The Standard Model of Elementary Particles of Quantum Mechanics is irrational
The mechanics should have discovered by now that we cannot explain the
workings of the Universe with discrete particles.

    The mathematicians may argue that the existence of each of these particles has been proven through
    experiments.

    We have two replies. First, in Science we don't prove. It is in religion where they prove. Proof means that
    someone convinced someone of something. In Science, we don't recruit and, therefore, are not in the
    business of persuading. In Science, we don't present evidence in order to sway the jury like they do in Law.
    In Science, we present explanations so that the crowd understands. Whether an individual accepts the
    explanation and henceforth regards it as his truth is his personal business and doesn't concern Science.

    The second issue is that the mathematicians confuse proof with hypothesis. They have not proven particles.     
    They made an ASSUMPTION that the invisible mediators they stared at in the lab were particles.

    Let's make it black and white. No one has ever seen any of these so-called particles. And here is 'proof'.
    The proponent of particles simply has to illustrate ONE of his particles! Any of them! This is an objective     
    criterion. What does a muon look like? Please draw an electron! Does the Higgs look like an H? Most
    significant, what does an atom look like? The mechanics -- the followers of Bohr and Heisenberg -- to
    this day illustrate the atom that Rutherford and Bohr concocted in the early 20th century: the Planetary
    Model. They use this model to explain phenomena such as ionization and electricity. At the end of their
    presentation, the mechanics deny that what they just used as a model is the actual atom. It was merely
    a model they borrowed to simulate the observations they just explained. To explain Quantum Leap and
    covalent bonding they get rid of the Planetary Model altogether and do their presentation with the cloud
    or shell model.
    Quantum has no idea what particles look like

    The Quantum version of the atom relies on magic. Not only is Quantum unable to rationally justify why the
    electron stays faithful to the proton, but its proposal that the ethereal orbitals of atoms interlock to form
    molecules requires more than a leap of faith.

    Let's clarify that we are not challenging the equations of Quantum. Likewise, we are not challenging what
    researchers claimed to observe in the lab. What we are challenging are the physical interpretations that the
    mathematicians have given those equations and experiments. It is the Particle Hypothesis which should be
    abandoned now and forevermore. We cannot explain a single phenomenon of nature with discrete particles.
This is a cross-section of the rope model of the atom. The EM ropes converge upon an atom
from every atom in the Universe. The rope forks out at the boundary of the electron shell. The
electric thread (here marked in blue) continues straight to the center of the atom and comes
out the other end. The magnetic thread (red) curves around and together with countless other
threads forms the electron shell. It also extends outward to another atom at some point along
the shell.

    The Rope Model

    What do we propose in the alternative?

    Well, in order to explain action-at-a-distance you must, you absolutely MUST have an extended invisible entity.
    Otherwise, you will invariably be doing wizardry. You cannot rationalize action-at-a-distance without a mediator!
    The force of pull MUST be mediated by a string, rope, thread, cable, wire, chain, coaxial or some other
    elongated object that stretches from here to there. The alternative is to invoke magic and spirits (i.e., the way of
    Quantum Mechanics).

    We propose that the extended electromagnetic rope (the mediator of light) is also the building block of atoms.
    The rope forks at the surface of the atom. The electric thread continues straight to the center of the atom and
    out the other end. These straight threads form the proton, an urchin-like entity that fills the core of the atom. The
    magnetic thread, instead, coils around and together with countless other threads arriving from every atom in the
    Universe forms the electron shell that envelopes the proton. The atom is a tiny star encapsulated within a balloon.
<     Each particle of the Standard Model of Quantum
Mechanics is spherical. This doesn't tell us how the
properties of the particle are related to its shape. For
instance, a gluon pulls two quarks together. Is a
gluon hook shaped? Is this the physical mechanism
that prevents quarks from drifting apart?
The Rope Model explains several behaviors of the atom and the neutron.
What does an




atom really look like?
Credit: David Robison
In the religion of Quantum Mechanics,
electricity is explained as the flow of
electron beads from one atom to another.
In order to simulate electric current, the
mechanics must invoke Bohr's planetary
model of the atom (i.e., orbiting beads)
However, in order to
explain bonding in
Molecular Orbital Theory,
the mechanics get rid of
the bead altogether and
work with the 'orbitals', the
REGIONS in which an
electron bead may be
found.
To simulate this part of
the presentation the
mechanics invoke Born's
Cloud Model of the atom
(i.e., balloons)!
Quantum Magic Illustrated
How Bohr's disciples get away with murder

Home      

Nila and Bill      

Extinction       

Mathematical Physics      
Rope Hypothesis    
Ye Olde You Stupid Relativist
To comment on any of the pages in this website go to:

Rational Scientific Method   

The Rope Hypothesis   


Physics papers

or @

Academia