two theories (classical mechanics and classical EM) to generate an atomic theory that actually contradicts one of its constituent theories. Specifically, Bohr just ignored the fact that the revolving electron should be bleeding energy due to its acceleration, and then plunge into the nucleus.

On the experimental side, his model gets the orbital angular momentum eigenvalues wrong.


4) Change to the Schrodinger theory.

5) See that this theory is totally deficient.


"Totally deficient?" Hardly. Physicists and engineers use the Schrodinger theory all the time. It, like Newtonian mechanics, is still quite useful in its domain of applicability, which is non-trivial.

The theory was deficient to be sure, but not "totally" so, and not for the reason that you think (#6 on your list). It is deficient because it does not shed the mechanical description of nature in favor of the field description. That is, it has a difficulty that is actually shared by classical mechanics: interactions at a distance. Also, the Schrodinger theory is non-relativistic, which is another fatal flaw.


6) Add "spin" to the Schrodinger theory.


Actually, you don't have to add spin to the Schrodinger theory in an "ad hoc" way at all. Take the KE operator of the Schrodinger theory:

p2/2m

Now, if we stick with this and then do the so-called "minimal substitution" to generate EM interactions:

p-->p'=p-(e/c)A,

then we surely must add spin on as an aferthought. But, it turns out that the KE operator above could just as well be written as:

(s.p)2/2m,

and then when the minimal substitution is carried out, we do get the whole EM interaction, spin and all. Feynman was the first to point this out, and the Dirac theory corrects this mistake from the get-go.


7) See that Schrodinger+spin is totally deficient.

8) Change to the Dirac theory.


Not "totally deficient", but whatever. The reason we don't stop at Schrodinger is that any "correct" theory must be relativistic.


9) See that this theory does not quite match either, and
that there needs to be arbitrary "selection rules" that are
just made up so the theory can work.

10) See that there are violations of these
"selection rules". Oh well, don't stress this.

11) Next, we add small "perturbation terms" to the theory.
These terms are usually purely additive, and strictly
independent (so as not to mess up the initial theoretical
values).


You are forgetting the next step: Abadoning mechanics for field theory. That's pretty important!


12) Try this. Try that. "Oh this one works".


Of course. That's how science has always been done! The important thing is not that we make mistakes, but that we know why past theories are mistaken. Just look at what we've learned from the history you've presented.

We learned from the failure of the Bohr theory that particles cannot be traveling in well-defined, measurable trajectories.

We learned from the failure of the Schrodinger theory that interactions cannot be nonlocal, nor can particle motion be nonrelativistic. We also learned that spin must be incorporated in

We learned from the failre of the Dirac theory that mechanical interactions must be rejected in favor of interacting quantized fields.

What we will learn from the failures of QFT will only be revealed by the successes of the theory which supplants it. But we know this for sure: We will learn something.


13) See that we now are very, very close to the experimental
value.


Yes. And that's a good thing!

edit: fixed a bracket

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by andrewgray
I wish that one could give Quantum Theory the credit for the transistor, but one cannot.... If it were only just the transistor...

Integrated circuits, magnetic storage, optical storage (lasers), wireless communications (rf & ir), CRT monitors, electricity itself, etc.

Most of the enabling technologies in computers depend (whether the scientists/engineers knew it when they were invented or not) on QM.The important thing is not that we make mistakes, but that we know why past theories are mistaken. Just look at what we've learned from the history you've presented. Just a nitpick, Tom - I wouldn't characterize past theories such as Newtonian phyiscs as "mistakes." Like you said, they are perfectly fine in their domain of applicability. Its just that at the time they were concieved, that domain of applicability wasn't well understood and Newton did quite well for the data available to him. In fact, wasn't it known to Newton at the time he constructed his models that there were still some inconsistencies? Even if he didn't, I doubt he believed that he had all of physics figured out. Its hardly a "mistake" if you know what you are doing is incomplete. That's why I prefer '...that we know why past theories are limited (or incomplete).'

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Just a nitpick, Tom - I wouldn't characterize past theories such as Newtonian phyiscs as "mistakes." Like you said, they are perfectly fine in their domain of applicability. Its just that at the time they were concieved, that domain of applicability wasn't well understood and Newton did quite well for the data available to him.


I'm not saying that Newton's theory is "bad", just that it is "mistaken", in the sense that it has been experimentally falsified, which will most likely be the fate of all theories.


In fact, wasn't it known to Newton at the time he constructed his models that there were still some inconsistencies?


I don't know.


Even if he didn't, I doubt he believed that he had all of physics figured out.


Certainly, Newton couldn't have known about the quantum or the relativistic. But there are aspects of Newton's theory that could have been done better, even with the information available at the time. For instance, his conception of space and time was particularly misguided, and a far superior view was taken by one of his contemporaries: Leibniz.


Its hardly a "mistake" if you know what you are doing is incomplete. That's why I prefer '...that we know why past theories are limited (or incomplete).'


Yes, for the most part, that's what I meant.

[andrewgray]

Wow, this is a first. A "quantum critic" is actually criticizing QM for matching experimental results.Tom, what I mean is ad hoc experiment matching. Coming up with a theoretical result after the fact just doesn't do much for me. Remember how Maxwell's equations predicted the speed of light before it was measured. Now that impresses me.

So take the "Quantum Hall Effect" for example. If all that quantum theory gobbledy-gook had been written down before the Quantum Hall Effect was seen experimentally, I would be impressed.

But it wasn't. So I'm not impressed. But the QM'ers have now managed a pretty good ad hoc match for QHE theory and experiment. It just has nothing to do with the underlying reality.
But how would you propose that we do better? How would you know the "underlying reality", apart from measurements taken on it?Now we are getting somewhere. Well, first of all, I would like the QM'ers to finally admit that what they have is an "abstract description" (as Bohr has stated) and that it cannot match any underlying reality.

Not that there is no underlying reality.

This is insane. I really cannot believe that someone could sit there and say with a straight face that: "there is no underlying reality at the microscopic level, as proven by the Bell Inequality Experiments".
Second, be open-minded about any new theory that can match experiment and allows an underlying reality. Frankly, I am shocked that my theory has provoked such an emotional response from the physics community. I can't believe that a theory that has the potential to explain microscopic physics with an underlying reality has not been received with rejoicing on high, at least until it is proven either right or wrong! Surely, most would admit that a microscopic theory with an underlying reality would be preferable to one that concludes that there is no underlying reality. Like I said before, isn't this like proving that 4=5... ***BUZZZ* "Times up."
Help me get the QK experiments verified/falsified! This is exciting stuff. I am optimistic!
Yes, measuring things at the micro level messes things up. So we have to be cleverer. For example, don't use a 10,000 gauss magnetic field while doing the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Use a real small one. This way you won't "mess up the atom's angular momentum". Obviously, there is the "ever increasing complexity" problem as one gets smaller and smaller, and eventually one can expect that one will reach a size level where it will be absolutely impossible to measure anything. But we're talking about atomic distances (nanometers) here. We are getting to the age of "nanotechnology" now. We need to have a picture of the underlying atomic reality so we can attempt to go one level deeper correctly.
Most of the enabling technologies in computers depend (whether the scientists/engineers knew it when they were invented or not) on QM.I will politely disagree here. What most of these technologies depend on is the phenomenology used by experimentalists in the lab. Most of the discoverers of such technology do not even know what a wave function/field theory is.



Andrew Gray

[Hurkyl]

I can't believe that a theory that has the potential to explain microscopic physics

That's because everybody and their brother has an idea to explain everything, but they also expect anyone but them to flesh the idea out into an actual theory and to do the testing.


If all that quantum theory gobbledy-gook had been written down before the Quantum Hall Effect was seen experimentally, I would be impressed.

What about, say, Bose-Einstein condensates and quantum computing?

[McQueen]

It is an interesting thread if only because on the one hand you have skeptics of QM like Andrew Gray giving a fairly cogent representation of the concerns of non-believers in QM arising out of certain inconsistencies that he has noted and on the other we have the veteran practitioners of QM like Russ Waters and Tom who are thoroughly conversant with the subject and are able to adequately defend their views. This is something that is rarely seen , for the most part , precisely because QM is so bound up with fairly complicated mathematics , any criticism of QM tends to be dismissed out of hand. As to Andrew Grays quote from Neil Bohr stating that : “ There is no quantum world .” and the remarks that follow. It must be noted that at the time , Classical physics had no answers for phenomenon occurring at the sub-atomic level. As Tom had pointed out , if the principles of Classical physics were applied to atoms the inevitable conclusion would be that atoms could not exist ! It was in order , to some extent , to rationalize this situation that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was adopted , which made it possible to implement the theory of wave-particle duality which had been proposed by de Broglie . What this meant in effect was that the electron was no longer localized and the contradictions arising out of the application of the principles of classical physics to the sub-atomic world were no longer relevant. It was in this context that Bohr was speaking when he stated that any definite knowledge of the sub-atomic world was in principle excluded. Today and I literally mean today because the events of which I am speaking took place just a few days ago , although unfortunately I have mislaid the reference , the development of attosecond lasers , has made it possible to actually trace the path of the electron within the atom , which puts the HUP in serious doubt , also the rapid development of nano-technology increases the likelihood that the HUP is not tenable , at least as stated in the first relation. Also , with the discovery of virtual interactions , wave-particle duality is no longer central to QM , which lends credence to AG’s remark that classical physics precepts can be applied even at the sub-atomic level.
At the same time there can be no question of the undoubted value of QM , it would be impossible to understand the sub-atomic world without the precepts put forward by QM , it is therefore sheer folly to dismiss outright all that has been achieved so far. Yet no-one can deny that there are inconsistencies in QM which have to be addressed. In my New Theory of Light http://geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html I have suggested a new model of the photon which answers many of the questions raised in this thread . I have also been very carefully going over the quantum mechanics mathematics written in support of these theories and find that there is absolutely nothing there which would deny the implementation of my theory , far from it , in fact there are several points in my theory which are indirectly supported by QM and which I will be stating shortly or as soon as I can figure out the best way to write the equations.

[Nereid]

McQueen wrote:*SNIP
In my New Theory of Light http://geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html I have suggested a new model of the photon which answers many of the questions raised in this thread.
*SNAP Would you be so kind as to list the leading 3/5/10 experimentally verifiable predictions of your theory? Please list only those which yield predictions that are significantly different from QM/QFT/Standard Model.

[Edit: fixed format]

[Nereid]

andrewgray wrote: Tom, what I mean is ad hoc experiment matching. Coming up with a theoretical result after the fact just doesn't do much for me. Remember how Maxwell's equations predicted the speed of light before it was measured. Now that impresses me.

So take the "Quantum Hall Effect" for example. If all that quantum theory gobbledy-gook had been written down before the Quantum Hall Effect was seen experimentally, I would be impressed. But it wasn't. So I'm not impressed.

But the QM'ers have now managed a pretty good ad hoc match for QHE theory and experiment. It just has nothing to do with the underlying reality. To add to Hurkyl's list (BCE, quantum computing), a long llist of predictions which may (or may not) cause andrewgray to be impressed (andrew, please let us know, then I can refine the list):
- neutron stars
- white dwarf stars
- birefringence of light (magnetars)
- 3He and 4He superfluid behaviour
- QED, and its subsequent experimental validation to 10[sup]-12[sup]
- QCD
- Bell inequality, quantum entanglement
- key advances in solid state physics, e.g. diode lasers
- SQUIDs

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
To add to Hurkyl's list (BCE, quantum computing), a long llist of predictions which may (or may not) cause andrewgray to be impressed (andrew, please let us know, then I can refine the list):
- neutron stars
- white dwarf stars
- birefringence of light (magnetars)
- 3He and 4He superfluid behaviour
- QED, and its subsequent experimental validation to 10[sup]-12[sup]
- QCD
- Bell inequality, quantum entanglement
- key advances in solid state physics, e.g. diode lasers
- SQUIDs
It seems to me what your demands are excessive for one person.
Anybody of the scientists ever living on the Earth does not match your requirements.
One person cannot perform work of thousand scientists made for hundreds years.
You have well acquired bureaucratic requirements to registration of new theories (may be this is your fantasy only?).
By the way, I doubt that you’ll personally create any theory.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It seems to me what your demands are excessive for one person.
Anybody of the scientists ever living on the Earth does not match your requirements.
One person cannot perform work of thousand scientists made for hundreds years.
You have well acquired bureaucratic requirements to registration of new theories (may be this is your fantasy only?).
By the way, I doubt that you’ll personally create any theory. No, the demands aren't excessive. This is a good illustration of why making an important scientific discovery often takes decades of work. You can't just dream up an idea one night lying in bed and expect the scientific community to drop everything to test it for you. YOU must at least get it to the point where you could publish an article about it: and that requires experiments and math and homework.

It appears that neither you nor andrewgray has done much more than think of an idea. That's not the end of the process, but the beginning

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by andrewgray
Tom, what I mean is ad hoc experiment matching. Coming up with a theoretical result after the fact just doesn't do much for me. Remember how Maxwell's equations predicted the speed of light before it was measured. Now that impresses me.

So take the "Quantum Hall Effect" for example. If all that quantum theory gobbledy-gook had been written down before the Quantum Hall Effect was seen experimentally, I would be impressed.


So what are we supposed to do? Ignore the experimental evidence, and stick with theories that don't account for it? [8)]


But it wasn't. So I'm not impressed. But the QM'ers have now managed a pretty good ad hoc match for QHE theory and experiment.


But what about all the predictions that QM/QFT makes that were made before they were verified? Are you unimpressed with those, too?


It just has nothing to do with the underlying reality.


And you know this how? This is precisely what I was getting at with my comment, to which you attempted to respond in the next segment...


Tom: But how would you propose that we do better? How would you know the "underlying reality", apart from measurements taken on it?

Andrew: Now we are getting somewhere.


Are we? Let's see...


[list] Well, first of all, I would like the QM'ers to finally admit that what they have is an "abstract description" (as Bohr has stated) and that it cannot match any underlying reality.


This still begs my question: How would you know what the nature of the underlying reality is, apart from measurements taken on it? To what will you compare your ideas on what the underlying reality should be like?



Not that there is no underlying reality.

This is insane. I really cannot believe that someone could sit there and say with a straight face that: "there is no underlying reality at the microscopic level, as proven by the Bell Inequality Experiments".


I would not say that there is "no underlying reality". However I would say that there is the very real possibility that the underlying reality is epistemologically beyond the reach of human science.


Second, be open-minded about any new theory that can match experiment and allows an underlying reality. Frankly, I am shocked that my theory has provoked such an emotional response from the physics community. I can't believe that a theory that has the potential to explain microscopic physics with an underlying reality has not been received with rejoicing on high, at least until it is proven either right or wrong! Surely, most would admit that a microscopic theory with an underlying reality would be preferable to one that concludes that there is no underlying reality. Like I said before, isn't this like proving that 4=5... ***BUZZZ* "Times up."


Since I have not seen your theory, I have no comment.


Help me get the QK experiments verified/falsified! This is exciting stuff. I am optimistic!


What are the "QK experiments"?

edit: fixed several color brackets

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It seems to me what your demands are excessive for one person.
Anybody of the scientists ever living on the Earth does not match your requirements.
One person cannot perform work of thousand scientists made for hundreds years.
You have well acquired bureaucratic requirements to registration of new theories (may be this is your fantasy only?).
By the way, I doubt that you’ll personally create any theory. Michael, I think you may have misunderstood what my post was about.

andrewgray criticised QM for failing to *predict* significant new phenomena, and cited the Quantum Hall Effect, saying that it was observed first and only later did QM theorists 'explain' it (I'm paraphrasing, and may have missed some important points; I'm sure andrewgray will set the record straight if I'm misrepresenting him seriously).

Hurkyl gave two counter-examples (BCE and quantum computing) - significant new phenomena which QM predicted, and which were subsequently found in the lab.

As I'm not really sure of what, exactly, andrewgray regards as a new class of predicted phenomena, I sought to test my understanding through a list of specific phenemona; andrewgray (I hope) will say which of these - in his opinion - are genuine examples of "new phenenoma predicted by QM, later observed in the lab" (note that for two, 'the lab' isn't here on Earth).

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

I think I have a sense of what andrewgray is trying to say ...

Recently, I saw a documentary about the elusive neutrino. It reported on Ray Davis' forty year struggle to explain (in neutrino terms) why the sun shines.

Initially he set up a vast experiment to capture neutrinos - by monitoring their rare interactions within a vat containing 600 tons of cleaning fluid.

John Bahcall's math predicted that 10 neutrino interactions should be seen per month - but in actuality the experiment resulted in 3 per month.

Naturally this frustrated Davis for many years. Eventually - since the experiments still resulted in just one third of the neutrinos expected - they arrived at the conclusion that the other missing neutrinos had somehow changed their properties on the way from the sun and were thus escaping Davis' detection.

They went on to document that the neutrino came in 3 'flavours' - postulating that the other 2 undetected flavours had somehow slowed beneath lightspeed and gained mass - which facilitated their apparent undetection.

40 years later Davis was awarded a Nobel for his theories.

To me this is precisely what andrewgray is trying to say:

Theory doctoring over real experiment in order to account for the results. In other words - ignore the actual results, and change the reasoning to fit the theory.

How much of contemporary science has trundled down this path?

.................................................. ...........

New Alternative Theory Portal Requires Your Ideas at:

http://www.photonocean.tk

PLEASE COME TAKE A LOOK.
[8)]

[Nereid]

The story of the 'solar neutrino anomaly' is fascinating. AFAIK, Davis wasn't so much a theorist (theoretician) as a dogged experimenter, and the lesson for budding scientists is how to get your difficult and (at first) marginal results accepted by the physics community. It most clearly is NOT a lesson in how to get an unconventional idea accepted! At least, that's my take on it.

In the early days it wasn't clear what was causing the anomaly - or even that there was an anomaly! The solar models had some room, the nuclear cross-sections weren't that well pinned down, the experiment was difficult and systematic errors hard to characterise. There were dozens of theories around to account for the missing neutrinos, including the one that finally fitted all the observations - neutrino oscillation and 'flavours'. There were also hints from other observations that maybe the neutrino wasn't massless, e.g. cosmology.THE[>U<]DUDE wrote: To me this is precisely what andrewgray is trying to say:

Theory doctoring over real experiment in order to account for the results. In other words - ignore the actual results, and change the reasoning to fit the theory. With respect, the neutrino story is exactly the opposite - a marginal (at first) experimental result was taken seriously, by a lot of people, over 40 years, lots more experiments done, lots of theorising done, until the mystery was resolved; the *actual results* ruled (not the theory).THE[>U<]DUDE wrote: How much of contemporary science has trundled down this path? The 'experiment trumps theory' road? All of it. However, andrewgray has challenged the interpretation of some experimental results, and we're here discussing his ideas. This is exactly, IMHO, as it should be [:D]

[andrewgray]

Oh boy, lots to respond to. Are we having fun yet? I will try to keep this light and polite.

That's because everybody and their brother has an idea to explain everything, but they also expect anyone but them to flesh the idea out into an actual theory and to do the testing.OK, OK. I have a high tech job, but I am considering taking a leave of absence to do the Quantum Killer Experiments. I made the commitment to wait about 2 years so it would be possible for independent confirmations. Almost up.
What about, say, Bose-Einstein condensates and quantum computing?The [Bose-Einstein] effect can be understood in broad outline by considering the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states, roughly, that it is impossible to know both a particle's velocity and a particle's position simultaneously with certainty. When a group of atoms is cooled to a low enough temperature, however, their velocities become very certain; they must be moving very slowly, or, stated more technically, they must have low quantum energy levels. This causes their positions to "smear out," effectively causing the individual atoms to overlap each other. In a Bose-Einstein condensate, the many overlapping atoms can be considered to be a single super-atom, with all of its constituent atoms sharing a single quantum state.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate) Things condense and stick together when they are really cooled. Atoms tend to move to there lowest energy state when really cold. Big deal. Is this a surprising result? We don't need Bose-Einstein theory to predict something like this. Quantum computing is a failure. Can you give a reference to any working quantum computer?

To McQueen,

I cannot believe that your website contains this sentence:Let us suppose then that this electrical energy is emitted by the electrons in short bursts creating bands of electrical energy. I just cannot believe that someone else has come up with this same conclusion. I am flabbergasted. However, we diverge in opinion from there. In Model of Reality, it is the electric field that comes out in bursts. No energy is given off since the Poynting Vector is null. You seem to be saying that a charge is an energy source, with energy being emitted. Not likely. As stated previously in this thread, I believe that no reality-based microscopic theory can contain "photons". You have proposed an absolute EM structure for "photons"? I cannot accept this. What holds it together as it diffracts, refracts and spreads out? What about the paradoxes like the double slit paradox? Does your photon "know" about the other pathway without going through it? Paradox. Paradox. Two MD's.


To be continued . . .

Andrew Gray

[andrewgray]

To add to Hurkyl's list ..., a long llist of predictions which may (or may not) cause andrewgray to be impressed (andrew, please let us know, then I can refine the list):
- neutron stars
- white dwarf stars
- birefringence of light (magnetars)
- 3He and 4He superfluid behaviour
- QED, and its subsequent experimental validation to 10-12
- QCD
- Bell inequality, quantum entanglement
- key advances in solid state physics, e.g. diode lasers
- SQUIDs

You super-compress matter that is made up of protons and electrons and you come up with neutrons? This is surprising? Again, Big Deal. All of these "star-type" theories are broad-languaged picture-book type theories and do not really need quantum mechanics, and none of these star types can be verified for the nature of their actual composition. Big Deal. From www.lassp.cornell.edu/Nobel/science.html "one of its most dramatic predictions had not been confirmed: that the same kind of self-organization responsible for the superconductivity of metallic electrons, should result in a new kind of superfluidity in the rare isotope helium-3, similar only in name to the superfluidity that had been known for decades to exist in the more common helium-4. An international quest for this holy grail had become embarassingly unsuccessful, as each new advance in the technology of reaching lower temperatures failed to reveal the expected superfluid behavior. By the 1970's the search had proceeded to temperatures a thousand times lower than the temperature at which helium-4 becomes superfluid, repeatedly defying the predictions of theorists."
This is impressive? As for QED, this is what Feyman had to say about QED himself:

"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 renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate."

These are Feynman's own words. Find them with Google if you don't believe me. Here is what the great Paul Dirac had to say about QED:


"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!”

Again, use Google if you don't believe me. QCD. In my opinion, QCD is totally disconnected from experiment. And, correct me here if I'm wrong, they keep adding quark types as they prove their models wrong. Do we have pentaquarks now? I have purposely not allocated any time to study this. QCD also has "renormalization" operators, right? Bell's inequality and entanglement have already been addressed in this thread. See message #11,#12, and #13 in this thread. Laser Diodes. See message #60. Same thing applies here. SQUIDS. These use Josephson Junctions. OK. This one is a real pre-predicted device. I believe that electron waves in QM are close enough to what is really going on, that some usefulness can become of QM matter waves. In QM, the Josephson Junction theory states that the phase of the electron is changed by the magnetic field. In Model of Reality, the pulsation length is changed by the magnetic field. However, you should keep in mind that there will be other differences between QM matter waves and reality (in my opinion). The Josephson Junction and electron interference are related. Read

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect5_7.html
www.ModelofReality.org/Sect11_1.html


It seems to me what your demands are excessive for one person. Anyone of the scientists ever living on the Earth does not match your requirements. One person cannot perform work of a thousand scientists made for a hundreds years. You have well acquired bureaucratic requirements for the registration of new theories (maybe this is your fantasy only?). I believe that Model of Reality is a great scientific work.By the way, I doubt that you’ll personally create any theory.Wrong. It is already created.



Continued . . .

[PRodQuanta]

The only thing that I can say is that if this were true, it wouldn't be in this forum. It would be in the process of being experimentally tested, or being proved (or disproved) mathematically. If this were true, I would probably be reading it on arxiv.org right about now.

Paden Roder

[andrewgray]

The only thing that I can say is that if this were true, it wouldn't be in this forum. It would be in the process of being experimentally tested, or being proved (or disproved) mathematically. If this were true, I would probably be reading it on arxiv.org right about nowDon't forget that they fought Einstein's relativity for 15 years, and Einstein did not get a nobel for relativity because the nobel committee did not believe it.

It appears that neither you nor andrewgray has done much more than think of an idea. That's not the end of the process, but the beginning.Beginning is correct. There has been absolutely no experimental proof for Model of Reality, and at this point Model of Reality is nothing more than a sophisticated idea.So what are we supposed to do? Ignore the experimental evidence, and stick with theories that don't account for it?Not at all. However, I believe that

It is better to have no theory at all
rather than one that does not mirror
the underlying reality.


This still begs my question: How would you know what the nature of the underlying reality is, apart from measurements taken on it? To what will you compare your ideas on what the underlying reality should be like? All I am saying is that there must be an underlying reality. Indeed, this is a philosophical question. Allegorically, this means that -5=-5, add 11 to both sides so 6=6. . . . not -4=-5, add 10 to the left and 11 to the right, so 6=6.

The second statement might somehow be justified like QM, since a negative amount of something cannot be measured, but it is just not philosophically useful or correct, and it hinders progress on to the next level. The Big Picture: Let's have a theory that has the possibility for an underlying reality. Of course, microscopic measurements mess things up so you cannot measure things with minimal impact. All I am saying is that on the Angstrom level, a theory with a possible underlying reality is feasible. Perhaps at the nuclear level, such an underlying realilty theory may not be feasible. I don't know.


Continued . . .

[russ_watters]

There has been absolutely no experimental proof for Model of Reality, and at this point Model of Reality is nothing more than a sophisticated idea. On this, finally, we can completely agree.

[Tom Mattson]

Things condense and stick together when they are really cooled. Atoms tend to move to there lowest energy state when really cold. Big deal.


Errr...Fermions don't condense like that, which is the whole point!

Furthermore, you would be correct if the only prediction of the theory was that "things condense", but it's not. The prediction is that "things condense according to Bose-Einstein statistics, and not according to Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics."


Is this a surprising result? We don't need Bose-Einstein theory to predict something like this.


Yes, we do need it. As I said, the important thing is not just to say, "things condense as they get cold", you also have to get the number right.


Quantum computing is a failure. Can you give a reference to any working quantum computer?


No, but I can't give you reference to any Earth-bound, power producing fusion reactor either, but I still know that fusion can do it.

[Tom Mattson]

You super-compress matter that is made up of protons and electrons and you come up with neutrons? This is surprising? Again, Big Deal.




As for QED, this is what Feyman had to say about QED himself:[/color=][color=red]

"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 renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate."


These are Feynman's own words. Find them with Google if you don't believe me. Here is what the great Paul Dirac had to say about QED:



"I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!”

Again, use Google if you don't believe me.


I believe you, as I have read the same comments in The Character of Physical Law. However, it is important to remember that neither Feynman nor Dirac were mathematicians, and that the problem is still being worked on. Some discussion of this subject went on in the following thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11638


QCD. In my opinion, QCD is totally disconnected from experiment. And, correct me here if I'm wrong, they keep adding quark types as they prove their models wrong. Do we have pentaquarks now?


OK, you're wrong: A "pentaquark" is not a new quarktype, it is a 5-quark bound state, just as hadrons are 3-quark bound states and mesons are 2-quark bound states. There are--and always have been--6 quarks (and 6 antiquarks) in QCD.


I have purposely not allocated any time to study this.


Why talk about it, then?

[Tom Mattson]

Don't forget that they fought Einstein's relativity for 15 years, and Einstein did not get a nobel for relativity because the nobel committee did not believe it.


Einstein did not get a Nobel for relativity, because he got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect, and you can only get one.


All I am saying is that there must be an underlying reality.


But you seem to be presuming to know what this underlying reality is, and what it is not, which begs my question (which you still have not answered, by the way).

[PRodQuanta]

I gave your work a brief overview. How can you got and say that some super-dense objects are pulsing and some are not?

Paden Roder

[McQueen]

Nereid

I am sorry for the unseemly delay in replying to your post. I had installed Windows XP on my computer and the next thing I knew , the system had been taken over by a virus , which I have still not managed to get completely rid of , for one thing the fonts are mixed up which precludes the use of latex typesetting. You had speculated in your last post as to the proofs that might be available to substantiate the ‘New Field Theory ’ as posted at http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/id5.html and had specified something as being 3/5/10 which I have not been able to comprehend , with the stipulation that the proofs that I put forward are those not already available for the Standard Model. The proofs and experiments that I have to substantiate the theory are easily found. To begin with , take the properties of the photon , as have been widely observed and acknowledged over many years. The model of the photon structure which I have proposed , not only corroborates these properties but also explains how , and more importantly why these properties are manifested by the photon. At present , according to the standard model and other theories , the properties of the photon have been extensively studied and noted , but no explanation has been given as to why photons possess these particular properties . So the situation as it at present stands merely catalogues and acknowledges certain properties of the photon without in any way substantiating why these properties are manifested. Using the model of the photon structure , ( http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/photon.bmp ) as suggested by New Field Theory accounts for every property manifested by the photon. Here is a list of the generally accepted properties attributed to the photon :-
1) A photon has no rest mass.
2) The energy of a photon varies inversely with its wave-length and frequency , (i.e. Longer wave-lengths and lower frequencies result in less energy and vice-versa.)
3) A photon travels at the speed of light in a vacuum.
4) A photon conserves its identity (energy ) or is absorbed.
5) A photon travels in straight lines.
6) All EM radiation from wave-lengths of 10 –12 to 10 5 m. is made up of photons. Thus photons vary over an unbelievable range of wave-lengths and frequencies.
7) A photon manifests wave-particle duality (i.e. a photon manifests the properties of either a wave or a particle depending on how it is observed.)
8) Photons are electrically neutral.

The above represent an impressive array of the observed properties of the photon , what to my mind is even more remarkable , considering the extended period of time over which these properties have been known and the quantity of material that has been written about them , is that no serious attempt has been made to explain these properties with regard to the structure of the photon itself . If the first link alluded to above is studied , it becomes clear that such a model of the photon is indeed possible and that it explains , without ambiguities , each of the properties listed. Experiments to verify this model of the photon are numerous , to take one instance a study of the reactive and radiative fields surrounding a conductor carrying an AC current , substantiate New Field Theory. According to the Standard Model , there is no qualitative difference between the inductive (reactive) and radiative fields , the only criteria being the distance from the conductor . If the source has a maximum overall dimension D that is large compared to the wavelength ,the far-field region is commonly taken to exist at distances greater than 2D 2 / lamda from the source, lamda being the wavelength. Yet the photoelectric effect tells us that this cannot be true and that the intensity of the field is not the main criteria but the energy of the field. This has been circumvented by using various theories such as suggesting that EM radiation of longerwave lengths is composed of ‘virtual’ photons. Further proofs and experiments to validate them are available if you wish to continue the discussion.

[andrewgray]

Einstein did not get a Nobel for relativity, because he got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect, and you can only get one.

I'm not sure that this is true. John Bardeen has two Nobel Prizes in Physics:

1956
JOHN BARDEEN, WILLIAM SHOCKLEY, and WALTER HOUSER BRATTAIN for their researches on semiconductors and their discovery of the transistor effect.

1972
JOHN BARDEEN, LEON N. COOPER and J. ROBERT SCHRIEFFER for their jointly developed theory of superconductivity, usually called the BCS-theory.


But you seem to be presuming to know what this underlying reality is, and what it is not, which begs my question (which you still have not answered, by the way).
All I am saying is that a theory that allows for an underlying reality is much preferable to one that does not. And if a theory concludes that there is no underlying reality, then this is a contradiction like 4=5 in a mathematical theorem.

Why talk about it(QCD), then?Because theoretical physics is dying. Look in the distinguished Science Magazine this week. There is not one physics article. IT IS ALL BIOLOGY. In my opinion, theoretical physics has gotten so far away from the underlying reality that it borders on useless. I stress that this is just my opinion.


To be continued . . .

[andrewgray]

No, but I can't give you reference to any Earth-bound, power producing fusion reactor either, but I still know that fusion can do it.In my opinion, unless we get things correct at the Angstrom level, earth-bound fusion reactors just will not be built. If indeed charges are pulsating (which I have presented good evidence for), then it will be very difficult to fuse charged matter efficiently in a Tokamak. Neither Classical Electrodynamic Theory nor QM will suffice for when the charges start to get extremely close together.

To be continued . . .

[andrewgray]

I gave your work a brief overview. How can you go and say that some super-dense objects are pulsing and some are not?Model of Reality's framework obviously allows for ordinary macroscopic bodies that are not pulsating like galactic pulsars. It's just that microscopic charges must be pulsating in order for them to stay together. As I state in the book, the electron acts like a point down to approximately 2x10-15 cm as determined by scattering. The energy of a radial electric field for this small of a charge is 100 times greater than the electron's mass-energy. This is a problem to say the least. Logically, this means that the electron's mass function must go negative somewhere below this radius if the electron's structure is static (this is also why we unfortunately have "renormalization" so this can be ignored). This also implies that a static electron structure gives "repulsive gravity" near the core of the electron. This seems very unlikely to me. Hence (in my opinion), one must conclude that the electron structure is not static. An oscillating electron structure theory has been tried and it does not work. A pulsating electron structure works.


To be continued . . .

[PRodQuanta]

An oscillating electron structure theory has been tried and it does not work. A pulsating electron structure works. I thought you said that the only reason quantum theory works is because people experiment and threw things out that didn't work, and put in something else that does. I think that was your arguement. Is that not what you are doing? I'm not saying that it's not correct, because I certainly dont know, but I'm just a little confused.

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

The nature of the photon can be explained (in broadly relativistic terms) if we disregard the fact that the photon actually moves. This may fly in the face of contemporary thinking, but this change in perspective does actually account for the photon's omnipresent characteristics.

If we apply the notion that the photons are static but vibrate at frequencies characteristic to the energies being conveyed by them (in waveform), much of the phenomena surrounding the photon is explainable; including their duality, the two-split expirement and the photoelectric effect.

For further reading on the Static Photon Vibration Theory, visit ...

www.photonocean.tk

__________________

[andrewgray]

I thought you said that the only reason quantum theory works is because people experiment and threw things out that didn't work, and put in something else that does. I think that was your argument. Is that not what you are doing? To PRodQuanta,

Of course there is some ad hoc (after-the-fact) to my theory! But there are also a lot of new predictions as well. Science is evolutionary, and sometimes revolutionary. Without all the quantum theoretical work, experiment, and error, my theory would not have been possible! OK, I'll admit this. However, I am saying that we need to go up one level to Model of Reality so that its deeper insights can be used to correct the mistakes that QM has made past the atomic level.


To be continued . . .

[andrewgray]

The only thing that I can say is that if this were true, it wouldn't be in this forum. It would be in the process of being experimentally tested, or being proved (or disproved) mathematically. If this were true, I would probably be reading it on arxiv.org right about now.

Paden RoderPaden, Model of Reality is a new book, and there are copyright issues. If I put it on arxiv.org, I would lose copyright, so I have made viewing available at www. ModelofReality.org so people can read it but I do not lose copyright.

Andrew Gray

[PRodQuanta]

andrewgray said:Paden, Model of Reality is a new book, and there are copyright issues. If I put it on arxiv.org, I would lose copyright, so I have made viewing available at www. ModelofReality.org so people can read it but I do not lose copyright. Yes, this I understand. Surely you could submit your papers to a "peer-review" board. Just a suggestion.

Paden Roder

[DrChinese]

Re the nine experiments: which of these have
you yourself done? What were the results?

I promised to wait at least two years before I
would get back into the lab to do these experiments
myself (I am confident that truth seekers will do
these experiments). The reason for this is that the
Quantum Killer Experiments will carry less credibility
if I do them myself ("Quantum Killer Bias").


Andrew Gray

Let's see if I have this correct:

1. You don't like QM even though it has made very accurate predictions for everything it touches, and has made plenty of predictions which have been subsequently verified. Current number of known flaws in QM = 0. But reality cannot be local, which you don't like (a lot of people are with you on this one).

2. So you have varied from the normal attack on QM - i.e. that QM is not complete - and initiated a new attack: QM is just plain wrong.

3. So you have constructed a theory which makes different predictions than QM, but have not even bothered to test them yourself even though you apparently have the ability to do so. All you need to to make a specific prediction outside the related QM prediction and provide it here after having performed the test yourself. It would be quite a prize to be the scientist who overthrows such a respected and valuable theory. But you won't do that, you want others to study your theory some more first and then perform an experiment. And your logic for this is...?

I noticed that liberal reference is made to your site but precious little of the content is finding its way here. Perhaps some more would be appropriate at this time?

[DrChinese]

Paden, Model of Reality is a new book, and there are copyright issues. If I put it on arxiv.org, I would lose copyright, so I have made viewing available at www. ModelofReality.org so people can read it but I do not lose copyright.

Andrew Gray

You cannot copyright or patent laws of nature.

[DrChinese]

Because theoretical physics is dying. Look in the distinguished Science Magazine this week. There is not one physics article. IT IS ALL BIOLOGY. In my opinion, theoretical physics has gotten so far away from the underlying reality that it borders on useless. I stress that this is just my opinion.

To be continued . . .

This is going to come as quite a shock to a lot of theoretical physicists that their field is dying and they didn't even know it!

[andrewgray]

"Yes, this I understand. Surely you could submit your papers to a "peer-review" board. Just a suggestion."
To which peer review board do you refer? Model of Reality is a book. Usually such peer review is reserved for papers. However, peer review is taking place at this very moment by many of my readers. I admit that I have some revisions to do as pointed out by my kind readers. "1. ... Current number of known flaws in QM = 0. But reality cannot be local, which you don't like (a lot of people are with you on this one)."
I must politely disagree here. Here are some flaws that have been previously discussed in this thread: electron spin is not something spinning; the electron magnetic moment cannot be a moment; Bell's theorem deduces that there cannot be an underlying reality; the maximum Bremsstrahlung xray frequency is detected at the 90o angle, making "photon" momentum conservation impossible; no transitions into the "continuum" are seen for the Schrodinger energy level atom; the photoelectric electron ejection is an inelastic absorption, but the photon-electron KE is basically conserved, not momentum. (a contradiction for inelastic absorptions) . . . Need I go on? "2. So you have varied from the normal attack on QM - i.e. that QM is not complete - and initiated a new attack: QM is just plain wrong."
Please forgive me if my essays seem like an attack. I am simply trying to be as logical as possible. To me, for example, if a "theorem" proves that there is no underlying reality to microscopic physics, then this proves that the theorem's basic suppositions must be wrong.
"3. So you have constructed a theory which makes different predictions than QM, but have not even bothered to test them yourself even though you apparently have the ability to do so. All you need to to make a specific prediction outside the related QM prediction and provide it here after having performed the test yourself. It would be quite a prize to be the scientist who overthrows such a respected and valuable theory. But you won't do that, you want others to study your theory some more first and then perform an experiment. And your logic for this is...?"
OK. OK. I will need to take a leave of absence from my hi tech job, and I am getting up the "gumption" to do just that. "I noticed that liberal reference is made to your site but precious little of the content is finding its way here. Perhaps some more would be appropriate at this time?"
OK, I will get right on this . . . I am away from home right now, but to be continued . . .

Andrew Gray

[andrewgray]

Overview of Model of Reality
1) New discovery: a plausible pulsating solution to Einstein's field equations. (Chapters 1-4). 2) Electrons and protons modeled as tiny pulsating particles, their electric fields switching ON and OFF. (Chapter 5). 3) A non-radiating planetary atom can be constructed with pulsating particles, if the electrons are OFF while the nucleus is ON. That way the electrons are never accelerated while ON. They will not radiate. (Chapters 6-7). 4) All key quantum experiments re-explained using reality based principles. For example: The energy hn received by an electron in the photoelectric effect is due to a forward non-acceleration resonance between the incident light wave and the pulsation frequency of the electron. (Chapter 5). The Compton change in x-ray wavelength is simply due to a Doppler shift as the electrons re-transmit the x-rays while receding from the observer. (Chapter 5). The Bremsstalung cutoff freqency seen for x-ray tubes is due to the pulsating nature of the electrons yielding a limited Nyquist frequency of emission. (Chapter 5). The two "quantized angular momentum states" of the silver atom seen in the Stern-Gerlach experiment are actually induced by Larmor Wobble in the strong magnetic field. (Chapter 6). 5) Nine Quantum Killer experiments proposed to prove this theory.(Chapters 8-12). For example: The Stern-Gerlach Killer Experiment. This experiment uses a modified Stern-Gerlach style magnetic with the same magnetic z-derivative, but with a small value for the magnetic field itself. This will allow the recovery of the continuous spectrum of Lz. (Chapter 8). The Bremsstrahlung Cutoff Killer Experiment. This experiment uses a magnetic field to change the pulsation
frequency of an electron beam without changing its energy. This will change the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency without a change in energy, challenging the photon hypothesis. (Chapter 9). The Compton Killer Experiment. This experiment uses polarized x-rays. If an x-ray beam is horizontally polarized, then there will be no x-ray radiation at 90o. However, Compton's theory requires a 90o "photon" if a -44o electron is present. The presence of these -44o electrons without 90o x-ray radiation gives a Compton Contradiction. (Chapter 10).


We now expand each overview topic:

1) New discovery: a plausible pulsating solution to Einstein's field equations.

. . . The gravitational and electric forces are not analogous forces for charge and mass. Gravity approximates an inverse square law force like the electric force, but gravity affects the propagation of the electric force, and not vice versa. Light is bent in a gravitational field, and the presence of gravity will red-shift electromagnetic frequencies. The presence of the electric field is not believed to red-shift gravitational waves, but gravitational waves have never been detected, so this is only theoretically accepted today.
. . . Recently, physicists have realized that the gravitational influence can become so great that the electric force cannot propagate at all. If this happens gravity will win a tug-o-war with the electric force, even though gravity is usually considered 1035 times weaker. In addition, we will show how the gravitational influence can actually cloak the electric force, eliminating it completely between certain charges. When this happens, calculating the electrical potential energy between a pair of charges that "cannot feel each other" becomes crazy. There really is no potential energy there at all.
. . . But what happens if one crashes these "cloaked charges" together while they cannot "feel each other"? The potential energy of assembly instantaneously appears, causing an instantaneous increase in the mass function, and a gravitational shock wave is emitted that could temporarily be orders of magnitude larger than we have previously imagined that gravity could be. With this gravitational shock wave we will show how the electric field lines can be cut so that the electric force temporarily turns off.
. . . This concept is the key to understanding how electric charge and gravitational influence could become a pulsing balancing act. These pulsating gravitational and electric fields could be extremely rapid with huge pulses that time-average approximately to Newton's and Coulomb's Laws.
. . . This is indeed what we are proposing. A pulsar is modeled with alternating gravitational and electrical pulsations. The charge/matter is first gravitationally sucked in, then electrically ejected in a periodic manner. We will first apply this theory to macroscopic pulsars seen in our galaxy. We will see how the radiation fields from these macroscopic pulsars match our theoretical predictions. The absence of any pulsar theory that works makes this new theory a very interesting consideration.
. . . While dreaming about galactic pulsars, we were hit in the head with a brick (similar to the way Newton claims he was bonked in the head with an apple), and realized that this pulsar theory could be applied to electrons. (continued below . . . )

[andrewgray]

2) Electrons and protons modeled as tiny pulsating particles.

. . .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 2x10-13 cm. An electron, however, is known to be more like 2x10-15 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 radius. Presently, particle theories assume that an electron is a point and use a cleverly worded "renormalization procedure" to ignore the infinite self-energy of such an object.
. . . From these observations we realize that no reality-based theory for the electron can use a static electric field. It won't work. But if one insists that a reality-based theory exists (quantum theorists insist that a reality-based theory is impossible), then the only conclusion that can be made is that the electron's electric field is NOT static. And if the electron's electric field is not static, then what makes it oscillate or turn on/off? Nothing besides gravitational influence is known to block electrical influence.
. . . Thus, it seemed very natural to imagine the electron as a tiny pulsar. We decided to write down a theory with tiny electron micropulsars to see just how far we could get explaining the weird electron behavior seen in the laboratory. We are stunned at just how far we got. First of all, if one imagines an electron as an object that turns its electric field on and off extremely rapidly, then one has to imagine Coulomb's Law as a time averaged force. A good way to imagine a time-averaged pulsating force would be if an army troop fired machine guns into a boxcar on a railroad track. The boxcar would accelerate as the soldiers rapidly fired their bullets into the back of the boxcar. The force from this rapid barrage of bullets would accelerate the boxcar uniformly like a constant force (the transfer of momentum to the boxcar is essentially constant), and one could indeed solve for the boxcar's motion using Newton's continuous calculus even though the force is actually pulsed and only constant if one considers the time average. Time differentiating and integrating time-averaged quantities works if the pulsations are extremely short and plentiful. This is how we will imagine that charged elementary particles convey their electric Coulomb force, like a troop of soldiers firing a barrage of bullets into the back of a boxcar. The time-average of the force yields the Coulomb force, and the electron mass function time-averages to me. . . . However, we will show that this time average for me has two strange properties. If the electron indeed is about 2x10-15 cm, then since its time-averaged mass me is just 1/2 MeV, we will show that the mass function must temporarily go negative for part of its pulsation cycle. We will show that cloaked electric charge temporarily acts as an effective "negative mass" as it gets into its "implosion" phase of its pulsation. In addition, if the mass function goes negative temporarily, any comparisons between the magnitudes of the instantaneous electric and gravitational forces are invalid. The gravitational influence may be much larger than we thought, but this could be offset by the "effective mass" of the elementary particle going negative for part of its pulsation cycle and hiding the true instantaneous gravitational strength.
. . . In addition, if the gravitational influence in the elementary particles gets large enough to keep the electrical influence from propagating, then this influence is large enough to radically slow local clocks. It is known that clocks slow down near gravitational influence. If this is the case, clocks at infinity could go to a million seconds while clocks near the particle pass a picosecond. This could make the time-averages just crazy, allowing even more for the weird proportion of the gravitational and electrical time-averages.
. . .What does this pulsating model for elementary particles buy us? Most importantly, pulsating charged particles allow us to return to a planetary atomic model, a model for the atom that was abandoned during the 1930's because of Erwin Schrodinger.

3) A non-radiating planetary atom can be constructed with pulsating particles.

. . . A static charged particle must radiate if it accelerates. There isn't really any way around this. In particular, if a static charged particle is put into a circular orbit, then it must emit periodic electromagnetic radiation. The orbiting particle undergoes an periodic centripetal acceleration.
. . . But atoms do not radiate. Therefore, electrons cannot be static little charges that orbit the nucleus. In the 1930's physicists were faced with this grim fact. But rather than abandon their perception of charge as static, they abandoned the whole concept of a particle in general! In hindsight, this seems like a desperate thing to do so that physicists could have some sort of theory to explain this weird phenomena. It was Erwin Schrodinger who started the strange view that we do not have planetary atoms. He hypothesized that a nucleus had a surrounding "standing matter wave electron cloud", following Louis De Broglie's hypothesis of "matter waves". The probability for detecting an electron in this matter wave cloud was proportional the square of the amplitude, which had no physical meaning and could be a complex number. It was then shown that this "standing matter wave" could be interpreted as a steady-state "probability current" which would not radiate, since steady-state currents do not radiate. This hypothesis did indeed seem strange and met a lot of resistance. Albert Einstein himself vehemently disagreed with it until his death in 1955. However, Neils Bohr agreed with it, and his side won the political war.
. . . To us it seems preferable to abandon the concept of static charge rather than changing the whole concept of a particle in general. If one allows a dynamic electric field for elementary particles, then a planetary atom can be imagined. In particular, for our pulsating model, both the electron and nuclear electric fields constantly pulsate on and off. Thus, if there is a correlation between the pulsations of the electron and its nucleus, then the electron can be accelerated only while its electric field is off. This stable electron orbit would not radiate electromagnetic energy because it would be "off" while accelerated, and unaccelerated while "on". Adding other electrons to the atom would necessitate that the new electrons' pulsations have correlations to the nucleus as well as to the other atomic electrons. (continued below . . . )

[andrewgray]

4) All key quantum experiments re-explained using reality based principles.

. . . The goal of Model of Reality is to explain modern experiments with reality-based ideas. Basically, our goal is to rid modern physics of photons, matter waves, and quantized angular momentum. These concepts have enormous paradoxes associated with them.
. . .We describe light as a wave, although it would be a choppy wave since it is emitted by pulsating particles. The quanta of energy received by an electron in the photoelectric effect will be explained by electron pulsations reaching a forward non-acceleration resonance with the incident light frequency. In our viewpoint, an electron's pulsation rate is determined by how much it is accelerated. The more you accelerate an electron, the faster it pulsates. We will show that when the electron's pulsation rate equals the incident light's frequency, the forward acceleration of the electron will essentially be over.
. . .Authur Compton proposed that x-ray "photons" bounce off of electrons elastically like billiard balls. With this assumption he was able to get a pretty good theoretical prediction for the decrease in x-ray frequency of his scattered x-rays. However, this seems silly since Einstein had previously proposed a completely inelastic absorption and a complete transfer of energy for collisions in the photoelectric effect. In the photoelectric effect, electron-photon inelastic collisions are used. In Compton's theory, elastic billiard ball collisions are used. What seems even sillier is that the photoelectric effect's complete inelastic transfer of energy completely contradicts the very definition of "inelastic collision". In an inelastic collision, it is momentum that is always conserved, not kinetic energy. Claiming a complete transfer of energy in an inelastic collision is an oxymoron. These inconsistencies between the Compton theory and photoelectric theory are troubling.
. . .Also, we investigated the velocity of the electrons that were ejected from the Compton target and we were surprised to find that the ordinary Doppler shift from these velocities completely accounts for the frequency shift in scattered x-rays.
. . .Next, x-ray tubes became common. X-ray tubes blast an electron beam into a metal target at roughly 20 kilovolts to produce x-rays. The emission from these 20 KeV electrons has an abrupt frequency cutoff at roughly 5 million terahertz. If one doubles the electron beam voltage to 40 KeV, then the frequency cutoff doubles to roughly 10 million terahertz. Presently, the explanation for this is the complete conversion of 40 KeV electron energy into a 10 million terahertz "photon". Higher frequencies cannot be created according to modern photon theory, since E=hv in the theory (the "photon" frequency is proportional to its energy). Again the explanation for this limiting frequency uses the complete transfer of energy from the electron to the x-ray "photon", even though these limiting x-rays are emitted in all directions, a troublesome situation for conservation of momentum.
. . .To us, all these inconsistencies seem silly. Our micropulsar viewpoint presents a much saner explanation for x-ray tube emissions using the Nyquist point of view. First, a pulsating electron that has smashed into a metal target would produce emission frequencies starting from the low end of the spectrum all the way up to its Nyquist-limited frequency. Why is this? Well, the easiest way to visualize this limit comes from digital audio. An audio CD has a digital sampling rate of 44 kHz. Try to imagine recording and playing back a 50 kHz ultrasound wave using this 44 kHz sampling rate. It seems impossible, doesn't it? This is because the highest reproducible frequency with 44 kHz sampling is 22 kHz, or half the sampling frequency. Our ears can typically hear up to about 20 kHz, so this is the reason a 44 kHz sampling frequency is used.
. . .Thus, an x-ray tube limited to 5 million terahertz x-rays must have had electrons pulsating at about 10 million terahertz. Electrons pulsating at this rate cannot emit higher frequencies than this. Next, the x-ray tube limited to 10 million terahertz x-rays must had electrons pulsating at 20 million terahertz. Electrons pulsating at this rate cannot emit higher frequencies than this. In summary, these pulsations will yield a Nyquist-limited frequency emitted in all directions. There are other "pro-photon" concepts and evidence besides the ones mentioned here. We will address all of them with reality based ideas. So we move on to our overview of "matter waves".
. . .A "matter wave" is another concept that we would like to eliminate. The most striking "matter wave" evidence is electron interference. It is possible to send an electron beam around a filament and observe interference fringes that appear on film. A coherent pulse of electron micropulsars yields a better explanation. If the two portions of the bent electron pulse cross each other while their electric fields are both "on", then their repulsion will be immense, and the electrons will not continue on towards the film. This deflection will cause a minimum on the film. If the two portions of the pulse meet while their electric fields are "off", then they will continue on and strike the film causing a maximum.
. . .We will see that a beam of pulsating electrons acts like an electron pseudo-wave. However, the advantage of this micropulsar concept is that it is reality-based, and one can imagine what is actually happening. With matter waves, the Schrodinger wave amplitude itself has no physical meaning, and one cannot imagine that something is waving. In our Model of Reality theory, electrons do not actually cancel each other out. In the Schrodinger theory, a minimum on the film is actually interpreted as the electron wave being 180o out of phase and canceling. It is troubling to try to think just how matter can cancel itself out. In our theory, the pulsations simply keep the electrons from striking the film. No more and no less. One does not need to unnecessarily introduce something non-reality-based like a complex valued wave function.
. . . Quantized angular momentum is another concept that seems incorrect to us. It all started with the Stern-Gerlach experiment. In this experiment, the two observed deflections of the silver atoms seem to imply only two "up" or "down" values for its angular momentum, even if two Stern-Gerlach apparatuses were put back-to-back and tilted to some arbitrary relative angle. We will show that atoms have non-radiating planetary electron orbits, and that the huge magnetic fields used in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus actually induce these electron orbits into the two states that give two observed deflections. We will assert that they are NOT quantized. When two Stern-Gerlach apparatuses are tilted relative to one another, we will show that the second tilted apparatus simply induces the atoms into two new "angled-up" or "angled-down" states and that the angular momentum component along the field is actually not conserved. (continued below . . . )

[andrewgray]

5) Nine Quantum Killer experiments proposed to prove this theory.

. . . Any new theory that seeks to replace an existing one must have experimental consequences or it will be ignored. That is the purpose of our nine proposed Quantum Killer Experiments. These experiments are aimed right at the quantum paradoxes. The first experiment is the Stern Gerlach Killer Experiment.
. . .The Stern Gerlach Killer experiment alters the magnetic mechanism used in this experiment so the continuous spectrum of atomic angular momentum can be recovered. This new Stern Gerlach apparatus uses the same powerful inhomogeneous magnetic field principle, but with a small magnitude for the magnetic field itself. This prevents the two "up" or "down" states from being induced by Larmor Wobble in the strong magnetic field.
. . .The Photon Killer Experiments include the Bremsstrahlung Cutoff Killer, the Compton Killer, the Photoelectric Killer, and the Blackbody Killer. In the Bremsstrahlung Cutoff Killer experiment, we show that it is the pulsating nature of the electrons that Nyquist-limit the frequency of the emitted x-rays, and not the existence of light quanta. This is accomplished by changing the pulsation rate of an electron beam with a magnetic field without changing its energy. In the Compton Killer Experiment, we show that the Compton effect is not due to an elastic photon-electron collision by using polarized x-rays, which are not scattered at 90o. Compton's theory predicts the simultaneous occurrence of these 90o "photons" along with -44o ejected electrons. If the -44o electrons exist without the 90o "photons", then a Compton contradiction exists. In the Photoelectric Killer Experiment, we show how the validity range of the photoelectric relation is just a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum, and how electrons are ejected from metal in other frequency ranges according to our new theory. In the Blackbody Killer Experiment, we show how the radiation spectrum given off from a heated blackbody with an ultraviolet absorbent coating contradicts the ultraviolet catastrophe, implying that the blackbody spectrum simply depends on the atoms in the blackbody coating with natural orbital frequencies that are thermally agitated.
. . .The Schrodinger Killer Experiments include the Lyman Absorption Killer and the Lyman Odd Harmonics Resonance experiment. The Lyman Absorption Killer shows that the Schrodinger "ionization photon frequency" for hydrogen is fictional by observing available electric current when light with this "ionization frequency" is incident on hydrogen. This is compared to the current available with other "non-ionizing" resonant absorption frequencies. We will see that the special "ionization frequency" is not special at all, and that this frequency is simply a resonant electron orbital frequency just like the others. The Lyman Odd Harmonics Resonance experiment checks for absorption at odd harmonics of the Lyman absorption frequencies.
. . .The Matter Wave Killer experiment proves that electron interference is due to pulsating electron particles, establishing preferred paths to the detector film while in flight. And finally, the Neutrino Killer experiment is conceptually very simple. We propose this experiment for a neutrino source/detector combination where the neutrino source is man-made and the detector is located hundreds of kilometers away from the source. The man-made neutrino source is turned off without the knowledge of the detector technicians. We claim that neutrino data is simply random noise, and that the distant neutrino detector will not be able to ascertain when the source (hundreds of kilometers away) was turned off. Once these Quantum Killer experiments have been verified, it will be interesting to see what happens in the world of physics.

[pallidin]

Damn, this is one hell-of-an interesting thread, to be sure. My hat is off to all participants.
Could it be suggested that there is enough preliminary evidence/responsible speculation presented here to warrant further investigation? I think there is.
May I suggest that an effort be made now to move on actual validation of the QK experiment claims. But this is costly. Understood, and likely outside the financial and laboratory scope of a single individual.
Perhaps those "well-connected" here(and elsewhere we might know) might be able to arrange these tests. Hint.
This seems a little too important to leave entirely alone on the floors of a forum.

[notal33t]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=4][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]
I propose a condition of quantum insanity where particles are intelligent (but insane) :eek: they run about hiding their properties from all observers, whilst popping in and out of existence through transdimensional singularities! Seems to me to make more sense then any of the current proposals!

[pallidin]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=4][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]
I propose a condition of quantum insanity where particles are intelligent (but insane) :eek: they run about hiding their properties from all observers, whilst popping in and out of existence through transdimensional singularities! Seems to me to make more sense then any of the current proposals!

Let me clearly state: The only proposal that makes sense to me is to run the new experiments and examine the results.

[andrewgray]

Could it be suggested that there is enough preliminary evidence/responsible speculation presented here to warrant further investigation? I think there is. May I suggest that an effort be made now to move on actual validation of the QK experiment claims. But this is costly. Understood, and likely outside the financial and laboratory scope of a single individual. Perhaps those "well-connected" here (and elsewhere we might know) might be able to arrange these tests. Hint. This seems a little too important to leave entirely alone on the floors of a forum.

Pallidin,

Thanks so much for the help. I hope we can convince the physics community about the merits of these experiments.

Andrew Gray

[AntiMagicMan]

My god, why are there so many cranks in this world? Is it just failed physicists trying to cover up their inadequate understanding of reality? Or are they just completely insane fools.

Hear this: No self respecting physicist is going to consider a new model of reality if it is published in a book, submit it to peer review journals, have experimental evidence to back it up, and sit back as real qualified people rip your babblling to shreds.

[russ_watters]

Hear this: No self respecting physicist is going to consider a new model of reality if it is published in a book, submit it to peer review journals, have experimental evidence to back it up, and sit back as real qualified people rip your babblling to shreds. Here's the problem (and its a biggie) - no self respecting physicist will get past the abstract of one of these papers. A terse response of "this is nonsense" to one of these papers will only validate the 'vast conspiracy of the establishment' belief held by most of those in this category.

The universal trait that fuels these guys is the inability to consider their own fallibility.

[pallidin]

My god, why are there so many cranks in this world? Is it just failed physicists trying to cover up their inadequate understanding of reality? Or are they just completely insane fools.

Hear this: No self respecting physicist is going to consider a new model of reality if it is published in a book, submit it to peer review journals, have experimental evidence to back it up, and sit back as real qualified people rip your babblling to shreds.

With all due respect, that is probably the most irresponsible series of statements I've ever heard.

1) "My god, why are there so many cranks in this world?"
Answer: because there are indeed "cranks" abundant in any walk of life, and there are those who think "outside-of-the-box" yet labelled as cranks. There is a differance, but often seen as the same. Does not the advancement of knowledge hinge, in large part, on the fluidity of conception?
2) "Is it just failed physicists trying to cover up their inadequate understanding of reality?"
Answer: that statement suggests that "un-failed" physicists truly and accurately understand reality. Really? Tell me who does!

3) "Or are they just completely insane fools."
Answer: the only fool is the person who does not challenge.

4) "Hear this: No self respecting physicist..."
Answer: If your are self-respecting you will never truly innovate.

5) "... submit it to peer review journals, have experimental evidence to back it up..."
Answer: That is exactly what MUST be done.

6) "and sit back as real qualified people rip your babblling to shreds."
My FAVORITE!!!!
Answer: A pure theoretician/experimentalist actually WELCOMES brutal, and I do say brutal, inspection of claims. Whether this claimant does or does not is not my call, yet the point stands. This aspect helps the development of the theory. Even if shown false in whole or in part, much is still gained and useful in future endeavors.

[pallidin]

Here's the problem (and its a biggie) - no self respecting physicist will get past the abstract of one of these papers. A terse response of "this is nonsense" to one of these papers will only validate the 'vast conspiracy of the establishment' belief held by most of those in this category.

The universal trait that fuels these guys is the inability to consider their own fallibility.

Might it not be more accurately said that there is no "establishment" of physics thought, rather a large body of "denominational" interpretation.

[PRyckman]

may we get back on topic? I was interested in this thread

[pallidin]

Here's the problem (and its a biggie) - no self respecting physicist will get past the abstract of one of these papers. A terse response of "this is nonsense" to one of these papers will only validate the 'vast conspiracy of the establishment' belief held by most of those in this category.

The universal trait that fuels these guys is the inability to consider their own fallibility.

"vast conspiracy"? Of course their is and occurs often. Hello!!! Certain aspects of physics, especially with regards to application, are centered outside of the public domain, and should remain as such. What more needs to be said?! The average Joe Blow does not have the maturity or sense of responsibilty to deal with these matters. If "conspiracy", in this context, is defined as a concerted effort to withold or deceive in order to promote national interests, than that definition is certainly accurate and well founded.

[pallidin]

Quote from Russ Waters:

"The universal trait that fuels these guys is the inability to consider their own fallibility."

Nice! An outstanding and true comment! It is SO important as a theorist to have a deafening level of humility, a sense that though one's concepts are worthy of consideration they are even more so worthy of critical inspection and attack.

[pallidin]

may we get back on topic? I was interested in this thread

Yes, of course. My apologizes.

[PRyckman]

Post #26First to Nereid:

"Just so I'm perfectly clear:
- it's only these six experiments where your idea and 'textbook physics' would differ; not any other experiments?"


So your saying that you believe you have something that is so right it disproves 6 well established thoughts/equations/observations?

[AntiMagicMan]

With all due respect, that is probably the most irresponsible series of statements I've ever heard.

Is it worth my time to consider a theory which is created on philosophical grounds, to cover up a misunderstanding of reality, and which flys in the face of all the experimental evidence we have?

If you want to call me closed minded to not consider this then consider me close minded. If instead of attempting to generate sales of a book, the author did the experiments and published his claims in a respectable manner then I would listen. I however happen to believe that theoretical physics should not be done for money.

[PRyckman]

I however happen to believe that theoretical physics should not be done for money.


Rock on AntiMagicMan! It's for fun!

[andrewgray]

Hear this: No self respecting physicist is going to consider a new model of reality if it is published in a book, submit it to peer review journals, have experimental evidence to back it up, and sit back as real qualified people rip your babblling to shreds.AntiMagicMan,

Wisdom (acquired the hard way) has taught us that it is possible to be nice to the people that we disagree with. So can we all just be nice while disagreeing? Why do you think that you are having such an emotional reaction to my theory?



If instead of attempting to generate sales of a book, the author did the experiments and published his claims in a respectable manner then I would listen. I however happen to believe that theoretical physics should not be done for money.OK, OK, already. I got the message. I will commit to go and find out what the possibilities are for me doing some of these experiments..

Andrew Gray

[russ_watters]

...because there are indeed "cranks" abundant in any walk of life, and there are those who think "outside-of-the-box" yet labelled as cranks. There is a differance, but often seen as the same. Yes, there is a difference: "cranks" is the correct word. Does not the advancement of knowledge hinge, in large part, on the fluidity of conception? If by that you mean "thinking outside the box" then certainly yes. But again, that's not what this is about. Eg: Einstein thought outside of the box - way outside of the box. And he was "just" a patent clerk. Yet "real" physicists listened to him. Why?Answer: the only fool is the person who does not challenge. There are other types of fools. Those who refuse to learn, for example. Those who refuse to accept evidence they don't like. Those who refuse to even consider their own fallibility. Answer: If your are self-respecting you will never truly innovate. Rediculous. Answer: A pure theoretician/experimentalist actually WELCOMES brutal, and I do say brutal, inspection of claims. [emphasis added] Indeed, thats the crux of my post and exactly why such a thing will backfire in this case: Cranks are not scientists. "vast conspiracy"? Of course their is and occurs often.... I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. There is very little of physics that isn't in the public domain shortly after discovery and nothing that isn't in the public domain in maybe 20 years. In any case, the topics of this discussion were, for the most part, figured out more than 50 years ago and are all public domain.

[pallidin]

OK, OK, already. I got the message. I will commit to go and find out what the possibilities are for me doing some of these experiments..

Andrew Gray

Excellent! Your proposals on this forum have led to considerable debate leading you to rightfully conclude that validation through acceptable standards of experimentation is of unquestionable importance in furtherance of the "theory"
Indeed, much of the theory(as I am able to ascertain), appears to be in such a state that pure mathematical validation/refutation alone simply is not possible due to the underlying concepts suggested to support the idea.
As such, theories of this nature seem best addressed through direct experiment.
Great job on your recognition and desire to do so. I certainly wish you the best in endeavoring to achieve that capability.

[PRodQuanta]

Much like an upside down meal, you are doing your experimental proceedures upside down. I know, and I'm only a highschool sophomore, that you observe (in this case the flaw in what you've found), then you test. After that, you interpret your data. And then, only then, do you publish it, whether it be in a book, or better yet, to peer review.

No offense, *well, maybe a little*, how could anybody respected scientist in his or her right mind trust somebody who creates a flaw that even a highschooler would know not to make.

I agree with the others, I have little respect for people who try and cheat others out of money.

I really hope you do prove everybody wrong, but if you find that your theory is boggus, *which I have not the knowledge to judge*, you are cheating people, and that is morally and ethically wrong.

It is true in science. The object is not to see what nobody has yet seen, but to think about something nobody has yet thought, about something that everybody sees. Good luck. And for your own sake, I hope your finding are correct.

Paden Roder

[notal33t]

Yes, there is a difference: "cranks" is the correct word. If by that you mean "thinking outside the box" then certainly yes. But again, that's not what this is about. Eg: Einstein thought outside of the box - way outside of the box. And he was "just" a patent clerk. Yet "real" physicists listened to him. Why? There are other types of fools. Those who refuse to learn, for example. Those who refuse to accept evidence they don't like. Those who refuse to even consider their own fallibility. Rediculous. Indeed, thats the crux of my post and exactly why such a thing will backfire in this case: Cranks are not scientists. I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. There is very little of physics that isn't in the public domain shortly after discovery and nothing that isn't in the public domain in maybe 20 years. In any case, the topics of this discussion were, for the most part, figured out more than 50 years ago and are all public domain.

One might suggest that speculation fuels innovation in all areas of endeavor and "CRANKISM" has more then once caused "scientists" to reexamine their "PREJUDICES", a case in point "continental drift", but then even "scientists" could be deemed to be fools.... quantum mechanics IS AND WILL REMAIN HIGHLY SPECULATIVE..

"The only box we should be in is the one with the monkey wrench"

Per ardua ad alta

[AntiMagicMan]

AntiMagicMan,

Wisdom (acquired the hard way) has taught us that it is possible to be nice to the people that we disagree with. So can we all just be nice while disagreeing? Why do you think that you are having such an emotional reaction to my theory?



OK, OK, already. I got the message. I will commit to go and find out what the possibilities are for me doing some of these experiments..

Andrew Gray

I think I was reacting emotionally because you had no evidence to back up your claims.

If however you do the experiments then I will re-evaluate my opinion of you, and I await the publication of your results in a respected peer reviewed journal. I won't hold my breath mind you.

[DrChinese]

[list] "1. ... Current number of known flaws in QM = 0. But reality cannot be local, which you don't like (a lot of people are with you on this one)."
I must politely disagree here. Here are some flaws that have been previously discussed in this thread: electron spin is not something spinning; the electron magnetic moment cannot be a moment; Bell's theorem deduces that there cannot be an underlying reality; the maximum Bremsstrahlung xray frequency is detected at the 90o angle, making "photon" momentum conservation impossible; no transitions into the "continuum" are seen for the Schrodinger energy level atom; the photoelectric electron ejection is an inelastic absorption, but the photon-electron KE is basically conserved, not momentum. (a contradiction for inelastic absorptions) . . . Need I go on? "2. So you have varied from the normal attack on QM - i.e. that QM is not complete - and initiated a new attack: QM is just plain wrong."
Please forgive me if my essays seem like an attack. I am simply trying to be as logical as possible. To me, for example, if a "theorem" proves that there is no underlying reality to microscopic physics, then this proves that the theorem's basic suppositions must be wrong.



Andrew, your thinking is fuzzy.

1. "Electron spin is not something spinning"? Get real. You are caught up in the words, which is not the same as the formalism. The formalism works because of the predictions it makes. That is why quarks can be called quarks and have properties like charm or strangeness, or fractional charge. Your critiques sound hollow because you place priority on semantics and philosophy while the predictions of QM continue to receive experimental support to more and more decimal places. With Bell's Theorem, for example, local reality has been found to be violated by more than 30 standard deviations but solidly within the range of QM. It will take more than words to address that in a satisfactory manner.

2. Any theorem describes something, and then experiments may support the theorem. So when you reject Bell's Theorem, you are really rejecting the results of actual experiments. Yet, any theorem you would propose needs to make identical predictions in this regard to agree with what experiments already show!

[andrewgray]

Dr Chinese,

As previously discussed in this thread, Bell's Theorem has to do with EPR-like experiments, and Bell's theoretical limits on their outcomes (based solely on Boolean logic). That is the key. In the quantum-style measurement of atomic angular momentum, for example, the output of the apparatus (Stern-Gerlach) is boolean: "UP" or "DOWN". But it is the experiment itself that is incorrect. We have shown theoretically that the quantum-style measurement of atomic angular momentum is not a measurement at all. The strong magnetic field used in the apparatus actually induces the boolean outputs due to Larmor wobble in the strong B-field. After the Stern-Gerlach Killer experiment is run the continuous nature of angular momentum will be recovered. Then

Bell's Theorem will no longer apply, as it requires boolean outputs.
Repeat: Bell's Theorem does not apply to continuous outputs.

The experimental Stern-Gerlach apparatus will then be shown to radically affect the atomic angular momentum, making the apparatus become completely uninteresting. In effect, Bell's Theorem is actually telling us the truth. That is, the Stern-Gerlach results do not coincide with any underlying reality about conservation of angular momentum. The interpretation, however, is that the z-component of angular momentum is not actually conserved (a very different conclusion than usual).



Here is a section taken from:
www.ModelofReality.org/Sect6_2.html


6.2 The Atom in the Presence of a Magnetic Field

. . . A magnetic dipole with angular momentum will precess at the Larmor frequency when subject to a magnetic field. A precessing magnetic dipole must radiate. It has changing magnetic fields! Consequently, it is very interesting that modern physicists quickly discarded the atomic planetary model because of the radiation that an orbiting electron must generate. What about a precessing electron magnetic moment? Must it not radiate? The same radiation argument that killed the planetary model of the atom should have killed the precessing model of the electron’s magnetic moment. This is because today’s quantum theory for electron spin and magnetic moment does not allow radiation unless the electron undergoes a “spin flip”. But what about the changing electromagnetic fields of the precessing electron spin? Are they just hypothesized away like the radiation of Bohr’s orbital electrons? It seems hypocritical to claim that an atomic electron cannot be orbiting because atomic electrons don’t continually radiate, and at the same time hypothesizing that a precessing electron magnetic dipole doesn’t radiate its energy away in the same way. The same argument about the eventual collapse of the atom due to energy carried off by the resulting radiation should apply to a precessing magnetic dipole. Modern quantum physics even postulates that the electron spin precesses in a stationary atom with no external magnetic field present, due to “spin-orbit interactions”. But hypothesizing that a precessing magnetic spin does not radiate unless it undergoes “spin flip” is analogous to Niels Bohr hypothesizing that orbital electrons don’t radiate unless they make “quantum jumps”. Thus, the spinning electron theory is just as suspect as Bohr’s “stationary states” hypothesis of the hydrogen atom. This inconsistency and others motivate us to discover alternate explanations for the behavior of atoms in the presence of magnetic fields. (See also section 6.5).
. . . We shall discuss the hydrogen atom in the presence of a uniform magnetic field. For simplicity, we first consider a hydrogen atom oriented so its orbital plane is perpendicular to the magnetic field B, as shown in figure 6.3. Notice that we have drawn the electron micropulsars’s orbit as quasi-circular. The straight segments of the orbit corresponding to when the proton is OFF, and the curved “corners” corresponding to when the proton is ON. Notice that the orbit does not have to be closed. Now with a constant magnetic field, there must be radiation when the electron is ON. This is because the magnetic force is present when the electron turns ON, and the electron is accelerated while ON. How can the atom remain stable if there is radiation?
. . . We must face the “unwanted” conclusion that a pulsed electric force is only conservative if it is averaged over time, and if the two charge pulsations are not correlated. If the two charge pulsations are correlated, then the electric force is not conservative. For example, if the proton is OFF, we can quickly remove an electron from the hydrogen atom without doing any work. This phenomenon of a correlated electron micropulsar escaping from a time-averaged potential barrier is called tunneling. (We discuss this phenomenon later in this book). For the electron’s orbit in a magnetic field not to collapse, the electron must change its orbit slightly so that even though it radiates while it is ON, it regains kinetic energy by being accelerated inwards longer than it is being decelerated outwards. This concept is shown as simply as possible in figure 6.4, with the small magnetic acceleration not drawn. Thus, it recovers from any deviation in its average orbit by moving outwards more than inwards while the proton is OFF. It can do so without an energy penalty. If it cannot, then it must change orbits or tunnel out of the atom altogether. We emphasize that this orbit remains stable in this equatorial plane because the radiation is symmetrically emitted all the way around, and the plane of the orbit does not change.
. . . The situation changes dramatically if the plane of the orbit is not perpendicular to the magnetic field. It is well known that charges revolving with angular momentum create a magnetic moment, m, which experiences an average torque in a magnetic field given by

. . . . . . . . . . . . t = m X B

This average torque is perpendicular to both the magnetic field and the angular momentum itself. If we let the magnetic field be in the z direction, then the resultant motion is a precession of the angular momentum about the z axis. For a rigid body, the precession can be smooth and uniform (see Goldstein’s Classical Mechanics 2nd Ed., pp. 220,232). But an atom is not a rigid body. In figure 6.5, we see that the torque due to the magnetic field varies as the electron circulates around the proton. When the electron is in the horizontal plane beside the proton at points 2 and 4 in the figure, the magnetic force is radial, and hence there is no torque nor precession at all. When the electron is at points 1 and 3 in the figure, its velocity is horizontal, and the magnetic force creates the maximum precessional torque that is horizontal and perpendicular to the angular momentum. At all other points along the orbit like point 5, the torque is not horizontal. Hence, the z-component of the angular momentum is not constant (nor is |L| itself), and the electron orbit does not precess uniformly. It nutates around the z-axis with a Larmor Wobble rather than with a uniform precession (a uniform precession about the z axis requires that the torque stay perpendicular to the angular momentum with constant horizontal magnitude). We see that the z-component of the angular momentum oscillates (as well as |L| itself) about an average value during the precession, as shown in figure 6.6 (not to scale).
. . . The Larmor Wobble of these orbits makes us suspicious of their stability. Why is this? Take a gyroscope and spin it. After placing it on a holder, any nutations of the gyroscope are quickly damped out by friction and the gyroscope always ends up spinning about its symmetry axis and precessing uniformly around the vertical z axis (again, see Goldstein’s Classical Mechanics 2nd Ed., p 220). And even though there are still frictional forces present during the gyroscope’s uniform precession, the frictional torques produced are symmetrical relative to the spin axis and do not affect the uniform precession. The frictional forces act mainly to damp out the asymmetrical nutations. (continued below . . .)

[andrewgray]

. . . We have not proven these assertions at this time. We have only argued their feasibility, because the analysis is hyper-complex. But a good example of a complete angular momentum reversal is the tippie top. Goldsein says (Classical Mechanics 2nd Ed. p. 224) that the tippie top’s “complete reversal of [its] angular momentum vector is the result of the frictional torque occurring as the top skids on its spherical surface”. In this example, the angular momentum of the top is completely reversed by the relatively small frictional forces. We assert that this is how the electron changes the plane of its orbit, by the small asymmetrical dissipative radiation forces. We leave it to the proposed experiments to prove it. However, we now have a much deeper insight into the behavior of electron orbits in the presence of magnetic fields. In particular, these principles explain the behavior of atoms during the Stern Gerlach experiment.
. . . We will apply this principle to the electron orbits of hydrogen. The damping of precessional nutations by dissipative forces cannot be ignored. There is a significant amount of dissipative radiation in the presence of a large external magnetic field, analogous to the friction on a gyroscope. Additionally, in the wobbly Larmor orbits, the dissipative radiation is not symmetrical. This means that the electron could get out of sync with the proton, and it would thus be possible for them to go into their ON states simultaneously. This would lead to a radical change in orbit. We therefore make the reasonable assertion that this dissipative radiation in combination with the wobbly nutational motion acts just like the frictional forces on a wobbly gyroscope, and forces the orbit towards one of uniform motion. That is, we assert that the asymmetrical radiation of the electron and the wobbly orbit cause the orbit’s plane to change towards the equatorial plane perpendicular to the magnetic field. Once there, the orbit then remains stable because the magnetic torque vanishes and the dissipative radiation is symmetrically emitted. Analogously to the gyroscope, the hydrogen electron tends to move towards one of two stable orbits in the magnetic field. One is “up” and one is “down”, corresponding to clockwise and counterclockwise orbits perpendicular to the magnetic field. Once in one of these two uniform orbits, the electron still radiates due to the magnetic forces, but the orbit remains stable due to the correlated pulsations of the electron and proton, and the non-conservative nature of the pulsed Coulomb force in this condition (see figure 6.4).


Andrew Gray

[andrewgray]

Here is one more reason that I am fairly certain that atomic magnetic moments are being induced in a strong magnetic field. Take the Zeeman effect. In a weak magnetic field, the Zeeman change in spectrum is essentially continuous. However, if you increase the B-field to a large value, then the frequencies become discrete, (+-wB) implying that some sort of inducement has happened.

Andrew Gray

[DrChinese]

Dr Chinese,

As previously discussed in this thread, Bell's Theorem has to do with EPR-like experiments, and Bell's theoretical limits on their outcomes (based solely on Boolean logic). That is the key. In the quantum-style measurement of atomic angular momentum, for example, the output of the apparatus (Stern-Gerlach) is boolean: "UP" or "DOWN". But it is the experiment itself that is incorrect. We have shown theoretically that the quantum-style measurement of atomic angular momentum is not a measurement at all. The strong magnetic field used in the apparatus actually induces the boolean outputs due to Larmor wobble in the strong B-field. After the Stern-Gerlach Killer experiment is run the continuous nature of angular momentum will be recovered. Then

Bell's Theorem will no longer apply, as it requires boolean outputs.
Repeat: Bell's Theorem does not apply to continuous outputs.

The experimental Stern-Gerlach apparatus ...

Andrew,

The EPR experiments (a la Aspect) measure photon polarization. You don't seriously deny that photon polarity is a real observable... do you? It is observed every time you put on polarized sunglasses. The experiments are real, and the non-local correlations are real. As to the "boolean" nature of the observable, it IS boolean and there is no other known state of the photon as has been demonstrated many times. If you can demonstrate MORE observables to a photon than the Heisenberg relations allow, have at it. I still see nothing from you on this point.

As to your theory: You are free to explain the phenomena any way you like, but your explanation must make predictions which agree with the results of experiment. You cannot say that it doesn't apply when there is a theory that explains the results quite nicely.

[kurious]

" In the beginning there was darkness and then the Lord said "Let there be Newton".
As the years go by I just get more and more astonished at how important Newton's work is to all our thinking.No matter how fancy our knowledge of the physical sciences is now, we all learn Newtonian principles first.And who knows, we may one day find that relativity is just a fancy version of Newtonian theory.
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar said that with the advantage of three more centuries of accumulated knowledge he could not devise mathematical proofs
as elegantly as Newton had in his Principia.And Einstein, even with SR written down in front of him, found it hard to believe Newton was wrong.If Newton was around now, would there be any need for this forum.Perhaps not!

[andrewgray]

Dr Chinese,

. . . Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen originally formulated their so-called EPR paradox using correlated particle spins that had separated and had one of their spins measured first (before light can travel across to the other particle). Later, this type of experiment was extended to two "polarization-correlated photons". Both of these experiments were assumed to have boolean outputs. For particle angular momentum, it is either "SPIN UP" or "SPIN DOWN". For "photons", it is either "ABSORBED BY", or allowed to "PASS THROUGH" the polarizer. . . . J.S. Bell's theorem, using simple boolean logic, then put strictly mathematical limits on such measurements. The results from Aspect's "photon" experiments, as applied with Bell's inequality, then concluded that there can be no underlying reality to the system (usually stated as "no hidden variables possible"). This is indeed the correct application of Bell's theroem, but the wrong conclusion is made. One must conclude, in my opinion, that since Bell's theorem clearly finds that there can be no underlying reality to these "photon" experiments, then no reality-based theory can include photons. The current quantum viewpoint is that there simply can be no underlying reality. This seems naive to me. Let us look at the four key quantum experimental reasons for the use of "photons": 1) Planck's light quantizing Blackbody formula. 2) Einstein's photoelectric effect. 3) Compton's "photon" scattering formula. 4) Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency. 1) Problem: Planck's blackbody radiation formula incorporates the Rayleigh-Jeans "number of standing waves in the blackbody cavity" calculation (see for example, Eisberg's Fundamentals of Modern Physics, p.56 ff.). Now think about that. Standing waves in a blackbody cavity? The existence of standing waves implies reflections at the walls. The walls of the blackbody cavity are first assumed to be perfect absorbers. This is a blatant self-contradiction. 2) Problem: Einstein assumed an inelastic "photon" absorption for his photoelectric effect (with a max transfer of KE=hn. Guess what? For particles, an inelastic absorption means that momentum is conserved and kinetic energy is not. Therefore, this proves that "photons", if they exist, do NOT actually behave like particles. 3) Problem: Compton incorporates an elastic billiard ball type of "photon" collision, whereas Einstein introduced the concept as an inelastic absorption. Model of Reality then investigates the ejected Compton electron velocities and finds that the ordinary Doppler shift from these velocities exactly accounts for the Compton shift. In addition. the Compton formula is useless for any other frequency besides xray frequencies. 4) Problem: The maximum Bremsstrahlung xray frequency (given by E=hnmax) is broadcast in all directions, making conservation of photon-electron momentum impossible. Another blatant self-contradiction proving that "photons", if they exist, do not act like particles.


These Aspect experiments were discussed earlier in this thread. Part of that discussion is repeated here for convenience:


Does your model provide a "local realistic" explanation of the correlations of entangled particles (such as in EPRB/Aspect experiments) that violate Bell's theorem? I would love to see details of that.Yes, I have proposed a reality-based explanation to all the EPR/entanglement craziness. Here are the logical steps. I will summarize and quote, so if I leave out something, my apologies.

1) The Stern-Gerlach apparatus is an inducer, not a measurer.
. . .The Stern-Gerlach Killer Experiment is designed to prove this:

. . .http://www.modelofreality.org/advertisement.gif
. . .www.modelofreality.org/Sect8_1.html

This experiment's purpose is to show that angular momentum is not quantized. Once this has been shown, we will be rid of quantized angular momentum. Now you have to go with me here, as this experiment certainly has not been done and nothing proven yet. Next, it is well known (I guess) that the electron's angular momentum cannot be "something spinning" and the electron's magnetic moment cannot be a "moment". The electron acts like a point all the way down to 10E-15 cm. Did most of you know that it is impossible to concentrate a 1/2 quanta of angular momentum into this volume without something exceeding the speed of light? Andrew GrayYes, that is a calculation that every beginning student of modern physics is asked to do. Tom, PF MentorOne of the properties of an electron is that it has a magnetic moment...
What is inconsistent about that?

You do an experiment involving a magnet and an electron beam. It turns out the electrons react to the field. They want to line up to it due to their mag. moment (i.e. they experience a torque). I don't see the inconsistency in that.
Perhaps I'm not catching what you mean by inconsistent...Heumpje You say that the electron spin not spinning is not an inconsistency.

OK then.

So the inconsistency is that the electron's magnetic moment is not a "moment"?

moment n. The product of a quantity and the distance to a particular axis or point.

...in addition to the impossibility of concentrating angular-momentum inside an electron's volume to make electron "spin", there is no room inside an electron for any electric current (with charge e) to have a large enough "moment" to make up a "1/2 quanta of magnetic moment".

Therefore, the electron's magnetic "moment", if it exists, is not a "moment".

Seems inconsistent to me.
We see that there are so many inconsistencies to electron spin, that any reality-based theory cannot have it. So we have eliminated it. Again, you will just have to go with me here, as nothing is proven yet.

2) Once the Stern-Gerlach apparatus is proven to be an inducer,
. . .then Bell's inequality is totally meaningless for Stern-Gerlach type
. . .angular momentum systems.
. . .Repeat: Meaningless. One cannot be inducing characteristics
. . .onto a system and simultaneoulsy claiming that one is
. . .measuring something in the system.
. . .The Stern-Gerlach Killer apparatus will satisfy normal
. . .angular momentum theory, as Bell's inequality
. . .requires binary outputs and does NOT apply here.

3) No reality-based theory can have wave-particle paradoxes
. . .hanging around.
. . .In our new theory, electrons are pulsating particles, and
. . .light is a wave. The quantum phenomena are then are readily explained.
. . .Read Model of Reality's Overview:
. . .www.ModelofReality.org/overview.html

Basically, there are too many inconsistencies with "photons" for them to be included in any reality based theory. First, "photons" DO NOT act like particles in the photoelectric effect. Why? Because they are claimed to be inelastically absorbed by the photo-electrons. Now go look up an inelastic absorption in an elementary physics book. What is conserved in an inelastic collision?

Kinetic Energy?
NO!
Momentum.

Momentum is what is conserved, not kinetic energy. So claiming a complete transfer of energy in a particle-like "absorption" is inconsistent with its very definition.

Now look at the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency in xray tubes, where electrons are smashing into an aluminum plate. This limiting frequency is claimed to be because no "photons" with energy greater than hv can be created. But if one looks closer, one sees that these limiting frequencies are emitted in all directions, a real problem for conservation of momentum in this experiment if light really is a particle. How about the xray emissions at 90 degrees? Since this direction is perpendicular to the deceleration, this is where one would expect most of the radiation to be. But if the electron gives up all its energy to a limiting "photon", this "photon" must logically be in the forward direction, if particle conservation laws are going to remain sane.

Now read Model of Reality's explanation for the two slit paradox:

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect5_6.html

After reading this, perhaps you are beginning to see just how we have successfully explained all the "photon" evidence away. So basically, NO PHOTONS. (See Model of Reality's "Photon Killer Experiments").

Now back to A. Aspect and entanglement.
(continued below . . .)

[andrewgray]

However, we still must talk about these “photon correlation” experiments. Even though “photons” do not exist, what does exist are two correlated electromagnetic pulses that modern physicists (incorrectly) call “photons”. But when we measure the polarization of these two pulses, are we in fact measuring anything associated with them? That is, how does a polarizer work? To the contemporary quantum physicist, a polarizer either “absorbs the photon” or “lets it pass through”. This “absorption” or “passing” is simply given a probability. But this viewpoint is extremely naive. A polarizer works by re-emitting polarized radiation with a phase shift that tends to cancel one component of the incident wave. A polarizer does not just absorb or pass a light pulse. The pulse that emerges on the other side of the polarizer is the sum of the original radiation plus the phase shifted re-emitted radiation from the polarizer material that tends to cancel one component of the incident pulse. Thus, what emerges from a polarizer is not the original pulse at all. Something is induced upon the system, again making the measurement a quantum inducement, not a measurement. So talking about whether the original pulse (“photon”) was either “absorbed” or “passed” is the wrong way to look at it.This quote taken from

www.modelofreality.org/Sect6_8.html

So in summary:

1) The Stern-Gerlach apparatus is an inducer.
2) Angular momentum will be shown to be not spacially quantized.
3) The Stern-Gerlach Killer apparatus will satisfy normal angular momentum theory.
4) This solves the "particle entanglement problem".
4) The "Photon Killer Experiments" are designed to prove that "photons" do not exist.
5) This will solve the "photon" entanglement problem.




would you not agree that the results of the Aspect experiments do show correlations that agree with the predictions of QM?
First let me say that a non-reality based theory agreeing with experimental observables has philosophical consequences. The extreme example is the Greek's explanation for the sun's movement.


Helios is the young Greek god of the sun. Each dawn Helios rises from the ocean in the East and rides his chariot pulled by four horses through the sky to descend at night in the West.(citadelofthedragons.tripod.com)

This non-reality based theory agreed with all experimental observables for the sun's movement obtainable by the Greeks at the time. So in this spirit, YES! The QM predictions for the Aspect experiment agree very well with experimental observables obtainable at the present time!...measurement of photon A does not depend on the orientation of the polarizer at photon B
Let me first emphasize two things:

1) A reality-based theory cannot have "photons", in my opinion.
We have eliminated "photons" from the picture.

2) In the Aspect experiment, one can only talk about correlated pulses in a system where the "measuring" devices are adding electromagnetic energy to the pulses (in my opinion). So it would be trivial to work backwards and come up with some hypothetical polarizer material model that adds just the correct amount of radiation to agree with the Aspect results.
does your model reproduce the predicted (and observed) correlations?
However, I have not done the calculation where one starts from theoretical scratch. Perhaps it would be interesting to start from scratch, assuming some kind of polarizer material model, and see what kind of results it gives. I think that I will do this. Thank you for the suggestion. I would have never thought of it.

However, one must be forewarned that there are a multitude of assumptions that need to be made to set up such a complex problem. In this case, a statistical approach, similar to QM, seems like a practical choice, and a choice that a majority of physicists have chosen. I just wish that this statistical approach wasn't taken so seriously on a deep philosophical level.

The key difference here though, is that the system is not closed, as the polarizers are inducers, not measurers. Bell's inequality requires a binary measurement of "hidden characteristics", not a binary inducement. The "hidden characteristics" of the objects are destroyed by the "measurement", and no longer exist afterward. By parameter independence I mean that the result of a measurement of photon A does not depend on the orientation of the polarizer at photon BOk. If you replace your "photon" with "{correlated EM pulse + induced radiation}", then we can talk. The answer is yes, my theory is local. The "measurement" of {pulse A + induced radiation} does not depend on the orientation of of polarizer B. And the result of the "measurement" of {pulse A + induced radiation} does not depend on the outcome of the "measurement" of {pulse B + induced radiation}.

The "double delayed" stuff then is not necessary to talk about in this context since my theory is local. All that "action at a distance stuff" goes away.

Next to Doc Al:

"Any progress in using your local model to reproduce the correlations that are observed in the double delayed choice (EPR) experiments?"

The reality-based Aspect work is still churning around in my head. I will share with you some of my initial thoughts (No guarantees that they are correct yet).

1) The first step is to approximate a coherent atomic emission pulse. Model of Reality predicts that this will typically be a mixture of linearly and circularly polarized light, depending on the angle from the azimuth. A statistical mixture is probably necessary. The intensities and durations are another consideration, and will also have to be statistically handled.

2) The pulse hits the polarizers. For the linearly polarized light, the polarizer emits phase shifted radiation that tends to cancel only one component of the light. Obviously, it then cannot cancel ALL of that component. A percentage efficiency must be assumed. Also, as the linear polarization of the pulse nears the polarizer's cancel angle, the intensity of the transmitted pulse approaches zero. This means that the detector will experience "marginal pulses". Unfortunately, this means that detector performance must then be taken into account.
. . .For the circularly polarized (and other types from the mixture), the polarizer "feels" an EM field that it can cancel only intermittantly. Thus, it intermittantly emits phase shifted radiation that tends to cancel the pulse only while it is "along the polarizer". Perhaps this allows a "choppy" semi-circularly polarized pulse through, or perhaps the phase shift is enough so that the pulse is elliptically polarized or something. This requires some mathematical analysis.

3) The detector has all kinds of EM pulses hitting it, along with pulses that have marginal intensity (if they were linearly polarized nearly against the polarizer). The particular detector will have to be studied and statistically modeled some way.


To kurious,

If Newton were around today, I'd love to invite him to dinner and learn how he dealt with his crazy world (he did not publish his works for years, afraid of the fallout he'd get from the scientific community).


Andrew Gray

[DrChinese]

Andrew,

1. I agree 100% that photons cannot be included in a theory of local reality, but not for the reason you imply. So l repeat my argument.

While you are busy creating a theory of local reality which does not include photons (Quote: "We have eliminated "photons" from the picture"), there is already a non-local theory which does - standard QM. Its predictions are verified. Bell states conclusively that ANY theory of local reality cannot make predictions identical to QM. That would include your theory. We don't need your theory for the purpose of taking a giant leap backwards to a period in which photon behavior could not be predicted.

I.e. you cannot fail to address Bell if you want to pursue an alternative. I don't believe you will find a lot of people interested in a theory which does not include photons. Or spin, or any other observable you find offensive but which can be measured easily.

You assume what you wish to prove (that reality is local) and then throw out all evidence contrary to your position. That does not make for robust theory development. The philosophical issues of non-local reality (which you object to) were readily apparent in 1935 when EPR was published.

2. You also state that "the system is not closed, as the polarizers are inducers, not measurers". This also flies in the face of evidence, as photon polarity obeys the predictions of QM even when any number of polarizers are used for the measurement. There is no evidence that a polarizer induces anything other than a quantum measurement, and I challenge you to provide any physical evidence that is the case. I.e. the results of an actual experiment, please.

[kurious]

When faced with the fact that to produce the experimentally observed magnetic moment of an electron it would have to spin at 10^14 m/s if it had size, for some reason people just assumed that the speed of light could not be exceeded and
then proceeded from there.But what if physicists had assumed that an electron could spin at 10^14 m/s. Given that a signal travelling faster than light could account for epr
paradoxes I think people should give serious consideration to the idea that something moves at a finite speed faster than light.There are physicists who think that the mechanism of gravity can't be found because of the adherence to c as a limiting speed in nature.Nobody has proven that c is the limit just as Feynman rules are rules
which can't be fully justified and the Copenhagen interpretation is just that - an interpretation.

[kurious]

Gravitons increase the speed at which a charge sphere spins and increase its mass.
So an electron has a smaller mass than a proton because its spins more slowly.
Because the proton has 1835 x mass of electron and because the electron spins at 10 ^ 14 metres per second - to give the observed magnetic moment- this means,bearing in mind (1 – v^2 / vfast^2)^ 1/2 , that the proton spins at 10 ^ 17 metres per second – at least !!
The charge spin is quantised.
Gravitons and photons are massless because they don’t have spinning charges.
It is my belief that they consist of non-spinning quarks.
What holds the charges on a sphere of charge together?
The pressure of vacuum particles.

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

The nature of the photon is accounted for here:

www.photonocean.tk

Static Photon Vibration Theory.

Makes sense.

[DrChinese]

DUDE']The nature of the photon is accounted for here:

www.photonocean.tk

Static Photon Vibration Theory.

Makes sense.

The referenced theory - like Andrew's theory in many ways - says that everything we know is wrong, but... Miraculously makes 100% identical predictions as current standard QM. Not a single predicted difference from QM (or GR) is presented.

So I wonder, is Andrew's Model of Reality theory better or worse than the Static Photon Vibration Theory?

I think the problem is that many people get confused as to how to compare theories. To compare theories, you must consider their scope (domain of applicability) as well as the utility of their predictions.

[russ_watters]

The referenced theory - like Andrew's theory in many ways - says that everything we know is wrong, but... Miraculously makes 100% identical predictions as current standard QM. Not a single predicted difference from QM (or GR) is presented.

So I wonder, is Andrew's Model of Reality theory better or worse than the Static Photon Vibration Theory? Its almost funny (and a little sad), isn't it?

[andrewgray]

Originally Posted by DrChinese
While you are busy creating a theory of local reality which does not include photons, ... there is already a non-local theory which does - standard QM. Its predictions are verified. ... Bell states conclusively that ANY theory of local reality cannot make predictions identical to QM. That would include your theory. We don't need your theory for the purpose of taking a giant leap backwards to a period in which photon behavior could not be predicted. ... I don't believe you will find a lot of people interested in a theory which does not include photons. Or spin, or any other observable you find offensive but which can be measured easily. It seems that the best way to address this is again by analogy.

Again, the Greek god Helios was theorized by the ancient Greeks to drag the sun across the sky with his chariot pulled by four horses. This "theory" agreed with all observables and experiments that the Greeks could do at that time. Do you not see how agreement with all current experiments is not good enough in this particular case in the long run?

Well, the reason for this of course, is that Galileo, Kepler, and Newton found a "model of reality" for the solar system, and the ancient theories were replaced by one that mirrored an actual underlying reality.

Now the important question is: if the ancient Greeks' theory matched all possible observables at the time, what was wrong with that theory at the time?

The answer: Nothing! As long as their theory kepted matching experiments, the theory was good to go! I am very, very, well aware of this. Believe me.

So it all comes down to experiment.
There is no evidence that a polarizer induces anything other than a quantum measurement, and I challenge you to provide any physical evidence that is the case. I.e. the results of an actual experiment, please.

So it is really time to put or shut up with the Quantum Killer Experiments.


The referenced theory - like Andrew's theory in many ways - says that everything we know is wrong, but... Miraculously makes 100% identical predictions as current standard QM. Not a single predicted difference from QM (or GR) is presented. Even I am skeptical of the photon ocean theory, and I politely request that he start his own thread. (it is "a little sad", but not too funny to me). But you should not include Model of Reality as one that "makes 100% identical predictions to QM". Remember, I have proposed and committed to doing the Quantum Killer Experiments, WHICH DISAGREE WITH CURRENT QUANTUM PREDICTIONS IN CONCRETE EXPERIMENTAL TERMS. So, obviously, the status QM quo is going to be the way to go until such time as it is replaced by one that successfully mirrors the underlying reality. This is the goal of doing the QK experiments. Just remember this thread five to ten years from now.

Finally, why is that no QM'er has stepped forward to address these QM photon problems that I keep mentioning in this thread? You keep saying that "QM's predictions are verified". Why don't you address these problems and contradictions?] 1) Problem: Planck's blackbody radiation formula incorporates the Rayleigh-Jeans "number of standing waves in the blackbody cavity" calculation (see for example, Eisberg's Fundamentals of Modern Physics, p.56 ff.). Now think about that. Standing waves in a blackbody cavity? The existence of standing waves implies reflections at the walls. The walls of the blackbody cavity are first assumed to be perfect absorbers. This is a blatant self-contradiction. 2) Problem: Einstein assumed an inelastic "photon" absorption for his photoelectric effect (with a max transfer of KE=hn. Guess what? For particles, an inelastic absorption means that momentum is conserved and kinetic energy is not. Therefore, this proves that "photons", if they exist, do NOT actually behave like particles. 3) Problem: Compton incorporates an elastic billiard ball type of "photon" collision, whereas Einstein introduced the concept as an inelastic absorption. Model of Reality then investigates the ejected Compton electron velocities and finds that the ordinary Doppler shift from these velocities exactly accounts for the Compton shift. In addition. the Compton formula is useless for any other frequency besides xray frequencies. 4) Problem: The maximum Bremsstrahlung xray frequency (given by E=hnmax) is broadcast in all directions, making conservation of photon-electron momentum impossible. Another blatant self-contradiction proving that "photons", if they exist, do not act like particles.

Again, what about these contradictions? Are you going to step up to the plate and take a swipe at these, or are you going to Sargent Schultz them away into the basement with the crazy aunt?


Andrew Gray

[notal33t]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the quanta may only exist periodically in "real" time in any quantifiable sense, nasty critters they!

[andrewgray]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the quanta may only exist periodically in "real" time in any quantifiable sense, nasty critters they!Notal33t,

These are the kind of hypotheses that Model of Reality seeks to eliminate. So you say that perhaps quanta only exist "periodically in 'real' time". Do they come in and out of existence? So what do they do the other "non-real" time? Exist in "fake" time? Do they exist in another "string-theory-dimension"? Don't you see what it has all come to? The physics world has started to propose things that obviously do not mirror any underlying reality. Wouldn't it be better to get back to physics that models some underlying reality rather than saying that something only exists "periodically in real time"?


Andrew Gray

P.S. Also, it has been over a week, and no one has yet to step up to the plate and explain the above QM contradictions. Is there anyone out there ready to do it yet? Or are they just going to sit there unanswered?

[baffledMatt]

Wow, well this has been a very entertaining read!

I should first say that I'm definitely pro-QM/Standard model etc, and I'm glad that I'm not in a complete minority here. But it's fun to see these new theories which claim to rubbish other well established theories, yet are never submitted to proper peer review and so are never put in their rightful place - which in 99% of cases is the dustbin in my opinion. And I think they are useful for the rest of us because although we can see quite intuitively why it can't be right it can sometimes be quite a challenge to actually show that this is the case.

So come on guys! I can tell that there are some very competent scientists out there so surely we can find some good concrete holes in the theory - without even going near an experiment.

To start, here is my initial observation of the so-called "blackbody killer experiment":

My understanding is that the term 'blackbody' is a slight misnomer for the cavity experiment because the spectrum observed is not dependent on the material properties of the walls (as the word 'black' suggests) but it is the cavity itself - the hole in the middle - which is the blackbody. In fact, a fundamental property of this type of cavity is that in thermal equilibrium it is only the temperature which determines the spectrum.

But let's assume for a second that this was not true, as is suggested, and that painting the cavity 'black to UV' we can somehow increase the amount of UV radiation in the cavity. So, at a particular temperature the cavity will have a radiation spectrum similar to that of the Planck spectrum at that temperature, except with a bit more UV and a little less of everything else (to keep the total energy the same). Now let's connect the openening of this cavity to the opening of another cavity which does not have this special 'black to UV' coating and include a reflector between them which only allows UV light to pass through such that UV and only UV light can pass freely between the two cavities. (I'm pretty sure such reflectors exist - or at least
are feasible in principle.)

We start the two systems in thermal equilibrium, they are at the same temperature, but as time goes on UV light will pass back and forth between the two cavities. Now, what happens in the 'normal' cavity? UV radiation will enter through the reflector, and as there is more UV on the other side the amount of UV in this cavity will increase slightly. This UV radiation will be absorbed by the walls - heating them slightly - and reemitted with the usual blackbody spectrum for that temperature. But the new spectrum has much less UV in it and so most of this reemitted radiation will have to stay in this cavity as it can't get through the reflector. Thus, energy is going to accumulate on this side and it will start to heat up.

Moreover, in the other cavity there will be a slight decrease in the amount of UV and so this side will cool down by a similar argument.

Now this is a well known phenomena called Maxwell's demon, and like any time
when you see a demon, if you find it in your theory you run away... very fast

...or rewrite the laws of thermodynamics and claim your nobel prize.

Hmm, I hope that's a bit convincing. I would appreciate comments/criticisms
from both sides as:
1. This is admittedly not a very precise argument
2. I would like to know if I am right/wrong in my understanding of what is quite basic physics!

Matt

[kurious]

But let's assume for a second that this was not true, as is suggested, and that painting the cavity 'black to UV' we can somehow increase the amount of UV radiation

How would the radiation in the cavity behave if the cavity was close in size to an atomic bond length? And what if the cavity was many light years wide? How does scale affect the arguments in this thread?

[baffledMatt]

How would the radiation in the cavity behave if the cavity was close in size to an atomic bond length? And what if the cavity was many light years wide? How does scale affect the arguments in this thread?

On the very large scale the first problem you will get is that the blackbody spectrum is only expected for bodies in thermal equilibrium. Larger things generally take longer to equilibrate, so it will be a very hard thing to get to work. But in principle I think it will still work. Even after effects like GR and the (hypothesised) curvature of the universe are taken into account the basic result that the spectrum does not depend on the material ought to hold because this is a thermodynamic property and has nothing to do with mechanics. If you were able to break thermodynamics you would be in big trouble as it will allow for perpetual motion etc.

On small scales again things will change considerably because you can no longer take the macroscopic thermodynamical view of things. However, if you do the QM and statistical mechanics properly you should still come up with the same general result.

Of course, people are looking for exactly this, ways to break the laws of thermodynamics at the quantum level. It is an interesting problem associated with quantum computing, but I don't think anyone has actually managed it yet.

Matt

[andrewgray]

We start the two systems in thermal equilibrium, they are at the same temperature, but as time goes on UV light will pass back and forth between the two cavities. Now, what happens in the 'normal' cavity? UV radiation will enter through the reflector, and as there is more UV on the other side the amount of UV in this cavity will increase slightly. This UV radiation will be absorbed by the walls - heating them slightly - and reemitted with the usual blackbody spectrum for that temperature. But the new spectrum has much less UV in it and so most of this reemitted radiation will have to stay in this cavity as it can't get through the reflector. Thus, energy is going to accumulate on this side and it will start to heat up.
To baffledMatt,

OK, I see what you are trying to get at. But I think that you are forgetting something. In the experiment, the cavities are being heated. That is, it is not a closed system. Energy is being added by the heating device, and energy is also being radiated away. So if you separate the two cavities with some sort of "energy filter" like you suggest (letting UV pass just one way), your initial assumption that the two cavities will remain in thermal equilibrium is problematic. One would not expect them to stay in thermal equilibrium immediately after such a filter is placed between them.

So you are suggesting that more added energy flows one way than the other, and one of the cavities becomes slightly warmer than the other. This is unexpected? Actually, this is exactly what one would expect to happen. The cavities will get out of thermal equilibrium as heat flows around in the system for a while after you place the filter. Then, it will go back towards a thermal equilibrium with perhaps one side at a slightly higher temperature than the other. This is not so different from heating an open oven in your kitchen and waiting until temperatures stabilize. Now if you close the oven door, the equilibrium is temporarily upset, and transient heat flow will temperarily cause changing temperatures in the room. But everything will eventually get back to thermal equilibrium. The oven will just be at a higher temperature.

Now the point with the coating or no coating is simple. The cavities are assumed to be both good emitters and absorbers of radiation. But if they are reflectors, then the theory breaks down. If they are reflectors, then that means that they are not good absorbers and vice versa. If they are not good UV absorbers, then one would not expect there to be any resonant atomic frequencies in that UV range for absorption to take place.

However, if there are no resonant UV frequencies, then one would not expect the material to emit UV frequencies if the atoms were jostled around by heating them.

In my opinion, the frequencies seen in the blackbody cavity experiments simply reveal the range of atomic frequencies present in the system that are jostled around when heated so they radiate.
...or rewrite the laws of thermodynamics and claim your nobel prize.I have rewritten modern physics (thermodynamics is more of a macroscopic statistical theory and is mostly correct), but the Nobel Prize will not be forthcoming, in my opinion, even if I am correct. Remember, Einstein did not get a Nobel for relativity (arguably one of the greatest additions to physics ever) because the Nobel committee did not believe him. The physics community was still fighting him after 15 years. As far as peer review, the analogy continues. Do you think that Einstein's peers would have easily agreed that time is NOT absolute and that there is no ether? Of course not. And just look at the physics-forums right now. THEY STILL ARE FIGHTING THESE RELATIVITY CONCEPTS IN THESE VERY FORUMS.

So the conclusion is that "peer review" is no good for any new revolutionary theory by design. If one of the theories just happens to be correct (among the many nut cases, admittedly), then peer review will nix the one correct revolutionary theory as well.

Andrew Gray


(to be continued . . .)

[baffledMatt]

OK, I see what you are trying to get at. But I think that you are forgetting something. In the experiment, the cavities are being heated. That is, it is not a closed system.


Not in my thought-experiment. The cavities are in thermal equilibrium with each other but isolated from everything else. The theories for thermodynamics and blackbody radiation only work at equilibrium. So if you were to set up such a non-equilibrium experiment and showed that it did not produce the blackbody spectrum nobody would care because it isn't expected anyway.


Energy is being added by the heating device, and energy is also being radiated away. So if you separate the two cavities with some sort of "energy filter" like you suggest (letting UV pass just one way), your initial assumption that the two cavities will remain in thermal equilibrium is problematic. One would not expect them to stay in thermal equilibrium immediately after such a filter is placed between them.


I don't see why not. Ever heard of 'adiabatic walls'? A very useful piece of aparatus in the theorist's toolbox. And it wasn't a filter but a reflector so it doesn't absorb any energy (but even if it did my argument is remains valid). And don't try a 'well that's not possible in practice' argument because you are trying to rip apart some fundamental theoretical physics. That means your theory has to stand up to some harsh theoretical conditions.


So you are suggesting that more added energy flows one way than the other, and one of the cavities becomes slightly warmer than the other. This is unexpected? Actually, this is exactly what one would expect to happen. The cavities will get out of thermal equilibrium as heat flows around in the system for a while after you place the filter.


Ok, and then I pull them apart suddenly here. Now what have I done? I have taken two objects which started at the same temperature and without adding any energy finish with a temperature gradient. This violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Then, it will go back towards a thermal equilibrium with perhaps one side at a slightly higher temperature than the other.


See previous point.


This is not so different from heating an open oven in your kitchen and waiting until temperatures stabilize.

No because in my example the 'oven' and 'kitchen' started at the same temperature.


Now the point with the coating or no coating is simple. The cavities are assumed to be both good emitters and absorbers of radiation. But if they are reflectors, then the theory breaks down. If they are reflectors, then that means that they are not good absorbers and vice versa. If they are not good UV absorbers, then one would not expect there to be any resonant atomic frequencies in that UV range for absorption to take place.


Well, yes, if you have reflectors what you find is that due to less emission/absorption it takes longer to achieve equilibrium after a small perturbation away from. But this is already (well?) understood and again falls under non-equilibrium thermodynamics which is completely different.


[/color][color=green]I have rewritten modern physics (thermodynamics is more of a macroscopic statistical theory and is mostly correct)

Hmm, thermodynamics is derived from statistical physics which is derived from probability theory. So are you saying that your theory makes some changes to that too? (which is what I assume you mean by saying it is 'mostly' correct) Wow. If only there was a Nobel prize in mathematics!


but the Nobel Prize will not be forthcoming, in my opinion, even if I am correct. Remember, Einstein did not get a Nobel for relativity (arguably one of the greatest additions to physics ever) because the Nobel committee did not believe him. The physics community was still fighting him after 15 years. As far as peer review, the analogy continues. Do you think that Einstein's peers would have easily agreed that time is NOT absolute and that there is no ether? Of course not.


Yes, but Einstein's relativity did get published. When I see your work in PRL then I might start to agree with you.


And just look at the physics-forums right now. THEY STILL ARE FIGHTING THESE RELATIVITY CONCEPTS IN THESE VERY FORUMS.


Yes, they are fighting to understand it - and let's face it relativity is incredibly hard to understand! Although I wonder how many of them truly believe that (at least at the level they are arguing) relativity is wrong. Maybe we should ask?

(to be continued . . .)

I can't wait ;)

Matt

[baffledMatt]

And more...

I've just been browsing the fabled book for this theory and would like to make a few more observations:

Inset of page 97 (Box 6.1)

A probability density is a loosely defined thing as your unit of volume depends on the dimensionality of space you are interested in. Hence, there is often some confusion when it comes to defining a probability density.

You are correct in saying that the maximum of the probability density defined as |\phi |^2 should be at the centre because indeed it is. According to Schroedinger the ground state is \phi \propto e^{-r/a}, which is indeed maximum at r = 0. However, when people draw these radial plots they are asking the question:

"What is the probability of finding my electron between radii r and r + dr?"

This is calculated by integrating over all angles, but since there is no angular dependence we immediately get the result

\rho (r) = \int^{2 \pi}_0 d\phi \int^{\pi}_0 d\theta r^2 sin(\theta) e^{-r/a}\propto r^2 e^{-r/a}

Which has a maximum r_0 we can calculate:

\frac{d \rho}{dr} = 0 = 2r_0 e^{-1/r_0} - \frac{r_0^2}{a} e^{-r_0/a} \rightarrow r_0 = 2a

Hence the electron is most likely to be measured somewhere other than the centre.

So, you see that the r^2 is not a fudge factor, but simply the result of integrating over the angles.

Or are you going to rewrite calculus and probability theory as well?

Page 100.

Why should the Lyman spectrum be as you suggest? It is quite possible to have an infinite series converge to a point, which is what is happening here. Don't be confused by people calling it a 'continuum'. This just means that the energy levels are so close together it seems like a continuous spectrum. The spectrum still finishes at the ionisation level.

Page 102.

You stress that angular momentum is not conserved. Are you saying that it gets transferred to something else? Or are you trying to re-write Noether's theorem?

Also, a general question (I apologise if you have already covered it in the book but I haven't read all of it). You have managed to get rid of spin and, basically, most of quantum mechanics. How do you account for the pauli exclusion principle? There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that there is something prohibiting electrons to occupy the same, well, what we call quantum states. (You are looking at a big heap of evidence this very moment!!) How do you explain the observed phenomenon with your theory?

That's all for now.

Matt

[baffledMatt]

Sorry if this is all getting a lot to read, but it's just too tempting!

What I really like about the book is the introduction...

But to digress for just a second: I once asked a professor who's GR course I was taking if he was going to show us how and why GR became incompatible with QM (or rather QFT). I was dissapointed by his reply:
"Well, no, but it's not such a big deal really. The only places where they really become incompatible are during the first instant of the big bang and at the centre of a black hole, so I wouldn't worry too much about it for now".

Now I am glad because this book seems to have an interesting account of one example where it all goes disastrously wrong. The author also makes the correct conclusion that the current theories we have simply break down here and so we should try to find an alternative - something which has been known for quite some time I think.

But then how the logic progresses from "these theories do not give us a complete description of the universe" to "all of quantum physics is wrong" seems to have completely passed me by.

I was wondering if the author would care to elaborate?

Matt

[baffledMatt]

Ok, last one I promise! (I've been very bored today...)

An attempt to answer some questions:


# 1) Problem: Planck's blackbody radiation formula incorporates the Rayleigh-Jeans "number of standing waves in the blackbody cavity" calculation (see for example, Eisberg's Fundamentals of Modern Physics, p.56 ff.). Now think about that. Standing waves in a blackbody cavity? The existence of standing waves implies reflections at the walls. The walls of the blackbody cavity are first assumed to be perfect absorbers. This is a blatant self-contradiction.


Why do standing waves imply reflections? If what you are saying is correct, that the walls are perfect absorbers, this implies that the amplitude of the waves should become zero at the boundaries. If you put these boundaries into the wave equation you have no choice but to have standing waves.


# 2) Problem: Einstein assumed an inelastic "photon" absorption for his photoelectric effect (with a max transfer of KE=hn. Guess what? For particles, an inelastic absorption means that momentum is conserved and kinetic energy is not. Therefore, this proves that "photons", if they exist, do NOT actually behave like particles.


What you say is true in a vacuum. However, the electron in question is in metal which involves a lattice of ions. It is the ions which take up the 'lost' energy and momentum in an inelastic collision. (Look up phonons in any solid state textbook).


# 3) Problem: Compton incorporates an elastic billiard ball type of "photon" collision, whereas Einstein introduced the concept as an inelastic absorption. Model of Reality then investigates the ejected Compton electron velocities and finds that the ordinary Doppler shift from these velocities exactly accounts for the Compton shift. In addition. the Compton formula is useless for any other frequency besides xray frequencies.


I'm not sure where your criticism lies here. It might well be that you can derive the Compton formula by means of doppler shift, but that would not be a travisty as it is often possible to derive a formula in more than one way - even though the mechanism might be wrong.

The mechanism only works for Xrays because the carbon atom has to be ionised. This occurs at 11.26eV, which is Xray energy.


# 4) Problem: The maximum Bremsstrahlung xray frequency (given by E=hnmax) is broadcast in all directions, making conservation of photon-electron momentum impossible. Another blatant self-contradiction proving that "photons", if they exist, do not act like particles.


Again, you are forgetting the underlying lattice which will quite readily exchange momentum with the electron.

Matt

[andrewgray]

Not in my thought-experiment. The cavities are in thermal equilibrium with each other but isolated from everything else. Matt, I guess I don't exactly understand how one would obtain a 1500o K blackbody radiation spectrum if there were no heating device. So would you heat them to 1500 o K, then isolate them? If so, and you allowed only one-way radiation (energy) flow within the system, are you saying that there cannot be any temperature gradients whatsoever inside the bodies if there can be energy flow from only one to the other and not vice versa?
Please clarify.Yes, but Einstein's relativity did get published. When I see your work in PRL then I might start to agree with you. Matt, just for grins let's say that my theory is correct. Also, let's say that you are on the peer review committee. Are you going to veto publication of my theory until you see some experimental proof of some sort? Of course you are, if you're going to be honest. I just don't see any way that you would allow any of this work to be published without experimental proof, no matter how logical it all is, because it rocks the boat too much.

As for Einstein's work, this is different because there was a theoretical void that needed to be filled. It was not rewriting an existing established theory. There was none. Ether theory was problematic, and they could not fix it. This is different. Einstein's theory only rocked the boat one way. My theory however, if correct, rocks the boat both ways. I claim that if a prestigious physicist had actually worked out an ether theory and received a Nobel for it, then there is no way that Einstein's theory could have been published without some experimental evidence of some sort, if he was going to make the prestigious author look a little foolish. Agree?

One last thing. Don't forget that my theory is published. That is the beauty of the freedom of the internet. The book is in print and anyone can read it online without any "peer-review" censors. Now admittedly, there are a lot of "nut-cases" out there, and peer-review works to weed these out. It seems like a realistic expectation not to try to get Model of Reality published in the mainstream until I have a little experimental proof. Surely you see this. (Page 97, Box 6.1. . . ) What is the probability of finding my electron between radii r and r + dr? . . . Hence the electron is most likely to be measured somewhere other than the centre.
Ok, Matt, answer these questions: Where is the Earth the densest? Where is the mass of a earthen shell between r and r+dr the greatest? What is the mass of an earthen shell between r and r+dr where r=0?Don't be too wordy here.Page 100, Section 6.1. Why should the Lyman spectrum be as you suggest? It is quite possible to have an infinite series converge to a point, which is what is happening here. Don't be confused by people calling it a 'continuum'. This just means that the energy levels are so close together it seems like a continuous spectrum. The spectrum still finishes at the ionisation level.
Matt, as I understand it, the allowed energy levels of a system are the energy eigenvalues of the Schrodinger Equation. For the hydrogen atom, there exists solutions for E>0 for which E can take on any positive value. That is, the allowable values for E in these solutions are continuous. So are you going to say that a hydrogen atom cannot absorb a "photon" (I use quotes here) with an energy greater than the ionization energy? According to the Schrodinger solutions, it can. Thus, the spectrum should indeed show a "continuum" above the ionization energy. But, it does not.Page 102, Section 6.1. You stress that angular momentum is not conserved. Are you saying that it gets transferred to something else? Not exactly. What I am saying is very similar to the concept of tunneling. With pulsating particles, the macroscopic-like laws of conservation of energy and momentum need to have tunneling exceptions added to them. That is, microscopic conservation of energy and angular momentum only make sense if there are no correlations between the pulsations, and the time-averaged motions are only considered. If there are correlations, tunneling can change things. So back to page 102. In this example, the atomic electron experiences a magnetic force which causes wobbly nutations, and it must radiate asymetrically. This radiation acts like the asymetrical frictional forces on a wobbly gyroscope to dampen nutations. The only electron orbits without nutations are the "up" or "down" orbits that result. However, the "orbit-must-have-radiation-decay" argument is not valid here since the electron's pulsations are correlated with the nucleus. (For example, while the nucleus of OFF, the electron can be removed from the atom with no energy cost). This is the tunneling concept of microscopic physics. The emitted radiation can cause an angular momentum change without violating the conservation of macroscopic angular momentum because of tunneling. How do you account for the pauli exclusion principle?As I remember, The Pauli exclusion principal was a needed ad hoc addition to the Schrodinger energy levels so that they could be matched to the periodic table. Physicists had already hypothesized "selection rules" so that the observed sprectra could be matched to the theory. These "selection rules" have no other origins other than the fact that they were needed after the fact so that specific allowed energy transition solutions could be ruled out. The Pauli exclusion principal is similar.The author also makes the correct conclusion that the current theories we have simply break down here and so we should try to find an alternative - something which has been known for quite some time I think.

But then how the logic progresses from "these theories do not give us a complete description of the universe" to "all of quantum physics is wrong" seems to have completely passed me by.

I was wondering if the author would care to elaborate?
"All quantum physics is wrong" is a little harsh. Obviously, QM answers are well-matched to experiment. All I am saying is that quantum theory is a non-reality based theory. Thus, its interpretation of "what is actually going on at the microscopic level" is incorrect, and subsequently, later theories based on this interpretation are also incorrect.

(continued below . . . )

[baffledMatt]

I guess I don't exactly understand how one would obtain a 1500o K blackbody radiation spectrum if there were no heating device. So would you heat them to 1500 o K, then isolate them? If so, and you allowed only one-way radiation (energy) flow within the system, are you saying that there cannot be any temperature gradients whatsoever inside the bodies if there can be energy flow from only one to the other and not vice versa?Please clarify.


Ok, let me be explicit.
step 1. Place your cavities in contact (without reflector).
step 2. Add the adiabatic wall to thermally isolate the two-cavity system from the rest of the world. Put the reflector inside with them but not yet in between the opening from one cavity to the other.
step 3. Wait for the system to achieve thermal equilobrium. This may take a while but you know it has happened as everything in the system will be at the same temperature. If you want to be really picky we can even put our thermometer inside the adiabatic walls so measuring the temperature won't affect the system.
step 4. Put the filter in place.
step 5. Monitor the temperature of each cavity and see what happens. You can also measure the spectrum of the radiation in each cavity if you have set it up carefully.

If you can do this and still find significant deviations from the blackbody spectrum, fair game.

Note that I didn't say 'heat up the cavities beforehand' as this is not necessary.


Matt, just for grins let's say that my theory is correct. Also, let's say that you are on the peer review committee. Are you going to veto publication of my theory until you see some experimental proof of some sort?

No, I will veto it until the theory ceases to be inconsistent and hence wrong.


One last thing. Don't forget that my theory is published.


Yes, but by that standard I can also go and publish a book called 'the earth is flat because I've never been to Australia'. It won't make it any more credible.


It seems like a realistic expectation not to try to get Model of Reality published in the mainstream until I have a little experimental proof. Surely you see this.

Sure, but I'm still waiting for a consistent theory.


Where is the Earth the densest?


To answer this I'd have to ask my flatmate who is a geologist, but I don't want to wake him. But I'll play along and say 'the centre'.


Where is the mass of a earthen shell between r and r+dr the greatest?


Depends on the density function which I don't know. See above.


What is the mass of an earthen shell between r and r+dr where r=0?


Zero (in the limit of dr->0 anyway). This is becuase the volume element at the centre of a sphere is zero. Perhaps you should go back and study some calculus?



So are you going to say that a hydrogen atom cannot absorb a "photon" (I use quotes here) with an energy greater than the ionization energy? According to the Schrodinger solutions, it can.


Of course it can! It produces what we like to call ionised hydrogen. The energy has freed the electron from its bond with the proton. That's what acid is made of (in a manner of speaking) - pretty neat stuff.


the macroscopic-like laws of conservation of energy and momentum need to have tunneling exceptions added to them. That is, microscopic conservation of energy and angular momentum only make sense if there are no correlations between the pulsations, and the time-averaged motions are only considered.


I don't see why you distinguish between 'microscopic' and 'macroscopic', as if angular momentum was some hazy property of matter. As someone who has done GR you must be familiar with things like Noether's theorem? Conservation of angular momentum is a very basic property which only depends on the rotational symmetry of space. It must be conserved absolutely and always.


As I remember, The Pauli exclusion principal was a needed ad hoc addition to the Schrodinger energy levels so that they could be matched to the periodic table. Physicists had already hypothesized "selection rules" so that the observed sprectra could be matched to the theory. These "selection rules" have no other origins other than the fact that they were needed after the fact so that specific allowed energy transition solutions could be ruled out. The Pauli exclusion principal is similar.

Yes, historically this is how it appears. However, you have fallen into the very common trap of thinking that this is how our understanding of the theory has remained. Fortunately, Pauli Exclusion comes as a very natural result from QFT. Also you still have not explained why the exclusion principle predicts things so well! For instance, why do we see bose-einstein condensation for only particular types of particles?


"All quantum physics is wrong" is a little harsh. Obviously, QM answers are well-matched to experiment. All I am saying is that quantum theory is a non-reality based theory. Thus, its interpretation of "what is actually going on at the microscopic level" is incorrect, and subsequently, later theories based on this interpretation are also incorrect.

What do you mean by 'non-reality'? Who's conception of reality are you refering to? My reality? Your reality? From what I have read so far it seems that these two entities have virtually nothing in common.

Matt

[andrewgray]

Why do standing waves imply reflections? If what you are saying is correct, that the walls are perfect absorbers, this implies that the amplitude of the waves should become zero at the boundaries. If you put these boundaries into the wave equation you have no choice but to have standing waves.Well, the best way that this question can be addressed is by waves in a string. Suppose one plucks a string in the center. This wave travels down the string to the fret. Now if the fret is a "perfect absorber", then that's it. The wave will be gone after it hits the fret.

But usually, there is a reflection with a phase shift that travels back down the string towards the bridge. This is the origin of the standing wave. However, if the bridge is a "perfect absorber", then again the wave will just disappear.

The amplitude of the wave being zero at the boundary is required since the string cannot move where it is attached. However, this is OK since there can be multiple nodes where the amplitude is zero. So you still say that there can be standing waves with no reflections?It is the ions which take up the 'lost' energy and momentum in an inelastic collision. It is just the opposite. There is an unexplained 'gain' in energy in this experiment. If one assumes that momentum is conserved in the inelastic collision, one may write:

Pphoton + 0 = Pelectron

as the limiting momentum for the electron. If a nucleus is involved, then the momentum would be less. Substituting:

hn/c = Pelectron max

Since the photoelectric effect is completely nonrelativistic, we write:

hn/c = meve

Solving for the maximum allowable kinetic energy 1/2 mv2 we get:

KEmax = 1/2 mv2 = (hn)2/2mc2

Now hn for the photoelectric effect is typically 10 eV. For the electron, 2mc2 is about 1,000,000 eV. So we have:

10eV (10/1,000,000) = KEmax

Or a factor of 105 discrepancy if one assumes conservation of momentum like a particle inelastic collision. Einstein assumed an almost complete transfer of the 10 eV of energy in his inelastic absorption hypothesis. I'm not sure where your criticism lies here. It might well be that you can derive the Compton formula by means of doppler shift, but that would not be a travisty as it is often possible to derive a formula in more than one way - even though the mechanism might be wrong.

The mechanism only works for Xrays because the carbon atom has to be ionised. This occurs at 11.26eV, which is Xray energy.The criticism is that the elastic/inelastic collision assumptions are not consistent. For visible photoelectric "photons" an incorrect inelastic collision must be assumed. For near-visible UV "photons", a "nearly-elastic" collision assumption must made. For extreme UV, a "semi-elastic" collision assumption must be made. For x-rays, a completely elastic collision assumption must be made, etc.

For x-rays, the "photon" energy is usually assumed to be about 20,000 eV.[For the max Bremsstrahlung frequency . . .] . . . you are forgetting the underlying lattice which will quite readily exchange momentum with the electron.Again, if one assumes that a nucleus is involved, the particle kinematic logic only gets worse.

Andrew Gray

[baffledMatt]

Well, the best way that this question can be addressed is by waves in a string. Suppose one plucks a string in the center. This wave travels down the string to the fret. Now if the fret is a "perfect absorber", then that's it. The wave will be gone after it hits the fret.


You cannot explain EM radiation with this analogy so please don't waste my time with it. Analogies are only acceptable when there is a more mathematical theory out there, which is too complicated for the listener to understand. However, here I seriously doubt this is true so I will again ask you:

Can you give me a good reason to explain why the blackbody theory is wrong?


[color=green]
Pphoton + 0 = Pelectron


Where did you get this equation from? Do you know anything about the effect of the underlying lattice to the system? My argument may appear hand-wavey but I assure you it has been properly worked out. Try reading something like "Solid State Physics" by Ashcroft and Mermin and then if you still think there are flaws in the theory come back and we can talk.


as the limiting momentum for the electron. If a nucleus is involved, then the momentum would be less. Substituting:

hn/c = Pelectron max

Since the photoelectric effect is completely nonrelativistic, we write:

hn/c = meve

Solving for the maximum allowable kinetic energy 1/2 mv2 we get:

KEmax = 1/2 mv2 = (hn)2/2mc2

Now hn for the photoelectric effect is typically 10 eV. For the electron, 2mc2 is about 1,000,000 eV. So we have:

10eV (10/1,000,000) = KEmax


What is this? Are you trying to pick equations out of the blue? (well, no, you probably saw them once at high school or something so of course they must be correct)


The criticism is that the elastic/inelastic collision assumptions are not consistent. For visible photoelectric "photons" an incorrect inelastic collision must be assumed. For near-visible UV "photons", a "nearly-elastic" collision assumption must made. For extreme UV, a "semi-elastic" collision assumption must be made. For x-rays, a completely elastic collision assumption must be made, etc.


Yes, do you see the pattern? The higher we crank up the energy the more 'elastic' the collision. Admittedly the way you have it here is a bit vague, but the way you can imagine it is that the collision can be modelled better and better as an elastic collision the higher the energy. Unfortunately I don't remember the reason for this, so you have to look it up.


For x-rays, the "photon" energy is usually assumed to be about 20,000 eV.


And where do you get this number?


Again, if one assumes that a nucleus is involved, the particle kinematic logic only gets worse.


Again, could you please do your homework. It's no good to apply highschool physics to a complicated problem and argue that the inconsistencies mean that the physics is wrong. Sure, the theory is wrong as the theory you are trying to apply is not valid, but as you haven't seemed to look beyond these simple equations I doubt you would understand that.

Matt

[baffledMatt]

If one assumes that momentum is conserved in the inelastic collision, one may write:

Pphoton + 0 = Pelectron

as the limiting momentum for the electron. If a nucleus is involved, then the momentum would be less.

Hmm, I think I understand now. Are you saying that the equation for momentum conservation for the whole system would be:

\underline p'_e + \underline p'_n + \underline p'_{\nu}= \underline p_{\nu}


where e, n, and \nu correspond to the electron, ion, and photon respectively and a prime indicates momentum after the interaction (we are in the centre of mass frame of the original e-n system). Now, I don't understand your next step. I presume that by 'limiting momentum' you mean what happens if we take the momentum of the nucleus to be zero? But we know that the only physical solution to this equation is one with nothing measurable happening - all the momenta would remain unchanged and we are unable to say whether there was an interaction at all.

You have to consider the case of when the ion's momentum is changed during the interaction, otherwise you are not dealing with the problem at hand.

Matt

[andrewgray]

Matt,

First let me apologize if I have annoyed or angered you in any way. I detect some frustration in your writing. Really, I am trying to be nothing but logical, and will try to keep my discussions as friendly as possible. I appreciate your input more than you can imagine.

OK, now I get what you are saying about the thermally isolated double blackbody experiment. Here is the key phrase in your original criticism of my theory: Now, what happens in the 'normal' cavity? UV radiation will enter through the reflector, and as there is more UV on the other side the amount of UV in this (normal) cavity will increase slightly. This UV radiation will be absorbed by the (normal cavity) walls - heating them slightly - and reemitted with the usual blackbody spectrum for that temperature.
(green added by AAG for clarity)Here is the contradiction in your criticism from Model of Reality's point of view. The "normal"
cavity, as stated earlier in this thread, is claimed by Model of Reality to be a UV reflector, not an absorber. So your statement "This UV radiation will be absorbed by the (normal cavity) walls" is not consistent criticism of the theory. UV radiation, according to Model of Reality will not heat the "normal cavity" since it simply is reflected there. So you see you have revealed a false inconsistency in the theory.1) Where is the Earth the densest? . . . 'at the centre'.
2) What is the mass of an earthen shell between r and r+dr where r=0? . . . Zero.So we see that the so-called "radial density function" for the Earth is zero at the center even though its actual density is greatest here. So I say once again, "THE EARTH IS NOT HOLLOW". It is just as much misleading for the QM hydrogen theory as it is for the Earth. The ground state Schrodinger probability IS NOT HOLLOW, so don't draw it that way in the same way that you would not draw a hollow Earth. So are you going to say that a hydrogen atom cannot absorb a "photon" with an energy greater than the ionization energy? ? . . Of course it can! It produces what we like to call ionised hydrogen. The energy has freed the electron from its bond with the proton. So then, according to your statement, the hydrogen atom should be able to absorb a 13.6 eV photon (ionization), a 13.7 eV photon, a 13.8 eV photon, a 13.9 eV photon, and a 14.0 eV photon, etc. ("Of course it can!") Well guess what? These lines are absent in the experimental spectrum. Let me repeat: They are not there. This is simply a Schrodinger self-contradiction.
I don't see why you distinguish between 'microscopic' and 'macroscopic', as if angular momentum was some hazy property of matter. As someone who has done GR you must be familiar with things like Noether's theorem? Conservation of angular momentum is a very basic property which only depends on the rotational symmetry of space. It must be conserved absolutely and always.Yes, I am familiar with Noether's theorem. But just as surely you are familiar with the fact that global conservation laws break down in curved spacetime. Any vector field that is "added up globally" must be parallel transported to a defining point, then added. But if space is curved, this parallel transport is path dependent, and not unique. One can come up with just about any value for the "total" of the vector field as one wishes.

But back to the question at hand. We were talking about the non-conservation of the z-component of atomic angular momentum in a strong magnetic field. Remember, there exists a torque. If you have a torque, you have dL/dt != 0. We also show that the z-component of the torque is nonzero, which shows that the z-component of the angular momentum is time dependent. Further, we show that there is asymmetrically emitted radiation. This radiation can carry away angular mometum at a fast rate. You cannot explain EM radiation with this analogy so please don't waste my time with it. Analogies are only acceptable when there is a more mathematical theory out there, which is too complicated for the listener to understand. However, here I seriously doubt this is true so I will again ask you:

Can you give me a good reason to explain why the blackbody theory is wrong?Again, my reasoning has to do with the "standing wave" inconsistency. Now all I can say is that it seems as though the theory assumes that the walls are absorbers. So take a "black" perfect absorber wall. Let's say that an EM pulse is traveling towards the wall. If the wall is "a perfect absorber", won't the pulse just disappear after it strikes the wall? The pulse surely cannot create a standing wave in the cavity if it is gone after striking one wall.Pphoton + 0 = Pelectron
Where did you get this equation from? All that I am saying here is that if one assumes conservation of momentum in the photon-electron absorption, the maximum momentum that the electron can get is the original momentum of the "photon". No more. So the initial momentum of the photon plus the initial momentum of the electron is on the left side of the equation. The final momentum of the electron is on the right. The "photon" is gone on the right. If you add a lattice nucleus into the picture, and allow it to carry off some momentum, the final momentum of the electron can only be smaller.

The "blue" equations that follow are a direct result of this.

X-ray machines typically run at 20 KeV, right?

[baffledMatt]

First let me apologize if I have annoyed or angered you in any way. I detect some frustration in your writing. Really, I am trying to be nothing but logical, and will try to keep my discussions as friendly as possible. I appreciate your input more than you can imagine.


Yes, well it's an experimentally confirmed fact that my temperment is inversely proportional to what hour of the morning it happens to be when I start writing, so I apologise if my posts seem aggressive.


OK, now I get what you are saying about the thermally isolated double blackbody experiment. Here is the key phrase in your original criticism of my theory: Here is the contradiction in your criticism from Model of Reality's point of view. The "normal"
cavity, as stated earlier in this thread, is claimed by Model of Reality to be a UV reflector, not an absorber. So your statement "This UV radiation will be absorbed by the (normal cavity) walls" is not consistent criticism of the theory.


Ok, I was assuming that there would be some absorption, and we then wait a long time to obtain equilibrium again. Remember that the more reflective the coating is the longer it will take for the system to reach equilibrium, so a perfectly reflecting wall will never return to equilibrium and again the blackbody spectrum is not expected.

So what you are describing would be an equilibrium system becoming non-equilibrium with no energy input. I think this will also violate the second law of thermodynamics.


So you see you have revealed a false inconsistency in the theory.


No, because 'my' theory only tried to describe the equilibrium behaviour of the system.


So we see that the so-called "radial density function" for the Earth is zero at the center even though its actual density is greatest here. So I say once again, "THE EARTH IS NOT HOLLOW". It is just as much misleading for the QM hydrogen theory as it is for the Earth. The ground state Schrodinger probability IS NOT HOLLOW, so don't draw it that way in the same way that you would not draw a hollow Earth.


You seem to be simply refusing to accept basic probability theory in favour of crazy analogies.

Please answer me this:
Given a probability density
P(\underline r)
which is defined such that
P(\underline r)dV = probability of finding my particle within a volume element dV at location \underline r.

How do I calculate P(r) where P(r)dr is the probability of finding the particle between radius r and r + dr?


So then, according to your statement, the hydrogen atom should be able to absorb a 13.6 eV photon (ionization), a 13.7 eV photon, a 13.8 eV photon, a 13.9 eV photon, and a 14.0 eV photon, etc. ("Of course it can!") Well guess what? These lines are absent in the experimental spectrum. Let me repeat: They are not there. This is simply a Schrodinger self-contradiction.


Well, I'm afraid I can't really answer this question to your satisfaction as it has been a while since I have done any atomic physics, and my text books are in another country :( The fact that the lines are not there in the emission spectrum comes as no surprise (think about it), but I can't give you a good reason why they might be absent from the absorption spectrum. Why don't you look it up in a text book?


Yes, I am familiar with Noether's theorem. But just as surely you are familiar with the fact that global conservation laws break down in curved spacetime. Any vector field that is "added up globally" must be parallel transported to a defining point, then added. But if space is curved, this parallel transport is path dependent, and not unique. One can come up with just about any value for the "total" of the vector field as one wishes.
But back to the question at hand. We were talking about the non-conservation of the z-component of atomic angular momentum in a strong magnetic field. Remember, there exists a torque. If you have a torque, you have dL/dt != 0. We also show that the z-component of the torque is nonzero, which shows that the z-component of the angular momentum is time dependent. Further, we show that there is asymmetrically emitted radiation. This radiation can carry away angular mometum at a fast rate.


Ok, this seems to be plausible (or at least vaguely consistent) at least from a first glance. Why don't you write this in the book?


Again, my reasoning has to do with the "standing wave" inconsistency. Now all I can say is that it seems as though the theory assumes that the walls are absorbers. So take a "black" perfect absorber wall. Let's say that an EM pulse is traveling towards the wall. If the wall is "a perfect absorber", won't the pulse just disappear after it strikes the wall? The pulse surely cannot create a standing wave in the cavity if it is gone after striking one wall.


Excuse me for saying, but this is complete bull****. You are still applying highschool ideas to complicated problems. I thought I made it clear I will not put up with analogies and handwaving. Please try again.


All that I am saying here is that if one assumes conservation of momentum in the photon-electron absorption, the maximum momentum that the electron can get is the original momentum of the "photon". No more.


Yes, which is why the absorption of a photon by an isolated electron is strictly forbidden in QM. This is not something we impose but falls out quite naturally from QED.


So the initial momentum of the photon plus the initial momentum of the electron is on the left side of the equation. The final momentum of the electron is on the right. The "photon" is gone on the right.


You seem to be trying to think about the point in the interaction when the electron has absorbed the photon but not yet reemitted another. This is not allowed, but admittedly I don't think there is a concrete theory on why not. However, this picture of "something getting absorbed and then reemitted" is simply our own interpretation of something purely quantum mechanical in nature so why do we even expect this point to exist?


If you add a lattice nucleus into the picture, and allow it to carry off some momentum, the final momentum of the electron can only be smaller.


No, as it is the vector sum of the momenta which must be conserved, not the magnitudes.


X-ray machines typically run at 20 KeV, right?


Ok, but I think 'X-ray' usually starts at around 10eV (depending on exactly who you talk to).

Matt

[DrChinese]

"...electron spin is not something spinning; the electron magnetic moment cannot be a moment; Bell's theorem deduces that there cannot be an underlying reality..."

P.S. Also, it has been over a week, and no one has yet to step up to the plate and explain the above QM contradictions. Is there anyone out there ready to do it yet? Or are they just going to sit there unanswered?


Your "contradictions" are not generally accepted. QM, like any theory, has a scope of application. Within that scope, it is currently unequalled for predictive precision. The number of effects which were predicted in advance of receiving experimental confirmation (one example: EPR) are well known.

So basically, you saying that "you win" by throwing out one straw man argument after another is something of a joke. Please put forth a known and generally accepted contradiction or flaw if you have one. Please note that simply saying a "non-reality based theory can't be right" doesn't impress anyone. Einstein said that too, and his faith in his position was later shown to be misplaced. In this regard, you are following a familiar path - and a known wrong one as well.

[baffledMatt]

In this regard, you are following a familiar path - and a known wrong one as well.

Indeed.

I wonder what sort of 'reality based theory' would be developed if we had no eyes - in which case EM radiation might seem non-reality all of a sudden.

The endevour of science is to make an objective description of reality. The scientific communtity has chosen to define reality as that which we can observe (and hence measure) so any theory which will predict all of these observations is a viable description of reality. Andrewgray's personal tastes on what is 'reality-based', however, are highly subjective so it follows that this 'reality-based' theory is not an endevour of science.

QED

Matt

[andrewgray]

Continuing with our friendly discussion:
Ok, I was assuming that there would be some absorption...Well, sure there will be some. But you were assuming an ideal thought-experiment. If we are to go back to real world experiments, then things do change. There will also be some transient non-UV thermal energy exchange between the cavities no matter how you connect them together, again defeating your contradiction. In the real world, one would not expect there to be any permanent energy flow in the system due to thermal differences.Please answer me this:
Given a probability density

P(r)

which is defined such that P(r)dV = probability of finding my particle within a volume element at location r...Here is your problem: "location r". "Location r" is not a location. What you mean is location {r,q,f}. "r" alone refers to a sphere. Densities are defined on a set of points, not on a set of unequal sized spheres.Well, I'm afraid I can't really answer this question to your satisfaction as it has been a while since I have done any atomic physics, and my text books are in another country :( The fact that the lines are not there in the emission spectrum comes as no surprise (think about it), but I can't give you a good reason why they might be absent from the absorption spectrum. Why don't you look it up in a text book?
That is exactly what I did. Robert Eisberg's textbook is discussed below

Let us assume the existence of “photons”. The spectral absence of frequencies above the series limit shows that the hydrogen atom does not absorb or emit “photons” with energies greater than 13.58 eV. This is nonsense according to Schrodinger’s theory, and thus in complete disagreement with it. Transitions into or from the “continuum” are not seen in either the absorption or emission spectra, but Schrodinger’s theory requires them. It is thus a contradiction that these absorption and emission lines are absent. Hence, we are almost forced into accepting that the Lyman( 1, infinity ) series limit line corresponds to a resonance frequency that exists within the hydrogen atom and not to the beginning of the energy continuum where the hydrogen atom is ionized. Robert Eisberg, (Fundamentals of Modern Physics, p128) while discussing the spectrum for mercury, says “...the spectrum of Hg should have a continuum extending beyond every series limit in the direction of increasing wave number. This can be seen experimentally, although with some difficulty. ... equally true for all atoms.” What does “with some difficulty” mean? Doesn’t it mean that the theory predicts the continuum’s presence and that it is not there? This is a very weak argument, and is not very compelling. This micropulsar model for the hydrogen atom uses the time tested principle that the resonance frequencies exist within the system, and does not predict the continuum extension of the spectrum. In addition, since the Lyman series is the only series in the hydrogen absorption series at room temperature, a test of our theory would be that odd harmonics of these Lyman frequencies (3x,5x,etc.) may also be absorbed by hydrogen. This would prove that the Lyman frequencies correspond to resonance frequencies that exist within the atom, and not to energy level transitions (again, see the Schrodinger Killer Experiments).(Your standing wave argument is)... is complete bull****. ...Please try again. OK, one last try. Lets say that you want to make a laser cavity. You need there to be a coherent standing wave in the cavity so the resonance frequency can be amplified. Now the question is this: do you put in mirrors at each end of the cavity, or do you put in perfect absorbers? You put in mirrors. Its seems fairly obvious to me that mirrors will allow a standing wave in the cavity, and perfect absorbers won't. If this is not now clear, will someone else please help?

Andrew Gray

[baffledMatt]

If we are to go back to real world experiments, then things do change.


The absorption was part of my thought experiment. Let's keep the 'real world' out of it for a little longer and just deal with the theory itself. Once we can make that consistent we'll add in the practicalities.


There will also be some transient non-UV thermal energy exchange between the cavities no matter how you connect them together,


Not if they begin in thermal equilibrium.


In the real world, one would not expect there to be any permanent energy flow in the system due to thermal differences.


What thermal differences do you expect to have at thermal equilibrium?


Here is your problem: "location r". "Location r" is not a location. What you mean is location {r,q,f}. "r" alone refers to a sphere.


Ok, I'll improve the question.

Given the probability density I have already described, I wish to measure the location in spherical polar coordinates (r,\phi,\theta) which are defined in the usual way. Now, what is the probability of my measurement yielding a particular value for r in the range r -> r + dr? (irrespective of what I measure for the other two coordinates)

I assure you this is a well defined problem.


Densities are defined on a set of points, not on a set of unequal sized


You are confusing the probility density - which is defined in the full space - with what I am trying to measure which is the probability of a particular measurement of r.


That is exactly what I did. Robert Eisberg's textbook is discussed below
Robert Eisberg, (Fundamentals of Modern Physics, p128) while discussing the spectrum for mercury, says “...the spectrum of Hg should have a continuum extending beyond every series limit in the direction of increasing wave number. This can be seen experimentally, although with some difficulty. ... equally true for all atoms.”
What does “with some difficulty” mean? Doesn’t it mean that the theory predicts the continuum’s presence and that it is not there? This is a very weak argument, and is not very compelling.


I agree. Get a better book.


OK, one last try. Lets say that you want to make a laser cavity. You need there to be a coherent standing wave in the cavity so the resonance frequency can be amplified. Now the question is this: do you put in mirrors at each end of the cavity, or do you put in perfect absorbers? You put in mirrors. Its seems fairly obvious to me that mirrors will allow a standing wave in the cavity, and perfect absorbers won't. If this is not now clear, will someone else please help?[/color]


Ok, this is a lot better! In fact, it made me realise that I'm not 100% sure myself so I've had to go back to the books.

It seems that this picture of standing waves in a box is in fact, like you say, dodgy as hell. It's just another one of these terrible analogies of which much of physics teaching is filled where a bad argument gives the correct result.

I'm currently looking at page 183-185 of Landau and Lifsh-itz "Statistical Physics Part 1" (3rd edition) where they derive the blackbody spectrum very succinctly using the fact that photons are bosons and hence obey Bose-Einstein statistics. i.e. No standing waves in sight.

Landau was a blooming genius. If only I had looked at this book earlier!

Like I said before, it seems that you (and now also I) have been reading the wrong books. I fully recommend the Landau and Lifshi-tz series so maybe we should both go away and come back when we have read them all! (That's not a serious suggestion by the way - I quite enjoy arguing in the meantime)

Matt

p.s. Lifsh-itz should not have the hyphen but i put it there otherwise the middle of the word will get censored!

[andrewgray]

What thermal differences do you expect to have at thermal equilibrium?That's what I meant, no permanent thermal differences.
Ok, I'll improve the question.

Given the probability density I have already described, ...That's your next problem. P(r) is NOT a probability DENSITY. That is the whole point. It is simply just a probability. NOT A DENSITY. A probability density is defined by the probability of finding a particle in a volume dV, DIVIDED BY THAT SAME VOLUME dV. So the actual radial probability density is

4pr2drY*Y/4pr2dr = Y*Y = P(r)/dV

as expected. Your P(r) is the probability (not density) of finding a particle in a variable sized shell with volume 4pr2dr. This probability should not be drawn as a density since it is not a density. Drawing this probability as a density is the fudge factor that I am talking about so that the ground state looks hollow when it's actually not. The density is actually greatest near the nucleus, just like the Earth is not hollow and densest near the center!

...where they derive the blackbody spectrum very succinctly using the fact that photons are bosons and hence obey Bose-Einstein statistics. i.e. No standing waves in sight.I was talking about Max Planck's derivation of his own formula. If the original derivation is hokey, why wouldn't it be suspect? Here is what Model of Reality has to say about Planck's derivation:

1) Planck’s theory still depends on Boltzman’s energy probability distribution function, where each degree of freedom of the electromagnetic radiation is assigned an average energy ½kT. Why should Boltzman’s constant, which is defined as the average translational energy per molecule in an ideal gas per degree Kelvin, have anything to do with how much energy is in an electromagnetic wave emitted from a solid? Planck thought that he was quantizing the oscillators in the cavity wall, that is why he thought he could somehow (?) justify using Boltzman’s distribution. This was a Planck mistake. It is the radiation in the cavity which must be assumed to follow the equipartition of energy and Boltzman’s distribution, not the oscillators. But this Planck mistake was not discovered until later, so some real “hand waving” was necessary to justify this illogical use of the Boltzman distribution for the radiation in the cavity. Thus, Planck’s theory requires two hypotheses, one of them the completely unjustifiable assignment of ½kT to electromagnetic wave energy, and the other, his quantization with the empirical “fudge factor” h to get his equation to fit the data.

2) We see that Planck’s blackbody theory is a “quantum extension” of the very unrealistic Rayleigh-Jeans theory, which is applicable to nothing. Usually, the justification for “quantizing” a classical theory is that a theory is valid in some “classical realm”, but fails for the more microscopic realm. The Rayleigh-Jeans theory does not even have a “classical realm” that it applies to. The infinite energy density at high frequencies is actually classically impossible. In addition, the “standing wave assumption” is a blatant self-contradiction for a black body. (Standing waves require reflections to exist, but a “blackbody” does not reflect radiation by definition.) The Rayleigh-Jeans Law is an example of a completely nonreality-based theory. Why should a “quantum extension” of a bad classical theory be any better than the theory from where it came?

3) Why should the high frequency problem be handled by simply changing the average energy distribution of high frequency radiation (with a hypothesis) instead of just considering the natural frequencies of the atoms in the cavity walls? It seems to us that the absence of high frequency radiation in the cavity is just due to the lack of high frequency atomic natural frequencies which are thermally agitated.

4) Black pigments typically are reflectors of ultraviolet light, not absorbers. It is known that dark-skinned Africans reflect ultraviolet light, while light-skinned Europeans absorb ultraviolet light. Therefore, it is ironic that the coatings used to make the black cavities probably were not “black” in the ultraviolet frequency range. If the “lampblack” materials used to coat the cavity’s walls were ultraviolet reflectors, then this would imply that there was nothing vibrating with ultraviolet frequencies in the coating, and thus no ultra-violet blackbody radiation should be expected a-priori in the cavity. It should be pointed out that the Rayleigh-Jeans Law is very suspicious because the very premise that a black body can be constructed that absorbs and thermally emits gamma, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation is impossible. That is, if a perfect black body that absorbed and thermally emitted all the high frequencies could actually be constructed, then perhaps ultraviolet and higher frequencies would be seen in the cavity when heated. Thus, we will give Rayleigh-Jeans a break for writing an OK theory about some bad assumptions.

5) What happens after the Photon Killer experiments in this book are verified? The quantization of electromagnetic radiation will have to be abandoned, and Planck’s quantization assumption will seem silly.

The complete blackbody discussion can be found at:
www.modelofreality.org/Sect6_9.html

See also “Material Emits More Than Planck Predicts”, EDN Magazine, August 7, 2003, p. 26).

[baffledMatt]

That's your next problem. P(r) is NOT a probability DENSITY. That is the whole point. It is simply just a probability. NOT A DENSITY. A probability density is defined by the probability of finding a particle in a volume dV, DIVIDED BY THAT SAME VOLUME dV.


Well, yes and no. The word density is a funny thing as it depends on the particular dimension of space I am interested in. For instance, it makes sense to talk about a 'density' for two dimensional systems.

But anyway, you still don't seem to have noticed the subtlety of my question. I am not asking 'where is the density greatest', becuase this doesn't tell me a great deal. I am simply asking "how do I calculate the probability of measuring r between r and r + dr?" to which you still have not provided an answer.


[color=green]I was talking about Max Planck's derivation of his own formula. If the original derivation is hokey, why wouldn't it be suspect?


Yes, Planck's derivation is quite freely admitted by all to be pretty much a fudge. In fact, apparently he came up with his idea in an "act of desparation" to fit the data.

However, this does not mean that subsequent work has not made it more rigorous - which it certainly has. Just look at Landau's derivation!


Planck’s theory still depends on Boltzman’s energy probability distribution function, where each degree of freedom of the electromagnetic radiation is assigned an average energy ½kT.


No, it is based on the energy distribution of bosons. Besides, this comment suggests to me you do not properly understand the origin of the Boltzmann distribution, or of the derivation of the "equipartition theorem" - both of which can be put on a very rigorous setting.


Why should Boltzman’s constant, which is defined as the average translational energy per molecule in an ideal gas per degree Kelvin


This is how the value is defined, but where the constant actually originates from is much much deeper than that. It relates the number of degrees of freedom of an entity to the entropy (both of which concepts apply to photon gases).

Again, you have fallen into the trap of criticising a well established theory by attacking its original derivation. This you must never do. Understand what is the most current understanding of the theory first please.

Matt

[andrewgray]

Well, yes and no. The word density is a funny thing as it depends on the particular dimension of space I am interested in. For instance, it makes sense to talk about a 'density' for two dimensional systems.

But anyway, you still don't seem to have noticed the subtlety of my question. I am not asking 'where is the density greatest', becuase this doesn't tell me a great deal. I am simply asking "how do I calculate the probability of measuring r between r and r + dr?" to which you still have not provided an answer.Well, in 3 dimensions, the probability density is the probability per unit volume. The units are 1 over volume. So to find the simple probability of finding a particle in your variable sized spherical shells, simply multiply the probability per unit volume, Y(r)*Y(r), by the volume, 4pr2dr.
Yes, Planck's derivation is quite freely admitted by all to be pretty much a fudge. In fact, apparently he came up with his idea in an "act of desparation" to fit the data.Well, it is refreshing to see this admitted in writing by someone in the mainstream.However, this does not mean that subsequent work has not made it more rigorous - which it certainly has. Just look at Landau's derivation!Matt, don't get me wrong: I well appreciate and understand what you are saying. But to me it is suspicious when the foundations of QM are used to derive more the sophisticated formulas of QM, then to go back and say that the foundations are "a fudge" and work backwards from the more sophisticated formulas to redo the foundations. It's kind of like saying:

Foundation:
4 + 8 = 13

For the more sophisticated equation, square everying:
(4 + 8)2 = 132

Oops 4 + 8 = 13 was wrong! Take the sqare root of the more sophisticated equation and arrive at:
4 + 8 = 13

in a different, "more rigorous" way.

It's very similar to the evolution of the QM hydrogen atom and spin. Spin was first postulated to be "a spinning electron". Decades later, this was shown to be impossible. But now we use the "more sophisticated" framework (derived from the original false foundation) and go back and "fix it up" so that now "spin" is abstracted away from "something spinning". My QM textbook now says that electron spin is not something spinning from the start. This is now "more rigorous". To me this "more rigorous" means that no one had the guts to say that we needed to start over, as we might offend some prestigious names that have already won the Nobel.

Like I said Matt, don't get me wrong. I don't expect you to agree with me. I just wanted to say that I understand what you are saying, but I just think that there is a better way. Also, let me reiterate that I really appreciate your input more than you can know.

Andrew Gray

[baffledMatt]

Well, in 3 dimensions, the probability density is the probability per unit volume. The units are 1 over volume. So to find the simple probability of finding a particle in your variable sized spherical shells, simply multiply the probability per unit volume, Y(r)*Y(r), by the volume, 4pr2dr.



But it is these 'variable sized shells' which you have to get a grip on. My question was well posed and doesn't include any reference to such things, it is just your distaste for elementary calculus and probability theory getting in the way. Anyway you have given me a correct answer (except that you should have integrated over the angular dependence if there was any). Now, I ask you which of the possible measurements of r = |\underline r| is most likely?


[color=green]But to me it is suspicious when the foundations of QM are used to derive more the sophisticated formulas of QM, then to go back and say that the foundations are "a fudge" and work backwards from the more sophisticated formulas to redo the foundations.


No, you have the wrong idea here - what you have described leads to horrible circular arguments and it would be quite an insult to theorists to imply that this is the logic they use.

The thing is that when a new theory is developed it is often in a poorly understood field and everyone is pretty much floundering about in the dark. So, to begin to make theories we usually have to resort to handwaving and using heuristic arguments. Then as the field develops people get more of an insight into what they are talking about which allows them to conjure up some basic principles of the physics. They then go back and build the theory properly from the ground up but using these basic principles as the foundation. But be aware that the subsequent work only guided us to this, we haven't 'derived the original formulas from the later ones' as you are suggesting.

It would be like:

let's try writing down the KE for an object as 1/2 mv^2 because I can wave my hands about and convince you that it might make sense.

Now, we go on studying mechanics and we find that in fact Galilean relativity seems to be a pretty good general principle. We also get a guy named Hamilton telling us that most of our results seem to be derived from his very basic formulation of mechanics.

So, we start a fresh piece of paper and write down at the top "Mechanics obeys the principle of least action" and then just below, "Galilean relativity applies in mechanics". Then from this we can deduce that the Kinetic energy is indeed 1/2 mv^2.

Do you see the difference?

Matt

[baffledMatt]

Well, in 3 dimensions, the probability density is the probability per unit volume. The units are 1 over volume. So to find the simple probability of finding a particle in your variable sized spherical shells, simply multiply the probability per unit volume, Y(r)*Y(r), by the volume, 4pr2dr.



Actually, this reminds me of a similar problem.

You often see in (bad) textbooks an argument of why our eyes are sensitive to the 'visual' part of the spectrum (centred around green) by the following argument:

1. Start with the spectrum of the light from the sun - this is presented in the form of wavelength i.e. P(\lambda)d\lambda which is the amount of radiation between wavelengths \lambda and \lambda + d\lambda.

2. Plot the graph and show that there is a maximum at the visible part of the spectrum, centred around green.

3. Deduce that natural selection would naturally give us eyes that were most sensitive to the most abundant part of the spectrum.

Much later on a professor pointed out to me that if you plot the radiation density as a function of frequency (or equivalently energy) you actually get a maximum around the infra-red. So the previous argument is really a fudge of mammoth proportions.

Again, the discrepancy comes about because the 'unit volume' of wavelength is not the same as that of frequency. The unit of length decreases in respect of the frequency and vica versa.

Now I hope this illustrates the importance of asking the right question when it comes to these densities. I don't ask "where is the particle most likely to be found?" for the same reason that I don't ask "at what frequency is the radiation strongest?". I say 'what is the probability of making this specific measurement of my particle?' which is a well posed question.

Matt

[andrewgray]

But it is these 'variable sized shells' which you have to get a grip on. My question was well posed and doesn't include any reference to such things, it is just your distaste for elementary calculus and probability theory getting in the way. Anyway you have given me a correct answer (except that you should have integrated over the angular dependence if there was any). Now, I ask you which of the possible measurements of r|=r| is most likely?Ok, Matt. I will answer this question, but first you must answer this one. (Then I'll answer yours, depending on how you answer):

For the Earth, which value of r is associated with the most Earthen material?

(Is it going to be the center (r=0) where the density is greatest, or is it going to be just under the surface, where the variable sized shell is the greatest?)


Andrew Gray

[baffledMatt]

[color=brown]For the Earth, which value of r is associated with the most Earthen material?


Sorry, what exactly are you asking?

Note that my question to you was about the probability of obtaining a certain measurement. Here you have just asked "what value of r is most associated", but I don't know what you mean by 'associated'.

Matt

p.s. I'm going to be unable to post for the next week due to lectures.

[andrewgray]

OK, OK. Not well defined.

So I'll go along with you this time.
The expected value of r is of course:

\int_\textrm{space} r \Psi^* \Psi dV = \frac{3}{2}a_{o} \equiv \frac{3}{2} Bohr Radius

But r is a positive definite coordinate. All positive definite expected coordinate values are greater than 0 no matter what. So what? So even if the density at the center were maximized and 1,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that at 3/2 Bohr radius, |r| would still not be zero.

Another set of coordinate expected values are |x|, |y|, |z|.

\int_\textrm{space} x \Psi^* \Psi dV = 0
\int_\textrm{space} y\Psi^* \Psi dV = 0
\int_\textrm{space} z \Psi^* \Psi dV = 0

"So what?", I can hear you say. Analogously, the most probable x measurement of a particle would be at the nucleus, according to this. So we see how this expected coordinate value just so happens to correlate with the maximum probability density. Strictly coincidence by symmetry.

However, using your same logic, the most likely position for a measurement of a particle in a small cube with e as a side would be at {|x|,|y|,|z|} or at {0,0,0}, the nucleus.

The major difference with these two points of view is that one could map the probability density with the x,y,z measurements since they would be done on uniform volume elements, the way a density is defined.

In order to measure and map the probability density from the radial point of view, one would have to ask a different question. That would be:

What is the probability of finding the particle in a spherical shell with inner radius located at r with volume e?

This would again yield the nucleus as the position with maximum probability density.

Andrew Gray

edit: typo error

[baffledMatt]

But r is a positive definite coordinate. All positive definite expected coordinate values are greater than 0 no matter what. So what? So even if the density at the center were maximized and 1,000,000,000,000,000 times greater than that at 3/2 Bohr radius, |r| would still not be zero.

Another set of coordinate expected values are |x|, |y|, |z|.

\int_\textrm{space} x \Psi^* \Psi dV = 0
\int_\textrm{space} y\Psi^* \Psi dV = 0
\int_\textrm{space} z \Psi^* \Psi dV = 0



Ok, so I think we agree that depending what we do with the probability density we can come up with all sorts of crazy interpretations.

I just want to leave you with one last puzzle:

What is the expectation value of the potential energy of the electron in the hydrogen atom? (assume the only interaction we have is the electrostatic potential - and setting constants to 1)

In other words, evaluate:
\langle E \rangle = - \int_{space} \Psi^* \frac{1}{r} \Psi dV

Now, I think once you have done this you will see the danger in considering the electron as being most probably found at the origin as this would make you expect the integral to diverge (which it doesn't).


In order to measure and map the probability density from the radial point of view, one would have to ask a different question. That would be:

What is the probability of finding the particle in a spherical shell with inner radius located at r with volume e?


But that's the thing. I don't really care about the probability density per se, and I certainly have no desire to 'map' it 'from the radial point of view' whatever that means. All I am interested in is knowing what are my expectation values - what do I actually measure at the end of the day. Without calculating this anything I say would be idle speculation.

Matt

[andrewgray]

I don't really care about the probability density per se, and I certainly have no desire to 'map' it '. . .Your integral is:

\langle E \rangle = - \int_{space} \Psi^* \frac{1}{r} \Psi dV = - \int_{space} \Psi^* \frac{1}{r} \Psi r^2sin\theta drd \theta d\phi = -\frac{1}{a_{0}}

Again, 1/r is positive definite, and anything up to 1/r2 will converge because of the r2 in dV. There is no danger with the 1/r in the integrand.

I care about the probability density per se because in elementary QM textbooks, they draw the probability density as a hollow ball. This is incorrect, and only done this way because beginner QM students still use "reality based thinking" to understand things, and a probability density maximized at the center would cause too much cynicism for the theory. It is your radial probability function that is a hollow ball. The density, again, is maximized at the center because \psi^*\psi (the density) has a maximum at the center. It's that simple.

Andrew Gray

[baffledMatt]

I care about the probability density per se because in elementary QM textbooks, they draw the probability density as a hollow ball.


Well, if that's what you really have in your books then I guess your book is wrong.

Can you tell me what book you saw this in?


and only done this way because beginner QM students still use "reality based thinking" to understand things, and a probability density maximized at the center would cause too much cynicism for the theory.


Hehe, wouldn't that be something. It implies that authors are somehow consciously wrong in order to cover up some conspiracy. Alas, I think there are just some sloppy authors out there who make silly mistakes over and over again.

This is not uncommon. I have some colleagues currently writing a book on critical phenomena and they are showing me all the time where other authors keep getting things wrong. It doesn't mean that the actual theory is wrong though!

Matt

[andrewgray]

Can you tell me what book you saw this in?Ok, here is a picture found in Elementary Modern Physics, p. 193:

www.ModelofReality.org/WrongProbability1.gif

And here is one found in Essentials of Modern Physics, p. 285:

www.ModelofReality.org/WrongProbability2.gif

These books are not recent books, but I would be willing to bet that the deception continues.

It implies that authors are somehow consciously wrong in order to cover up some conspiracy. I believe I use the term fudge factor.

Andrew Gray

[baffledMatt]

Ok, here is a picture found in Elementary Modern Physics, p. 193:

www.ModelofReality.org/WrongProbability1.gif

And here is one found in Essentials of Modern Physics, p. 285:

www.ModelofReality.org/WrongProbability2.gif

These books are not recent books, but I would be willing to bet that the deception continues.

I believe I use the term fudge factor.

Andrew Gray


Well then, all I can say is get better books. Moreover, these ones seem like basic undergraduate texts, you should try looking at some decent graduate texts.

Matt

[DrChinese]

These books are not recent books, but I would be willing to bet that the deception continues.

Andrew Gray


Deception? Whose deception? Are you saying that the physics establishment is intentionally deceiving its students? What you are saying doesn't even make sense. I have had my share of disagreements with physics professors, but accusing the profession of deception is unwarranted.

As to actual deception: What should I call denying the existence of neutrinos? (http://205.238.151.108/Chapter12.gif) After all, the evidence for neutrinos is overwhelming; is your published position based on ignorance or intentional disregard for the truth?

For instance, ask the teams who tracked neutrinos from SN1987A (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/StarDeath/sn1987a.html) (something like 19 spotted). They detected the neutrinos from that supernova hours BEFORE any photons arrived - in agreement with theory! Neat trick, for something that you deny exists in the first place. (Or was that part of the conspiracy too? Just wondering...)

[andrewgray]

Well then, all I can say is get better books. Moreover, these ones seem like basic undergraduate texts, you should try looking at some decent graduate texts.Well of course I have more advance QM textbooks. The point was that:

"This is incorrect, and only done this way because beginner QM students still use reality-based thinking to understand things, and a probability density maximized at the center would cause too much cynicism for the theory.
We were talking about undergraduates here.


Are you saying that the physics establishment is intentionally deceiving its students? Oops, my apologies. "Deception" really is too strong of a word. I really should not have been so harsh. Again, my apologies. Of course, no one is deliberately trying to deceive anyone.

It all has to do with the human psychology of tradition, and the pain involved when tradition must change as times change. A good example is birth control. We have almost 7 billion people on this planet and we add 200,000 more people every day. Yet certain groups are still fighting against birth control. This change is too painful for their tradition to absorb quickly, but prohibiting birth control in billion-person countries seems insane. How could those groups think this way? TRADITION FIRST, LOGIC LAST! Tradition embraces tremendous resistance to logical change, in my opinion.

OK, birth control has not too much to do with physics, but the same pain will come as certain physics traditions become obsolete. Change will come slowly and painfully. Sometimes it may take a whole new generation to abandon the old obsolete ideas. The hopelessly indoctrinated old school will simply refuse to just think logically, and hold on to their ideas as a matter of pride more than principle.

To me, for example, saying that there can be no underlying reality in the quantum world, or that the electron spin is not something spinning, or that we need 11 dimensions to describe reality is analogous to the insanity of adding 200,000 people/day to this planet. Yet they will fight for these principles for a long time to come.

Andrew Gray

P.S.
They detected the neutrinos from that supernova hours BEFORE any photons arrived . . .Are you saying that they traveled faster than the speed of light?








.

[andrewgray]

Oh, yes. I almost forgot. Read this article about the neutrino:

www.autodynamics.org/html/body3.html

Andrew Gray

[DrChinese]

Are you saying that they traveled faster than the speed of light?

Yes, Andrew, the NEUTRINOS traveled at c, which was faster than the speed of light - on average - through a star. This is because the PHOTONS had to take a "longer" route while being scattered through the mass of electrons and quarks that made up the star. On the other hand, neutrinos don't scatter much against such matter - they interact only through the weak force - and emerge from the center of the star immediately (no scattering). The explosion took about 3 hours to reach the outside surface of the star, and so those photons needed an extra 3 hours to complete their journey to Earth.

You can deny neutrinos all you like, but the evidence is real. You will need to jump through some pretty big hoops to provide your explanation of why these neutrinos - detected at a neutrino detector set up to measure these "fictitious" particles - were able to accomplish their feat in advance of the burst of visible light.

As to people being slow to accept change... I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are the one living in the past. Reality is not described by your idea that everything must make sense "according to you". Einstein didn't know the outcome of EPR experiments because he didn't live long enough. I have no doubt he would accept the current evidence against his 1935 position. You don't have that excuse to offer, the Aspect experiments were over 20 years ago. He certainly accepted the existence of the neutrino.

[andrewgray]

Dr Chinese,

All I'm saying about the neutrino is that my new theory has the explanation for the original beta decay energy mystery, and the original neutrino hypothesis is not necessary. So: not until I have some further experimental proof would I expect you or anyone else in mainstream physics to necessarily accept these ideas. But here they are anyway:

7.2 Beta Decay Rewritten

. . . It is well known that nuclear beta decay seems to violate the law of conservation of momentum and energy (see, for example, Eisberg’s Fundamentals of Modern Physics, p. 625). Before 1930, several explanations were suggested to explain this, but none seemed to work. It was such a sad situation that year that the energy conservation law seemed in jeopardy. But in 1931, to get around this problem, Wolfgang Pauli, hypothesized the existence of the neutrino (“little neutral one”), to be a zero rest mass particle, responsible for the missing momentum and energy in beta decay.
. . . This neutrino hypothesis is unnecessary. As we mentioned in chapter 6, the pulsed force between two particles can experience tunneling. That is, energy and momentum are not conserved if the two particles’ pulsations have a correlation. The force between two pulsating charged particles is only conservative if there is no correlation between them and the force is time-averaged. However, if there is a correlation between the two pulsations, then the time-averaged, conservative nature of the force is ruined (for example, if the nucleus is OFF while a bound electron is ON, then the electron can quickly be removed from the nucleus with little energy cost). This would seem to violate the macroscopic law of conservation of momentum and energy, but this a necessary conclusion for correlated pulsating particles. Thus, we assert that a correlated pulsating electron can tunnel away from a pulsating nucleus during beta decay, violating the macroscopic energy conservation law.
. . . With this deeper insight into beta decay, we strongly suspect that neutrinos do not exist and we have proposed a Neutrino Killer Experiment in Part II of this book. Once this experiment and the other Quantum Killer Experiments are verified, we shall continue on with our reality based nuclear theory.



The Neutrino Killer Experiment


12.1 Neutrinos Do Not Exist

. . . In chapter 7 we asserted electrons could tunnel away from a beta decaying nucleus. Thus, neutrinos are not necessary to explain the missing beta decay energy, the very reason for their hypothesized existence. Therefore, their very existence is brought into question. Also, someone needs to point out that neutrino detector data over the years has conflicted so greatly with “neutrino theory” that contemporary quantum physicists have resorted to claiming that neutrinos “spontaneously change into different forms”. (See the current physics literature concerning neutrino oscillations). Is this how conflicting experimental data is handled these days, by simply postulating a spontaneous change in form so that experimental data can again agree with “neutrino theory”? If neutrino experimental data does not match theory at all, why not just abandon the neutrino hypothesis? Is this just too politically difficult to do? Abandoning the neutrino hypothesis seems like a better path to take, rather than trying to “fix up” the theory with a hypothesized dynamic metamorphosis of the neutrino. Someone needs to say that “neutrino oscillations” seem like a blatant ad hoc addition to a dubious hypothesis to start with!
. . . There is one type of “neutrino experiment” that seems obvious to use to prove these assertions. “Neutrino” detectors are typically put deep below the surface of the Earth, in order to shield them. Sometimes these detectors are placed in the vicinity (through many kilometers of solid rock) of supposedly intense sources of manmade “neutrinos”. For example, a schematic of the KEK to Kamioka neutrino experiment (see for example, American Scientist, May-June 1999 p230) in Japan is shown below in figure 12.1. A proton synchrotron at the KEK laboratory in Tsukuba, Japan, is used as a “neutrino source”. Two “neutrino detectors” are supposedly in the neutrino beam’s path. One at KEK, and one 250 kilometers (through solid rock) away at the Super-K detector in Kamioka, Japan. “Neutrino oscillations” are to be studied by the different types of “neutrino fluxes” measured at the two detectors.
. . . We simply cannot refrain from pointing out how this type of experiment borders on the ridiculous. First of all, the detectors do not detect “neutrinos” directly. A muon neutrino, for example, is supposedly detected by the appearance of a muon-like event. But wouldn’t one expect a few random muon-like events in such enormous detectors such as the Super-K? Only 30 or so total events are registered during one whole day! We assert that this is just random noise, and with this simple Neutrino Killer Experiment, we intend to show how to prove this.
. . . The idea behind this experiment is a simple one. Isolate the experimenters at the neutrino detector site from the experimenters at the neutrino source site. Without telling the other experimenters, the neutrino source is turned off. If the neutrino detector experimenters are supposedly detecting “different types of neutrinos” from the source, then surely they will be able to tell that the source was turned off altogether.
. . . They won’t be able to tell if their detectors detect random noise! This is the basis for this experiment.


12.2 The Neutrino Killer Experiment: Procedure.

. . . 1) Using an existing “neutrino” source-detector combination similar to the one seen in figure 12.1, isolate the detector technicians and do not allow them to communicate with the “neutrino” source technicians.
. . . 2) Over a period of a few days or weeks, randomly turn the “neutrino” source on and off and record the times these events occur.
. . . 3) The detector technicians are to record “neutrino events” to see if they can tell when the source is completely turned off (drastic drop in events) and turned on again (drastic increase in events).


12.3 Expected Results.

. . . We expect that “neutrino” detector events are just random noise and that the experimenters at the far detector will not be able to tell when or if the source is turned off. Unfortunately, this experiment cannot be done by one person or even a small group. Therefore, it is even more unfortunate that we must take into consideration the politics of physics and its influence on the outcome of physics projects. These neutrino projects have millions of dollars allocated, and employ thousands of technicians and scientists at their facilities. Expecting a truthful outcome to such an experiment is almost hopeless. “The bottom line” (money, jobs, and security) almost always wins over the quest for scientific truth. Thus, the only people who would actually know the outcome of this experiment would be the experimenters themselves, as they unethically sneak the turn-off times and then fudge their data to keep their jobs. ( See for example, "Bell Labs says its physicist faked groundbreaking data", Austin American Statesman, 9/26/2002 ).


Andrew Gray

[baffledMatt]

This neutrino hypothesis is unnecessary. As we mentioned in chapter 6, the pulsed force between two particles can experience tunneling. That is, energy and momentum are not conserved if the two particles’ pulsations have a correlation. The force between two pulsating charged particles is only conservative if there is no correlation between them and the force is time-averaged. However, if there is a correlation between the two pulsations, then the time-averaged, conservative nature of the force is ruined (for example, if the nucleus is OFF while a bound electron is ON, then the electron can quickly be removed from the nucleus with little energy cost). This would seem to violate the macroscopic law of conservation of momentum and energy, but this a necessary conclusion for correlated pulsating particles. Thus, we assert that a correlated pulsating electron can tunnel away from a pulsating nucleus during beta decay, violating the macroscopic energy conservation law.



Does your theory tell us in which circumstances we expect to see this apparent violation of conservation of momentum/energy? One of the great successes of the standard model was to be able to predict via conservation laws which decays are possible and which are not. Do you have a similar thing?


In chapter 7 we asserted electrons could tunnel away from a beta decaying nucleus. Thus, neutrinos are not necessary to explain the missing beta decay energy, the very reason for their hypothesized existence. Therefore, their very existence is brought into question.


Hmm, do you not see the fallacy in your logic? You are again trying to attack a theory by criticising its origin. Imagine we found conclusive evidence that Columbus never actually reached America, hence the original 'discovery' of America was a big lie. Should we then conclude that America doesn't exist? Well, as tempting as that is, we would not be able to because of the substantial evidence collected in the meantime. For the same reason, even if you find an alternative explanation for the beta decay problem you still have to explain all the other evidence (like the standard model works at all) before you can throw out the neutrino.


Also, someone needs to point out that neutrino detector data over the years has conflicted so greatly with “neutrino theory” that contemporary quantum physicists have resorted to claiming that neutrinos “spontaneously change into different forms”. (See the current physics literature concerning neutrino oscillations). Is this how conflicting experimental data is handled these days, by simply postulating a spontaneous change in form so that experimental data can again agree with “neutrino theory”? If neutrino experimental data does not match theory at all, why not just abandon the neutrino hypothesis? Is this just too politically difficult to do? Abandoning the neutrino hypothesis seems like a better path to take, rather than trying to “fix up” the theory with a hypothesized dynamic metamorphosis of the neutrino. Someone needs to say that “neutrino oscillations” seem like a blatant ad hoc addition to a dubious hypothesis to start with!


Yes, but if the new 'patched up' theory works again, what is wrong with that? You call it ad hoc, I say it is the fact that theorists can't think of everything so they need to watch out for new experimental data and ammend their theories when appropriate. The reason why we don't abandon the neutrino hypothesis altogether is that apart from a few irregularities it works so well. Hence is it not reasonable to expect that the more correct theory should resemble it in some way? You seem to have an overwhelming obsession with these one or two experiments, simply ignoring all the other successes where you see fit.


A muon neutrino, for example, is supposedly detected by the appearance of a muon-like event. But wouldn’t one expect a few random muon-like events in such enormous detectors such as the Super-K? Only 30 or so total events are registered during one whole day! We assert that this is just random noise, and with this simple Neutrino Killer Experiment, we intend to show how to prove this.


But where does this 'random noise' come from? How do you know what is the expected background noise from such an experiment? I have a feeling you are guessing here.


The idea behind this experiment is a simple one. Isolate the experimenters at the neutrino detector site from the experimenters at the neutrino source site. Without telling the other experimenters, the neutrino source is turned off. If the neutrino detector experimenters are supposedly detecting “different types of neutrinos” from the source, then surely they will be able to tell that the source was turned off altogether.
They won’t be able to tell if their detectors detect random noise! This is the basis for this experiment.


Well, as DrChinese has been trying to tell you, there is the famous incident of the 1987a supernova where they detected the neutrino burst first and then told the astronomers where to look. 18 hours later they did in fact see the supernova.


We expect that “neutrino” detector events are just random noise and that the experimenters at the far detector will not be able to tell when or if the source is turned off. Unfortunately, this experiment cannot be done by one person or even a small group. Therefore, it is even more unfortunate that we must take into consideration the politics of physics and its influence on the outcome of physics projects. These neutrino projects have millions of dollars allocated, and employ thousands of technicians and scientists at their facilities. Expecting a truthful outcome to such an experiment is almost hopeless. “The bottom line” (money, jobs, and security) almost always wins over the quest for scientific truth. Thus, the only people who would actually know the outcome of this experiment would be the experimenters themselves, as they unethically sneak the turn-off times and then fudge their data to keep their jobs. ( See for example, "Bell Labs says its physicist faked groundbreaking data", Austin American Statesman, 9/26/2002 ).


Well, it's true that this sort of stuff goes on. There's also things (I think it happened with the Quantum Hall effect) where the guy who first observed it just figured the experiment must be wrong so shelved the data. However, you seem to imply that everyone is doing it and I think this is rather an insult to the other honest 99% of the physics community.

Matt

[DrChinese]

Dr Chinese,

All I'm saying about the neutrino is that my new theory has the explanation for the original beta decay energy mystery, and the original neutrino hypothesis is not necessary. So: not until I have some further experimental proof would I expect you or anyone else in mainstream physics to necessarily accept these ideas.

. . . We expect that “neutrino” detector events are just random noise and that the experimenters at the far detector will not be able to tell when or if the source is turned off. Unfortunately, this experiment cannot be done by one person or even a small group. Therefore, it is even more unfortunate that we must take into consideration the politics of physics and its influence on the outcome of physics projects. These neutrino projects have millions of dollars allocated, and employ thousands of technicians and scientists at their facilities. Expecting a truthful outcome to such an experiment is almost hopeless. “The bottom line” (money, jobs, and security) almost always wins over the quest for scientific truth. Thus, the only people who would actually know the outcome of this experiment would be the experimenters themselves, as they unethically sneak the turn-off times and then fudge their data to keep their jobs. ( See for example, "Bell Labs says its physicist faked groundbreaking data", Austin American Statesman, 9/26/2002 ).

Andrew Gray


You conveniently keep away from any evidence which contradicts your "conclusions". I provided a refutation of your "no neutrino" hypothesis by demonstrating a specific series of detections in which "random noise" could not possibly explain the observations. (BTW, these detectors do not employ thousands of people either. I'm sure the labs wish they had that kind of budget.) But the facts speak for themselves. Independent labs around the world detected neutrinos from 1987A hours in advance of photons.

That would be 100% in agreement with the standard model and 0% in agreement with your predictions. How do you expect anyone who knows anything about physics to take you seriously? And then you have to resort to accusing researchers of altering the data - without the slightest bit of evidence that such alteration occurred - and this alteration just happens to go against your theories. Your reference had nothing to do with neutrino detection experiments. Please note that even in cases of scientific fraud, replication of experiments inevitably shows up the fraud. Which is why, I presume, there is not a single piece of experimental evidence which supports any your claims.

I hope your writings at least help you to pick up girls. In the meantime, please continue to ignore anything else you don't like in the scientific world and, of course, your Nobel prize is in the mail.

[DrChinese]

The Neutrino Killer Experiment


12.1 Neutrinos Do Not Exist
...There is one type of “neutrino experiment” that seems obvious to use to prove these assertions. “Neutrino” detectors are typically put deep below the surface of the Earth, in order to shield them. Sometimes these detectors are placed in the vicinity (through many kilometers of solid rock) of supposedly intense sources of manmade “neutrinos”. For example, a schematic of the KEK to Kamioka neutrino experiment (see for example, American Scientist, May-June 1999 p230) in Japan is shown below in figure 12.1. A proton synchrotron at the KEK laboratory in Tsukuba, Japan, is used as a “neutrino source”. Two “neutrino detectors” are supposedly in the neutrino beam’s path. One at KEK, and one 250 kilometers (through solid rock) away at the Super-K detector in Kamioka, Japan. “Neutrino oscillations” are to be studied by the different types of “neutrino fluxes” measured at the two detectors. ...They won’t be able to tell if their detectors detect random noise! This is the basis for this experiment.

[/color]

Wow, why didn't they think of that?

Oh wait, they did (http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/news/k2k_1st.html) in an article on their web site entitled "Artificial Neutrino Beam Detected After Passing Through 250km of Earth":

"On June 19, 1999, 6:42 PM, Japanese Standard Time, the K2K (KEK to Kamioka) Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment observed its first neutrino event due to the KEK neutrino beam in the Super-Kamiokande detector, the first step towards the verification of the neutrino oscillation results announced by the Super-Kamiokande experiment in June last year. This is also the first demonstration that a particle that had been produced artificially and traversed 250km in Earth was detected. The event characteristics are consistent with a neutrino interaction in water. The time of the event is within approximately one micro-second of the expected event time. Both the direction and the time of the event are in the range of expectation considering the detection resolution of the experiment. The probability that the event came from an atmospheric neutrino interaction is estimated to be 0.01%, or one part in ten thousand."

This wasn't noise, because one of the "30 per day" neutrinos (your number) was detected within a fraction of a second after they turned on the source. Pretty easy way to calibrate your detector, having a source nearby like that. I imagine they repeat that little calibration pretty often, think? P.S. communication is absolutely necessary in this situation, since the results are nearly instantaneous. Your suggestions that there is a conspiracy on the part of the detector personnel deserves no consideration whatsoever.

[krab]

Your suggestions that there is a conspiracy on the part of the detector personnel deserves no consideration whatsoever.
Further, Andrew, look up KAMLAND with Google. This is an experiment where reactor neutrinos are detected. A particularly good presentation is here (http://nac15.ific.uv.es/conference/pages/Talks/piepke.pdf). Especially look at p.43 and following. Yes, neutrino physics is now mature enough that we can talk about Applied Neutrino Physics. You are way behind the times, Andrew; It is like the 16th century and you just wrote a book in support of a flat earth, and are proposing "Round Earth Killer Experiment". You'll surely find support from some malcontent conspiracy theorists, but that's about all. Have fun, but don't bother arguing with professional scientists.

[geistkiesel]

Wow, why didn't they think of that?

Oh wait, they did (http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/news/k2k_1st.html) in an article on their web site entitled "Artificial Neutrino Beam Detected After Passing Through 250km of Earth":

"On June 19, 1999, 6:42 PM, Japanese Standard Time, the K2K (KEK to Kamioka) Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Experiment observed its first neutrino event due to the KEK neutrino beam in the Super-Kamiokande detector, the first step towards the verification of the neutrino oscillation results announced by the Super-Kamiokande experiment in June last year. This is also the first demonstration that a particle that had been produced artificially and traversed 250km in Earth was detected. The event characteristics are consistent with a neutrino interaction in water. The time of the event is within approximately one micro-second of the expected event time. Both the direction and the time of the event are in the range of expectation considering the detection resolution of the experiment. The probability that the event came from an atmospheric neutrino interaction is estimated to be 0.01%, or one part in ten thousand."

This wasn't noise, because one of the "30 per day" neutrinos (your number) was detected within a fraction of a second after they turned on the source. Pretty easy way to calibrate your detector, having a source nearby like that. I imagine they repeat that little calibration pretty often, think? P.S. communication is absolutely necessary in this situation, since the results are nearly instantaneous. Your suggestions that there is a conspiracy on the part of the detector personnel deserves no consideration whatsoever.
DrChinese- Are you sugesting someone has their thumb on the scale?

[DrChinese]

DrChinese- Are you sugesting someone has their thumb on the scale?

No. Andrew has made exactly this suggestion, without any evidence whatsoever. His approach seems to be to doubt evidence that disagrees with his philosophy. I reject this out of hand. Besides, the evidence in question has been verified by numerous independent labs.

[geistkiesel]

Tom, what I mean is ad hoc experiment matching. Coming up with a theoretical result after the fact just doesn't do much for me. Remember how Maxwell's equations predicted the speed of light before it was measured. Now that impresses me.

So take the "Quantum Hall Effect" for example. If all that quantum theory gobbledy-gook had been written down before the Quantum Hall Effect was seen experimentally, I would be impressed.

But it wasn't. So I'm not impressed. But the QM'ers have now managed a pretty good ad hoc match for QHE theory and experiment. It just has nothing to do with the underlying reality.
[color=green]Now we are getting somewhere. [list] Well, first of all, I would like the QM'ers to finally admit that what they have is an "abstract description" (as Bohr has stated) and that it cannot match any underlying reality.

Not that there is no underlying reality.

This is insane. I really cannot believe that someone could sit there and say with a straight face that: "there is no underlying reality at the microscopic level, as proven by the Bell Inequality Experiments".
Second, be open-minded about any new theory that can match experiment and allows an underlying reality. Frankly, I am shocked that my theory has provoked such an emotional response from the physics community. I can't believe that a theory that has the potential to explain microscopic physics with an underlying reality has not been received with rejoicing on high, at least until it is proven either right or wrong! Surely, most would admit that a microscopic theory with an underlying reality would be preferable to one that concludes that there is no underlying reality. Like I said before, isn't this like proving that 4=5... ***BUZZZ* "Times up."
Help me get the QK experiments verified/falsified! This is exciting stuff. I am optimistic!
[QUOTE=andrewgray] Yes, measuring things at the micro level messes things up. So we have to be cleverer. For example, don't use a 10,000 gauss magnetic field while doing the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Use a real small one. This way you won't "mess up the atom's angular momentum". Obviously, there is the "ever increasing complexity" problem as one gets smaller and smaller, and eventually one can expect that one will reach a size level where it will be absolutely impossible to measure anything. But we're talking about atomic distances (nanometers) here. We are getting to the age of "nanotechnology" now. We need to have a picture of the underlying atomic reality so we can attempt to go one level deeper correctly.

It is All Underlying Reality.

It was Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen who reminds us of the incompleteness of quantum theory. It is the analytic intelligence of David Bohm that has inspired many. The penetrating analysis of JS Bell advises us that quantum mechanical models void in nonlocal forces are incomplete. To a theoretically overwhelming degree, modern quantum mechanics does not describe intrinsic nonlocal froces in the structure of QM models. What is seen is tired repetition identified by the obvious buzz words, which shall not be repeated here.. The often repeated and self=serving echo from the quantum theorists ranks is "the remarkable prediction power of quantum theory". Piffle.

This is an interesting thread, though I am not sure of the participants except for andrewgray. The "underlying reality" topic and the Stern-Gerlach experiments mentioned above with the concepts on "nonlocality", or "underlying reality", can be demonstrated as real and force effective in simple transition experiments. This iis not a difficult task. The problem as mentioned or alludded to is acceptance of the radically new, where this newness is expressed in the form of simplicity and ease of understanding.

When one applies analytical focus on the Stern-Gerlach experimental results it is discoveed these results have not been adequately scrutinized in the past and the mess that inheirted from Richard Feynman (among others) is all encompassing. As an example, it is clearly demonstrated (Feynman "Lectures on Physics" Vol III Ch 5) with a unique analysis of four fundamental SG transitions. The one most enlightening for me is the simple +S -> xT-> +S transition defined as the transition of a spin-1 particle in the +S state when directed through a SG T segmentwhich is identical to the S segment except for the rotation of the T segment around the y-axis, the direction of travel of the particle. RF declares the transition through the unobstructed T segment as if the segment "was not present'. This is inferred from the resulting +S state immediately after leaving the unobstructed SG segment in a field free region. Ignoring this transition results a theoretical blinding affect.

Let us look at the expression, S-> T, which defines a polarization process when the spin-1 particle leaves the field free region and enters the magnetic field/gradient volume of the T segment. The second and final event is the depolarization of the xT state to the +S state as T-> +S

The question if the century: How does the +S state return to the particle?

A compass needle reorients to north by the force of the earth's magnetic field. The +S particle state is recovered, or reformed, in the field free region immediately outside the SG segment. The forces or elements guaranteeing the recovery of the +S state are not observed, they are nonlocal. Therefore, we see immediately that the +S state is incomplete, so we write it as +S = S(1 00[+S])arbitrarily, where the '1' implies the '+' state and the 00[+S] a most arbitrary expression recognizing the reality of those nonlocal forces guaranteeing the reformation of the +S state.

To keep this post manageably concise I will stop here with a description of the spin-1 particle as DEF: an inertial platform.

What is a +S state?

The magnetic monopole of the particle (defined here unambiguously) has been polarized to a direction parallel to the line of the of the field/gradient system of the 'S' segment , where S indicates the line parallel to the fiedl/gradient, AKA the z-axis. Motion along the z-axis is described here by the '+' symbol meaning 'up'. During polarization the orientation of the magnetic monopoles are oriented consistent with the field gradient direction of the T segment, ergo we see no observed status recognizable as the +S state.

Writing the polarization process as (P) S(1 00[+S]) -> T(1 00[+S] 00[+T]) for an arbitrarily polarized +T state. The depolarization is simply (Pinv)T(1 00[+S] 00[+T]) -> ( _ 00[+S] _ _) -> S(1 00[+S]) = +S. The 00[+T] is necessary as these are the elements that potentially guarantee the formation of the +T state, as temporary as it may be in this example, being retricted to the T segment - hybrid or mixed state is a common descriptive term. But consider the transition through a T segment where the lower two channels, or trajectories, are obstructed: Pure action at a distance that cannot be denied notwithstanding the 'distance ' is on the order of a millimeter or so, a few relative solar system distances removed..

The expression ( _ 00[+S] _ _) -> S(1 00[+S]) = +S tells us the 00[+S] is sufficient to guarantee the reformation of the +S base state, which is an observed characteristic defined by the direction of motion of the particle due to the quantum effects of a 'spin' magnetic monopole exposed to the magnetic field gradient volume of the Stern-Gerlach segment.

The T(00[+S]) are retained by the particle system spin state generating system during transition, which means the particle reorients its magnetic monopole to a direction not detemined by local forces. The fact of the inertial nature of the particle is apparent and embarrassingly obvious.

A corrupted QM as witnessed partially in the incomplete expression and description of physical law in chapter 5, Vol III of 'Lectures'


:devil:

[DrChinese]

It is All Underlying Reality.

It was Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen who reminds us of the incompleteness of quantum theory. ... The "underlying reality" topic and the Stern-Gerlach experiments mentioned above with the concepts on "nonlocality", or "underlying reality", can be demonstrated as real and force effective in simple transition experiments. This iis not a difficult task...

The problem as mentioned or alludded to is acceptance of the radically new, where this newness is expressed in the form of simplicity and ease of understanding.


You can have your incompleteness and eat it too... as long as it is non-local. After everything Andrew has said about QM lacking reality, along comes geistkiesel to point out that you have plenty of non-local reality in QM. Therefore there are hidden variables and QM is incomplete because there exists the possibility of discovering them - at least in one interpretation.

Not sure I follow your statement about the "radically new...". What's radically new in this 70 year old debate?

[geistkiesel]

Damn, this is one hell-of-an interesting thread, to be sure. My hat is off to all participants.
Could it be suggested that there is enough preliminary evidence/responsible speculation presented here to warrant further investigation? I think there is.
May I suggest that an effort be made now to move on actual validation of the QK experiment claims. But this is costly. Understood, and likely outside the financial and laboratory scope of a single individual.
Perhaps those "well-connected" here(and elsewhere we might know) might be able to arrange these tests. Hint.
This seems a little too important to leave entirely alone on the floors of a forum.

Not so expensive as you might think Pallidin. See my graphics rich, math poor web pages (http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/) A mentor in another forum thought the link "impenetrable". I had always thought the link was simple heresy. The key to alll is the intrinsic nature of nonlocal forces guaranteeing the existence of the observed state.

QM isn't that far off it cannot be easily steered onto the proper bearing. For instance, a quantum mechanically definite +Z spin-1 particle is described as the sum of the indefinite and wildly oscillating +1 and -1 states on the x axis, or +x and -x. This prediction, of course, follows the mathematical principle that allows the following in the superposition of states principle: If A + B are solutions to the wave equation then so are aA + bB. However, as all spin activity is seen confined to the z-axis +X and -X states are never observed. Rotating the axis of the polarizing field around the direction of motion of the quantum particle changes nothing. The only observed states ever, are the +Z, -Z and +-Z. The actual truth of the matter is that when the particle is polarized to the +Z state (when entering the field/gradient conditions of the segment) the current nonexpressed elements [-Z] and [+-Z] guarantee the existence of the +Z state in unobstructed T segment transitions..

How? The spin state of the spin-1 particle in an unpolarized and virgin condition has the particle generated states ocuring as + +- - + +- - + +- - + +- - etc. throughout. Notice only one state is ever observed at one time and the other possible states are not then "off", they are nonobserved or nonlocal.

[geistkiesel]

You can have your incompleteness and eat it too... as long as it is non-local. After everything Andrew has said about QM lacking reality, along comes geistkiesel to point out that you have plenty of non-local reality in QM. Therefore there are hidden variables and QM is incomplete because there exists the possibility of discovering them - at least in one interpretation.

Not sure I follow your statement about the "radically new...". What's radically new in this 70 year old debate?

First, another post of mine asking the Q about a "thumb on the scales" was misdirected at yourself. I was hasty in reading the identified post. post. Do I get dinged for this? Mac Al would do it.

I do not speak for Andrew, but consistent with my take on the matter would mean that a QM model void in nonlocal forces, is also suffereing a "void" in reality due to the incomplete nature of the model. The seventy year debate is as you say, but notice the relative definable and small number of participants in the debate. Why isn't JS Bell and David Bohm being taught iin lower division physics classes? Answer: Unfamiliarity QM the overwhelming number of profs familiar enough with the concepts to teach it. Remember Bell didn't provide al that many structural model, his main contribution is the manif4st recognition of the nonlocal state as unique.

I did read where Andrew said that Bell had proved "no hidden variables" were possiblke. It is like you said, Bell proved that "no local hidden variabes are possible"

So "the radical" is the application of nonlocal forces in every QM expression ever written.

This is posted elsewhere Dr Chinese, but here for an intro. S -> T -> S transiition where initial polarization see at S

[geistkiesel]

Well then, all I can say is get better books. Moreover, these ones seem like basic undergraduate texts, you should try looking at some decent graduate texts.

Matt

A challenge to baffledMatt: Review Feynman's "Lectures on Physics" Vol III Chapt. 5 and the four experiments on 5-10. See if you can determine any experimental results that actually supports Feynman in his impositions of "interference amplitude", specifically experiments 5:15 and 5:17 as discussed and compared by Feynman. Then ask yourself if any of the grduate books you are familiar with are adequaste to the task of teaching and instructing any physics class.

An overdone link of QM heresy (http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/) showing a big chunk of the state transition process, pedictable, precise and nonlocal force driven, unambiguously. :devil:

[DrChinese]

So "the radical" is the application of nonlocal forces in every QM expression ever written.

The relevant non-local expressions are already present in QM, and always have been. We don't know how they manifest themselves physically, assuming such is the case (they may be non-real instead of non-local, the choice is yours).

The "radical" thing would be the discovery of the hidden variables themselves (via an actual experiment). Now THAT would be cool. But somehow I don't that to happen anytime soon.

[DrChinese]

An overdone link of QM heresy (http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/) showing a big chunk of the state transition process, pedictable, precise and nonlocal force driven, unambiguously. :devil:

A sub-par link, without doubt. A ridiculuous explanation for the double-slit experiment. Funny: every person who disses QM has a completely DIFFERENT explanation for what is happening! You would think if they had an alternative answer, it would be the same one...

[geistkiesel]

You can have your incompleteness and eat it too... as long as it is non-local. After everything Andrew has said about QM lacking reality, along comes geistkiesel to point out that you have plenty of non-local reality in QM. Therefore there are hidden variables and QM is incomplete because there exists the possibility of discovering them - at least in one interpretation.

Not sure I follow your statement about the "radically new...". What's radically new in this 70 year old debate?

Yes, what is the error? The nonlocality is there, staring us in the face, but the QM insdutry is rather complacent about the implications. I am aware of the publishing scores.if I misread Andrew's post I apologize, but I thought I saw a claim that "here is no hidden reality". If this is the statement and there was some reference to JS Bell, there need be an adjustment. Bell said, effectively that there is no hidden local variables, he was not discarding all hidden variables, and in fact he insisted that quantum structures were intrinsically nonlocal force structure critical, at lest as a satisfaction of a minimal requirement of completeness in quantum descripotions.

I will try again. OK so I used algebra and made some heretical statements, but I am not advertising any particlular point of view other than the following, which to my assessment is a critical and encompassing finding:

Models of quantum structure and processes including , mathematical modells that are void in nonlocal force structures are incomplete.

These are my paraphased words of J.S. Bell. What I stated earlier and above among other things, is that the overwhelming majority of papers on QM subjetct matter do not have the required nonlocal force structures intrinsic to the model. The models I ma talkin0- about just do not have any defining statements such that "I' is the nonlocal element of the Z state." and where i the implication of the nonlocal force structure has a signifnificant affect on the paper's thesis. I am not setting parameters in how to write QM papers. I am suggesting that the 'nonlocal' topics you refer aren't the same I refer to. I am not a cheerleader urging the nonlocal ists to rise up in rebellious zeal.

It took a while but I finally was able to grasp some of the essence of Bell's direction (excuse the essence word) and the description of flaws and weaknesses in QT, which has its share. My sup-par link, which is also descriptive of a rather good golf score, or rendering wasn't what DrChinese? I do realize that I expose what is on my mind in such a way that the blatant heresy should be easily quashed, but for myself, why should I quiet down just because the thesis wasn't acceoptable, especially if I am not even shouting? My previous link which you responded to had the picture of quantum particles, say spin-1 partiles, described in terms of their physical nature and characteristic being equated to inertial platforms? You said nothing. I put there just for you to stick with your QM challengers sword. But you wouldn't bie. And where nonlocal elements that guarantee the reformation of the prepolarized state when exiting the Stern-Gerlach segment? How does it reorient its magnetic monopole spin vector? Compass needles use the earth's magnetic field. What force field is identifiable that we can point to that does the job in S -> T -> S transitions? There aren't any observed. OK does one want to speculate? Go ahead and when one actually finds an observed force, I will so revise my descriptuion, but until there isn't anything to see, or observe, I will use unobserved to described unobserved entities, or nonlocal eleme nts just like everybody else using the words.

Get specific if you can, but just because one intuits a contradiction to QM in a particular instance is not justification to slam the paper, which you really didn't do, slam is too harsh a term, I tsill am without direction on what specifically is flawed? Such that it turns your sup-par rating into a description of the post's value to be meant as something truly and positively akin to " a nice round of golf"?

[geistkiesel]

The relevant non-local expressions are already present in QM, and always have been. We don't know how they manifest themselves physically, assuming such is the case (they may be non-real instead of non-local, the choice is yours).

The "radical" thing would be the discovery of the hidden variables themselves (via an actual experiment). Now THAT would be cool. But somehow I don't that to happen anytime soon.

JS Bell has a collection of papers "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" It will enure to your great benfit tio peruse the papers collected here. JS Bell is a readable , articulate, committed professional with an Irish wit and keen sense of humar. His barbs are blunted with an over developed sense of personal politness and respect. You will enjoy the reading if you haven't already. :smile:
I have to disagree with your statement that QM models have always had nonlocal expressions. I agree with you had you said had nonlocal implications. There us a huge difference. My algebra had nonlocal expressions, if you get the difference? Ciao :smile:

[DrChinese]

Yes, what is the error? The nonlocality is there, staring us in the face, but the QM insdutry is rather complacent about the implications. I am aware of the publishing scores.if I misread Andrew's post I apologize, but I thought I saw a claim that "here is no hidden reality". If this is the statement and there was some reference to JS Bell, there need be an adjustment. Bell said, effectively that there is no hidden local variables, he was not discarding all hidden variables, and in fact he insisted that quantum structures were intrinsically nonlocal force structure critical, at lest as a satisfaction of a minimal requirement of completeness in quantum descripotions.

... Such that it turns your sup-par rating into a description of the post's value to be meant as something truly and positively akin to " a nice round of golf"?

My golf does not approach par, much less sub-par, so I am still working on the physics of the white ball. They keep telling me: "hit the little ball before you hit the big one (the Earth). If only it were that easy.

Far from being ignored, the implications of non-locality are being probed and studied in every way possible. There are lots of mainstream folks interested in this, I think that is why the Aspect experiments received so much attention.

For example, perhaps we live in a universe with more than 3 spatial dimensions (something considered by many theorists). Thus, what is distant in the observed and familiar 3 dimensions might be nearby (and therefore appear "non-local") in one of the other dimensions. Sort of like a shortcut: the galaxy on the other side of the universe in 3D space is 1 meter away in 7D - if you could find a way to see into the 7th dimension. And that would potentially be the physical source of apparently "non-local" hidden variables.

But that is merely one possiblility. Such a scenario is labelled "speculation" or an "ad hoc theory" since it lacks any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Another possibility is that there is no deeper level of reality in the fiirst place. There is no need to criticize science for its ackowledged ignorance. There are a lot of bright people out there working diligently.

As to Andrew, he advocates an approach that is both real and local. He denies the many experiments which demonstrate views different than his. He essentially says there is a big conspiracy to falsify the evidence, and wants to roll the clock back in time to a period before QM arrived. Physics would then begin again but never consider the elements of the Copenhagen (standard) model. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

[andrewgray]

Wow, I see a lot has transpired since I last was here. And I see that we are in need of a real reality check here. First a lesson in Big Money. The U.S. serves as a good example. In this world we have

1) Claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in pitiful Iraq.
. . I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Government will lie.
2) Enron and WorldCom.
. . Again, I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Corporations will cheat.
3) US Justice Dept. says that "Under God" is "Not Religious".
. . Again I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Justice will pervert.

Now in this lying, cheating, perverting big money world that I speak of, in your mind, rank the following from most important to least important:

1) Money
2) Power
3) Politics
4) Scientific Truth

That's right, they are ordered correctly as is! Scientific Truth comes after Money, Power, and Politics. Do you think Big Money Physics is any different? That is, suppose they budget and allocate 1/2 billion dollars to find the Higgs particle. Well, by golly, there is a 100% chance that they will find it, no matter if it exists or not. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. Imagine that they spent their $1/2 billion and found nothing. Can you imagine them saying,

"Oh well, we didn't find anything. Let's just shut this $1/2 billion facility down (along with their jobs) and go home. And by the way, can we have another $1/2 billion for our next project?"

I think not. This just will not happen in the real world. They will find something.

Now Dr. Chinese, you say that:This wasn't noise, because one of the "30 per day" neutrinos (your number) was detected within a fraction of a second after they turned on the source. Come on, now. They started a nuclear reactor with an off-to-on time of a fraction of a second? This kind of exaggeration is a little embarrasing, is it not?

All I am saying is that for Big Money Physics to remain honest, one must attempt double blind experiments with an impartial judge present to try to prevent the Big Money dishonesty. And this may well be impossible. By "double blind" I mean that the detector scientists cannot communicate with the source scientists, so they cannot consciously (or subconsciously) insert confirmation biases into the data.
18 hours later they did in fact see the supernova.
So the light was "held up" or "traveled further" for 18 hours? Well, 18 light-hours is about 20 billion km. This is an enormous astronomical size. Light was held up over a distance of 20 billion km? I just don't see how this could be possible. I can't see how the density of supernova matter could remain high enough over this distance or over this amount of time. The light is held for 18 hours?

Dr. Chinese,

You say that I ignore some of your statements. My apologies for this apparent transgression. I have a high tech job and a life. I cannot address everything. You also ignore some of my points. How about this one that you just ignore:

In the photoelectric effect, a "purple photon" (1015 Hz) with :

2.2 x 10-27 kg m/s

(momentum units) strikes the plate. (hn/c)

A photoelectron leaves with approximately:

1 x 10-24 kg m/s

(momentum units) (2mE)1/2=(2mhn)]1/2

Where does this excess momentum come from?
(A factor of 500 momentum units just appears out of nowhere.)


Andrew Gray

Edit: Correct Typo

[DrChinese]

Wow, I see a lot has transpired since I last was here. And I see that we are in need of a real reality check here. First a lesson in Big Money. The U.S. serves as a good example. In this world we have

1) Claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in pitiful Iraq.
. . I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Government will lie.
2) Enron and WorldCom.
. . Again, I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Corporations will cheat.
3) US Justice Dept. says that "Under God" is "Not Religious".
. . Again I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Justice will pervert.

Now in this lying, cheating, perverting big money world that I speak of, in your mind, rank the following from most important to least important:

1) Money
2) Power
3) Politics
4) Scientific Truth

That's right, they are ordered correctly as is! Scientific Truth comes after Money, Power, and Politics. Do you think Big Money Physics is any different? That is, suppose they budget and allocate 1/2 billion dollars to find the Higgs particle. Well, by golly, there is a 100% chance that they will find it, no matter if it exists or not. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. Imagine that they spent their $1/2 billion and found nothing. Can you imagine them saying,

"Oh well, we didn't find anything. Let's just shut this $1/2 billion facility down (along with their jobs) and go home. And by the way, can we have another $1/2 billion for our next project?"

I think not. This just will not happen in the real world. They will find something.

Now Dr. Chinese, you say that:Come on, now. They started a nuclear reactor with an off-to-on time of a fraction of a second? This kind of exaggeration is a little embarrasing, is it not?

All I am saying is that for Big Money Physics to remain honest, one must attempt double blind experiments with an impartial judge present to try to prevent the Big Money dishonesty. And this may well be impossible. By "double blind" I mean that the detector scientists cannot communicate with the source scientists, so they cannot consciously (or subconsciously) insert confirmation biases into the data.
So the light was "held up" or "traveled further" for 18 hours? Well, 18 light-hours is about 20 billion km. This is an enormous astronomical size. Light was held up over a distance of 20 billion km? I just don't see how this could be possible. I can't see how the density of supernova matter could remain high enough over this distance or over this amount of time. The light is held for 18 hours?

Dr. Chinese,

You say that I ignore some of your statements. My apologies for this apparent transgression. I have a high tech job and a life. I cannot address everything. You also ignore some of my points. How about this one that you just ignore:

In the photoelectric effect, a "purple photon" (1015 Hz) with :

2.2 x 10-27 kg m/s

(momentum units) strikes the plate. (hn/c)

A photoelectron leaves with approximately:

1 x 10-24 kg m/s

(momentum units) (2mE)1/2=(2mhn)]1/2

Where does this excess momentum come from?
(A factor of 500 momentum units just appears out of nowhere.)


Andrew Gray

Edit: Correct Typo

1. Someone lied, so all are liars. You forgot one detail: you got no proof. You are guessing. Not impressive. Go to the web site and look at what they present on their lab, and you won't be making accusations without any backup.

2. A little thought will indicate that IF their predicted neutrino calibration occurs within a microsecond of the predicted value, then they must need to coordinate on every occurance of artificial neutrino production to achieve their results. Otherwise they won't know which observations are solar neutrinos and which are the ones produced nearby. In other words, they are effectively performing blind experiments all of the time, and actually could not operate any other way.

3. It is clear to me that 100% of all scientific proof you consider works like this: if you agree with it, it is solid and done by respected scientists; if you disagree with it, the associated incompetent money-grubbing hack scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to put YOU down. Hmmm. Not an impressive line of reasoning.

4. Yes, Andrew, photons are scattered by matter and neutrinos are not. That is the reason for the delay. The delay was hours. During the big bang, there was a similar delay before light which later became the CMBR was scattered. That was 300,000 years after the neutrinos went zipping by. Please note that this delay WAS OBSERVED in the 1987A event AS PREDICTED. It was observed. Repeat. Was observed. How can you be [skeptical] when it was observed????? You are making no sense. Your logic is: "the results don't agree with my predictions so the results didn't happen". Get real.

5. I began talking about your "neutrino-killer" experiment because it had already been performed, over and over and over in absolutely airtight manners. You won't find too many scientists who will doubt these results. As soon as I focus on a specific area with plenty to discuss, you try to change the subject. Not impressive.

Admit that you are dead wrong about neutrinos, and I will be glad to move on to your other experiments. You can't debate the neutrino results so you have to move on.

[krab]

Where does this excess momentum come from?
A photon aimed at a mirror is reflected. Its initial momentum p is thereby converted to -p. Where did the difference (=2p) come from? Out of thin air? Very mysterious... well anyway, it's mysterious to Andrew.

[DrChinese]

A photon aimed at a mirror is reflected. Its initial momentum p is thereby converted to -p. Where did the difference (=2p) come from? Out of thin air? Very mysterious... well anyway, it's mysterious to Andrew.

OK, class - pay attention. If it makes sense to Andrew, then it is reasonable and correct. If Andrew doesn't understand it, it is part of a lying conspiracy. Consequently, we are now replacing all physics textbooks (Feynman's Lectures for example) with a new set: Interviews with Andrew. We will ask Andrew his opinion on a variety of scientific issues - and while we are at it, social, political and artistic issues as well! We will publish these so everyone will know the "truth" - since his opinion defines the truth. No need for experiments in the future! It's a lot cheaper to simply "ask Andrew". We can dismantle the entire scientific community and save all that money (which is being wasted anyway, of course).

Andrew, what music do you like? I'm quite sure all other musicians are incompetant sell-out hacks compared to your favs. P.S. I am going to see Eric Clapton tomorrow night, please tell me he's on your list!

[geistkiesel]

Wow, I see a lot has transpired since I last was here. And I see that we are in need of a real reality check here. First a lesson in Big Money. The U.S. serves as a good example. In this world we have

1) Claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in pitiful Iraq.
. . I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Government will lie.
2) Enron and WorldCom.
. . Again, I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Corporations will cheat.
3) US Justice Dept. says that "Under God" is "Not Religious".
. . Again I hate to tell you US'ers, but your Big Money Justice will pervert.

Now in this lying, cheating, perverting big money world that I speak of, in your mind, rank the following from most important to least important:

1) Money
2) Power
3) Politics
4) Scientific Truth

That's right, they are ordered correctly as is! Scientific Truth comes after Money, Power, and Politics. Do you think Big Money Physics is any different? That is, suppose they budget and allocate 1/2 billion dollars to find the Higgs particle. Well, by golly, there is a 100% chance that they will find it, no matter if it exists or not. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. Imagine that they spent their $1/2 billion and found nothing. Can you imagine them saying,

"Oh well, we didn't find anything. Let's just shut this $1/2 billion facility down (along with their jobs) and go home. And by the way, can we have another $1/2 billion for our next project?"

I think not. This just will not happen in the real world. They will find something.

Now Dr. Chinese, you say that:Come on, now. They started a nuclear reactor with an off-to-on time of a fraction of a second? This kind of exaggeration is a little embarrasing, is it not?

All I am saying is that for Big Money Physics to remain honest, one must attempt double blind experiments with an impartial judge present to try to prevent the Big Money dishonesty. And this may well be impossible. By "double blind" I mean that the detector scientists cannot communicate with the source scientists, so they cannot consciously (or subconsciously) insert confirmation biases into the data.
So the light was "held up" or "traveled further" for 18 hours? Well, 18 light-hours is about 20 billion km. This is an enormous astronomical size. Light was held up over a distance of 20 billion km? I just don't see how this could be possible. I can't see how the density of supernova matter could remain high enough over this distance or over this amount of time. The light is held for 18 hours?

Dr. Chinese,

You say that I ignore some of your statements. My apologies for this apparent transgression. I have a high tech job and a life. I cannot address everything. You also ignore some of my points. How about this one that you just ignore:

In the photoelectric effect, a "purple photon" (1015 Hz) with :

2.2 x 10-27 kg m/s

(momentum units) strikes the plate. (hn/c)

A photoelectron leaves with approximately:

1 x 10-24 kg m/s

(momentum units) (2mE)1/2=(2mhn)]1/2

Where does this excess momentum come from?
(A factor of 500 momentum units just appears out of nowhere.)


Andrew Gray

Edit: Correct Typo


Go ahead Andrew, talk about our governemnt that way if you want to. I say that we have the best government money can buy, so there.

[geistkiesel]

OK, class - pay attention. If it makes sense to Andrew, then it is reasonable and correct. If Andrew doesn't understand it, it is part of a lying conspiracy. Consequently, we are now replacing all physics textbooks (Feynman's Lectures for example) with a new set: Interviews with Andrew. We will ask Andrew his opinion on a variety of scientific issues - and while we are at it, social, political and artistic issues as well! We will publish these so everyone will know the "truth" - since his opinion defines the truth. No need for experiments in the future! It's a lot cheaper to simply "ask Andrew". We can dismantle the entire scientific community and save all that money (which is being wasted anyway, of course).

Andrew, what music do you like? I'm quite sure all other musicians are incompetant sell-out hacks compared to your favs. P.S. I am going to see Eric Clapton tomorrow night, please tell me he's on your list!

Eric Clapton, DrChinese? Who listens to that kind of elevator music anymore?

[DrChinese]

Eric Clapton, DrChinese? Who listens to that kind of elevator music anymore?

Apparently, at least the 50,000 people who showed up last night to hear him play. He also sat in and played with John Mayer, Carlos Santana, B.B. King... just to name a few. His U.S. tour opens in a few days.

So I guess it is a big elevator... :)

[geistkiesel]

Apparently, at least the 50,000 people who showed up last night to hear him play. He also sat in and played with John Mayer, Carlos Santana, B.B. King... just to name a few. His U.S. tour opens in a few days.

So I guess it is a big elevator... :)

I guess so. Do you actually judge the worth or value of music based on the number of people appearing at a concert? A lot of them are just groupies you know. Being a groupie though doesn't make you a bad person.

Actually, I am a fan of Clapton's . I have a number of his CDs and anctually saw a live Cream.

Progress, like science must continue. My current passions: Green Day, Gun s n Roses, The Black Crows, Smashing pUmpkins, Collective Sould, Deadicated Dead and as always a constant :"Texas Tornados" Flaco Jimenez reviewed a song I wrote. I met him in a Texaco station South Austin. He was on his way home from a gig somewhere to San Antonio. Nice man, polite, patient, and a hell of an accoridan player. Which is what I first asked him "Say, do you play the accordian?" :wink:

[geistkiesel]

The relevant non-local expressions are already present in QM, and always have been. We don't know how they manifest themselves physically, assuming such is the case (they may be non-real instead of non-local, the choice is yours).

The "radical" thing would be the discovery of the hidden variables themselves (via an actual experiment). Now THAT would be cool. But somehow I don't that to happen anytime soon.

Just to make the matter as simple and plain as possible. Bell was talking about expressed nonlocal elements in QM models, not just inferred or implied. Can you show any such models where the nonloal elements ae expressed explicitly?

You asked for it, you got it NOW that is cool. See the link"to happen anytime soon, like now" (http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/)

[DrChinese]

I guess so. Do you actually judge the worth or value of music based on the number of people appearing at a concert? A lot of them are just groupies you know. Being a groupie though doesn't make you a bad person.

Actually, I am a fan of Clapton's . I have a number of his CDs and anctually saw a live Cream.

Progress, like science must continue. My current passions: Green Day, Gun s n Roses, The Black Crows, Smashing pUmpkins, Collective Sould, Deadicated Dead and as always a constant :"Texas Tornados" Flaco Jimenez reviewed a song I wrote. I met him in a Texaco station South Austin. He was on his way home from a gig somewhere to San Antonio. Nice man, polite, patient, and a hell of an accoridan player. Which is what I first asked him "Say, do you play the accordian?" :wink:

I agree about music. One fan is enough to make a song worthwhile. Clapton performed somgs from his latest album, along with some of his oldies. I also enjoy newer bands: Super Furry Animals, Maroon 5, John Mayer, Duncan Sheik, Foo Fighters.

(I also write songs. See my link.) Do you have a link to any of your material? I am definitely jealous about seeing Cream live!

[andrewgray]

OK, discussing differences in neutrino beliefs is getting to be like arguing religion, so I will let it go for now. Obviously, experimental evidence is necessary. I get it. I get. I will get it.

Now for the -2p momentum change that Krab was talking about: YES, - 2p is the best that you can do in a completely elastic reflection momentum exchange. An absorption collision yields a change of +p.

But I'm not talking about a change in -2p. I'm talking about a change of 500p ! If this is so elementary, let's see the analysis. I really would like to see what you come up with. Obviously, you must include a lattice nucleus somehow (even though metallic electrons are usually considered free). Let's see just what it does, OK?

Andrew

[andrewgray]

P.S..

The momentum exchange seen in the QM photoelectric theory seems like "shooting in a BB and getting bowling balls out", does it not?

Andrew again.

[baffledMatt]

OK, discussing differences in neutrino beliefs is getting to be like arguing religion, so I will let it go for now. Obviously, experimental evidence is necessary. I get it. I get. I will get it.

Now for the -2p momentum change that Krab was talking about: YES, - 2p is the best that you can do in a completely elastic reflection momentum exchange. An absorption collision yields a change of +p.

But I'm not talking about a change in -2p. I'm talking about a change of 500p ! If this is so elementary, let's see the analysis. I really would like to see what you come up with. Obviously, you must include a lattice nucleus somehow (even though metallic electrons are usually considered free). Let's see just what it does, OK?

Andrew


Errm, I thought we discussed this?

Nobody said the problem was elementary - you made up that idea yourself. It's a difficult problem and your best bet is to look up phonons in a solid state textbook.

Matt

[DrChinese]

OK, discussing differences in neutrino beliefs is getting to be like arguing religion, so I will let it go for now.


Well, not really. Religion involves faith as a starting point. We are discussing objective science in this forum.

You are asking everyone to take you seriously and yet you make reference to items which are directly contradicted by experimental evidence. When confronted, you post links about scientific fraud which in no way has anything to do with the point at hand. All of your experiments are labelled "_____ Killer Experiments" and yet none have been performed yet. Except the ones that HAVE been performed, and those results are 100% opposed to your position.

Admit that you are wrong about neutrinos. Your bigger mistake would be to cling to an untenable position. The evidence for neutrinos is extremely solid. You may as well be arguing that you can turn lead into gold with your chemistry set. I don't see how you expect to convince other scientists by accusing them of fraud and then turning tail and running when your position is challenged.

You are the one advancing a theory that you feel is strong enough to merit the attention of other people. If that theory ignores the weight of previous experimental work, you are ignoring the most fundamental elements of modern science. Repeatable experiments and peer review are essential to the integrity and advancement of science. Scientific fraud or gross errors do occur occasionally (remember cold fusion?) but these things get weeded out over time - usually a very short time. If you ignore these fundamentals, you will have more in common with the clergy than scientists.

[DrChinese]

P.S..

The momentum exchange seen in the QM photoelectric theory seems like "shooting in a BB and getting bowling balls out", does it not?

Andrew again.


Wow, that IS clever. If it really is like that, I guess you could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and get more useful work out (the bowling ball) than you put in (the BB). But then, QM doesn't actually say that, does it?

Next you will be telling us that QM predicts leprechauns. How about attacking a generally accepted position or prediction of QM? I think your bowling ball analogy is going into the gutter.

[geistkiesel]

I agree about music. One fan is enough to make a song worthwhile. Clapton performed somgs from his latest album, along with some of his oldies. I also enjoy newer bands: Super Furry Animals, Maroon 5, John Mayer, Duncan Sheik, Foo Fighters.

(I also write songs. See my link.) Do you have a link to any of your material? I am definitely jealous about seeing Cream live!
Not really,and I think I will just bask in the glory of your jealousy for a while, a sort of payback, for nothing really. Its just that I appreciate a subtle smirk from time to time.

You will probably shrug this one off, the event at Santa Monica Civic Auditorium and Jimmy H singing . ' . . . .scuse me while I kiss the sky . . ." . He didn't take swing with his ax at the mic. When he was done he just unhooked his guitar, let it drop to the floor with lingering high pitched browwwww, and walked off the stage.

My Janis story would make you weep. My lips are sealed on that one. You probably wouldn't believe it anyway as innocently inconsequential the story actually was, interesting perhaps but then . . .naw . . ..

[DrChinese]

Not really,and I think I will just bask in the glory of your jealousy for a while, a sort of payback, for nothing really. Its just that I appreciate a subtle smirk from time to time.

You will probably shrug this one off, the event at Santa Monica Civic Auditorium and Jimmy H singing . ' . . . .scuse me while I kiss the sky . . ." . He didn't take swing with his ax at the mic. When he was done he just unhooked his guitar, let it drop to the floor with lingering high pitched browwwww, and walked off the stage.

My Janis story would make you weep. My lips are sealed on that one. You probably wouldn't believe it anyway as innocently inconsequential the story actually was, interesting perhaps but then . . .naw . . ..

Ha! Yes, I am definitely jealous about Janis too. But I did get to see Jimi play here in Texas. A few other good ones too... I enjoy both live and recorded music, and I will go out on a limb for a chance at either being good. So I've heard a few dogs too. Recently: Queens of the Stone Age (if only Grohl had toured with them...).

So there is no way to get that Janis story out of you? How about if I say pretty please...

P.S. apologies to our regular readers for this little diversion... while we are waiting for Andrew to address our concerns about his "Model of Reality". Apparently, his "Model of Reality" predicts that neutrinos do not exist. This despite substantial (I would call it ironclad) evidence that they do. Andrew, if this is NOT a prediction of Model of Reality, then here is your chance to get off the hook.

[geistkiesel]

Ha! Yes, I am definitely jealous about Janis too. But I did get to see Jimi play here in Texas. A few other good ones too... I enjoy both live and recorded music, and I will go out on a limb for a chance at either being good. So I've heard a few dogs too. Recently: Queens of the Stone Age (if only Grohl had toured with them...).

So there is no way to get that Janis story out of you? How about if I say pretty please...

P.S. apologies to our regular readers for this little diversion... while we are waiting for Andrew to address our concerns about his "Model of Reality". Apparently, his "Model of Reality" predicts that neutrinos do not exist. This despite substantial (I would call it ironclad) evidence that they do. Andrew, if this is NOT a prediction of Model of Reality, then here is your chance to get off the hook.

OK Sippora and I went to one of Bill Graham's concerts with a plan. We were going as 'part of the light show'. The problem was Bill Graham, (the promoter) was taking tickets and when we went into our serious stated, b ut opoorly acted roles "we're with the light show" Graham said, "Don't pull that crap on me". We went around behind the auditorium (On Market Steet in San Francisco, I forget the name at present) to execute a hurrriedly formed plan B. A truck was unloading musical equipment so I picked up a drum container, Sippora grabbed a guitar case. No one said a word. They didn't even look at us. We went inside, got rid of the "tickets" and proceeded to enjoy Janis from backstage. The stage was elevated about 4 feet from the permament stage and when Janis finished her gig she had to walk past me at the bottom of the short flight of stairs from the elevated stage. She was holding on to the railing, (countering a serious Jack Daniels inspired "swaying to and fro" motion, if you get my meaning). As she got near me I reached for her wrist which she gave me and I kissed the back of her hand. She looked me in the eye and said with all the kindness and sincerity I have ever seen in a woman's expression, "How sweet".

Those moments when the world was right.

[DrChinese]

OK Sippora and I went to one of Bill Graham's concerts with a plan. We were going as 'part of the light show'. The problem was Bill Graham, (the promoter) was taking tickets and when we went into our serious stated, b ut opoorly acted roles "we're with the light show" Graham said, "Don't pull that crap on me". We went around behind the auditorium (On Market Steet in San Francisco, I forget the name at present) to execute a hurrriedly formed plan B. A truck was unloading musical equipment so I picked up a drum container, Sippora grabbed a guitar case. No one said a word. They didn't even look at us. We went inside, got rid of the "tickets" and proceeded to enjoy Janis from backstage. The stage was elevated about 4 feet from the permament stage and when Janis finished her gig she had to walk past me at the bottom of the short flight of stairs from the elevated stage. She was holding on to the railing, (countering a serious Jack Daniels inspired "swaying to and fro" motion, if you get my meaning). As she got near me I reached for her wrist which she gave me and I kissed the back of her hand. She looked me in the eye and said with all the kindness and sincerity I have ever seen in a woman's expression, "How sweet".

Those moments when the world was right.

That is a GREAT story! Thanks!

(I wish I had a cool one I could share, but I would have to make mine up. Waaa.)

[geistkiesel]

Wow, that IS clever. If it really is like that, I guess you could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics and get more useful work out (the bowling ball) than you put in (the BB). But then, QM doesn't actually say that, does it?

Next you will be telling us that QM predicts leprechauns. How about attacking a generally accepted position or prediction of QM? I think your bowling ball analogy is going into the gutter.

OK I'll give you one, Question:What will the radius of an electromagnetic sphere incresing at a rate c be after one second? Answer c, right?

If c is the radius then 2c must be the diameter which means that opposite directed photons will expand at a rate equal to 2c. I ws told this is wrong. SR violaion, stif fine and penalty. I'm having a time believing anything to day. Why is the problem about the sphere so difficult, and why hadn't I been expsoed to this problem before, or in the past?

I suspected someone wanted to scream SR in my face, I can;t believe the answer isn't 2c.

[Doc Al]

OK I'll give you one, Question:What will the radius of an electromagnetic sphere incresing at a rate c be after one second? Answer c, right?

If c is the radius then 2c must be the diameter which means that opposite directed photons will expand at a rate equal to 2c. I ws told this is wrong. SR violaion, stif fine and penalty. I'm having a time believing anything to day. Why is the problem about the sphere so difficult, and why hadn't I been expsoed to this problem before, or in the past?
Who told you it was wrong? There is no problem whatsoever in having someone observe two photons separating at a rate of 2c.
I suspected someone wanted to scream SR in my face, I can;t believe the answer isn't 2c.
Relax.

[krab]

P.S..

The momentum exchange seen in the QM photoelectric theory seems like "shooting in a BB and getting bowling balls out", does it not?


Yes it does. There are lots of things about QM that are wonderful. You only seem to accept explanations as "real" or "reality-based" if you can translate them into macroscopic reality. Tough luck! You will never ever understand or have any appreciation for the incredibly wonderful microscopic world. If physics researchers all had your attitude, all progress would have come to a grinding halt at the dawn of the modern physics age. We would be still observing the photoelectric effect and not making sense of it. None of the "high tech" would have been developed. You and everyone else working in the high tech industries would have other, much more boring jobs.

Regarding the particular question you raised, the photoelectric effect, I guess from the fact that the momentum of the electron bothers you, that you did not learn any solid state physics. So here is a primer, though I expect you to reject it because it depends on other QM ideas that you reject as well.

A photon impinges on a solid. The solid contains zillions of electrons, and these electrons are not all bound to individual atoms. (It is a metal.) These electrons are relatively free, but nevertheless occupy well-defined states; each electron in a different state because of the Pauli exculsion principle (another wonderful QM thing). These states are not localized in real space, though they are localized in momentum space. (Weird hey? You cannot say where any particular electron is; it doesn't have a location, but it has a momentum.) Anyway, this huge sea (it's called a Fermi sea) of electrons absorbs the photon and out pops a single electron of momentum p. The whole sea recoils with momentum -p. End of story.

You want more theory? Got to this link (http://www.ifa.au.dk/~philip/ea04/surflec/node48.html). This will be mostly over your head, but look in particular at the second figure; the one with the cut-up parabola. Notice the parabola on the left and the text around it making exactly the same point you made: You cannot, without the existence of the lattice, eject an electron while conserving both energy and momentum. But the existence of the lattice and the allowance of all electrons to act together, changes everything. It "cuts up" the parabola.

Read carefully. There will be a quiz.

[Tom Mattson]

Who told you it was wrong? There is no problem whatsoever in having someone observe two photons separating at a rate of 2c.


I did, by mistake. He had modified StarThrower's "Two Perpendicular Photon" experiment. Basically, I didn't notice that he had switched the relative motion from perpendicular to antiparallel, and I told him the photons were separating at a rate of sqrt(2)c, not 2c. But the rate is 2c.

[andrewgray]

Anyway, this huge sea (it's called a Fermi sea) of electrons absorbs the photon and out pops a single electron of momentum p. The whole sea recoils with momentum -p. End of story. Sorry, but not end of story. Apparently, the photoelectric effect works when the light is incident at 90o, and the electrons can be ejected back in the same general direction. See diagram if you like:

www.ModelofReality.org/photoelectric.gif

Thus, if purple light (a "photon" in QM) is incident at 90o with momentum p, and the photoelectrons have resultant momentum -500p, that is a resultant change of about -501p, NOT -p. Like it or not, this is a QM self-contradiction! One needs only look at the initial and final states. What happens in-between is not relevant to the contradiction. The electron "pops out" with a lot more momentum than -p. Calculate it yourselves if you don't believe me. It's up to 500p (Readers: See the "Under-God-is-Not-Religious" style ignore?)

The link that you reference concerns the use of Schrodinger-style gobbledy-gook, which is a Hamiltonian style equation. This type of equation only deals with energy quantities, and only addresses momentum indirectly. These direct quotes from own your link say it all:
. . .is that energy and momentum can not be simultaneously conserved in this process because the momentum of the photons is so small . . .

The step can provide any momentum k in the direction perpendicular to the surface since its Fourier transform contains all possible frequencies. Therefore the k -vector [momentum] component perpendicular to the surface is not conserved . . .

Momentum is not conserved? Lookie here, your own reference makes the same conclusion. But why isn't there a big RED FLAG by this statement? Because it is just swept under the carpet by the official-looking gobbledy-gook. Non-conservation of momentum is a problem for QM, and if you do not admit this, then it just makes you look like the U.S. Justice Department, if you know what I mean.

Respectfully,

Andrew Gray

[krab]

That's pretty much what I expected you to say. The gobbledy-gook comment is really telling! You are one of those who can't do the math; also not a surprise.

Anyway, since I am the type of person who covers his debts, I want to thank you Andrew, I've been out of solid state physics for 24 years, and as a result of reading up on the photoelectric effect, discovered that an incredibly cool technique has been invented using the photoelectric effect and conservation laws to map out Fermi surfaces. When I was a grad student, researchers only had an approximate notion of their shape. The technique is called ARPES. Also ran across many neat stereoscopic pictures of Fermi surfaces.

[one_raven]

I haven't read all six pages of this so forgive me if I am parroting someone else on this thread.
Does your hypothesis attemt to explain why electrons and protons pulse and/or what regulates the pulse frequency of each?
You can just point me to a section of the book if it is a lengthy explanation.

[geistkiesel]

There is no evidence that a polarizer induces anything other than a quantum measurement, and I challenge you to provide any physical evidence that is the case. I.e. the results of an actual experiment, please.

When you say "polarizer" does this include Stern-Gerlach segments used in spin state transition experiments, or are you referring to more general pocesses? Or would SG segments qualify s a 'polarizer' as you meant it?

[baffledMatt]

The link that you reference concerns the use of Schrodinger-style gobbledy-gook, which is a Hamiltonian style equation. This type of equation only deals with energy quantities, and only addresses momentum indirectly.

:rofl:

Hmm, I guess we can add 'Hamiltonian mechanics' to the list of things you don't understand. Just underneath quantum mechanics and solid state physics.

Matt

[DrChinese]

When you say "polarizer" does this include Stern-Gerlach segments used in spin state transition experiments, or are you referring to more general pocesses? Or would SG segments qualify s a 'polarizer' as you meant it?

I was referring to an optical polarizer. (Another example would be the slits in the double slit experiment.) There is no contribution to the path of the photon passing through as a result of an actual collision with the apparatus. I.e. it is not scattered and then passed on its merry way.

Andrew is trying to say that the polarizer adds in a physical way to the photons that pass through - a typical semi-classical approach. That this is not true can be seen from the fact that a series of many polarizers can be assembled, and the relation is still cos^2(angle between polarizers) for each subsequent polarizer. The intensity does not diminish as it would if scattering occurred. If they were all precisely aligned together, no significant drop (or increase) in intensity between 1 polarizer and 91. Similarly, if those same 91 polarizers were aligned in 1 degree increments, you could rotate the final output beam by 90 degrees. The results never indicate any change to the polarizer when a photon is passing through and is being "re-aligned" to match the polarizer orientation. This would need to happen if the polarizer was the active participant as described in many so-called explanations of the process, such as the Model of Reality.

[geistkiesel]

I was referring to an optical polarizer. (Another example would be the slits in the double slit experiment.) There is no contribution to the path of the photon passing through as a result of an actual collision with the apparatus. I.e. it is not scattered and then passed on its merry way.

Andrew is trying to say that the polarizer adds in a physical way to the photons that pass through - a typical semi-classical approach. That this is not true can be seen from the fact that a series of many polarizers can be assembled, and the relation is still cos^2(angle between polarizers) for each subsequent polarizer. The intensity does not diminish as it would if scattering occurred. If they were all precisely aligned together, no significant drop (or increase) in intensity between 1 polarizer and 91. Similarly, if those same 91 polarizers were aligned in 1 degree increments, you could rotate the final output beam by 90 degrees. The results never indicate any change to the polarizer when a photon is passing through and is being "re-aligned" to match the polarizer orientation. This would need to happen if the polarizer was the active participant as described in many so-called explanations of the process, such as the Model of Reality.


It sounds like you are saying the polarizer is acting as some form of switch that invokes a 'polarized state' in a near resistance free mode. Is this an assumption, or conclusion that is vaild?

You are saying that the classic parallel line of long molecular chains acting as striations lines of polarization isn't the way it goes?

[geistkiesel]

I did, by mistake. He had modified StarThrower's "Two Perpendicular Photon" experiment. Basically, I didn't notice that he had switched the relative motion from perpendicular to antiparallel, and I told him the photons were separating at a rate of sqrt(2)c, not 2c. But the rate is 2c.


Does this change anything about off angle photon expansion velocities? As we go around he circle wih one radius vector angled wrt to pure diameter? Does the pi/2 angle of this model jibe with the discussion the other day regarding two photon emissions relative velocity with a directional separation of pi/2 equate to 2^1/2c?

I was the one acting like the 'sillywabbit' .

[Tom Mattson]

Does this change anything about off angle photon expansion velocities?


Yes, it does change. In the other thread, I worked out the general case in which one radial vector is pointed in an arbitrary direction, and derived the formula for the rate of separation.

[DrChinese]

It sounds like you are saying the polarizer is acting as some form of switch that invokes a 'polarized state' in a near resistance free mode. Is this an assumption, or conclusion that is vaild?

You are saying that the classic parallel line of long molecular chains acting as striations lines of polarization isn't the way it goes?

I am not really saying anything other than the standard QM concept: that the properly polarized photon does not "touch" or otherwise impart momentum to the apparatus as it passes through. It does not gain momentum from the apparatus either. It simply acts as if it had always been polarized at that angle (i.e. parallel to the polarizer). There is no interaction between the photon and the polarizer as there is in a classical explanation - i.e. the wave is modified by the apparatus from what it was BEFORE the apparatus to what it was after the apparatus. This is QM, and it is all about the odds. In classical theories, similar inputs yield similar outputs! Yet this does NOT happen. Regardless of the orientation, in QM there is always a chance for an unexpected outcome.

If it behaved classically, why do some waves get absorbed and some don't? There would, by definition, be hidden variables which controlled the interaction's outcome. Where are they? We know they are not local (EPR etc.). Therefore it is not the apparatus which is the source of the hidden variables (since it is local). Therefore the apparatus is not what "determines" the photon polarity value.

[andrewgray]

I haven't read all six pages of this so forgive me if I am parroting someone else on this thread.
Does your hypothesis attemt to explain why electrons and protons pulse and/or what regulates the pulse frequency of each?
You can just point me to a section of the book if it is a lengthy explanation.Why do charged particles pulsate?

Well, this conclusion was reached for several reasons: The Bell Inequality experiments have proven that the current description of reality is invalid (that is, if you believe that there is an underlying reality. I do.) The only way to make a reality-based atom that does not radiate is for the charges to be pulsating. The only way that Bremsstrahlung radiation can be emitted in all directions with an upper frequency cutoff is if there is a Nyquist pulsation frequency. The only reality-based way to make electrons "interfere" is if they are pulsating. If one requires a reality-based structure for the electron and requires that it hold together, the only reality-based way to do this is to have it pulsating. This is because we now know that the electron is smaller than static conditions allow, which screams out that the electron's electric field is dynamic (QM'ers just ignore the resulting infinite self-energy of the too small electron with something called "renormalization"). The only dynamic way to make things reality-based and dynamic seems to be pulsating (oscillating does not work). See the Overview:

www.ModelOfReality.org/overview.html


What regulates the pulse frequency of each?

The Model of Reality theory uses a plausible solution to Einstein's field equations to obtain the desired dynamic but stable structure. Further, it is argued that acceleration of such a structure would speed the pulsations by forcing the charged particle out of spherical symmetry. So, the harder you accelerate the charge, the more it speeds up.

Andrew


Now more about polarizers.

The Aspect experiments have proven that there can be no "local reality" description for polarizer-photon interactions. So if one requires there to be an underlying reality, one must reject photons. That is what we have done. (And for more reasons than just this.)

Now polarizers have been discussed earlier in this thread. (see message #129). But let us address some of the issues here. Remember, a polarizer does not just absorb some of the incident EM energy. It absorbs and then re-emits some of this energy, with the atomic structure/electrons mostly moving along one restricted direction of motion. This re-emitted radiation then cancels some of the incident radiation because there is a phase shift between the two. If it behaved classically, why do some waves get absorbed and some don't? Now with this question, one must add the additional "low intensity" condition to the experiment. (In QM'er terms, "one-photon-at-a-time"). To make things easier, we reproduce some of message #129:

The reality-based Aspect work is still churning around in my head. I will share with you some of my initial thoughts.

1) The first step is to approximate a coherent atomic emission pulse. Model of Reality predicts that this will typically be a mixture of linearly and circularly polarized light, depending on the angle from the azimuth. A statistical mixture is probably necessary. The intensities and durations are another consideration, and will also have to be statistically handled.

2) The pulse hits the polarizers. For the linearly polarized light, the polarizer emits phase shifted radiation that tends to cancel only one component of the light. Obviously, it then cannot cancel ALL of that component. A percentage efficiency must be assumed. Also, as the linear polarization of the pulse nears the polarizer's cancel angle, the intensity of the transmitted pulse approaches zero. This means that the detector will experience "marginal pulses". Unfortunately, this means that detector performance must then be taken into account.
. . .For the circularly polarized (and other types from the mixture), the polarizer "feels" an EM field that it can cancel only intermittantly. Thus, it intermittantly emits phase shifted radiation that tends to cancel the pulse only while it is "along the polarizer". Perhaps this allows a "choppy" semi-circularly polarized pulse through, or perhaps the phase shift is enough so that the pulse is elliptically polarized or something. This requires some mathematical analysis.

3) The detector has all kinds of EM pulses hitting it, along with pulses that have marginal intensity (if they were linearly polarized nearly against the polarizer). The particular detector will have to be studied and statistically modeled some way.

So we see that a low intensity pulse ("photon") being "absorbed or not" is the wrong question. The correct reality-based question is:

"Why does the detector detect something sometimes, and why does the detector detect nothing sometimes?"

This is quite different than the original question, as it still allows a reality-based explanation for the physics. The realitly-based answer is:

The detector detects something sometimes and nothing sometimes because marginal pulses do not always trigger the detector, even though they are there.There would, by definition, be hidden variables which controlled the interaction's outcome. Where are they? We know they are not local (EPR etc.). Therefore it is not the apparatus which is the source of the hidden variables (since it is local). Therefore the apparatus is not what "determines" the photon polarity value.The fallacy here is the whole original premise! Simply, "photons" have nothing to do with reality, as proven by Aspect. "Photons" are merely a theoretical convenience that ultimately produce self-contradictions. If one insists that there is an underlying reality (I can't believe that I really have to write this), then photons cannot exist. (To readers in the far future, YES, THIS DEBATE IS REALLY HAPPENING.)

Andrew Gray 2004

[geistkiesel]

Feynman describes light as coming in two basic types: Vertically polarized, V, and horizontally polarized, H. Sounds far fetched to me. But what of a photon that is both and the "pulsating" you referred to is merely the time history of the photon state seens as ....VHVHVHVHV.... switching, where when the V is observed the H is unobserved, or nonlocal and vice versu. One can even assume the switching is regular as shown. A random "heads or tails" model proves to be 50/50 %, exactly. Therefore, hard coding the sequence as regualr we eliminate the randomness of the process.

[geistkiesel]

I am not really saying anything other than the standard QM concept: that the properly polarized photon does not "touch" or otherwise impart momentum to the apparatus as it passes through. It does not gain momentum from the apparatus either. It simply acts as if it had always been polarized at that angle (i.e. parallel to the polarizer). There is no interaction between the photon and the polarizer as there is in a classical explanation - i.e. the wave is modified by the apparatus from what it was BEFORE the apparatus to what it was after the apparatus. This is QM, and it is all about the odds. In classical theories, similar inputs yield similar outputs! Yet this does NOT happen. Regardless of the orientation, in QM there is always a chance for an unexpected outcome.

If it behaved classically, why do some waves get absorbed and some don't? There would, by definition, be hidden variables which controlled the interaction's outcome. Where are they? We know they are not local (EPR etc.). Therefore it is not the apparatus which is the source of the hidden variables (since it is local). Therefore the apparatus is not what "determines" the photon polarity value.

I agree, the polarity "value' is intrinsic to the particle, local or nonlocal. I think both. A heretical model has the photon in one or the other of two possible states, as opposed to half the photons hard wired in one or the other.. Feynman says thelatter: that photons of light come in two basic types: Horizontal (H) and Vertical, (V) which doesn't make any sense, to me. But what does nmake sense are photons that exhibit a natural frequency switching with a time history as ...VHVHVHVHVH... where when V is observed, H is unobserved, or nonlocal, when V is observed, H is nonlocal. What ever the state, V or H, upon effective entry into the polarizer volume, this becomes the current state until "repolarized". we can assume the switching continues with the current observed polarized state the identity state, but this implies a complex inner working on a nonlocal level, close to serious QM heresy, n'cest pas?

We can even use the regular sense of the switching and ignore the "head or tails" randomness. This is so as the random feature is proved 50/50% H/V, so why not just hard code the perfect ...HVHVHVHVHVHVH... sequence?

[DrChinese]

Now more about polarizers.

The Aspect experiments have proven that there can be no "local reality" description for polarizer-photon interactions. So if one requires there to be an underlying reality, one must reject photons. That is what we have done. (And for more reasons than just this.)

So we see that a low intensity pulse ("photon") being "absorbed or not" is the wrong question. The correct reality-based question is:

"Why does the detector detect something sometimes, and why does the detector detect nothing sometimes?"

This is quite different than the original question, as it still allows a reality-based explanation for the physics. The realitly-based answer is:

The detector detects something sometimes and nothing sometimes because marginal pulses do not always trigger the detector, even though they are there.The fallacy here is the whole original premise! Simply, "photons" have nothing to do with reality, as proven by Aspect. "Photons" are merely a theoretical convenience that ultimately produce self-contradictions. If one insists that there is an underlying reality (I can't believe that I really have to write this), then photons cannot exist. (To readers in the far future, YES, THIS DEBATE IS REALLY HAPPENING.)

[/color]

Well, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of photons (to the readers of the present, YES, THIS DEBATE IS REALLY HAPPENING.). Photographic film is a good start. On the other hand, Aspect demonstrates that the description you provide of the phenomena is entirely wrong. Intensity has nothing to do with it.

You can see this when you look at entangled spatially separated photons. If you set the polarizers appropriately, you will get opposite readings 100% of the time (a "hit" at one detector or the other). With an optical polarizer (in which light passes 50% of the time or is absorbed 50% of the time), you would see a photon at one detector or the other 100% of the time, and never at both. Intensity never enters the equation, as would be required if there was a classically "real" interaction at each polarizer. According to QM, the correlation between the 2 polarizers is strictly a function of the angle between them, completely in contradiction to your hypothesis. Aspect proves you 100% wrong.

You are free to conclude that Aspect leads to a variety of different conclusions as to the interpretation of QM. But your theory should predict the Aspect results, EVEN IF YOU DENY PHOTONS. If it doesn't (and yours doesn't) then your theory is flawed. P.S. you did the exact same thing with neutrinos! You ignore all evidence contrary to your ideas! You can't ignore it Andrew - fess up and admit you are wrong about neutrinos!

[DrChinese]

Feynman describes light as coming in two basic types: Vertically polarized, V, and horizontally polarized, H. Sounds far fetched to me. But what of a photon that is both and the "pulsating" you referred to is merely the time history of the photon state seens as ....VHVHVHVHV.... switching, where when the V is observed the H is unobserved, or nonlocal and vice versu. One can even assume the switching is regular as shown. A random "heads or tails" model proves to be 50/50 %, exactly. Therefore, hard coding the sequence as regualr we eliminate the randomness of the process.

Consistent with the experimental evidence: there can be hidden variables, but they must not be local. This is non-local reality. But Andrew is arguing for local reality, one of the possibilities excluded by Aspect.

[geistkiesel]

Consistent with the experimental evidence: there can be hidden variables, but they must not be local. This is non-local reality. But Andrew is arguing for local reality, one of the possibilities excluded by Aspect.
iIthink it would be more accurate to say there must be nonlocal hidden variables. The crunch comes when we try to define a "nonlocal" variable. To me "hidden" and "nonlocal" equate. Using my model of combined H and V states in each photon, the local/nonlocal requirement is established for a minimum requirement of model completeness. Bell was discussing this in the terms of QM model. I don't want to use "quantum mechanical model" as the combined HV state as I described is not quantum mechanical as is presently understood. If it were integrated into QM theory in a short while QM wuld be unrecognizable compared tio the current "standard model".

When H is observed, V is nonlocal and when V is observed, H is nonlocal. Bell didin't make any restrictions on the nature of nonlocality in his proofs. I assume, by the nature of nonlocality as developed by Bell, that nonlocality is, observatiionally speaking, undefined. So even though the modell is VHVHVH etc we can assign no phyiscal properties to the nonlocal state. To say that for H observed, V is anti-observed in the same sense that anti-particles are tied directly to the observed state, may be a confusing mistake. The point here is that there is a function linking the local anf nonlocal states in general as nonlocality, for all its scary "spookiness" does interact with the observed state. In fact if no nonlocal elements, no observed elements. The pair go as a necessay set, complimentary if you will as existence supporting that is.

Thanks for the comments. I gather in reading Andrew, that "nonlocal hidden" and "local hidden" get mixed. Nonlocality is a mind bender to grasp, for me anyway, but after going through Aspects experiments a few hunded times the 'instantaneous' nature of the nonlocal force structure takes on a rather benign state of reality. Still close to 'voodo' but not nearly as threatening, as voodoo is commonly understood.
Ciao.

[DrChinese]

iIthink it would be more accurate to say there must be nonlocal hidden variables. The crunch comes when we try to define a "nonlocal" variable...

I assume, by the nature of nonlocality as developed by Bell, that nonlocality is, observatiionally speaking, undefined.

Bell said that local meant: results of the setting at one polarizer could not influence the results of the setting at the other polarizer. In the Aspect experiments, the polarizer settings were changed mid-flight.

In fact, the only meaningful correlations you get are dependent on the angle between the polarizers, in direct violation of the locality definition he provided. The loophole he allows is that this assumes there is independent reality to what is being measured, independent of the act of observation. If you deny the underlying reality, you can keep the locality. Thus you have:

a) Non-local hidden variables. QM is incomplete and a more complete specification of the system is possible, once we locate the hidden variables. The hidden variable could then be the relative settings of the polarizers, for instance. Their space-like separation is no obstacle if non-local effects are possible.

-or-

b) Local "observer-dependent" reality (where observer dependent essentially means that the HUP relations are respected). Under this umbrella, there are no hidden variables and QM is complete. The speed of light (c) is respected. But there is no independent reality.

Bell does not say anything about where the non-local hidden variables might reside, or anything else about that class of theories. Reality and locality simply cannot both be true. (For Andrew, that means ignore or deny the results of more experiments that he disagrees with.)

[geistkiesel]

Bell said that local meant: results of the setting at one polarizer could not influence the results of the setting at the other polarizer. In the Aspect experiments, the polarizer settings were changed mid-flight.

In fact, the only meaningful correlations you get are dependent on the angle between the polarizers, in direct violation of the locality definition he provided. The loophole he allows is that this assumes there is independent reality to what is being measured, independent of the act of observation. If you deny the underlying reality, you can keep the locality. Thus you have:

a) Non-local hidden variables. QM is incomplete and a more complete specification of the system is possible, once we locate the hidden variables. The hidden variable could then be the relative settings of the polarizers, for instance. Their space-like separation is no obstacle if non-local effects are possible.

-or-

b) Local "observer-dependent" reality (where observer dependent essentially means that the HUP relations are respected). Under this umbrella, there are no hidden variables and QM is complete. The speed of light (c) is respected. But there is no independent reality.

Bell does not say anything about where the non-local hidden variables might reside, or anything else about that class of theories. Reality and locality simply cannot both be true. (For Andrew, that means ignore or deny the results of more experiments that he disagrees with.)

I follow. What you say is slightly different than I described, but then your language is more currently fashionable, and much more terse and descriptive and free of clutter. When the curent speculation of the polarizer setting equated to the 'hidden variable' or undelying reality, this seems far short what it must be. For certain the relative angle of the polairzers is a factor in the event of the Aspect effect, but could this angle differernce account for the 'underlying reality' of the instantaneous action of measuring one of the photons polarization vector components? I mean, since Bell talks about nonlocal forces he must be meaning something that 'extends the distance' so to speak, linking the particles. I say this naively by the classical learned intuitive reality that home runs are made when the bat his the leather, and not otherwise. When we peek into nonlocal land and conjure up some of the characteristics of the nonlocal reality one view describes the connection between the polarizations of the photon, which we assume to sum to zero say, as timing function, a process, that maintains a coordinated accounting of each photon's polarization direction. I may have used the model before where one photon polarization state is one end of a teeter totter, connected by a universal joint in the middle, the other photon's poalrization vector is the other end. Each are opposite, so no real coordination effort is required. to maintain conservation of polarization. When grabbing one end, measuring one photon polarization state, immediatelly "measures" the other end. The coordination would then take a simplistic switching function. Stopping the motion of the polarization vector turns off the motion of both moving vectors which are now plainly observable in their mutal static state. The nonlocal connection then is the middle section of the connected polarization vector. But this is only the very special case of "twin" photons. The real world has to much gramder than the slight peek we get from Aspect results.

This is all geoemtric imagination I admit. But what kind of mathematics do we need to describe the instantaneous effect. The underlying reality here would be, not the polarization vectors per se, but the underlying force connection that effectively stops one motion far removed from the measurement of the other polarization motion. But for the nonlocal connection there would be no reality as observed by Aspect et al.

When QM development gets accelerated,which is inevitable, and it makes serious effort to include specific reference of nonlocal functions in the structure of QM models we wont recognize the result, certainly not on the mathematically contrived scale we see currently..When processes such as processes of polarrization are recognized as requiring discrete time segments, many segments in some instances, the models that now treat only the end point resilt of "predicitions" the resulting changes will enormous ( I exageate here of course). The intrinsic reality of the nonlocal world will take on the same concern and atenmtion that the observed world we focus on presently as we creep into lala land. Processes will no longe be properly described, or accepted, without indicating the intirinsic processes that the Aspect experiments, for one, describe fas a highly ordered complex world that is totally unexpected by theorists grounded so long in "quantum probability theory". The instinct to use a Heisenberg mask to shut out the nonlocal world and the interface and processes linking the observed and the nonlocal will come as a great shock to many, but a good great shock.


Thanx for the reply. Your few paragraphs had away of puttingmy perspectivet together. I am getting familiar with the required language constraints, or so I surmise.. I am getting more comfortable with dealing openly, outwardly, with expressing the point of view I have from my spot on the Great Elephant.

[enoch2]

The effects of a EM field have no effect on space time. That is to say the effects of light are non exsistant in a vacume. The energy of light only becomes manifest in physical reality when it interacts with the polarized magnetic field of the proton and electron.

Light propagates in the form of waves. This would suggest it uses a medium. At the speed of light temporal laws are negated as realitivity says the speed of light opperates at zero time. Ergo the temporal state of light opperates in a non entropic plain. If light has no mass infanite length and propagates an infanite amount of energy, we are forced to assume the medium which propagates such waves would consist of a medium of pure energy which given our understanding of radiation underpins this universe of positve entropic timespace.

I believe light is amune to the laws of thermol dynamics while in its pure EM state as it does not travel through the timespace created by Grav fields. However we know light does manifest through its radiation following the same inverse square law of grav field. This would suggest the EM field is linked in its radiation into temporal reality through its magnetic component. The magnetic component carries the Photonic or energy component through a form of zero time. We are forced to analise the concept of the intercecting wave model of conventional light theory. This is due to the fact that zerotime also suggests zero space. The idea being that the magnetic component of EM radiation is a temporal disturbance in the Gravitational field of timespace. This magnetic ripple in timespace follows the curvature and dilation of timespace to the point of radiation. The photonic component of light is only ever released into our entropic state through the imbalanced magnetic state of the atom. The magnetic field created by the atom polarizes the non polarized magnetic radiation of light. The interaction of these two fields creates a temporal distortion in the fabric of space time unlocking a quantisized(entopic) unit of energy from the EM field which in its pure essence is nonentropic. It is the different entropic states that creates the exact unit of the photon. The photon itself is pure energy and as such carries no electrical charge. The electron gains no extra electrical charge. The energy recieved by the elctron is not of a Field nature but of a pure energy nature. The electron gains the energy in the form of momentum.

[andrewgray]

You can see this when you look at entangled spatially separated photons. If you set the polarizers appropriately, you will get opposite readings 100% of the time (a "hit" at one detector or the other). Dr. Chinese,

I do not quite get what you mean here. Would you please elaborate? What is "appropriately" here? That is, what setting are you talking about? Next, what is an "opposite reading"?


With an optical polarizer (in which light passes 50% of the time or is absorbed 50% of the time), you would see a photon at one detector or the other 100% of the time, and never at both. And again here, I don't quite understand. Does this refer to an ordinary polarizer, or a special 50% polarizer (that lets through 50% even along its cancel axis)?


Similarly, if those same 91 polarizers were aligned in 1 degree increments, you could rotate the final output beam by 90 degrees. The results never indicate any change to the polarizer when a photon is passing through and is being "re-aligned" to match the polarizer orientation. This would need to happen if the polarizer was the active participant as described in many so-called explanations of the process, such as the Model of Reality. Similarly, please elaborate here as well. I do not see the contradiction.


Finally, let me again say that I really appreciate your input.


Sincerely,

Andrew Gray

[DrChinese]

Dr. Chinese,

I do not quite get what you mean here. Would you please elaborate? What is "appropriately" here? That is, what setting are you talking about? Next, what is an "opposite reading"?

...

And again here, I don't quite understand. Does this refer to an ordinary polarizer, or a special 50% polarizer (that lets through 50% even along its cancel axis)?


Similarly, please elaborate here as well. I do not see the contradiction.

Finally, let me again say that I really appreciate your input.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gray

I was referring to polarizering filters (as opposed to beamsplitters). For opposite readings, I mean a hit on one side matches to a miss on the other. For appropriate settings, I mean crossed settings offset 90 degrees for yielding consistently opposite results, and parallel settings for yielding consistently identical results (both hits or both misses). (Of course it is for convenience that I say "parallel" to refer to the twin beams since they are really orthagonally polarized).

At any rate, there is no evidence that the polarizing filter physically experiences any kind of recoil or other interaction (or adds to the beam!) when a light wave passes through. Such an explanation is essentially a classical perspective, which cannot be derived from the experimental evidence.

The 2 pieces of information that combine to provide this conclusion are:

a) EPR-like results. The results at angle setting at a remote polarizer is related to the results of the other.
b) Inserting progressively more filters INCREASES the amount of light which passes through when there is a series of filters set at increments: see (can't find right now) for a better description of this setup than I can provide.

[andrewgray]

. . ."www.cantfinditrightnow". . .OK. Here is a good link that I think will open up some more precise discussion.

http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/EPR.php

Part of this link is repeated here:

Here I'll give simple and elegant illustration of Bell's equality, due to David Mermin. (See Mermin's article "Can you help your team tonight by watching on TV?" in "Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory" (1989), reprinted in Mermin's book Boojums All the Way through (1989). Also see the article "Can You Help the Mets by Watching on TV?", Science, 19 May 1989.) I shall use different example figures than the ones used by Mermin.

Let's take the entangled photon experiment described. We have two possible outcomes when measuring each photon. Let's call them 0 (block) and 1 (pass). For each of the filters A and B we will consider only two possible settings. For A, setting A2 means the filter is set to an angle of 00. (We can choose any direction as the 00 angle, as the system is rotationally invariant.) A1 is filter A at 60o. For filter B we have B1 at 30o and B2 at 90o. With these angles, the chance that A and B will both give the same result (0 or 1) is 75% with all settings, except if A and B are both set to 2, in which case it's 0%. (So with settings A2 and B2, if result A is 0, then result B is always 1, and vice versa.)

Let's assume that whether we use setting 1 or 2 at A cannot influence the result we get at B, and vice versa. Now suppose we set A2 and B1. And with those settings we do a relatively large number of trials, say 100. Then at A the result will be a 100 digit long binary number. Let's call that number A2. At B we get number B1. We cannot predict what the numbers A2 and B1 will be, but we do know that about 75% of the digits will be the same. And the longer we make the trial, the closer this will tend to get to 75%. So we know that A2 differs from B1 by about 25 digits. Now if we had tested A1-B1 instead of A2-B1, under our assumption that the setting at A doesn't influence our results at B, we would have gotten the same number B1. However, the result at A would have been different, namely number A1 instead of A2.

As said, A2 differs from B1 by about 25 digits. In turn, B1 must differ from A1 by about 25 digits. And A1 must differ from B2 by about 25 digits. So going from A2-B1-A1-B2, at each of those three steps about 25 digits change. This implies that the difference between A2 and B2 is at most about 75 digits. But we know that A2 and B2 differ in all 100 digits. This is a contradiction, and that means our assumption that the setting at A doesn't influence what happens at B, or vice versa, is incorrect. The only way our reasoning can be incorrect is if we drop that assumption. There must be some "spooky action at distance" after all. It's a peculiar type of correlation, however. There must be some type of internal information transfer between A and B, but it's of such a nature that we can't use it to transmit information ourselves. At A I cannot influence the probability of a 0 or 1 at B, by appropriately setting my filter at 1 or 2. Whatever I do, at B on every run the outcome of 0, respectively 1, is always 50%, so I can't transmit any information.

3. Proof of Bell's inequality

Let's distill a proof of Bell's theorem from the example in the previous section. It follows trivially from Mermin's argument. Let's call the probability that we get the same result at A and B, with settings A1 and B1, P(A1=B1). Similarly we have P(A1=B2), P(A2=B1) and P(A2=B2). It doesn't matter whether the probabilities are the same for each run or not. It's conceivable that every individual photon pair has different outcome probabilities for the various settings. But we do know that in the long run the probabilities must average out to the figures we used in the example. So for a photon pair selected at random, we can use constant probability figures. In the example the contradiction arose from the realization that 25%+25%+25%<100%. So, we could only have avoided the contraction with the locality assumption if 25%+25%+25%>=100%. In general formula form that's equivalent to

P(A2<>B1)+P(B1<>A1)+P(A1<>B2)>=P(A2<>B2) (1)

An additional note of why it's valid to phrase Mermin's argument in terms of probabilities. Any local hidden variables theory must supply a list of outcomes for every possible setting. The probability of outcome 1 for A1 is then simply the proportion of 1's within the list of outcomes for a large number of successive photons traveling toward A in case they would encounter setting 1. Let's call this list of outcomes list A1. Even if the outcomes are not (fully) determined in advance, and the photon's behavior is determined in part by random events, internal clocks, or local conditions at measurement, with the locality assumption it still is the case that list A1 is independent of the settings at B. Hence Mermin's argument is valid and we can phrase it in terms of relative frequencies of outcomes (probabilities) for lists A1, A2, B1 and B2.

Rewriting with P(X<>Y)=1-P(X=Y) we have

P(A2=B1)+P(B1=A1)+P(A1=B2)-P(A2=B2)<=2 (2)

Note that whether the EPR results are possible (with the locality assumption) can't change if we simply relabel the measurement outcomes on one side. Otherwise we could simply get impossible EPR results by relabeling possible EPR results, or vice versa. So let's relabel outcome 0 as 1 and outcome 1 as 0 for detector B. P(A2<>B1) then becomes P(A2=B1), P(B1<>A1) becomes P(B1=A2), etc. Transforming (1) thus we get

P(A2=B1)+P(B1=A1)+P(A1=B2)>=P(A2=B2) (3)

Combining (2) and (3) results in

0<=P(A2=B1)+P(B1=A1)+P(A1=B2)-P(A2=B2)<=2 (4)

This is a version of Bell's inequality called the CHSH inequality (after Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt, 1969).



Dr. Chinese, are we agreed that this is a good statement of the problem?

Andrew Gray

[geistkiesel]

OK. Here is a good link that I think will open up some more precise discussion.

http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/EPR.php

Part of this link is repeated here:

Dr. Chinese, are we agreed that this is a good statement of the problem?

Andrew Gray

Just a brief interjection here.

JS Bell went far beyond 'entanglement' for the implications of the nonlocal force structures. Entanglement isn't an example of a rare physical phenomenon. When Bell remarked that any QM model that was void in nonlocal structures was incomplete, he was extending the nonlocal/local structure to level of universal significance. The process is intrinsic to all quantum activity and those models void in nonlocal force structures are not quite up to par, Wild random oscillations, an inherent characteristic of QT, is reltively useless in describing extremly complex and ordered states of nature. It cannot, by virtue of a series of ad hoc physical assumptions established 75+ years ago.

The extremely limited probability structures that expresse the essence of QT have driven our focus away from the fundamental processes of nonlocal/local activity.In David Bohm's textbook "Quantum Theory" he describes the impossibility of any 'quantum' entity having any possibility of affecting any observed state, if for no other reason than its 'wildly random motion'. It appears to be quite the opposite state of affairs.

The observed/nonlocal description is a good one as it narrowly pinpoints force exchange structures of the "spooky action at a distance" processes with the everyday observed state. One is nothing without the other.

I suggest that we forego the mild descriptive tenor of "spooky, action at a distance" phraseology and call it something with a little more emotional oomph -- like Voodoo.

[DrChinese]

OK. Here is a good link that I think will open up some more precise discussion.

http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/EPR.php

Dr. Chinese, are we agreed that this is a good statement of the problem?

Andrew Gray


CHSH, sure, that is perfect. And if there is underlying reality to the polarity observables, this should be true.

[michaelcarey26]

I have little formal education in physics, nor do I have any real practical experience in performing complex experiments dealing with quantum mechanics. However, I do have some formal training in mathematics and I consider myself well informed about certain types of logic problems. Therefore, I would like to enter this fascinating discussion for a moment to address the situation quoted earlier by andrewgray concerning Bell’s (or alternately, the CHSH) Inequality.

Rather than focusing on the physical aspects of what is happening, I just want to approach it from the perspective of an interesting riddle (riddles being one of my personal hobbies). If some of you think the analysis doesn’t apply to quantum stuff, feel free to point out the dissimilarities.

Let us start with four filters, call them {A,B,C,D} as in the stated problem. Put filters A and C on one end of an ‘entangled photon’ and B and D on the other. Each filter differs from the other only in the angle of orientation in a given plane. So we can identify each filter with a number representing this angle. However, in order to get a well defined number we have to choose a coordinate reference frame. A filter at 90º in one frame might look like 45º in another frame. So, let us choose a laboratory frame in which we make our measurements. As mentioned in the previous discussion, this choice of reference frame shouldn’t make any difference in the end, but keep in mind that we have done it.

In our chosen coordinates we assign to each filter a number, say θA, θB, θC, θD. Now we also assign to each photon a number (a polarization amplitude) in reference to this frame, say ψ. Then we say that by some miracle of nature, when a photon strikes a filter it has a certain probability of getting through; and this probability is based on the orientation of the filter and the polarization amplitude of the photon. We end up with two possible states which we call Y for ‘yes, it gets through’ and N for ‘no, it doesn’t get through’.

We know that our end state should depend on our two variables, so we call the probabilities P(Y | θ, ψ) and P(N | θ, ψ). This is where my solution diverges from the analysis in the statement of the puzzle. It is critical to recognize that the probability is a function of both the orientation of the filter and of the polarization. This may sound obvious, but it is an important part of my ‘solution’ to the ‘paradox’.

We want the probability to be rotationally invariant, and we want the resulting probabilities to match the intent of the problem. In order to do so I propose that P(Y | θ, ψ) = (sin(θ-ψ))2. (Remember that this equation is just for the sake of analyzing a certain logic puzzle and may not have anything to do with real experiments.) Since the probability depends on θ-ψ it is easy to see how our choice of reference frame falls out of the picture. A different choice would change both quantities by the same amount and leave the relative orientation unchanged.

So let us take θA – ψ = 0º, θB – ψ = 30º, θC – ψ = 60º, θD – ψ = 90º in parallel with the choices that lead to the paradox. As we expect, we get P(Y | θA, ψ) = 0, P(Y | θB, ψ) = .25, P(Y | θC, ψ) = .75, P(Y | θD, ψ) = 1, and similarly (but opposite) for P(N). As in the derivation of the inequality, the probability that the results from filters A and B will coincide is 75%, as it is for C and D. However, when we calculate the probability that B and C will coincide we get less than 50%. This conflicts with the answer found earlier.

Filters A and B are 30º different and they have a 75% chance of coincidence. The same is true of filters C and D. So if the system is truly rotationally invariant shouldn’t all filters separated by 30º have a 75% coincidence? The short answer is no, not in the system I have described here. The problem lies in two different meanings of the phrase ‘rotationally invariant’. I have used it to mean simply that the my choice of reference frame falls out of the probability function. In the previous analysis it has taken on a completely different meaning. What was done there is equivalent to saying that ‘given a certain polarization amplitude, the probability of achieving your result changes at a constant rate with respect to a changing angle of orientation.’ Or, in mathematical terms d(P)/dθ = K, a constant.

My choice of probability function gives some of the same results as the derivation of the paradoxical inequality, but it certainly does not satisfy d(P)/dθ = K. I leave it to those more familiar with the details of quantum physics to determine which form of rotational invariance should be satisfied by the physical system.

[andrewgray]

CHSH, sure, that is perfect. And if there is underlying reality to the polarity observables, this should be true.Great. Then we have something very precise to talk about. So first, we shall discuss some simple conclusion logic. A premise is made. Experimental data is taken. A contradiction is found. Conclusion:

Something in the original premise is wrong.
It is the "something" about which we disagree. QM'ers say the contradiction proves that there can be no local underlying reality.

However, if one believes this to be incorrect:

Then there is something else that is wrong with the original premise!

To me, the CHSH inequality, and the apparent contradiction that is experimentally measured proves that photons cannot exist.

This certainly is a logically permitted conclusion!

So, we now have two choices:
No underlying reality. Photons do not exist.

Now if photon theory were a self-consistent theory, then I would probably choose the first: no underlying reality. However,

Photon theory is full of self-contradictions!

Therefore, this option is rejected, and the second conclusion preferred:

Photons cannot exist.

So we begin our discussion with the "no-photon"conclusion, which seems more valid than the "no-underlying-reality" conclusion since photon theory is full of self-contradictions.

So what is really going on with the polarizers?
The pulses are NOT quantized into packets of "photons". Without the "photon" limitation, we are free to assume that the pulses are statistically energetic and distributed. The whole premise of "entangled photons" is false. Things like P(A1=B1) and P(A2<>B1) are now completely detector dependent, and have nothing to do with a binary "photon" outcome (photon blocked or not). THERE IS ALWAYS A PULSE THERE. THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE PROBABILITIES REFER TO WHETHER THE PULSES ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO SET OFF THE DETECTOR OR NOT! Finally, we see the fallacy to the whole Bell's inequality.
THERE ARE MANY MARGINAL PULSES. THIS MAKES COUNTING ZEROES CORRECTLY (no detection) IMPOSSIBLE. If one cannot count zeroes correctly, then one CANNOT figure any probabilities whatsoever. Finally and obviously, if one cannot figure probabilities, then the CHSH Bell Inequality cannot be checked by experiment with current technology.






Andrew Gray

[Goalie_Ca]

I'm not a physicist, or even close! I'm just a lowly 2nd year engineering student who didn't understand 90% of what you guys have been rambling on about. Here's my 2 cents anyways... even if it sounds childish to you guys.

I think the whole process of modern theory development, from my perspective, seems to be very "engineering" and non-scientific. Things like superstring theory seem absurd to me because it's just way too complex trying to make the formulas agree :/ though i'm sure one day it could make an excellent model.

A reality based theory would be quite nice and comforting yet somehow i think there is a limit on how much we can hope to achieve because somewhere and somehow there is an underlying fabric which doesn't conform to our macroscopically intuitive minds.

On the other hand, with math, there's limits in terms of godel's theorem as well as the fact that it's just math. So we can't hope to explain everything that way.

[Ingvar Astrand]

To andrewgray, you wrote 06-26-2004:
________________________________

Now if photon theory were a self-consistent theory, then I would probably choose the first: no underlying reality. However,

Photon theory is full of self-contradictions!

Therefore, this option is rejected, and the second conclusion preferred:

Photons cannot exist.
________________________________

The photon is a misinterpretation of the heat radiation's fractional changing with the color spectrum. Planck analyzed the experimenters’ measuring of the wavelength spectrum’s color but to find the effect of the radiation he compared the temperature (energy) per time unit, which is frequency.

He lost the insight that the wave-units were measured as wavelength (color), and missed to understand that the fractional change of 6.63 x 10-34 was the changing fraction between the wave-units, with is the waves' elongation that you also can see when you trough a pebble in the water and follow the expanding and accelerating rings outwards.

This is also the right fractional wave-elongation explanation that Hubble has misinterpreted as recession-acceleration of the galaxies.

If someone is interested I will be back and tell you more about my empirical theories.
In April I participated in a conference in Denver with NPA and AAAS.
In August you can red the hole paper from this conference at my webpage www.theuniphysics.info

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden

[DrChinese]

Great. Then we have something very precise to talk about. So first, we shall discuss some simple conclusion logic. A premise is made. Experimental data is taken. A contradiction is found. Conclusion:

Something in the original premise is wrong.
It is the "something" about which we disagree. QM'ers say the contradiction proves that there can be no local underlying reality.

However, if one believes this to be incorrect:

Then there is something else that is wrong with the original premise!

To me, the CHSH inequality, and the apparent contradiction that is experimentally measured proves that photons cannot exist.

This certainly is a logically permitted conclusion!

So, we now have two choices:
No underlying reality. Photons do not exist.

Now if photon theory were a self-consistent theory, then I would probably choose the first: no underlying reality. However,

Photon theory is full of self-contradictions!

Therefore, this option is rejected, and the second conclusion preferred:

Photons cannot exist.

So we begin our discussion with the "no-photon"conclusion, which seems more valid than the "no-underlying-reality" conclusion since photon theory is full of self-contradictions.

So what is really going on with the polarizers?
The pulses are NOT quantized into packets of "photons". Without the "photon" limitation, we are free to assume that the pulses are statistically energetic and distributed. The whole premise of "entangled photons" is false. Things like P(A1=B1) and P(A2<>B1) are now completely detector dependent, and have nothing to do with a binary "photon" outcome (photon blocked or not). THERE IS ALWAYS A PULSE THERE. THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE PROBABILITIES REFER TO WHETHER THE PULSES ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO SET OFF THE DETECTOR OR NOT! Finally, we see the fallacy to the whole Bell's inequality.
THERE ARE MANY MARGINAL PULSES. THIS MAKES COUNTING ZEROES CORRECTLY (no detection) IMPOSSIBLE. If one cannot count zeroes correctly, then one CANNOT figure any probabilities whatsoever. Finally and obviously, if one cannot figure probabilities, then the CHSH Bell Inequality cannot be checked by experiment with current technology.






Andrew Gray



Andrew, your logic is again self-serving. The Bell Theorem states clearly that no local realistic theory can reproduce all of the predictions of QM. QM makes predictions about the results of experiments, and those experiments are verified as to QM. You can talk all day long about the issue of whether photons are real or not, and that would still never have anything to do with the point at hand.

If you propose a theory which makes predictions which are not in accord with experiment, your theory cannot be considered. You would have to first modify the theory to agree with the facts. Once you modify your theory to make predictions which are consistent with experiment, it will no longer be local realistic. Period. Whether photons are a part of it or not.

After all, the reason QM is a good theory is that it has made so many predictions as to observables. Who cares if photons are real or not, or are waves, or particles, or neither! When Aspect ran his tests, he got results just as predicted in 1935. If the detectors don't detect anything (as you propose), how do they manage to yield results that just happen to match the very specific predictions of QM?

While you are busy creating your brilliant "Model of Reality", you are ignoring the basics of scientific theory creation. Just as you ignore the existence of neutrino detectors, you ignore Aspect's results and claim the detectors don't really detect anything at all. Yet the patterns always remain, and you cannot explain the patterns by ignoring them.

[Goalie_Ca]

I have another interresting question. I believe it was a sudbury observatory (go canada!!!! happy birthday canada!!!!) have experimentally concluded (best choice of words?) that neutrinos do in fact have mass. Is this a false claim or can it somehow be explained by your theory.

[humanino]

To Andrew Gray : let me thank you for the good time I just spent reading this thread. We need people to think outside the box, even though NOBODY COULD KNOW EVERYTHING THAT LIES INSIDE THE BOX ANYWAY (I am talking about present state of knowledge in physics). You are presenting very interesting ideas. However, there is something I don't understand : you propose objective tests that can easyly and fastly be performed. Stop wasting your time trying to convince conservative people : just do it and clear the sky. Are you afraid to test your theory ?

[DrChinese]

I have another interresting question. I believe it was a sudbury observatory (go canada!!!! happy birthday canada!!!!) have experimentally concluded (best choice of words?) that neutrinos do in fact have mass. Is this a false claim or can it somehow be explained by your theory.

Andrew rejects the existence of neutrinos even MORE than he rejects the existence of photons. So mass is not a factor to him.

Renounce your evil ways! Embrace the neutrino!

Society
Acknowledging
Neutrino's
Existence

(a little humor)

[geistkiesel]

Great. Then we have something very precise to talk about. So first, we shall discuss some simple conclusion logic.[color=red] A premise is made. Experimental data is taken. A contradiction is found. Conclusion:

Something in the original premise is wrong.
It is the "something" about which we disagree. QM'ers say the contradiction proves that there can be no local underlying reality.

However, if one believes this to be incorrect:

Then there is something else that is wrong with the original premise!

To me, the CHSH inequality, and the apparent contradiction that is experimentally measured proves that photons cannot exist.

This certainly is a logically permitted conclusion!

So, we now have two choices:
No underlying reality. Photons do not exist.

Now if photon theory were a self-consistent theory, then I would probably choose the first: no underlying reality. However,

Photon theory is full of self-contradictions!

Therefore, this option is rejected, and the second conclusion preferred:

Photons cannot exist.


Excuse me if I have missed the part in previous posts that put your logic together. From what you have just stated above I see no conclusion insisiting that photons cannot exist. If the lack of a local underling reality is sound, and if the conclusions of Bell that QM is incomplete without a nonlocal underlying reality, I see absolutely no connection between your statements and conclusions.

There is a simple nonlocal underlying realiy to photons that is QM heresy, but consistent and in accord with the CHSH et al. The polarization of light comes from the oscillating nature of the polarization vectors. Feynman, for instance, has the world made of two types of photons, vertical and horizontal polarized, which has the obvious problems of spatial orientation assigned. But a photon osicllating at some natural requency that is polarized when entering a proper medium is an example of nonlocal reality. When V is manifestly observable, H is nonlocand when H is manifestly observable V is nonlocal. Whatever state is observavle when entering the medium that is the polarized state. Photons are very real. More real than even QM makes them out to be.

So we begin our discussion with the "no-photon"conclusion, which seems more valid than the "no-underlying-reality" conclusion since photon theory is full of self-contradictions.

So what is really going on with the polarizers?
[list] The pulses are NOT quantized into packets of "photons". Without the "photon" limitation, we are free to assume that the pulses are statistically energetic and distributed. The whole premise of "entangled photons" is false. Things like P(A1=B1) and P(A2<>B1) are now completely detector dependent, and have nothing to do with a binary "photon" outcome (photon blocked or not). THERE IS ALWAYS A PULSE THERE. THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE PROBABILITIES REFER TO WHETHER THE PULSES ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO SET OFF THE DETECTOR OR NOT! Finally, we see the fallacy to the whole Bell's inequality.
THERE ARE MANY MARGINAL PULSES. THIS MAKES COUNTING ZEROES CORRECTLY (no detection) IMPOSSIBLE. If one cannot count zeroes correctly, then one CANNOT figure any probabilities whatsoever. Finally and obviously, if one cannot figure probabilities, then the CHSH Bell Inequality cannot be checked by experiment with current technology

Even assuming your "contradiction" hypothesis there is no proof, logically or otherwise that proves photons are non eixistent. I was under the impression that Bell's inequality was confirmed. There were problems with efficiency of detectors and exclusion of data, but as Bell remarked, if the data shows the trend to the inequality, it would be difficult to imagine that a more accurate experimental condition would negate the previous findings.

[andrewgray]

Originally posted by Goalie Ca
A reality based theory would be quite nice and comforting yet somehow i think there is a limit on how much we can hope to achieve because somewhere and somehow there is an underlying fabric which doesn't conform to our macroscopically intuitive minds.Yes, a reality-based theory would be nice. We will get to that in a moment. And yes, there has to be a limit to how much "reality you can model". I seriously doubt that physics on the order of 10-20 cm can ever be modeled.Originally posted by Ingvar Astrand
The photon is a misinterpretation of the heat radiation's fractional changing with the color spectrum. Planck . . .I agree that the Planck photon theory is really on shaky ground as previously discussed in this thread.Originally posted by DrChinese
Andrew, your logic is again self-serving. The Bell Theorem states clearly that no local realistic theory can reproduce all of the predictions of QM. . .
After all, the reason QM is a good theory is that it has made so many predictions as to observables. . .I can see that a discussion about what constitutes a GOOD THEORY is in order. The Greek-god-in-a-chariot-dragging-the-sun-across-the-sky analogy comes to mind. As was mentioned before, this greek theory was good for predicting ALL observables measurable at their time! Was this a "good theory" at the time?

Yes!

Was this a "good theory" over time?

No!

Why is this? Because the observables got sharper. That is, Galileo invented the telescope and SAW that this was not true. Greek theory over.

What I am saying is that the same thing is about ready to happen to QM. The observables are about ready to get sharper and (IN MY OPINION!!!!) QM photon theory will be over. Finally, I believe that Model of Reality will be a good theory over time for the very reason that it "models reality" similarly to Galileo and Newtons' ideas about gravitation as opposed to observable-matched Greek mythology (QM). Originally posted by Humanino
You are presenting very interesting ideas. However, there is something I don't understand : you propose objective tests that can easyly and fastly be performed. Stop wasting your time trying to convince conservative people : just do it and clear the sky. Are you afraid to test your theory ? I hear you. I hear you. Do you think that this will happen over night? I have actually looked into doing the first Quantum Killer Experiment, and let me tell you, it will NOT happen over night! First, I am informed that unless I can get a professor interested in doing the experiment, I will have to fund it myself. Fine. I'm willing to put down $10 grand (anybody else willing to fund?). I hope to get started this fall semester. IT'S SUMMER SESSION NOW. Nobody's there! Have a little patience. It seems to me that laying down the foundations in print prior to experimental proof is just fine.
DrChinese . . .
If you propose a theory which makes predictions which are not in accord with experiment, your theory cannot be considered. You would have to first modify the theory to agree with the facts. Once you modify your theory to make predictions which are consistent with experiment, it will no longer be local realistic. Period. Whether photons are a part of it or not.Ok, now back to the Aspect experiments and Model of Reality's interpretation of it. First, the detector problem was pointed out so that we ARE NOT constrained by Bell's inequality since we ARE NOT talking about "photon probabilities"! We are talking about detector clicks only when the pulses are big enough to set it off. We are assuming that there are MANY pulses that are marginal and pass undetected. If this is true, we are released from Bell's inequality because we can add as many "marginal-undetected-pulses" (zeros) as we like. This will add arbitrarily to the "zero" part of the probabilities (which, by the way, can NEVER be verified. If you DO NOT detect something, it was not counted. Plain and Simple (PAS). ) and allow us to have a local reality-based theory while at the same time matching experimental results.

Continued below . . .

[andrewgray]

EPR, Aspect, & Bell's Inequality Continued . . .

First, we discuss the EPR "photon" experiment with crossed polarizers. As mentioned before, this is an extremely complicated setup, but it is possible to discuss this if we speak

statistically.

So instead of "photons", we will speak of a statistically averaged pair of correlated pulses. (In addition, let me point out that I realize that this is an ad hoc discussion, so it does not carry that much weight. The other Quantum Killer results will carry the weight). When the experiment is run with crossed polarizers, very few detector clicks happen. Notice that I say "very few" instead of "none". In the literature, we see that there are indeed a very few "error pulses". (SOME OF THE TIME, BOTH DETECTORS CLICK EVEN WITH CROSSED POLARIZERS AND LOW INTENSITY.) What must be going on here? It is clear that when the polarization of a statistical pulse gets to 45o off of the polarization angle it becomes marginal. This is the ONLY way a reality based theory can work. Otherwise, 45o statistical pulse pairs would be detected simultaneously all the time.



My girlfriend informs me that its time for the Wimbledon semi-finals, so this thought will be continued tomorrow...

Andrew Gray

[DrChinese]

I can see that a discussion about what constitutes a GOOD THEORY is in order. The Greek-god-in-a-chariot-dragging-the-sun-across-the-sky analogy comes to mind. As was mentioned before, this greek theory was good for predicting ALL observables measurable at their time! Was this a "good theory" at the time?

Yes!

Was this a "good theory" over time?

No!

Why is this? Because the observables got sharper. That is, Galileo invented the telescope and SAW that this was not true. Greek theory over.

What I am saying is that the same thing is about ready to happen to QM. The observables are about ready to get sharper and (IN MY OPINION!!!!) QM photon theory will be over...

Theories can compete, yes. And in many cases they can be objectively compared, yes. However, yours fails when objective (i.e. scientific) criteria are applied. Your statement that your theory is about to be crowned because you think it is (your words) is pure vanity and egotism.

Your understanding of the EPR experiments is woefully flawed. The Bell Inequality always applies - the only question you push is that detector efficiences are low and this somehow allows your theory to escape its predictions. It doesn't! Your theory is either local realistic or it is not, and since it is local realistic it cannot make all of the same predictions as QM. Please note that all of the EPR type experiments consistently provide results which are consistent with QM and inconsistent with local realistic HV theories. Now it may be true that the experiment is flawed in some way and this will be discovered (in the future) as to why the results are skewed to support QM. But this hasn't happened yet.

Best recap of such arguments can be found by Caroline Thompson, see http://www.drchinese.com/David/Thompson.pdf which discusses these from the viewpoint you espouse. However, even she does not argue that Bell does not apply. Only that the experiments don't yield foolproof results. The problem with this approach, I am afraid, is that as detector efficiences are increased, the results are even MORE pro-QM and not less. The current state of the art on EPR experiments puts us many standard deviations (>30) outside the range for local realism.

The net result is this, Andrew: your "model of reality" is the "Greek chariot" theory in your analogy - it is the OLD (very old I might add) and not the new. Besides, your theory ends up being a poor rehash of the old. I have yet to see where you are offereing anything which is actually useful in any respect - although I know you impress yourself with the "potential" of the theory. Physics history is littered with great potential that added up to nothing - cold fusion comes to mind...

[andrewgray]

EPR, Aspect, & Bell's Inequality Continued . . .

From DrChinese...
Best recap of such arguments can be found by Caroline Thompson, see http://www.drchinese.com/David/Thompson.pdf which discusses these from the viewpoint you espouse. However, even she does not argue that Bell does not apply. Only that the experiments don't yield foolproof results.

Even though I was midstream, I must digress a minute to address DrChinese. (Thank you by the way, Dr Chinese, for your continuing helpful input. Believe it or not, it is extremely appreciated. Your link to Thompson's paper was extremely helpful).

First, it is incredulous to me that Aspect had so many "error pulses", or "accidentals" as they are called in Thompson's paper. In Table II, we see that the "error pulses" result in 26%, 59%, and 36% of the pulses! Now DrChinese, I remember you talking about how crossed polarizers result in single event detections 100% of the time.From DrChinese's Message #228 . . .

You can see this when you look at entangled spatially separated photons. If you set the polarizers appropriately, you will get opposite readings 100% of the time (a "hit" at one detector or the other). Are you ready to take that back? Does 59% "accidental" error pulses sound like 100% of the time to you? Come on! Now I am even more confident that what I am saying is correct.

59% error pulses is no where near 100%.

The most interesting is the conclusion by Thompson at the end of her article which is in complete agreement with Model of Reality:What have we actually found? That we cannot design loophole-free Bell tests using light -- we have been attempting the impossible. Why should this be? If we analyse the experiments carefully, we find that it is because the whole ennterprise was undertaken on a false premise: that light could be modelled as particles. This is one message. I believe we have also learned another: that we cannot demonstrate "quantum entanglement" by macroscopic experiments. This phenomenon remains an uncorroborated prediction of QT.So, it is clear to me that information supplied by QMer's like Dr Chinese tends to be extremely exaggerated for the sake of argument, and is just unreliable (PAS). So I must now go and get my own information and rethink the whole Aspect experiment since I was basing my thoughts on bad information.

Andrew Gray

[DrChinese]

EPR, Aspect, & Bell's Inequality Continued . . .

[color=green]

Even though I was midstream, I must digress a minute to address DrChinese. (Thank you by the way, Dr Chinese, for your continuing helpful input. Believe it or not, it is extremely appreciated. Your link to Thompson's paper was extremely helpful).

First, it is incredulous to me that Aspect had so many "error pulses", or "accidentals" as they are called in Thompson's paper. In Table II, we see that the "error pulses" result in 26%, 59%, and 36% of the pulses! Now DrChinese, I remember you talking about how crossed polarizers result in single event detections 100% of the time. Are you ready to take that back? Does 59% "accidental" error pulses sound like 100% of the time to you? Come on! Now I am even more confident that what I am saying is correct.


You're welcome as to the reference. I thought you would benefit from hearing her perspective on the matter as it has certain similarities to your thinking.

However, I don't think you are listening on the EPR issue. These are a different kind of detector than I specified, because I was trying to make a point. The "error" (double detections) pulses are well known to the scientific community, especially those who follow the debate closely. They really don't change a lot as they still leave a statistical legacy: why do the non-local correlations persist when the "errors" are removed? Under any theory of local reality, they still don't exist. And the experiments are getting better - as I mentioned as efficiencies improve the results are further and further from local reality. That is in complete contradiction to what a local realist would predict.

J.S. Bell himself (who started as a local realist long ago) was well aware of these results and commented that it was far-fetched to draw much from the "errors" - the common assumption is that the "errors" represent a fair sample and should NOT be included (in accordance with Aspect's presentation).

You should take the time to read the entire argument from both sides. Anybody can pick and choose. I have reviewed papers attacking the fair sampling assumption by Thompson (cited) and Santos, and my conclusion is that they do not change the picture in any significant way. The stats show a clear and obvious pattern that cannot be explained even if you DON'T accept the fair sampling hypothesis. Even Thompson is aware that "something strange" is going on although she still holds on to local reality.

You would benefit from reading her work if you want to continue down the path you are on as it is much more developed in many ways. She also denies the existence of photons (as particles) if I remember correctly, for example. P.S. She accepts neutrinos - a different type of wave in her book - and you should too.

[geistkiesel]

Do I read Bell correctly? Did he not a state (effectively) that even with the inaccuracies and loss and adjustements etc, that he finds it difficult to believe that increasing the resolution of the expeiments will change the basic findings to the opposite conclusion?

[andrewgray]

Dr Chinese . . .

However, I don't think you are listening on the EPR issue. These are a different kind of detector than I specified, because I was trying to make a point. The "error" (double detections) pulses are well known to the scientific community, especially those who follow the debate closely. They really don't change a lot as they still leave a statistical legacy: why do the non-local correlations persist when the "errors" are removed? Ok, a counter-example is in order. First reconsider the CHSH inequality and the Mermin example given in the web site henrysturman.com/english/articles/EPR.php. In this example they "prove" that 25%+25%+25%>=100%, thus finding a contradiction. This comes from polarizers:

A2 at 0o
B1 at 30o
A1 at 60o
B2 at 90o

Arriving at

P(A2<>B1)+P(B1<>A1)+P(A1<>B2)>=P(A2<>B2)

where P(A2<>B1) means "where events at A2 and B1 differ". A 100 count binary example is mentioned. We will use a 12 count example for brevity. If B1 is different than A2 at about 25% of the time, the events might look like:

A2: 111__111__111__111
B1: 111__111__111__000

Similarly, if A1 is different than B1 by 25%:

A1: 111__111__000__000

Finally, we see we cannot make B2 different from A1 25% of the time AND different from A2 100% of the time:

B2: 111__000__000__000 (doesn't differ from A2 100%)

Here they are repeated again:

A2: 111__111__111__111
B1: 111__111__111__000
A1: 111__111__000__000
B2: 111__000__000__000 . .differs from A1 25%
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(doesn't differ from A2 100%)

However, we have seen that the accidental error "coincidence pulses" can be substantial, up to 59% of the data. So we are free to insert 0's into the probabilities up to this order of magnitude.

B2: 000__000__000__000 . . . differs from A2 100% and with the other "coincidence pulses" differs from A1 25% of the time.

We needed just 25% of them to do it in just one of the counterexample's steps. Alternatively, we could spread the "coincidence pulses" out and have 3 steps of about 8% "error pulses" instead of just using 1 step of with 25% error pulses (or many other combinations).

Local reality is indeed preserved to well within the very parameters of experiment. There is no need to think that there is "some spooky action at a distance" or that "the wavefunction collapses faster than the speed of light" or other irrationalities such as this.



From Geistkiesel . . .

Do I read Bell correctly? Did he not a state (effectively) that even with the inaccuracies and loss and adjustements etc, that he finds it difficult to believe that increasing the resolution of the expeiments will change the basic findings to the opposite conclusion?This is correct. However, remember that the basic underlying assumption that photons exist and that these detections are binary is wrong. These detections are of the analog type, where variable amounts of energy are being detected and there are many marginal pulses that are not counted.


Andrew Gray





edit: correct mistake

[DrChinese]

Do I read Bell correctly? Did he not a state (effectively) that even with the inaccuracies and loss and adjustements etc, that he finds it difficult to believe that increasing the resolution of the expeiments will change the basic findings to the opposite conclusion?

Exactly. J.S. Bell, from the "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics":

"...it is hard for me to believe that quantum mechanics works so nicely for inefficient practical set-ups and is yet going to fail badly when sufficient refinements are made."

[DrChinese]

[...irrelevant comments that ignore the discussion point, again...]

However, remember that the basic underlying assumption that photons exist and that these detections are binary is wrong. These detections are of the analog type, where variable amounts of energy are being detected and there are many marginal pulses that are not counted.


Andrew Gray


Dear Andrew,

To discuss the merits of photon theory, you don't need EPR. EPR has to do with local realistic theories. Your idea that photons do not exist does not belong in a serious discussion of this issue. As the stats indicate clearly, there are detector correlations that cannot be explained away by LHV theoriesof any type, even those that deny photons.

I do not understand why you carefully avoid any meaningful debate, but after trying to discuss element after element of your ideas with you it has become clear to me. Accordingly, this is the point that I bow out of further participation in this thread.

Good luck,

-DrChinese

[andrewgray]

From Dr Chinese . . .

As the stats indicate clearly, there are detector correlations that cannot be explained away by LHV theoriesof any type, even those that deny photons.Dr Chinese, bow out if you wish (you chicken), but it is just these stats that you mention that

I have not been able to find.

Everything that I find has fuzzy statistics of some sort associated with it and does not impress me. So perhaps as your final hurrah, you could supply us with these stats that you speak of. I can't find them. But perhaps not. So let me thank you for the insights and help that you supplied!

As a final last word to you, I have not consciously avoided meaningful debate. I have attempted to be as logical and straightforward as possible. It seems to me that it's like we were just not talking the same language. So my apologies for any frustration on your part.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gray

[DrChinese]

Dr Chinese, bow out if you wish (you chicken), but it is just these stats that you mention that

I have not been able to find.

Everything that I find has fuzzy statistics of some sort associated with it and does not impress me. So perhaps as your final hurrah, you could supply us with these stats that you speak of. I can't find them. But perhaps not. So let me thank you for the insights and help that you supplied!

As a final last word to you, I have not consciously avoided meaningful debate. I have attempted to be as logical and straightforward as possible. It seems to me that it's like we were just not talking the same language. So my apologies for any frustration on your part.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gray




:) You are welcome.

I hope you understand that science consists of a component that involves finding a common ground - not picking and choosing pieces of evidence which serve your purposes but sidestep your critic's best arguments. To argue that experiments that run counter to your theory (neutrinos, EPR, photons, etc.) are unconvincing is, at best, naive.

I will provide the following as you requested:

Aspect et al, 1981, Bell's Inequality violated by 5 standard deviations (http://www.drchinese.com/David/Aspect.pdf)

Weihs et al, 1998, Bell's Inequality violated by 30 standard deviations (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9810/9810080.pdf)

[andrewgray]

Originally posted by DrChinese:

I will provide the following as you requested:

Aspect et al, 1981, Bell's Inequality violated by 5 standard deviations
Weihs et al, 1998, Bell's Inequality violated by 30 standard deviationsWell, finally I see the experimental papers. The one thing that really stands out in these two papers is the impossibility that these light pulses are "single photons". In the Weihs paper, they separated the two polarizers by 400 meters so "no spooky faster-than-light interaction could be possible". One might imagine a huge vacuum tunnel emanating from the source so that the "photons" could reach the polarizers undisturbed. BUT NO. The "single photons" are sent down two 500 meter fiber optic cables, with 250 meters of each left coiled on the floor.

Now think about this for a moment. Fiber optic cables keep their light constrained by total internal reflection. If we have a reflection in the coiled sections about 1 every inch (best case for sure!) then 250 meters of coiled cable would have about 9000 internal reflections before exiting, and perhaps another 6000 reflections in the remaining "fairly straight" portion of the cable (best case for sure!).

A single "photon" undergoes 15,000 perfect internal reflections without being "absorbed" through 500 meters of fiberglass? Come on. According to Einstein, the way visible "photons" interact with matter is by "inelastic absorption", not through Compton-like scattering which is reserved for x-rays. Come on.

We see that the big picture reveals that these are macroscopic pulses with a statistical mix of atomic emissions.


In the Aspect paper, they say that in the optical switch, the incident light is switched ... "by diffraction at the Bragg angle on a ultrasonic standing wave."

Perfect Bragg diffraction by a single photon? The same thing about visible "photons" applies here. So these also appear to be macroscopic pulses as well. There are just too many self-inconsistencies.

Listen to what Aspect's team has to say about collector efficiency:Coincidence rates with the polarizers removed were only a few per second, with accidental coincidence rates about one per second.So if "a few" was about, say 4 per second (they don't say), then 25% of the counted pulses were error pulses!!!!. Come on. Are you going to bet your life savings on "no underlying reality" with this set of questionable data? I'm not.


Andrew Gray

[andrewgray]

We have been discussing "photons" at length here, but this really is not appropriate for this Model of Reality thread. What we have not discussed much in this thread is the pseudo-wave behavior of electrons. Here is a section about Electron Interferometry from Chapter 5 of the Model of Reality book:

http://ModelofReality.org/Sect5_7.html


5.7 Coherent Electron Interferometry Rewritten

. . . . .A similar “one spot at a time” scattering pattern has been obtained by electron “interferometry”. For example, Akira Tonomura’s Hitachi group has developed a very narrow and coherent electron beam (see “Electron Holography: A New View of the Microscopic”, Physics Today, April 1990, p.22). A coherent beam is necessary to see interference-like fringes in an electron microscope. A schematic of Akira Tonomura’s setup is shown below in figure 5.26. A coherent electron beam (~100keV electrons, collimated to Dq=1 x 10-8 radians) is incident from the left. It is focused by an electron lens. Then it is subjected to a biprism, which has approximately 100 volts applied to its central filament. The electrons are deflected around the filament, overlap, and hit the film. Fringes appear on the film, building up one spot at a time, analogous to the light in figure 5.25. Akira Tonomura says in his article,

“To appreciate the quantum mechanical character of this interference record, one should note that the electron-beam intensity in such an apparatus is so low that two beam electrons rarely occupy the microscope at one time. Therefore the resultant holographic pattern is due to the accumulation of single-electron quantum interference . . . This poses very clearly the usual quantum-mechanical paradox: If an individual electron passes through the microscope on one side of the biprism, how does it “know” about the alternative pathway on the other side?”

The claim that “two electrons rarely occupy the microscope at one time”, is again naive, just as we saw in the previous section. 100 keV electrons are moving at half the speed of light and spend approximately 3 nanoseconds in the microscope. Thus, one-electron-at-a-time corresponds to a current of about 5 x 10-11 amps! (.05 nanoamps)! There are no electronic circuits in existence today that even come close to regulating such a minute amount of current. (Extra note: Measure, yes! Regulate, no!) Claiming that one could regulate current to the “one electron-at-a-time” level with today’s electronic equipment would be like trying to drop bird seed, one seed at a time, into a bird feeder with a backhoe! So what Akira Tonumura really means is that the interference fringes build up one spot at a time on the film.
. . . . .A more realistic estimate of the lower limit of how many electrons were in the microscope at one time would be obtained from the more realistic current regulation ability of today’s electronic circuits of a few nanoamps. This would give about 100 electrons-at-a time as a lower limit, corresponding to about 5 nanoamp surges. A smooth flow of current at even 5 nanoamps is still doubtful since high voltage current flow tends to surge. Just imagine trying to keep the lightning bolts from a thundercloud regulated to a smooth flow. Remember, these are 100,000 volt electrons we are talking about. A current that is being driven by a 100 keV potential may surge even more than expected, like lightning bolts in a thunderstorm. Thus, limiting the flow to even surges of 500 electrons-at a-time would probably be optimistic. This would correspond to 25 nano-amp surges. If a minuscule, 100 keV driven, current of an electron microscope is like other high voltage discharges, the electrons build up, then discharge, then build up again.
. . . . .In addition, if the beam were actually one electron-at-a-time, it is hard to imagine how the beam could be incoherent in the first place. An incoherent single-electron would be as paradoxical as an incoherent “photon”. How could a single electron be anything other than coherent? But according to Akira Tonomura, it was difficult to obtain such a narrow, coherent, “one-at-a-time” electron beam. This in itself almost dismisses the one-electron-at-a-time claim.
. . . . .Finally, not every electron that strikes the film would necessarily cause a special silver ion near a crystal defect to become photo-activated. Not every electron striking the film would necessarily supply an electron to one of these special silver ions. Depending on the corresponding probability, obtaining one “spot” on the film may require a large number of beam electrons. For these reasons, we are going to dismiss the notion of “single-electron quantum interference” and “one-electron-at-a-time currents” in electron microscopes. Practically speaking, this seems impossible given the technology available today. We will assume that there are plenty of electrons in the beam to interfere with each other. The reader may still disagree. This would be expected, given the current indoctrination with quantum matter waves. But again, the bottom line is this: now that a deeper insight has been obtained into the microscopic behavior of electrons, experiments in this book have been proposed to support these claims (see the Matter Wave Killer experiment in this book). If these experiments prove successful, perhaps the reader may then embrace these concepts.
. . . . .We now return to explain electron “interference” in terms of electron micropulsars. We have reduced the problem to the situation where two coherent overlapping beams of electrons are producing fringes on the target film. To understand how this works, one must first appreciate the difference between a coherent wave and a coherent beam of pulsating electrons. In a coherent wave, the wave crests travel along continuously, occurring at every point along the path of the wave. The analogy in water waves is that a surfer can ride near the crest of a coherent water wave indefinitely, as long as he does not encounter the shoreline. In a beam of coherent pulsating electrons, this is not the case. The coherent electrons travel along, turning themselves on and off, skipping parts of their path! If water waves were like a coherent beam of these micropulsars, the surfer would be surfing along near a water wave crest, and all of a sudden, the wave would just turn off (disappear). The surfer would just fall to the sand. In a moment, if the surfer were to start walking forward across the minimum, a new wave crest would appear in front of him. If the surfer walks a little farther forward, then he would become engulfed by the new wave crest that would appear on top of him. If the surfer just stands in the minimum he would remain dry. The wave crests would appear only in front of him and behind him. The water would be OFF while the “coherent water beam went by”.
. . . . .Now suppose that two coherent micropulsar electron beams were overlapping. Figure 5.27 shows two such beams that have overlapped and are completely in phase. The beams in the figure were drawn without taking into account any interaction of the beams. Notice that the two beams in figure 5.27 have their “on states” generally right on top of each other. These two beams will not be very successful in continuing onward in their current direction. The two beams turn ON in approximately the same place along the beams, and hence, the electrical repulsion will be very great. This will deflect these two beams off their path. Figure 5.28, on the other hand, shows two beams that have overlapped and are out of phase. Generally, the electron micropulsars from one beam turn ON when the micropulsars from the other beam are OFF. These beams will generally be more successful in continuing on in their current direction. This is how narrow beam electron interferometry would work. The directions in which the two interfering beams are out of phase will produce a maxima on the film, while the directions in which the two beams are in phase will produce a minima. This is exactly opposite from coherent wave interference.
. . . . .But the electron “interference” seen in the electron microscope shown in figure 5.26 cannot be classified as narrow beam interferometry. If the two electron beams are not confined to a narrow solid angle relative to one pulsation length, then the interference geometry will be ruined, unless the two beams are pulsed and are very short in duration. This is the most likely scenario for Akira Tonomura’s electron microscope interference, since he states that an extremely low intensity beam was necessary to get interference fringes (remember, his intensity was so low that he claims “one-electron-at-a-time”, but we say that his low intensity beam actually consisted of short pulses with an average current equivalent to one-electron-at-a-time). We will call this type of interference pulsed electron interferometry, since this type of “interference” depends on short duration coherent pulses. Figure 5.29 on the next page illustrates this pulsed electron “interference”.


Continued below . . .

[andrewgray]

. . . . .In figures 5.29A-B, a short duration electron pulse travels towards the focusing lens. In figures 5.29C-D, the pulse is focused and travels towards the biprism. In figure 5.29E, the pulse is split into two by the biprism. Figures 5.29F-H show the electron “interference” area. Notice that each part of the pulse seen in figures 5.29F-H crosses the other exactly one time along the symmetry axis. Thus, if the electrons in the pulses are in their OFF states when they cross, they will be successful continuing on in their current direction towards the film, striking a maximum. However, if they are in their ON state when they cross, then they will be extremely repulsive and deflected from their current direction towards the film, resulting in a minimum. The Matter Wave Killer Experiment in Part II of this book is designed to prove these assertions.
. . . . .In summary, we have shown that the electron micropulsar pseudo-wave model explains electron “interferometry” in a way that uses reality based physics. This is a much more satisfying explanation than the “probability wave” used in quantum mechanics, where nothing real is waving. In addition, we have eliminated the wave-particle paradox from electron “interferometry”, and we have explained how the “one-electron-at-a-time quantum interference” is not realistic and an unnecessary conclusion from low intensity electron “interference”.


Next, the Matter Wave Killer Experiment:


The Matter Wave Killer Experiment

http://ModelofReality.org/Sect11_1.html

11.1 Pulsed Electron Beam "Interference"

. . . . .We mentioned in chapter 5 that for pulsed electron interference, the interference actually occurs along the path of the two electron pulses, and not at the final position on the film, as with wave interference. This difference forms the basis of this Matter Wave Killer Experiment. To see how this difference can be exploited to prove this, consider figure 11.1 below. In figure 11.1A, the biprism voltage is so low that the two pulses do not overlap. The two areas corresponding to each beam can clearly be seen on the film. In figure 11.1 B, we have pulsed electron “interferometry” as usual. The two electron pulses overlap and “interfere” along the way (the pulsed nature of the electrons provide preferred paths to the maxima while the electrons are in flight). However, in figure 11.1C, the biprism voltage has been increased (or the film moved further back from the biprism), so that the pulses do not actually overlap right on the film. There is no superposition of two wave amplitudes here. According to wave mechanics, the only interfering area in figure 11.1C is the diamond shaped area where the beams overlap in flight prior to striking the film, and since the beams do not overlap on the film, no interference fringes from superposition of waves should be seen there. However, according to our Model of Reality theory, the two pulses have already “interfered” while in the overlapping area in flight, and there will still be preferred paths to interference maxima in two distinct areas, separated by a zone that neither pulse actually hits.

11.2 Procedure

1) Repeat the electron interferometry experiment as shown in figure 11.1A using an electron microscope with a very narrow beam and a biprism voltage low enough so the two beams do not overlap.
2) Record the two distinct areas on film.
3) Obtain interference fringes using a biprism voltage low enough so that the two electron pulses only partially overlap.
4) Identify the two areas on the film that correspond to the two beams by their intensity on the film. There should be areas on the outer edges of the pattern where no interference takes place.
5) Gradually increase the biprism voltage so that the areas where the two electron pulses strike the film begin to move together more and more and start to separate. Identify these areas by their intensity on the film in each step.
6) Identify the biprism voltage that is high enough to just cause the two pulses to separate. Observe an area between the two pulses that does not contain electron spots.
7) Observe any interference fringes near the blank spot separating the two areas when the voltage in step 6) is obtained.

11.3 Expected Results.

. . . . .We expect that there will still be “interference fringes” on the film, even when the biprism voltage is increased enough to separate the two beams on the film. The “interference” actually happens while the electron micropulsars are in flight, and the fringes cannot be accounted for by superposition of probability wave amplitudes on the film since the two beams do not share a common area there. This will prove that electron fringes on the film are not due to the “wave nature of electrons”, but due to the pulsating nature of the electron particles, establishing preferred paths towards the film while in flight.




Andrew Gray

[andrewgray]

Re: One-electron-at-a-time current regulation

The "one-electron-at-a-time" current regulation claims in "quantum electron interference" are dubious. We shall see why in the following:

It has been brought to my attention that HP makes "pico ammeters", and that these meters measure these "one-electron-at-a-time" picocurrents all the time. Yes, this is true. But I just wanted to stress that measuring this small average current (integrated over time) is much different from regulating such a current to a non-surging smooth flow.

One quantity of interest that will reveal this incredibly difficult task is the drift velocity of the "one-electron-at-a-time" current in this electron microscope:

www.modelofreality.org/electronmicroscop.gif

The electrons spend about 3 nanoseconds in the microscope. I wanted to know how long it takes the electrons to go through the picoammeter and return thru the wire to the electron gun at the top. Well to start, I took out Halliday & Resnick to remind me about how to calculate the drift velocity of electrons in wire. Halliday and Resnick give:

vd = i/nAe

where i is the current, n is the number of conduction electrons per unit volume, A is the wire's cross sectional area , and e is the electric charge. It is clear that we need to use a small wire to maximize the drift velocity, so we will use a wire the size of a human hair (r=.0005"), i=50 pA, Halliday & Resnick's value for n=8x10E22 electrons per cm cubed in Cu. Before you look and see what this velocity is, take a wild order of magnitude guess. Guess how long it statistically takes the electron to travel from the target back to the top of the microscope .....

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...


Well, I am stunned. Plugging in the values gives a drift velocity of


vd = ( 50x10-12 amps ) / { (8x1022 per cubic cm)(5x10-6 sq cm)(1.6x10-19 Coul) }
vd = 8 x 10-10 cm/sec

Statistically, it takes 1.25 x 1011 sec (4000 years) for the electron to go back the 100 cm to the top of the microscope. I could not believe my eyes, so I went back over and over again to check the arithmetic. Finding no mistake, I went back to find the error in Halliday & Resnick's expression for drift velocity. I could find none. I plugged my numbers into their examples. Still found no error. Perhaps I am crazy, but it appears that it is a gazillion times worse than we ever suspected. If the target electron pattern is just 1 micron across, it would take the electron 35 statistical hours to exit the target at this drift velocity. So trying to distinguish between 1-electron-per-3 nsec, 100-electrons-per-300nsec, or 1000-electrons-per-3-microseconds seems impossible. The system is just way too mushy. The reservoir of electrons in the equipment supplies all the current in this experiment for any reasonable duration. The analogy would be if someone were using eyedroppers to put water droplets in Lake Superior, and someone with a very accurate liquid flow meter at the other end of the lake was trying to distinguish between 1-drop-every-sec and 1000-drops-every-1000 sec. Am I crazy? Perhaps I am not seeing something. But if the system is indeed this mushy, then I am fairly certain that things would tend to surge. Heck, just to start any current at all would take some time at this rate. One would have to run the microscope at a much faster pace just to get it started, then try to turn it down to the 50 pA.


Thus, we see how dubious QM "one-electron-at-a-time" current regulation claims are by looking at this big picture! Don't buy into it!


Andrew Gray

[andrewgray]

Next, we will go back to the very beginning of QM and talk about Planck blackbody radiation. Here is the section from Model of Reality:

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect6_9.html

6.9 Blackbody Radiation Rewritten

. . . . Blackbody radiation is the study of emission of radiation by cavities in bodies that absorb radiation of all wavelengths. According to Kirchoff’‘s Law, an object that is a good absorber of a certain frequency is also a good emitter of that frequency as well. Thus, the emission of radiation from a blackbody, studied as a function of the temperature of the body, gives some insight into the nature of radiation. The usual setup for studying this radiation is to fabricate a cavity in chunk of material with a narrow opening and with a black coating on the inside. The material is heated and the intensity of the radiation inside the cavity is measured as a function of frequency. These measurements are shown in figure 6.24.
. . . . The “classical” attempt at explaining blackbody radiation was the Rayleigh-Jeans Law, also shown in the figure as a dashed line for 1750o K. As can be seen from this plot of the Rayleigh-Jeans Law, it does not reflect reality at all. What went wrong? It is worthwhile to discuss the shortcomings of the Rayleigh-Jeans Law. To do this, we start with an acoustical analogy.
. . . . Consider a cupboard with glass doors with lots of wine glasses on the bottom shelf. These wine glasses are of fine crystal, and they vibrate with a natural frequencies between about 5000-10000 Hz when you strike them with a fork. Now suppose that this cupboard is in Southern California where there are earthquakes. If an earthquake occurs and shakes the cupboard vigorously, which frequencies are likely to be present inside the cupboard? Well, if we follow the logic of Rayleigh and Jeans for this analogy, we only consider possible standing sound waves in the cupboard and their relative probability, and completely ignore the fact that there are oscillators in the cupboard with 5000-10000 Hz natural frequencies! This is because we will assume (illogically, the way Rayleigh-Jeans did for light) that the glasses in the cupboard will absorb and dampen almost all frequencies of sound (a “black” sound body). In addition we conclude, again using Rayleigh and Jeans point of view, that there are relatively few possible low frequency standing waves possible in the cupboard, and an infinite number of possible high frequency standing waves. This is because we must have antinodes at the cupboard walls and the number of long wavelength divisions into standing waves are few. However, there are an infinite number of ways to set up really small wavelength standing waves. Next, again using Rayleigh-Jeans logic, we apply Boltzman’s energy equipartition principle and arrive at an energy distribution that becomes infinite at high frequencies, since there are an infinite number of ways to put high frequency standing waves in the cupboard.
. . . . This logic is just naive. That’s all we can say. If Rayleigh and Jeans had to bet their life on which frequencies were going to have the highest energy density in the cupboard during the earthquake, we bet they would not use this naive logic. They would most likely bet that the 5000-10000 Hz wine glass frequencies would be prominent (unless they were really naive), and they also would probably bet that the glass doors’ and cabinet sides’ resonant frequencies would be present, as well as the fundamental frequencies of the quake itself. Next, they would probably want to know which of these natural frequencies would be supported by the geometry of the cavity. If some of these natural frequencies present were encouraged by the geometry of the cavity, then they would probably bet that they would be the more prominent frequencies. But if the cavity tended to support frequencies that would not be generated by the cupboard or the wineglasses, then they probably would bet that they would not be present, since amplifying nothing still leaves nothing. They probably would not bet that the cupboard would start a self-amplifying resonance, with the frequencies increasing until the cupboard exploded with infinite high frequency sound energy!
. . . . Well, this is exactly what Rayleigh and Jeans predicted for blackbody radiation. After a blackbody is constructed and heated, their theory predicted that the high frequency standing waves must amplify themselves until the infinite high frequency energy density melts the blackbody. This is extreme nonreality-based physics. We cannot even imagine why this theory is even mentioned in physics textbooks, except perhaps for historical reasons. The whole blackbody analysis seen in physics textbooks needs a healthy reality check. Here are some logical, reality-based principles that we will incorporate into our reality-based study of black body radiation:

1) The radiation in a thermally agitated cavity must originate from oscillations in the surrounding material.
2) Natural frequencies which are not present in the surrounding material will not be present in the waves of the cavity.


. . . . Using these simple principles, we would definitely bet that our cupboard would not be filled with ultrasound during the earthquake, even though the cupboard will support many of these ultrasound frequencies with antinodes at the walls. The same logic applies to gamma radiation in a blackbody. Atomic natural frequencies do not include the gamma radiation frequencies. Therefore, using principle 2) above, we would not expect to find gamma radiation in the blackbody cavity. This is just simple logic. Rayleigh-Jeans predicted immense amounts of gamma radiation in the blackbody.
. . . . We are so amazed at the history of black body analysis. A brief summary is worthwhile. Robert Eisberg (Fundamentals of Modern Physics, p.47 ff ) gives a good account of this (naive) classical blackbody theory. The classical theory can be summarized from his book as follows:

. . . . 1) Using the Boltzman energy equipartition principle, Boltman’s energy probability distribution function is obtained (Eisberg’s page 59):


P(\epsilon) = Ae^{-\epsilon / \epsilon_o}


. . . . 2) The average energy is obtained from integrating over all possible energy values (Eisberg’s page 60):


\overline \epsilon = \frac{\int_{0}^{\infty} A \epsilon e^{-\epsilon / \epsilon_o} d \epsilon}{ \int_{0}^{\infty} A e^{-\epsilon / \epsilon_o} d \epsilon} = \epsilon_o


. . . . 3) Assuming the equipartition of energy between all possible standing waves in the cavity (notice that standing waves imply reflections, a blatant self-contradiction for a black body!), and assuming that the average total energy per standing wave is kT (naive?), where k is Boltzman’s constant, we get (Eisberg’s page 61)


\overline \epsilon = \epsilon_o = kT

and


P(\epsilon) = Ae^{-\epsilon / kT} (independent of frequency)

. . . . 4) Next, counting the number of possible standing waves between n and n+dn that fit in a cube with sides of length a (with antinodes at each face) , N(n) is obtained. N(n) is this number of possible standing waves (Eisberg’s p. 56):


N(\nu)dv = \pi \left ( \frac{2a}{c} \right )^3 \nu^2 dv


. . . . 5) Finally, the desired Rayleigh-Jeans energy per cm3 in the range n and n+dn is obtained by multiplying this number of possible standing waves N(n) by kT (the energy per standing wave), and dividing by the volume a3 (Eisberg’s page 62):


\rho_T = \frac {kTN(\nu)}{a^3} = \frac {8 \pi \nu^2 kT}{c^3}


continued below . . .

[andrewgray]

which diverges for large n since there are an infinite number of ways to fit small wavelength standing waves into the box. Historically, this high frequency problem was called the “ultraviolet catastrophe”.
. . . . Since this naive Rayleigh-Jeans theory failed, a man by the name of Max Planck was motivated to find a another way. So in 1901, Planck took the experimental black body radiation results along with the Rayleigh-Jeans framework and worked backwards to see what assumptions could be made to obtain the correct black body spectrum seen in figure 6.24. First, Planck obtained an empirical formula that seemed to match the data seen in figure 6.24. Next, “what can be changed in the energy density equation (6.16) to get it to match his empirical formula?”, he asked himself. According to the energy density equation (6.16), either the average energy \overline \epsilon = kT , or the number of possible standing waves would have to be changed so it would not diverge for large n. Since the number of standing waves seemed correct (notice that Planck’s theory retains the self-contradictory blackbody standing wave assumption), Planck changed the average energy value \overline \epsilon by changing the calculation (6.12). Instead of allowing a continuous energy, he hypothesized that the energy of the oscillators in the cavity wall (this was a serious logic mistake) could only take the values nhn where n=0,1,2,3... Thus, the integrals in (6.12) are changed to infinite sums over n and the required empirical formula is obtained (see Eisberg’s page 65):


\overline \epsilon = \frac{\sum_{n=0}^\infty A \epsilon e^{-\epsilon/kT}}{\sum_{n=0}^\infty A e^{-\epsilon/kT}} = \frac {\sum_{n=0}^\infty nh \nu e^{-nh \nu / kT}} {\sum_{n-0}^\infty e^{-nh \nu / kT}}


It should be pointed out that Planck mistakenly thought that he was quantizing the oscillators in the cavity wall, and not the standing waves themselves, which shows that he really did not understand what he was doing, other than trying to match the empirical formula. Nevertheless, the final energy density formula obtained is (Eisberg’s page 65)


\rho_T(\nu)d \nu = \rho_T(\lambda) \frac{d\lambda}{\lambda^2} = \frac{8 \pi hc}{\lambda^5} \frac{1}{e^{hc/k \lambda T} - 1}


which was designed by Planck to fit the data empirically by varying the constant h.
. . . . .Perhaps the reader is satisfied with this empirically fit explanation given by Planck, and is not ready for a dose of reality-based physics. We are not satisfied. Why is that? Well, a few questions are just begging to be asked.

. . . . . 1) Planck’s theory still depends on Boltzman’s energy probability distribution function, where each degree of freedom of the electromagnetic radiation is assigned an average energy ½kT. Why should Boltzman’s constant, which is defined as the average translational energy per molecule in an ideal gas per degree Kelvin, have anything to do with how much energy is in an electromagnetic wave emitted from a solid? Planck thought that he was quantizing the oscillators in the cavity wall, that is why he thought he could somehow (?) justify using Boltzman’s distribution. This was a Planck mistake. It is the radiation in the cavity which must be assumed to follow the equipartition of energy and Boltzman’s distribution, not the oscillators. But this Planck mistake was not discovered until later, so some real “hand waving” was necessary to justify this illogical use of the Boltzman distribution for the radiation in the cavity. Thus, Planck’s theory requires two hypotheses, one of them the completely unjustifiable assignment of ½kT to electromagnetic wave energy, and the other, his quantization with the empirical “fudge factor” h to get his equation to fit the data.
. . . . .2) We see that Planck’s blackbody theory is a “quantum extension” of the very unrealistic Rayleigh-Jeans theory, which is applicable to nothing. Usually, the justification for “quantizing” a classical theory is that a theory is valid in some “classical realm”, but fails for the more microscopic realm. The Rayleigh-Jeans theory does not even have a “classical realm” that it applies to. The infinite energy density at high frequencies is actually classically impossible. In addition, the “standing wave assumption” is a blatant self-contradiction for a black body. (Standing waves require reflections to exist, but a “blackbody” does not reflect radiation by definition.) The Rayleigh-Jeans Law is an example of a completely nonreality-based theory. Why should a “quantum extension” of a bad classical theory be any better than the theory from where it came?
. . . . .3) Why should the high frequency problem be handled by simply changing the average energy distribution of high frequency radiation (with a hypothesis) instead of just considering the natural frequencies of the atoms in the cavity walls? It seems to us that the absence of high frequency radiation in the cavity is just due to the lack of high frequency atomic natural frequencies which are thermally agitated.
. . . . .4) Black pigments typically are reflectors of ultraviolet light, not absorbers. It is known that dark-skinned Africans reflect ultraviolet light, while light-skinned Europeans absorb ultraviolet light. Therefore, it is ironic that the coatings used to make the black cavities probably were not “black” in the ultraviolet frequency range. If the “lampblack” materials used to coat the cavity’s walls were ultraviolet reflectors, then this would imply that there was nothing vibrating with ultraviolet frequencies in the coating, and thus no ultra-violet blackbody radiation should be expected a-priori in the cavity. It should be pointed out that the Rayleigh-Jeans Law is very suspicious because the very premise that a black body can be constructed that absorbs and thermally emits gamma, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation is impossible. That is, if a perfect black body that absorbed and thermally emitted all the high frequencies could actually be constructed, then perhaps ultraviolet and higher frequencies would be seen in the cavity when heated. Thus, we will give Rayleigh-Jeans a break for writing an OK theory about some bad assumptions.
. . . . .5) What happens after the Photon Killer experiments in this book are verified? The quantization of electromagnetic radiation will have to be abandoned, and Planck’s quantization assumption will seem silly.


continued below . . .

[andrewgray]

. . . . These difficult questions leave us yearning for a more reality-based explanation for blackbody radiation. We return momentarily to our “cupboard-in-an-earthquake” analogy. If the wineglasses in the cupboard have natural frequencies between 5000 and 10000 Hz, then we would expect these frequencies to be prominent in the cavity when agitated by an earthquake. Similarly, if the wineglasses in the cupboard have natural frequencies between 10000 and 15000 Hz, then we would expect these frequencies to be prominent in the cavity when agitated by an earthquake. Finding wineglasses with natural frequencies near 0.1 Hz would not be realistic. Also finding 1,000,000 Hz wineglasses would be hopeless. Hence, we would not expect these ultralow or ultrahigh frequencies to be present during an earthquake in any wineglass cupboard. This analogy applies directly to blackbody radiation.
. . . . We assert that the frequencies found in a thermally agitated blackbody represent the natural frequencies found in the outer electron orbits of atoms. This tells us that the outer electrons generally orbit with infrared frequencies. We doubt that the atom itself, idealized as a harmonic oscillator, is responsible for the radiation. The atom is neutral. Moving a neutral atom side to side does not seem to account for much radiation, and it seems unlikely that something with an atom’s mass could oscillate this rapidly in the first place. And we doubt that the electrons in an atom can be idealized as harmonic oscillators, as Planck suggested. The electrons are not bound to the nucleus by a linear force required for harmonic motion. It seems much more realistic to assume that the outer electrons in the atoms radiate with their own natural orbital frequencies when they are thermally disturbed. In addition, as the disturbance gets more and more violent with increased temperatures, the disturbance includes electrons which are deeper inside the atoms. These deeper electrons have higher orbital frequencies, which would tend to shift the radiation curves towards higher frequencies with increased temperatures.
. . . . In the spirit of Planck, it seems politically necessary to write down an ad hoc formula that can be used for blackbody radiation. But in reality, this seems like a hyper-complex task. This is probably why Planck’s “theoretical” derivation has survived as long as it has. Thus, we seek an experimental way to prove our assertions. As we previously mentioned, we are suspicious that the blackbody cavities used for these experiments were not absorbers (and thus emitters) of ultraviolet radiation. The reason for this suspicion is because if they were, then there would be ultraviolet radiation inside the cavity. Our proposed Blackbody Killer Experiment lines a blackbody cavity with a known ultraviolet absorber (see the Blackbody Killer Experiment in part II of this book). Perhaps lining the cavity with some ultraviolet absorbing glass (or some other ultraviolet absorber) would change the ultraviolet characteristics of the cavity. In other words, we would make the cavity “black” in the ultraviolet frequency range. Using the ultraviolet absorbing glass, one could at least conduct the blackbody experiment up to temperatures of about 1500o K, at which point the glass would melt. But with a known absorber of (and thus emitter of) ultraviolet radiation lining the cavity, perhaps the ultraviolet catastrophe would be quite different. Continuing our “wine-glasses-in-a-cupboard-during-an-earthquake” analogy, if we put new glasses into the cupboard with higher frequencies, then we would expect to find these higher frequencies in the cupboard during an earthquake. So if we put ultraviolet absorbers in the lining of the “blackbody” cavity, making the cavity “black” in the ultraviolet range, guess what? There should be ultraviolet radiation in the cavity. How simple is that? (Again, see the Blackbody Killer Experiment in part II of this book. See also “Material Emits More Than Planck Predicts”, EDN Magazine, August 7, 2003, p. 26).


Andrew Gray

[andrewgray]

Here is the link to the Blackbody Killer Experiment:

www.ModelofReality.org/Sect9_4.html

Andrew Gray

[LENIN]

Hi Andrew Gray.

I haven't jet maneged to read the whole thred, but I find your ideas veary interesting. Alldo I'm not a scpecialist in this field I think your ideas have some very good propertys. For one they are easyer to understand than the regular quantom theorys :smile: .

[andrewgray]

Lenin,

Thanks for the nice comment. Yes, you will find a theory that models the underlying reality much easier to understand than one that abstracts itself away from reality (QM). That was the prime directive of Model of Reality.

Good luck with your studies at the University of Ljubljana next year.

Andrew Gray


Next, here is the actual text of the Blackbody Killer Experiment:


9.4 The Blackbody Killer Experiment

. . . . In chapter 6 we became suspicious that the black materials used in the blackbody cavities were not actually “black” in the ultraviolet range. The purpose of the first part of this experiment is to determine the spectral absorptivity of the so-called lampblack coatings used.
. . . . The second part of this experiment, is to obtain a material that is “black” in the ultraviolet frequency range, and to use this material inside a blackbody cavity.

Procedure.
1) Obtain some “lampblack” coating material identical as possible to that used in the blackbody experiments conducted near the turn of the century.
2) Using modern spectral equipment, determine the absorptivity of the lampblack material in the frequency range beginning with microwaves, and ending with soft x-rays.
3) Plot this absorptivity as a function of frequency.
4) Coat the inside of a blackbody cavity with a known ultraviolet absorber, like certain types of ultraviolet absorbing glass, or other suitable material. This will assure that the cavity is “black” in the ultraviolet frequency ranges.
5) Repeat the classic blackbody cavity radiator experiments, as was done at the turn of the century, but this time with the cavity coated with the ultraviolet absorber material.


Expected Results.

. . . . We expect that the absorptivity plot of the lampblack coatings will follow fairly closely to the general trend of the blackbody energy density plot seen in chapter 6 (figure 6.23). That is, we expect that the lampblack material will be a good reflector of radiation below infrared frequencies and near ultraviolet frequencies!
. . . . Therefore, when the cavity is coated with a material that is actually “black” in the
ultraviolet frequency ranges (figure 9.8), then the “ultraviolet catastrophe” will be eliminated. There will be plenty of ultraviolet radiation in the cavity under these circumstances!

. .

[Chronos]

That is total nonsense, Andrew, and you know it. You violated every law of energy conservation known. I assume you are joking and seeing if anyone gets it. I am not amused. There are kids here trying to learn. Instead of dazzling them with 'bunk', why not teach them?

[andrewgray]

You violated every law of energy conservation known. I assume you are joking and seeing if anyone gets it. I am not amused. There are kids here trying to learn. Instead of dazzling them with 'bunk', why not teach them?Chronos,

I am not joking, and I intend to prove it. The only "energy conservation laws" that I have violated are the one that deal with "photons". As discussed previously in this thread, photon theory is full of self contradictions. To review, here are a few of the biggies:

1) If one assumes "photons" exist, then one can prove that no underlying reality exists using Bell's inequality. (I'm the one that's joking?) This is a logical self contradiction, denying "photons" existence.
2) If one assumes "photons" exist, then the 90o Bremsstrahlung radiation is a self contradiction. The limiting frequency cannot be transmitted at 90o with momentum conservation. (I'm the one joking?)
3) If one assumes an inelastic absorption and an almost complete transfer of energy for purple "photons" in the photoelectric effect, numerous self-contradictions arise. For one, the momentum of the ejected electron is 500 times too much! See previous parts of this thread. (I repeat, I'M THE ONE THAT IS JOKING?)
Why not teach them? . . .

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO! The old-school QM'ers are hopelessly indoctrinated with abstract quantum theory that has nothing to do with reality (and everything to do with ad hoc experiment matching). This has penalized the field of physics to the point that it is stuck. That's why I'm here in Physics Forums, trying to undo the damage, but to young undoctrinated minds. Just think how a theory that mirrors the underlying reality will compare with QM abstractions. Fairly well, I'll bet.


Andrew Gray (edit: fix typo)
. . .

[Nacho]

I've read several derivations of Bell Inequalities, and it seems to me there could be a flaw in it pertaining to using it to make predictions to QM per the CI (Copenhagen Interpretation).

The quantities that go into it represent results of observations. When an observation is not made, it assigns it the same quantity as if an observation was tried, and the particle/state was not observed. That's contrary to the CI .. you can't assign ANY value to a particle/state that is not observed. So, it seems to me you can use Bell Inequalities to discount realism philosophy, but cannot use it make any prediction about the CI.

[andrewgray]

So, it seems to me you can use Bell Inequalities to discount realism philosophy, but cannot use it make any prediction about the CI.Nacho,

Yes, Bell's inequality & EPR experiments can be use to TEST realism philosophy, but I do not believe that it discounts it in any way. Why?

1) Because EPR experiments using light are clearly using macroscopic pulses, not single atomic emission "photons" (as discussed in previous message)
2) EPR experiments using particle spins are not possible. Only the total angular momentum of ATOMS is possible to measure. This is because electrically neutral particles are required to be put through Stern-Gerlach style machines.
3) The Aspect-style experiments have too many "error pulses" to prove anything. Just go look at the papers yourself. Error "coincidence" pulse rates typically are as high as 25%.
4) The logical default (philosophically) is that there IS AN UNDERLYING REALITY until disproven. Not vice versa. This is self-evident to me, but perhaps not to the current generation of QM'ers. What a sad day to have to write this. I repeat: QM'ers believe that there is no underlying reality to microscopic physics. The current EPR experiments are so sloppy that I almost cannot believe what I read. Remember the one DrChinese posted and boasted that it violated Bell's Inequality by 30 standard deviations? Well, they put the "individual photons" through 500 meters of fiberglass with half of it coiled on the floor requiring at least 15,000 internal reflections, NOT THROUGH A VACUUM. I repeat: the pulses were NOT PUT THROUGH A VACUUM. Just think about the ridiculousness of this EPR "single photon" claim.


There is just one comment about the Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QM:

Since QM is not a reality-based theory for micro-physics, I hope that ALL interpretations of QM go away, since an interpretation of non-reality is senseless. Why "interpret" something that is not real? If you use QM, just take it for what it is: an experiment-matched algorithm used to predict statistical results of macroscopic experiments.


Andrew Gray

[Nacho]

andrewgray,

Yeah, I'm aware of some of the loopholes on Aspect-type Bell Inequality testings. My problem is with the formulization of the inequalities to begin with. Some persons (authors) have tried to use the experiments to say:

1) The Universe does not obey the rules of EPR, Realism Philosophy;
2) The Universe is non-local;
3) The Universe obeys the rules of CI, Postivisim Philosophy;
4) The CI is a non-local theory.

(3) and (4) go too far. I say you can't say (3) because the inequalities are developed ignoring tenants of the CI. The Universe may be non-local, but because you can't prove (3) is true, (4) doesn't then follow. Also, a lot of authors now-a-days seem to think CI and non-local theories go hand-in-hand. I don't believe that true.

Since QM is not a reality-based theory for micro-physics, I hope that ALL interpretations of QM go away, since an interpretation of non-reality is senseless. Why "interpret" something that is not real? If you use QM, just take it for what it is: an experiment-matched algorithm used to predict statistical results of macroscopic experiments.

Got to disagree with that. You can turn that around and say: Why use Realism Philosophy? It wants to predict things without observations, but you can in no way prove those with observations. Stick only with what can be shown.

[DrChinese]

That is total nonsense, Andrew, and you know it. You violated every law of energy conservation known. I assume you are joking and seeing if anyone gets it. I am not amused. There are kids here trying to learn. Instead of dazzling them with 'bunk', why not teach them?

Chronos,

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...