The Two-Particle Universe
We assume that there are only two particles in the Universe.
There is nothing else. They are not touching surface to surface,
but separated. How does one particle induce the other one to
move?
There is nothing else. They are not touching surface to surface,
but separated. How does one particle induce the other one to
move?
| The Quantum H Atom The mechanics propose that an electromagnetic field binds the electron to the proton. |
individual atoms
individual electrons
| Gluons bring together and maintain the integrity of the larger quarks that comprise the larger protons that comprise the larger atoms. |
- Unfortunately for our misguided mechanics...
..........1. There is no physical object called 'a' field. The word field is a CONCEPT
- and invented by Faraday that today means 'a potential at each point in
- ..............space'. Concepts cannot interact with objects. Would it perchance make
- sense to say that love binds a dog to the doghouse? Perhaps in poetry,
never in Physics!
..........2. Assuming that this 'field' is a physical object, the mechanics have yet to
..............explain the mechanism. How does the blessed 'field' do it? By what physical
..............process? Does the field do it by magic? In other words we could have said
..............that a spirit does it or that X does it. The juicy part is explaining how.
..........3. According to the religion of Quantum Mechanics, Ernst Rutherford 'proved'
..............in 1919 that an atom is mostly empty space. For else, he wouldn't be able
..............to explain the particles that go through the atom during his backscattering
..............experiment! There is no field between the proton and the electron according
- to the religion of Quantum, specifically,.one comprised of particles.
| The genuine H atom according to Quantum Mechanics |
Quantum can't have it both ways without running into contradiction. Either there is literally nothing between
the proton and the electron or there is a field made of particles. If there is a field made of particles, the
mechanics will have to go back and find a new explanation for particles that make it through the gold foil
atoms during Rutherford's backscattering experiment. He declared and Quantum maintains that there is
absolutely nothing. Rutherford concluded that an atom is mostly empty space. But then, if an atom is
mostly made of nothing, the mechanics have to propose a physical entity that mediates between the
proton and the electron to keep the atom from disintegrating and blowing apart. Nevertheless, the
particle field cannot explain the force of pull, the only force Quantum will never be able to explain
rationally.
Let's just start by transcribing what three of the most prominent Nobel Prize winners said about their own religion of Quantum Mechanics... .........."Those who are not shocked when they come across quantum theory ............cannot possibly have understood it." Niels Bohr .........."Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic ...........experiments?" Werner Heisenberg and 50 years later... .........."No one understands Quantum Mechanics." Richard Feynman The founders of Quantum Mechanics and their disciples -- all Nobel Prize Laureates -- are telling you in your face that they don't understand their own theories! You may wonder how it is possible for these celebrities to confess that Quantum is irrational after so many years. Certainly, you have read over and over that they have proven and verified these theories through experiments. Where's the catch? The answer lies in that when mathematical physicists talk about proof and verification, they are alluding to their equations and to their descriptions of what they observed. They are not referring to their explanations, to the physical interpretations, to the mechanisms that they propose. For instance, you often hear that GPS confirms Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity, that GPS wouldn't work if the theories were incorrect, let alone irrational. Yes. The equations of relativity are not in question. Neither is the fact that clocks tick at different rates at different distances from the center of gravity or while traveling at different speeds. What is irrational are the physical interpretations for these phenomena. What is irrational is to say that the concept gravity affects the concept time. Gravity is the word we use to refer to the phenomenon where objects magically attract each other. To say that gravity (the phenomenon of attraction) attracts seconds and minutes is irrational. And this is what the Nobel Prize winners of Quantum are alluding to when they confess that they don't understand their own theories. They have no problem understanding their equations. And they have no problem describing what they observed in the lab. What they have trouble is explaining Mother Nature's invisible mechanisms in a rational manner. In the instant context, 'rational manner' means that you can make the invisible visible. People should be able to understand your theory by merely watching a movie, a motion picture of the mechanism you propose. For instance, you come home one day and find the window broken. You ask your son, "How did it happen?" He tells you that they were playing baseball and that someone hit the ball through the window. You can visualize every object that participates in this incident, from baseball bat to shattered glass. Your son can draw the entire sequence of events in a flip book. You can fan the pages and see the mechanism for yourself. Quantum Mechanics cannot do this with its theories. All the particles of the Standard Model are casually presented as ZERO-DIMENSIONAL (0D) and no one bothers to challenge this outrage. You will never see a picture, drawing or photograph of a subatomic particle. Anywhere. The mechanics will limit their description to mass, speed, energy and other physically irrelevant parameters. A genuine physicist wants to understand how the SHAPE of a particle is related to its properties. For instance, if a gluon produces attraction between two quarks, is it hook shaped? Is this what gives the gluon the property to bring two particles together? If not what? What is the physical mechanism? How does the gluon produce attraction otherwise? The mechanics will never be able to tell you because they never illustrate these particles. All Quantum particles are illustrated as round dots and treated as point 'particles'. So how do 0D, discrete 'corpuscles' produce the force of PULL? What do subatomic particles look like? The mechanics have a ready-made excuse at the end of their fingertips for why they can't illustrate subatomic particles. They've never seen one. Here are a couple of summary statements from members of the Quantum Establishment...
...........observation of such indirect effects like tracks." .........."it´s impossible to directly 'see' subatomic particles. As the colleagues already ...........mentioned you can see the results of interactions..." So, let's make it as plain as possible: NEVER have researchers EVER seen a subatomic particle. ALL subatomic particles of the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics have been INFERRED. The particle hypothesis is an ASSUMPTION. The mechanics are ASSUMING that they are dealing with discrete corpuscles. This is the reason you will not find a photograph, picture or drawing of a single particle in the Standard Model. Yet, the mathemagicians casually pass these assumptions and inferences as proofs and truths! |
After all that bragging,
the mechanic illustrates this >>
as the Quantum version of
the atom and at the end of
his presentation denies
his own proposal!
the mechanic illustrates this >>
as the Quantum version of
the atom and at the end of
his presentation denies
his own proposal!
Let's concede the Quantum Particle Hypothesis for the sake of argument. We can't see these discrete particles because they are very tiny. They are below the visible range and may remain there forever. How about atoms? The mechanics boast that they have photographed, filmed, shaken hands with, and interviewed the hydrogen atom... the electron... and even the gluons which allegedly serve as binding 'force carriers' between quarks that make up the proton and the neutron. So? Which is it? Have they seen a subatomic particle EVER with their eyes or are they ASSUMING that they are dealing with particles? If these images are computer reconstructions or made in any other artificial way, then the mechanics should stop printing sensational headlines where they boast about taking pictures of particles and having seen them. And there's a very, very easy way to put the mechanics on the spot. Just ask them to draw a hydrogen atom for you. I mean, if they've taken direct pictures of electrons and gluons and quarks, they should have no trouble telling the world what their version of the Quantum atom looks like, right? Pursuant to the Standard Model, the Quantum hydrogen atom consists of two discrete subatomic particles: a proton and an electron. The mechanics are describing something that looks like this... |
| The Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics shows no drawings of any of the particles. Just a bunch of letters on rectangles! The mechanics have never seen a single particle with their eyes. They have INFERRED the discrete particle. The point particle is merely a model that they use to simulate their observations and equations. Therefore, their claim that they have proven the existence of particles is a lie. |
Now let's roll our sleeves and get to the interesting part that debunks the poppycock known as Quantum Mechanics. Let's give an example of what is irrational about Quantum Mechanics and why Bohr, Heisenberg and Feynman confessed that they didn't understand what was going on. We have two particles in the Universe. We imagine them as spheres. There is nothing else except these two entities. We have a Universe devoid of matter except for these two particles. Please explain how one particle gets the other one to move from a distance. |
The Quantum Hydrogen Atom
- The funny thing is that not everyone in Quantum has the same interpretation of what Schrodinger's equation
entails. In an attempt to make sense of the hydrogen atom, the folks at Cassiopeia propose that the electron
itself is not a bead, but a balloon that encapsulates the proton nucleus...
- .........."Since the electron has a very tiny mass, it can occupy a very large region
of space. Conversely, the proton has a very large mass... and therefore it
...........occupies a tiny region of space. The result is quantum-mechanical hydrogen
...........atom, a tiny mass of nucleus surrounded by a much larger cloud representing
...........the electron."
In the religion of Quantum everybody interprets things differently and everybody is correct.
| The Quantum cloud model of the H atom Aggregate of all electron bead locations |
| The Cassiopeia cloud model of the H atom Single electron encapsulating balloon |
- Of course, the mechanics will instantly deny this planetary model devised by Bohr and Rutherford. They will
dismiss this as an oversimplification used to explain concepts to high schoolers. The hydrogen atom, they
argue, is much more complicated. It looks more like a cloud encapsulating the proton nucleus. The
argument is really scary and makes you fear for the sanity of the mathemagicians. They argue that the
electron forms a cloud because it is constantly moving all around the proton ball. They are not referring to
WHAT the electron is, but to WHERE the electron is.
.........."A cloud is an area where there's the most probability of finding an electron."
Any way that the mathemagicians twist and turn it, for any given cross-section of time, we should see ONE
electron somewhere next to a proton like illustrated above! The famous cloud is a MOVIE of ONE electron
bead at different locations around the nucleus. A single frame in this movie shows ONE electron and ONE
proton.
| The cloud model of the Quantum atom is a movie of an electron bead at many locations around the nucleus. |
| A single frame of that movie should show a single location of ONE electron next to ONE proton. |
- The bottom line is that despite routinely claiming that they have seen, photographed, filmed and interviewed
individual atoms, the mechanics cannot draw or illustrate or make an image of the Quantum H atom for you.
They will not be able to use whatever they illustrate consistently to explain different phenomena. The surrealistic
H atom is a cloud enveloping the nucleus when the mechanics need that model to illustrate orbitals and energy
levels. The H atom morphs into a single electron bead sitting next to its proton when the mechanic needs to
illustrate ionization and electricity. The ad hoc nature of the models is what takes Quantum right out of Science.
And irrespective of how many disclaimers the mechanics throw around, the Standard Model DEMANDS that
the hydrogen atom consist of ONE proton and ONE electron! They can put the electron anywhere around the
proton. They will always end up with the planetary model.
To summarize... the mechanics claim to have filmed...
| What the mechanics have seen are what they call traces. However, the infamous 'trace' of the religion of Quantum Mechanics is yet another ASSUMPTION. The mechanics are ASSUMING that they are staring at particles, that they accelerated these particles, and that these left footprints in their bubble chambers. |
We can all more or less picture surface to surface contact. We can all visualize push. What we cannot imagine
or visualize in this scenario is pull. In Physics, there is only push and pull. Those are the only two forms of
physical contact that we can imagine. Quantum cannot explain pull. That's 50% of the forces in the Universe
right there that the mechanics can't explain!
In other words, the Quantum particle hypothesis cannot rationally explain why the electron doesn't fly away
from the atom. What PHYSICALLY binds it to the proton?
The mathematicians invoke words of Mathemagics -- positive and negative -- and talk about mysterious
substance they call 'charge'. Never have we seen any of these proposals illustrated. We have no idea what
'a' charge looks like all on its own. The only manner to present an object in Physics is by pointing to it. We
are also left in the dark regarding what physical difference there is between a negative and a positive one.
Having failed, the mechanics reply that an electromagnetic 'field' is what prevents the electron's escape. It
is this 'field' thingy that compels it to be faithful to the proton.
| Quantum Magic |
and individual gluons
| What does an atom look like? |
| What is Physics really about? |
| Why can't the mechanics draw an atom for you? |
| The ridiculous entanglement of Quantum Magic |
.
| To comment on any of the pages in this website go to: Rational Science |
