|The Quantum H Atom
The mechanics propose that an electromagnetic field binds the
electron to the proton.
|Gluons bring together and maintain
the integrity of the larger quarks that
comprise the larger protons
that comprise the larger atoms.
|The genuine H atom according to
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."
.........."Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic
and 50 years later...
.........."No one understands Quantum Mechanics."
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
...........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!
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 cloud model of the H atom
Aggregate of all electron bead locations
|The Cassiopeia cloud model of the H atom
Single electron encapsulating balloon
|The cloud model of the
Quantum atom is a movie
of an electron bead at
many locations around
|A single frame of that
movie should show a
single location of ONE
electron next to ONE
|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.
|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
|To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:
Rational Scientific Method