Writing on a blog instead of in a word processor has the advantage of having comments in connection to the article. This facility should be used for comments only and not for self promotion. In CNPS comments are not used properly. I have said that in an earlier post on this web page. It was called Dialogue or Monologues.
The main reason for not finding new knowledge is the illusion that we already have it and therefore we invent more complexity to cover up for anomalies. Instead anomalies should help us to find errors and thereby produce simplification. Therefore, we should cooperate by helping each other and point out errors we find in articles by others. We should focus on assumptions and interpretations of observations instead of comparing complete theories. It is the negative critique that often is the most productive. Dialogue is important and we should not be afraid of correcting others if we want to make progress. Although ideas often are produced by an individual person cooperation is needed to make the idea usable.
I have written articles in opposition to modern physics for many years and produced many errors but almost no one has corrected me. I therefore conclude that we should all learn to better use the comments facility in the way it is thought. To provoke such commenting I hereby give you an example that argues that we do not need quantum jumping and not photon particles either.
Planck was wrong
Just like the Earth orbits the Sun without loss of kinetic energy bound electrons can generate potential force fields without loss of energy. Light can be without energy. Instead energy is needed only if we introduce another charge to detect the field. This energy can be provided by the ether when the potential force becomes real. Blackbody radiation demands no energy for generation, only for detection of it. No quantum jumping is demanded.
Monochrome light with frequency f can interfere with an electron orbiting with frequency f and a force transverse to electron motion can change potential energy an amount hf. Therefore, interference can explain photoelectric effect for a specific binding energy. Therefore, h is a property of the electron. The fact that photo current is quantized into electrons creates the illusion that light is quantized.
In a similar way we can explain the first phase in a Compton process by X-ray wave packets causing a bound electron to escape its kernel by means of interference. In a second phase in the Compton process we have a reverse process when the electron is captured by another kernel and X-rays with lower frequency are generated. No light quanta are demanded.
An interesting question is to explain how an electron can move in the ether without resistance towards speed although acceleration is resisted. Perhaps the Schrödinger wave function modifies the ether in such a way that the electron experiences no force from constant speed. The wave function can have a real physical meaning. The wave function can be physical and light quanta and quantum jumping can be illusions. Or is there something wrong??? Please give comments!!!
See more articles under my name on www.gsjournal.net
This is Science. You’re doing an experiment on how to have more productive comments with blog articles, I think. Unschooling is likely to be an important means to achieve better science. Unschooling means self-directed learning, instead of teacher or parent directed learning. Science proves that self-directed learning is most productive and most healthy for individuals and society. Young kids need adult guidance at first, but not too much. Play is science. This experiment is play. There are numerous people who are playing with ways to improve scientific collaboration like this.
I don’t understand very well some of the terms used in your article above, like energy, Planck’s constant, quantization etc. What I understand is that everything visually observable seems to involve motion, which is distance per time, often written as s/t, where the “s” seems to mean space or spatial distance. I think some kind of “energy” is said to equal 1/2 mv^2. I understand “m”, mass, as being something that can be felt as pressure, or weight per area, and that small mass has less momentum or inertia than larger mass, and that small and large volume is usually associated with small and large mass, respectively. I know “v” means velocity, which is s/t and velocity is ordinary steady motion, but I don’t understand velocity squared, unless it means distance squared per time per time, or area per time per time, which would seem to be an accelerated area, since s/t^2 is acceleration. But offhand I don’t see how just a point or an area can accelerate. It seems like only s^3 can describe real objects, while s can only mean a distance between two object’s centers or near sides.
So I don’t know if we can have much fun playing here together. I sometimes play pingpong etc with novices (not that I’m a master) and I have patience to help them learn to play better. If you have patience to explain things in detail, I and others may enjoy participating in this discussion and providing critiques or questions.
Temporarily means probably that your comment is delayed, but not stopped.
Yes, my post on this web is short. You can find details by reading other articles by me at GSJournal.
I left a comment, but a message said there was a temporary error. So I submitted the comment again, and a message said the comment was already submitted. Why can’t the messages make up their mind?
J.E.P., I don’t have time to read your other material right now. Above, you said: “An interesting question is to explain how an electron can move in the ether without resistance towards speed although acceleration is resisted. Perhaps the Schrödinger wave function modifies the ether in such a way that the electron experiences no force from constant speed. The wave function can have a real physical meaning. The wave function can be physical and light quanta and quantum jumping can be illusions. Or is there something wrong??? Please give comments!!!”
Have you considered the possibility that the ether consists of photons of several or many sizes, as Miles Mathis theorizes? I don’t like his idea about universal expansion as being the cause of gravity, but many of his ideas seem plausible to me. There are several scientists who have found independently that photons have mass and one or more have said that the wave motion of photons is due to their masses being off-center. Would you like to see references to those findings? Mathis also has a number of papers on QM etc.
Yes. Something can be wrong. Perhaps Planks constant h reveals how much energy the electron can absorb and not how much light can deliver. h can be a property of electron and not of light.
I’m a new member. I agree with your points about making comments. The reason I joined CNPS was hoping to find a membership that does work together to help each other. When I joined, I posted a paper called Space Lattice Theory (SLT). I’m hoping members will eventually get to review it an provide comments.
You started your “Planck” article with the unsupported assumption, “the Earth orbits the Sun without loss of kinetic energy”. There are factors this assumption glosses over:
1. This generalization is only accurate to the first order. If, the concept of gravity waves is correct, then all motion of mass in space must lose kinetic energy to those waves.
2. This generalization also only applies to theoretical point masses. Masses like the earth and sun, are not points but have volume, and are therefore spatially distributed. Real material volumes will also have matter that exhibits elastic, plastic and fluid properties. These properties, in an orbiting system, will result in “tidal” effects in both objects which depend on both the orbital velocities of the system and the rotational speed of each object. The earth, for example, due to its 24 hour rotation and fluid ocean, continually adds kinetic energy to the moon. The reverse effect of “moon tides”, probably explain why any moon rotation has slowed to lock the moon’s rotation rate to equal its orbital period.
The first two words of your first sentence, “Just like” tries to equate an earth-sun system with bound electrons. This also overlooks a number of specifics:
3. It assumes that bound electron kinetic energy is only due to gravitational forces. Forces on electrons, being greatly affected by electrical and magnetic properties, have to include those properties as well.
4. You highlight the term “potential” as a force field generated “by” the electron. This claim does not describe what property of the electron comes into play to create the potential force field, nor how that property is expressed in relation to another component of mass, like a nucleus, or energy, such as light or X-rays.
5. The term “force” field is used here in a way, that “energy” field would be expected, since the term “potential” is usually associated with energy, not force. Why is this?
You stated, “Light can be without energy.” The newly presented Space Lattice Theory presents a model where photons can theoretically have zero energy, but this does not seem to conform to conventional physics which defines “light” as energy.
One of the general observations I presented in SLT about physics, which I believe applies to your challenge about Planck, is what I think is a very common misunderstanding about quantum mechanics throughout the scientific community. It even eluded Einstein because he wasn’t sufficiently precise about what people meant by quantum events when they were talking about them.
The whole “indeterminate” issue is due to a misunderstanding. It all started when de Broglie MODELED particles as waves to try to cover the particle-wave duality of observations. To do that, he constructed a mathematical model for particle motion BASED on the equation of a WAVE. That means, anyone, forever more, who uses those equations to analyze matter in space, is going to get results that have WAVE properties! The point is, if matter is NOT a WAVE, which I believe it is not, then the indeterminacy results are not an accurate explanation of particle reality.
I hope these comments help make your point, and don’t just create more confusion.
Thank you for the response. It is a good idea that we should help each other by providing critique and negative critique is most important. I agree to most of your comments, since my analysis is not very detailed.
Yes, it can be true only to the first order, but that can be said about most physical relations.
Yes, point mass is also an approximation we must remember.
No, by just like I did not mean exactly identity between gravity and Coulomb force.
I mean the Coulomb force due to electron charge.
I think that if energy is potential than the force creating this energy must be potential too.
In my opinion matter wave is an ether behavior caused by a moving material particle.
Best regards from
As announced at http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/johnerikpersson/2016/08/23/the-wave-or-particle-confusion/ , based on my CNPS 2016 meeting presentation https://youtu.be/CxSpaT8Nyn8 here I will provide some comments related to this particular topic,
First, the quantisation as the property of matter, rather than light had been my thought when I firstly found out about the Einstein’s postulation. Whatever I have been looking at, and in particular the ‘modern’ Aetherodynamics (notably the one developed by V.A. Atsukovsky) has only been supporting that, including this assertion of yours.
Second, the paralleling between the Earth-Sun and the Electron-Proton orbital motion aspects, including the additional clarifications you provided, is perfectly plausible having in mind the issue of energy emission with preserved structure stability, but while there had been a great concern about (not-)falling electron to the nucleus none was concerned why Earth does not fall to the Sun, right!? Was it due to (yet not postulated, undetected gravitational waves ?!) However, the changing of the kinetic energy of Earth on its orbiting of the Sun is evident fact (by observations and/or calculations on the produced solution), and that should by all means be the case for electron.
I do not know how the works (needed for traversing one orbit) for the set of trajectories were calculated, but definitely it should not have been based only on the potential energy/field, due to the presumed conservative (zero-work) feature. But for sure (and please let me know if you find it wrong) what has been happening in the course of ‘modern’ developments of the Newtonian orbital dynamics, the two wrong assumptions (conservation, i.e. time independence of the sum of kinetic and potential energies, and the conservation, i.e. time independence of the angular momentum) have been used respectively as “in-charge” of radial and ” azimuthal” directions – the assumptions which are refuted by the very, that way produced solutions … Shouldn’t this be enough the start “unlearning” the highest-held teaching?!
Anything other than what is based on evidently wrong assumptions should be better then that. And consistently applied, at all scales the ‘waves’ in Aether would be evidenced just as the evidence of the underlying ‘quantisation’ in the dynamically stable ‘material’ configurations which get ‘condensed’ from the Aether substrate (yes, in spite of the 2. law of Thermodynamics and the predicted “cosmic death” !?!) …
Yes, by observing matter in the form of electrons as detectors we must observe quantization independent of whether quantization exists on the input or not. We do not need quantization between levels inside the atoms for blackbody radiation and photoelectric effect. However, the Compton effect can be explained by escaping electron later captured by another atom meaning absorption of a wave packet and later emitting at a longer wavelength. This can be due to interference between electrons and wave packets.
This rule should, in my opinion, include energy to and from the ether. I do not know so much about gravity waves but I do not trust Einstein.
It seems to me that sometimes unlearning can be more difficult than learning. I think the wave or particle illustrates this. However I do not know so much about orbits but should not be surprised if your ideas are correct regarding trajectories.