You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Electron and Proton In the Infinite Universe
To me, the problem comes from the fact that particles cannot be infinitely small. Or you need to give up quantum mechanics.
If you do so, then please propose an alternative theory in which all observations explained by quantum mechanics are explained in an as good way.
Definitely need to give up on quantum mechanics--it leads to interpretations of reality that are simply not observed in our surroundings. We don't see strings because strings are not part of reality, for example. The thing with small particles is their relative rate of function increases. The smaller they are, the faster they function relative to other particles.
If we could slow down and zoom in on the small, though, it would be no different in function and appearance than the large. This is the critical flaw of quantum mechanics. It assumes that the small is fundamentally different than what we see, drastically complicating reality through an approximation. The most important thing to recognize when thinking about these things is the observer's role in determining how they see objects in the cosmos. I write about this in this article: The Observer Assumption.
In terms of these small systems analyzed in quantum mechanics, they function so rapidly and are so small that they appear to be different than the large but this is an illusion. In the large, we generally look at one object or a group of generally known objects that are essentially frozen in time. In the small, we generally look at a very large group of unknown objects that function so rapidly that they go through entire cycles every instant of every moment of eternity for an observer composed specifically of mass as much larger compared to it as atoms.
As far as your request for explaining observations critical to quantum mechanics, which particular ones do you feel are most in need of an alternative explanation? I have talked about, for example, the double-slit experiment and what is happening according to the infinite universe model, in my short book that I would recommend checking out, The Simple Reality. Everything is the result of gravity in this structure. I simplify the double-slit experiment by giving reasoning for why various observations around it are not the result of some magical thing but rather is just a simply explainable result of gravity in the infinite universe, pointing out mistakes such as "the observer effect" where we do much more than simply observe by radiating energy into the slits and influencing the particles.
So you basically ignore almost a century of data. And by data, I don't only consider the double-slit experiment of decades ago, but everything that ranges from there to the collider experiments of today. As a consequence, I cannot buy your theory as reasonable. What does it say with respect to jet physics for instance? Nothing to my knowledge (but I may have read too fast).
Quantum mechanics works with respect to data. It provides explanations for the observations based on very few key principles, it has been tested, and it makes predictions for future experiments and is thus falsifiable. Until today, it has not been falsified (at least to my knowledge). Therefore, you cannot just ignore it and say it is wrong because you don't like it or because it sounds magical to you. This is not what science is about.
What you should do instead is to propose an alternative theory. But if you want the scientific community to agree with it, you must do as good as what quantum mechanics does. A commonly admitted theory will only be replaced by a better theory if data points into that direction. This is the scientific method.
By the way, quantum mechanics is not magical as you tend to say (or it is the proof you don't fully understand it). It starts from a few very well-stated postulates from which every single result from any experiment involving the microscopic world can be predicted. Propose an alternative that does the same, and show it does the same, and you will be considered.
Ok. You literally don't know the extent of my work, yet tell me what my theory needs. Rofl. Approximations may fit a lot of data but they don't fit it all, nor do they expose the reality of the situation but rather paint false images. If large-scale systems aren't functioning like quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics is wrong. It is that simple. There are literally infinite observations that can be made that show no semblance of anything quantum mechanics says happening on the large-scale. When literally everything we look at and actually can physically see with our own eyes disproves the theory, then the theory is wrong.
We are not talking about fits, but about predictions and verifications.
Now, each theory has also its domain of applications. This is also true for quantum mechanics. It does not apply to large scale systems. Therefore, it will not work if you try.... I totally don't see your point here. We are talking about the microscopic world that your theory also embeds.
Now, think what you want, but data tells us that quantum mechanics is correct (so far). And your theory does not reproduce the data set I mentioned above.
I also want to state here that due to the Quantization of energy, Quantum mechanics can NEVER be an "Approximation", what are you going to try and 'approximate' discrete energy levels? This literally, by definition is not a thing. With spin, magnetic, total momentum states all being discrete 'energy levels', there can be NO approximation with quantum mechanics, which is in part the beauty of it in itself.
Quantum Mechanics was developed based on statistical mechanics and has evolved significantly over the past hundred years, and considering that both Le Mouth and I are practicing physicists and we have performed dozens of atomic and particle experiments and observed first hand energy quantization through many experiments such as the Franck-Hertz Experiment and Saturated Absorption of Rubidium and state transition.
This probably won't convince you because, to put this bluntly, you're a Pseudo-Scientist, as much as you might not think so, you're in the same boat with the Climate Change deniers, The Moon landing naysayers, and Flat Earth believers.
Woah, ego much? I don't care what your background is, you are wrong. Call me what you will, and I will call you what you are: wrong. Quantum mechanics is an approximation in that it attempts to describe the actual way that the small scale functions but only can describe statistical probabilities with accuracy, not what the particles are actually like on a fundamental level. There's a reason it cannot be extrapolated to the large-scale systems of the universe: because it is WRONG.
I'm sorry that my opinions indirectly attack your life's work, but that's just how it goes. I didn't tell you to jump to conclusions and believe something that is wrong just because someone taught you it was right and you took their word for it and went on to research it without recognizing the house of cards that it was. Then you come into this thread and attempt to team up with another physicist to belittle me, bringing arguments that have zero awareness of anything I actually have to say or anything about me, only defending your own views. Are you 5? Have you even in your life considered the possibility that all that you believe is wrong? You call me a pseudo-scientist, but probably sit there thinking the universe began in a Big Bang. How geocentrically ridiculous of you.
Aw did I offend you after you attacked my work? Hugs.