Quantum Mechanics

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby rasmath » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:17 pm

A newbie question.
Now, given the EU/PC what should I consider serious from the quantum physics ? I am looking for good reference and explanations of it considering the Electric Universe.
rasmath
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:58 pm

There are many different interpretations.

Many here talk about smaller particles that might interfere with each other, but I think
that is a bad direction.

I like the idea of:
"There are no particles, there are only fields"
The writer thinks more of the Quantum Field, but I think it can be even simpler.

The simplest working interpretations is the
Threshold Model
It states that light is just EM-waves.
The particles that we see are just jumps in energy-thresholds.
As shown in the laboratory experiments.
And all normal matter (fermions) have such thresholds.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby D_Archer » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:39 am

rasmath wrote:A newbie question.
Now, given the EU/PC what should I consider serious from the quantum physics ? I am looking for good reference and explanations of it considering the Electric Universe.


You should not take quantum mechanics (QM nor QED) serious.

Just point and laugh at how stupid it is for it does not make sense, its basic premise is flawed.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby rasmath » Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:07 am

D_Archer wrote:You should not take quantum mechanics (QM nor QED) serious.

Just point and laugh at how stupid it is for it does not make sense, its basic premise is flawed.

Regards,
Daniel


But wasn't quantum mechanics who allowed our current tech status ? Could you please develop this point of why the premise is flawed ?
rasmath
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby Metryq » Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:33 am

rasmath wrote:But wasn't quantum mechanics who allowed our current tech status ?

Short answer: a model can be wrong, yet still adequate for the development of practical applications (technology) such as electronics and lasers. An engineer does not need to understand something, just know its working parameters.

Much of quantum mechanics is statistics—garnered from experiments, the very foundation of science. So most of the "predictions" we make with QM are because we've done it before. Alchemists knew a great deal about the behavior of substances long before it became modern chemistry. And chemistry classes teach the Bohr atom that looks like a small Solar system, which we now know may be wrong. But the model persists because it is good enough for applied technology.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:23 am

Just like I said.

Most people here believe in particles, but they don't exist (most of the time).

The detections of step-wise changes are simply misidentified as particles.
It was Einstein that came up with this idea of particles and he even got the Nobel-prize for it.

The problem with Quantum Mechanics is that they try to maintain the model
of particles, when they interfere with each other in waves.
Schrodinger equation calculates this interference of waves, and this is then
translated to "probability" of particles.
The Quantum Electro Dynamics translate everything to an infinite number of
virtual particles that interfere with each other.
From these virtual particles random particles are chosen.
Quantum Field Theory changes everything to fields. And assumes that particles
come from random events in the quantum field.

The Quantum Field Theory has both the best and worst possible prediction of reality.
From that it is clear that it is a mathematical hack.

Many people do not like this idea, of waves, particles or probabilities.
So they oppose the idea of waves. This is a false way.

There is too much evidence for the wave-like nature of light.
If you have never seen the waves or interference of light.
You can see this interference in some curtains, laser light, or in holograms.
It is very easy to test, and I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

This wave-like nature of light is similar to the wave-like nature of other matter.
This becomes more difficult to accept for most people.
The electro-microscope, which you can even make yourself, is such an example.
It can only exist, because electrons are wave-like.
But if you zoom into small matter to the atom level you can see waves everywhere.
Just look at this video - IBM's Atom Boy
You can clearly atoms as if they are in some kind of wave-like pool.

We see something similar on this video where 2 blobs of gold merge together.
Watch Atoms of Gold Move
You can see the raster of the atoms. And how it merges.
Why would it merge?
Why is the raster so strong that it stays the same, even when it merges?
That is because matter is like a fluid on this level.
The resonation of the fluid creates the raster.
So, are the atoms the raster or the fluid?

The experiments at ThresholdTheory.com also show how this is indeed the case.
We can sometimes detect 2 particles, when only one particle has been produced.

If we do an experiment with a cloud chamber and radioactive material, we can see
"individual particles" flying though the chamber.
See Cloud Chamber
These "particles" look very similar to drops falling in rain.
So, while there seem to be "particles" in this case, the process behind it is
probably behaving very much like a fluid.
And if we try to measure individual particles, they suddenly start to behave
like waves/fluid as many experiments show.
It would be great to combine this chamber with a dual-split experiment so we can trace
the paths of the individual "particles".

If we drop the idea of particles, quantum mechanics becomes easier.
We can understand matter as a fluid-like medium that appears solid at low temperatures.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby rasmath » Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:24 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:J

If we drop the idea of particles, quantum mechanics becomes easier.
We can understand matter as a fluid-like medium that appears solid at low temperatures.


Spectacular explanation.
So that means we do have some kind of aether ? How the model o the atom would look to you ?
rasmath
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby Cargo » Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:06 pm

When you go smaller and smaller, eventually you will only have Energy (of some form) and there will be no Point. Because your view, being so small can not see any point or surface. Only a field. This is possible at many scales. When you view a mountain range from across a valley, you don't not see any leaves.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:47 am

rasmath wrote:
D_Archer wrote:You should not take quantum mechanics (QM nor QED) serious.

Just point and laugh at how stupid it is for it does not make sense, its basic premise is flawed.

Regards,
Daniel


But wasn't quantum mechanics who allowed our current tech status ? Could you please develop this point of why the premise is flawed ?


No, quantum mechanics has done exactly nothing for any tech we have. Tech is made by engineers and most of our electrical tech was invented by Nikolai Tesla, QM added nothing to what we have now. The only thing they want to claim is quantum computers, but since QM is nonsense, quantum computers are also nonsense, they do not exist and never will.
---

The basisc premise is (from wiki)>
Quantum mechanics cannot predict the exact location of a particle in space, only the probability of finding it at different locations


They treat particles as probability clouds, ie as something not physical but an abstraction, they think the math is physical but it is not and there are more problems*

Regards,
Daniel


* http://milesmathis.com/quant.html
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:44 pm

rasmath wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:J

If we drop the idea of particles, quantum mechanics becomes easier.
We can understand matter as a fluid-like medium that appears solid at low temperatures.


Spectacular explanation.
So that means we do have some kind of aether ? How the model o the atom would look to you ?


Ok first we need to establish the idea of waves-only for light.

---

Difference between Einstein's model and Planck's Threshold model

We send a single light-packet to a detector.

Mainstream Before:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - all sensors are clear.
Mainstream After:
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 - X= one sensor detected a photon.

Einstein's conclusion: Light are particles, because we get one detection at a time.

Threshold Model: (original by Planck)
Before:
4 5 6 3 1 3 9 8 7 6 3 2 3 2 - all sensors are at random energy-levels.
After receiving energy:
5 6 7 4 2 4 X 9 8 7 4 3 4 3 - energy of light get spread evenly, via EM-waves.
What detector shows us:
0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Only one sensor reached threshold.

Result is the same, but no need for particles.
It gives the same results for every quantum experiment that I have seen.
Planck omitted his model because he thought that the initial
energy values of the sensors were zero.

The threshold model makes quantum mechanics so simple, that I prefer it before anything else.

---

Atomic Particles with the threshold model.

As we have seen in electro-microscopes and atomic-force scans, we can
see wavelike behaviour of electrons. And possible of atoms as well.

So what does this mean for the electrons around an atom?
It means that electrons behave like a liquid (or plasma) around atoms.
As we can see in quantum experiments, the electrons resonate with themselves and
each other, creating resonance patterns and crystal rasters.

And what does this mean for quarks?
If you look at the quantum field model for quarks, you can see that
the quantum field is modelled like a liquid already.
With the threshold model we don't need the weird quantum foam stuff.
So copying the mainstream model, we get quarks being in some kind of liquid/plasma.
Gluons are connections between 2 quarks, they are modelled as empty space.
Now we are exactly as far as mainstream, but more mundane.

Now some speculation:

It almost seems as if the quarks and gluons are vortices in this liquid/plasma.
The quarks are the end-points and the gluons the vortex-paths.

Now let's add the electrical universe idea, that the nuclear forces
(weak and strong force are in some way electric).
This would mean that the liquid/plasma in which the electrons live is the
same inside the nucleus.
So this liquid/plasma might keep the electrons connected and the
protons inside the nucleus.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby rasmath » Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:41 pm

But do you understand why the a wave is a sigmoid ? Do you believe in an aether medium ? How do you think light propagates on the vacuum of space ?
rasmath
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sat Aug 04, 2018 10:45 am

rasmath wrote:But do you understand why the a wave is a sigmoid ? Do you believe in an aether medium ? How do you think light propagates on the vacuum of space ?


I think that the old idea of "aether" is somehow false. This is visible in the relativity experiments.

Special Relativity does not seem to work well with fields.
That is because it is kind of linked to the particle model.
The Scrhödinger formula is not compatible with Special Relativity.
That is because it uses the same time (and space) for every place.
In Special Relativity, time is dependent of place and speed, which makes it very complex.
So it would be nice to have a field-friendly replacement.

But back to the quantum mechanics, it is very helpful to have some kind of medium that
can contain waves. And this medium might be speed-independent as it has
to conform to relativity in some way.

One can also see the material and fields as the aether-medium itself. And that seems
close to the truth as "particles" produce interferences with themselves.
The electron around a nucleus can only be at places where the resonance-frequency of
the electron resonates with itself.

In Electric Universe therms, I could see the electron as a plasma that surrounds a nucleus.
But this plasma works probably very different than a common plasma.
Due to the Thresholds the plasma can appear as 1 or 2 or N electrons, depending on how much
of this electron-plasma has been collected.

This model is again very similar to the quantum-foam model, but much more practical.
We can actually test this with just an electron microscope or some similar instrument.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby rasmath » Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:06 pm

But couldn't some kind of aether be a tiny chaotic plasma ? Or static tiny particles ? What is your opinion about it ?
rasmath
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:00 pm

rasmath wrote:But couldn't some kind of aether be a tiny chaotic plasma ? Or static tiny particles ? What is your opinion about it ?

Let's first scrap away some things that do not work in practice:

- Standard Aether is fixed in position, does not work. I think most agree.

- Tiny particles are not really compatible with how light works. It seems to work, but
according the the laboratory experiments (some on thresholdmodel.com), they are likely
the result of thresholds.

- Moving / dynamic aether, does not seem to work either. It works for some cases but not all.
I will try to create a version that does work.

- Small Particles that behave like waves only on short distances do not really work. The
wave-interference is huge and can be extended over long distances.

- Popular here is also the idea that particles are guided by pilot waves. While in some cases
this seems logical, but where do those waves come from in the first place.
The thresholdmodel experiments also show that this is not working.

A lot of these tests can be discussed.

Threshold or particles?

Let me first point out some holes in my knowledge:
The interference is clear in electron-structures, even crystal structures.
But is the same true for the nuclei?
If we follow the current mainstream models, it appears so.
That is why they probably come up with the "quantum foam" model.
And on thresholdmodel.com we also see that the experimenter finds interference with
alpha radiation.

If I completely follow the thresholdmodel, this might mean that a piece of metal
does not consist of a integer number of particles.
With it we see matter as a substance instead of particles, like clay.
That means that there may be 0.4 extra particles that have not reached the threshold yet.
It is a bit weird, and needs to be tested a lot better.
It is a bit visible in the 2 gold particles that merge.
As if 2 pieces of gold substance meet each other, they can form 1 gold substance.

In mainstream quantum mechanics, we can describe it, by calculating the change of
the energy of the atoms in the grid.
We get a chance that this may be happening, but not when.
Even after it has happened, the Schrodinger formula keeps telling us
that it might not have happened. Which gives all these weird paradoxes.
If we look at it as clay, we can just state that the particles have merged
into one crystal structure.

Relativity or dynamics relative aether?

One problem with relativity is that the basic concepts of time and space are lost.
This makes it very very complicated.

I think that it is possible to find a formula that describes the electromagnetic
forces between two objects even at relativistic speeds.
You can mathematically do it by filling in the force between 2 objects for
each possible position and speed.
This can give us the exact replication of special relativity.

But maybe we can get it much quicker:

Let's just assume that there is a dynamic aether moving with each object.
This relative aether may just as well follow Einstein's special relativity.
The relative aether slows down in clock-speed when the related object goes faster.
The relative aether compresses slightly in the direction in which the related object goes.
And that is it. We don't bend space/time, we only change the way the electromagnetic fields work.

Now we have reproduced a relative aether very similar to special relativity.

Maybe it does not work as simple as I describe it, but we get something that
is much simpler than Einstein's relativity.
That is because we don't lose the concepts of basic space and basic time.
If there are any differences we can test them.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Quantum Mechanics

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:25 pm

Please think origin of Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is wrong from beginning Yet another SAM
https://etherealmatters.org/article/qua ... nother-sam
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests