Common Sense Science

Since the quantum electron has no physical structure, and no mechanism exists for exchanging energy or transmitting forces, then it is necessary to assume fundamental properties for the electron and proton: The quantum theory assumes that electrons and protons have intrinsic properties of spin, magnetic moment, stability, and inertial mass. The theory makes no attempt to derive them or relate them, but chooses such models that cannot relate its features: a point model is chosen for some occasions, and a wave model is chosen on others. The theory is unable to say if the essence of an electron is a particle or a wave; the theory can only say that an elementary particle is consistently inconsistent!

This entry was posted in story. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Common Sense Science

  1. shinichi says:

    Contradictions in Modern Physics

    Common Sense Science

    http://www.commonsensescience.net/contradictions.html

    The modern theory of matter rests upon such supporting theories as the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, Quantum Mechanics, and the Special Theory of Relativity. After decades of work by thousands of physicists, the theory has “grown” until it can explain a very large body of physical phenomena. This has made the theory very successful; but the theory is not adequate or true because:

    It is only a mathematical model consisting of equations and does not usually specify physical structure for elementary particles.
    It frequently contradicts itself.
    It provides no mechanism for such fundamental processes as the exchange of energy.
    It has to rely upon numerous assumptions
    Consider how Quantum Theory deals with the electron, a chief constituent of all matter:

    1. Mathematical, not physical.
    “Modern physicists today do not possess a single metaphor that unites in one image the principle features of quantum theory.” Depending upon the situation, the quantum model of an electron is a particle or a wave, or a set of waves that form a wave packet, described by certain equations of energy, angular momentum, and wavelength.

    There is only a tenuous link (given by Born) to a structure or physical interpretation of these equations. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology states that “a good theory of electron structure still is lacking….There is still no generally accepted explanation for why electrons do not explode under the tremendous Coulomb repulsion forces in an object of small size. Estimates of the amount of energy required to `assemble’ an electron are very large indeed. Electron structure is an unsolved mystery….”

    Modern science has no idea what holds an electron together and simply assumes it hangs together on its own. On the other hand, CSS has developed a proper model of elementary particles and published (in a refereed journal of physics) an explanation for a balance of forces on the electron. As a result of new classical models and research published since 1990, statements that classical physics cannot account for physical phenomena are no longer accurate. Today, physical models of CSS account for most fundamental phenomena without the numerous assumptions and self-contradictions of Quantum Mechanics or the Special Theory of Relativity.

    2. Internal contradictions of the modern theory.
    It is common to consider the electron as a point-like particle and omit or subtract unwanted mathematical terms associated with infinite energy. The aim is “not so much to get a model of the electron as to get a simple scheme of equations which can be used to calculate all the results that can be obtained from experiment.” The point electron is still a dominant feature of the modern model of the electron. Not long ago, Nobel Prize winner Hans Dehmelt wrote about the “structureless point particle predicted by the Dirac theory.”

    But the electron, proton, and neutron all have measured amounts of spin (angular momentum) and magnetic moment. These features can only exist because the particles have a finite, non-zero size. So, a self-contradiction of the common theory is evident: On one hand, the particles are said to be point-like; on the other hand, they are known to have a finite size (needed to have a spin, magnetic moment and the distribution of charge referenced in the next paragraph). This inconsistency in modern science is incompatible with a Judeo-Christian world view of consistency where expediency is rejected and contradictions are never allowed.

    Even when a point particle model is used for physics calculations, the particle is also said to have a wavelength that must be used in other calculations. And the point particle assumption for elementary particles has been proven false by Hofstadter (Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1961) who showed that neutrons, protons, and other elementary particles have a measurable finite size, an internal charge distribution (indicative of internal structure), and elastically deform in interactions.

    The point electron used for convenience has additional problems called a “mystery” by Sellin. Concentration of the electron charge in a point would require an infinite amount of energy and an infinite force to balance the outward directed Coulomb Force. If the rest mass energy is infinite, then the equivalent mass (M) equal to energy (E) divided by the light velocity (c) squared must (by modern theory) also be infinite. But the rest mass of an electron has been measured, and it is not infinite. Evidently, the point particle assumption is contradicted by the known rest mass of an electron.

    The significance of a correct model has become apparent: It is impossible to derive the stability, spin or magnetic moment of an electron from an infinitesimal point, so modern science assumes the electron has the right value for the spin and moment. In contrast, common sense science based on causal theory can derive electron characteristics from a physical model that has real size and shape. Proven equations of Coulomb, Ampere, and Faraday are used to relate electrical and physical features of the physical model.

    Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions. Orbiting electrons in the atomic shells or nucleus must radiate energy into space according to well proven laws of electricity and magnetism and demonstrated daily by broadcasting radio stations. Atoms with orbiting electrons should suffer radiation death, but they are obviously stable! Originally, this inconsistency was simply postulated away by Bohr, though he well understood the contradiction. Bohr took the view that “A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also a truth,” and to remove all doubt, he argued that the two statements “There is a God” and “There is no God” are equally insightful propositions.

    One day, “A visitor to Niels Bohr’s country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. `Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?’ `No,’ answered Bohr, `I certainly do not believe in this superstition. But you know,’ he added, `they say it brings luck even if you don’t believe in it.’ ”

    Since atomism allows non-causal events and actions, the contradictions in atomistic theory are explained in terms of assumptions or a disconnection of cause and effect. In contrast, consistency is inherent in the law of cause and effect.

    3. No mechanism for fundamental process.
    The foundation of a rational theory is cause and effect. In a rational theory, everything happens for a reason and not just by chance. Finite-sized physical objects are essential for a rational, causal theory. An example will make this clear. When a spring is compressed by holding one end fixed and applying a force to the other end of the spring, the spring becomes smaller and potential energy is added to the spring. The spring with its resistance to the external force of compression provides a mechanism for storing energy. There is a cause and effect relationship: the spring is compressed because of the external force. The spring has releasable energy because it has been compressed.

    Now, instead of a spring, let us consider how a point object of zero size might store energy. But, a point cannot store energy! Clearly, there is no compression possible for a point and no energy can be stored in the point object. Although we have imagined the point object to exist, it is incapable of the property of deformation needed to store energy. So, we may assume a point object, but we cannot derive its properties from the laws of physics. The point object has no mechanism capable of storing energy in any form. It cannot react to other forces or objects; and the point object is not a proper, rational model to explain the phenomena observed for objects of the physical world. Therefore, in quantum theory the fundamental properties of elementary particles are assumed (because they cannot be related to force laws, other objects, or self-related properties of the same object). Quantum theory usually solves this problem by assuming that other short-lived “particles” exist to “carry” the forces—or by assuming new forces (the Strong and Weak Forces) that exist only in the atomic nucleus or in certain particles such as the neutron (when it disintegrates outside the atom). New force laws, new “particles” and new terms in equations will continue to be added in efforts to conform the modern theories of particle physics to results from new experiments. At some point, the theory will be abandoned when it becomes as cumbersome as the Ptolemy Theory of epicycles to explain planetary motions.

    Since quantum mechanics has no physical mechanism for cause and effect relationships for atoms and elementary particles, some rational scientists try to add “a `disturbance model’ of measurement [to] account for quantum randomness, the Heisenberg uncertainty relations, and other quantum mysteries as well. In this `disturbance picture,’ an atom’s actual position and momentum are always definite but usually unknown; its measured position and momentum cannot be accurately predicted because the measuring device necessarily changes what it measures.” The “disturbance model” is not really a part of quantum theory and cannot be used to combine classical and modern physics. “Both Heisenberg and Bohr warned against interpreting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in terms of a measurement disturbance.” ” In brief, the Copenhagen Interpretation [named for Bohr, of Copenhagen] holds that in a certain sense the unmeasured atom is not real: its attributes are created or realized in the act of measurement.” “Quantum theory is peculiar in that it describes a measured atom in a very different manner than an unmeasured atom.”

    4. Assumed properties of elementary particles.
    Since the quantum electron has no physical structure, and no mechanism exists for exchanging energy or transmitting forces, then it is necessary to assume fundamental properties for the electron and proton: The quantum theory assumes that electrons and protons have intrinsic properties of spin, magnetic moment, stability, and inertial mass. The theory makes no attempt to derive them or relate them, but chooses such models that cannot relate its features: a point model is chosen for some occasions, and a wave model is chosen on others. The theory is unable to say if the essence of an electron is a particle or a wave; the theory can only say that an elementary particle is consistently inconsistent!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.