Monday, March 07, 2005

Quantum Mechanics Is Wrong

( Note: I assume a familiarity with the concepts involved; if you need a primer/refresher, I recommend
" Quantum Mechanics " , and
" Wave-Particle Duality " .)

The Photon

In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed, as a solution to the " Photoelectric Effect ", that light waves form into packets, called " quanta ". There is always a whole number of waves in a quantum ( packet ), and the packet, as a packet, can behave like a particle under certain conditions. This is why photons have some characteristics of a particle and some characteristics of a wave.

A photon is a packet of waves of energy; it is not a particle.

The Electron

From, " In 1924, de Broglie claimed that all matter has a wave-like nature ". Modern " Science " ( which is very unscientific ) now claims this has been " confirmed " with sub-atomic particles, and even with atoms and molecules.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's wrong.

The 4th Spatial Dimension

( A good intro to the 4th Spatial Dimension is )

To get the electron ( or any particle ) to exhibit these effects, they have to shoot it out of an "electron gun " ( the " slit experiment " has not actually been done with a particle very many times, BTW, but you have to dig to find that out ). Doing so artificially puts enough energy into the electron for it to temporarily acquire some of the qualities of a 4D particle ( specifically: flowing like a fluid, bilocation, teleportation ); in performing the 4D " manuever ", it expends that energy, and then drops back to its natural, 3D, state.

There is no such thing as " wave-particle duality ".

The Electron Microscope

The electron microscope does not use light, it uses electrons shot at a material. Electrons, being particles of matter, don't have a " wavelength". So where is the picture coming from? The computer that is connected to the electron microscope turns the results into an image with a program written ( by some person ) to do that; what is the code ( to instruct the computer what to do ) based on?

This cannot legitimately be called " scientific ".

No Such Thing

There are no such things as fermions, quarks, hadrons, bosons, neutrinos, baryons, mesons, leptons, or Hilbert spaces. The smallest particles of matter are the electron, neutron, and proton; they are particles of matter, not " wavicles " or " wavefunctions".

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous4:12 PM

    QM says that the change to one of the new states of a new operator is a mere probablity(derived from the previous state and the new operator). If that is true for all situations in reality, there can be no way of determining the consequences of making a decision. Thus with QM true, for me to decide how to comment on QM honestly, it would be impossible. Therefore both sides of the QM truth question cannot be honest if QM is true. I am being honest. Therefore QM is false.
    There are the neon light spectral widths to be explained, but as I recall they were distributions of color with a non-numerical width,if it was a width and not a disribution only. QM describes this width as an uncertainty but that is not what I saw, I think. Mere computers cannot describe colors. If they try to do so they will "lie", or at least not tell the truth. Colors are not numbers. Wavelengths are numbers but colors are perceptions.