Beyond Quantum Mechanics - Five mistakes of modern physics

  • This thread continues from: Photons have mass: Robert J Martineau's Photodynamics
    There are five mistakes in modern physics.

    1. Universal gravitation → No. Different mechanism of gravity between outer space and surface
    2. Mass does not produce gravity. Cavendish experiment is wrong
    3. Electric field lines are not neutralized. Maxwell misunderstood Faraday's lines of electric force
    4. Changes in the magnetic field do not produce an electric field
    5. Space does not exist. Einstein introduced the mathematical concept "space" without verification


    1 and 2 will be explained later. 5 is clear. Has anyone proved that the mathematical space is real? Therefore, there is no "field".


    3.Electric field lines are not neutralized. Maxwell misunderstood Faraday's lines of electric force

    Maxwell, 24-year-old, first formulated Faraday's electric field lines. However, this mathematical electric field line was very different from Faraday's image. Faraday's electric lines of force were the image of the power that plus and minus exert power straight. Maxwell, on the other hand, had the effect that the positive and negative lines of force neutralize each other along the way. In other words, in Faraday's electric field lines, plus and minus act on the object separately, and the resultant force appears inside the object, but Maxwell is added and subtracted because the electric field lines are neutralized in the middle. It was. The reason for the resultant force in the object may be that the mathematical formula becomes complicated.

    Electric field lines are not neutralized, and plus and minus reach the object separately.


    3.Changes in the magnetic field do not produce an electric field

    The change in the magnetic field moves the electrons inside the copper wire, so the change in the electric field appears.

    Change of magnetic field → transfer of charge → change of electric field


    Based on the above, consider Bohr's atomic model. There was a defect which can not be explained by classical physics in this atomic model. Niels Bohr thought about the reasons for electrons to travel around the nucleus without losing energy. Since negative electrons are attracted to the plus nucleus, they should have fallen into the nucleus. The De Broglie wave and the quantization were introduced there.

    quantum_2.jpg?itok=aggwfY8M

    As a result of introducing a de Broglie wave and a wave function, electrons became clouds unnoticed. Uncertainty principle, Schrödinger's cat is the cause of being born. Let's think about it more.

    quantum_1.jpg?itok=xQ3Jqw8L

    The electrons around the nucleus need not fall. Neutrons in the nucleus are made up of protons and electrons. There is a minus electron in the nucleus. Electrons are attracted to the plus of nuclei, but they repel minus. Electrons are loosely fixed near the nucleus by electric attraction and repulsion. This mechanism is similar to planetary revolution.

    quantum_3.jpg?itok=naIXclz2

    nucleus has minus

    The nucleus has a structure in which protons and protons are bonded by electrons. The point that neutrons are made up of protons and electrons is the same as SAM. However, SAM does not seem to acknowledge the influence of the electron coulomb power inside the nucleus on the outside.

    In order to distinguish this idea from SAM(Structured Atom Model), I want to call atomic model loosely fixed around atomic nucleus SEAM(Static Electron Atom Model).

    beta_1_1.jpg?itok=OkEoxZQ3

    Tritium beta decay

    This is a diagram where tritium beta decay into helium 3. I think that the difference between SAM and SEAM is well understood. Interestingly, SEAM can explain well about the neutrinos associated with the beta decay.


    Continue :how electromagnetic waves are transmitted.

  • how electromagnetic waves are transmitted? please look here.

    Light travels through particles

    So neutrinos are electric field pulses.

    Neutrino ― pulse of shortest electric field

    Neutrons are beta-decayed by neutrinos.

    Neutron decay by neutrino

    I have written several articles in Japanese. I will introduce it in Google translation little by little, but if you are interested, please read the Japanese article.

    破壊学事始

  • I summarized the structure of the nucleus when Faraday's lines of force were used. It is an image where protons are holding electrons together.

    beta_2.jpg n neutron(+1, -1)
    The apparent charge is neutral, but the neutron has a magnetic moment because the magnetic field due to the charge of protons and electrons comes out when it rotates.
    2H.jpg 2H deuterium
    p+e+p (protpn、electron)
    +1,-1,+1 (Charge calculation)
     (+2, -1)(outer nuclesi charge)
    2He.jpg 3He Helium 3
    px3,ex2
    +1,-1/2,+1,-1/2,+1
    (+3,-1)
    3H.jpg 3H tritium p+e+p+e+p+e
    +1,-2/3,+1,-2/3,+1,-2/3
    (+3,-2)
    4H.jpg 4H Quadruple hydrogen
    px4,ex5
    -2/3x4,-1/3
    (+4,-3)
    helium.jpg 4He helium
    px4,ex6
    -1/3x6
    (+4,-2)
    6Li.jpg 6Li litium
    px6,ex9
    -1/3x3,-2/3x6
    (+6,-5)
    7Li.jpg 7Li litium7
    px7,ex11
    -1/3x4,-2/3x7
    (+7,-6)
    9Be.jpg 9Be beryllium9
    px9,ex17
    -1/3x6,-1/3x6,-2/3x4,-1/3
    (+9,-7)

    By the way, it is known that when the atomic number is increased from helium to lithium, the atomic radius suddenly increases. Looking at the structure of the above nucleus, the lithium nucleus increases the electron charge (extranuclear charge) from -2 to --5 for helium. It is thought that the orbital radius increases because the negative charge of the increased electrons moves away the electrons on the orbit with repulsive force.

    atomicradius.jpg


  • SEAM's predicted orbital electrons are not clouds.

    Protonated hydrogen molecules are often found in interstellar matter in the universe.


    H3.jpg

    Hydrogen molecules are bonded by combining the electric attraction and repulsion of electrons and protons.

    hydrogen.jpg

    The helium atom has two electrons in a point-symmetric position across the nucleus.

    heat_electron.jpg

  • I don't know if you are familiar with Leif Holmlid's recent work & patent on muon catalysed nuclear fusion - but as yet they cannot explain how a 100W laser pulse can eject mesons from ultra dense hydrogen or UDD. All other research suggests Peta-Watt energies are required to fragment protons to release mesons. Your theory proposed an interaction of D with neutrinos, resulting in an activated state, which in tritium promotes/accelerates beta decay. The other strange behavior reported by Holmlid is a spontaneous release of mesons from UDH/D without any laser stimulation, which suggested to me that maybe this is a response to background radiation, and thus possibly to the high density of background neutrinos. Can you calculate what the energy increase might be when D or T are stimulated as you propose, by neutrinos, and whether in combination with laser pulses might be sufficient to stimulate the massive release of mesons reported by Holmlid/Norront Fusion?

    Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give ...



    https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › full

    by L Holmlid - ‎2019 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

  • Similar to your theory he does propose (p+e-) closely bonded quasi-neutrons ie:


    The total process giving the negative muons required for muon-catalyzed fusion starts with the ultra-dense hydrogen particles HN(0), and is proposed to be


    HN(0) (s=1)→(p+e−)(p+e−) →K±+K0L+K0S+π±→ decay →μ−,HN0 s=1→p+e−p+e− →K±+KL0+KS0+π±→ decay →μ−,


    where (p+e−) is a closely bonded quasi-neutron.33L. HOLMLID and S. OLAFSSON, “Charged Particle Energy Spectra from Laser-Induced Processes: Nuclear Fusion in Ultra-Dense Deuterium D(0),” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 41, 1080 (2016);https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.072.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]

    The mesons formed are all types of observable kaons and pions,34W. E. BURCHAM and M. JOBES, Nuclear and Particle Physics, Pearson Education, Harlow (1995). [Google Scholar],35K. S. KRANE, Introductory Nuclear Physics, Wiley, Hoboken (1988). [Google Scholar] and it is likely that three kaons are formed from each H2(0) particle since this conserves the number of quarks as (p+e−)(p+e−) → 3 K. The number of quarks may be unchanged in such a meson formation step, but a further pion pair may be created by which process the number of quarks is not conserved. The process shown is highly exoergic and gives 390 MeV to the three mesons ejected from each pair of protons, and 111 MeV in total if a further pion pair is created. This should be compared to ordinary D + D fusion, which has an output per pair of deuterons of only 14 MeV.


    I mean, isn't this the breakthrough of the century? Why aren't other physicists even interested?

  • Dr Richard

    Since you've already mentioned something along these lines in other threads: it isn't the laser pulse that is 100W, but the average power draw of the entire laser system (assuming ideally a modern diode-pumped system). The 5ns-long laser pulses in the experiments are typically up to 0.5J at 10 Hz = 5 W on average. However, instant power per pulse is 100MW. Petawatt-class power with lasers used in larger scale experiments is usually intended per pulse (still, about one million times larger power than in Holmlid's experiments).


    While a 100 MW laser pulse power might seem very large, nanosecond-pulsed Nd:YAG lasers of similar characteristics can be found from Chinese vendors on eBay typically for tattoo removal applications at relatively affordable prices, see: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.htm…0&_nkw=yag+laser&_sacat=0 (although these are not suitable for scientific use or long term reliability, and are not very efficient). I doubt that people are getting mesons released from hydrogen atoms in their body with these.

  • I'm sure they're safe since UDH cannot form in the body without the specific catalysts (but then again there is Fe in haemoglobin!). The Petawatt power lasers only tend to split off intact protons rather than generate mesons, which require high energy proton-proton collisions in particle-beam accelerators. Holmlid's work is a real enigma but if verified (not just by Norront Fusion but accepted by the whole scientific community) it would certainly be the breakthrough of the century providing cheap clean fusion energy.

  • Re this thread: I don't see the point of it; asserting that physics as understood now is wrong on philosophical grounds without specifying the experimental results that are not correctly predicted. To prefer another theory the "better physics" would need to have some experiment it predicted correctly that normal physics gets wrong.


    I disagree with 1,2,3,4,5


    2,4 are plain and clearly wrong. (I can give examples if needed)

    3,5 are meaningless without further clarification, and likely still meaningless with that.

    1 is unevidenced and unlikely.


    THH

  • I don't know if you are familiar with Leif Holmlid's recent work & patent on muon catalysed nuclear fusion - but as yet they cannot explain how a 100W laser pulse can eject mesons from ultra dense hydrogen or UDD. All other research suggests Peta-Watt energies are required to fragment protons to release mesons. Your theory proposed an interaction of D with neutrinos, resulting in an activated state, which in tritium promotes/accelerates beta decay. The other strange behavior reported by Holmlid is a spontaneous release of mesons from UDH/D without any laser stimulation, which suggested to me that maybe this is a response to background radiation, and thus possibly to the high density of background neutrinos. Can you calculate what the energy increase might be when D or T are stimulated as you propose, by neutrinos, and whether in combination with laser pulses might be sufficient to stimulate the massive release of mesons reported by Holmlid/Norront Fusion?

    Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give ...



    https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › full

    by L Holmlid - ‎2019 - ‎Cited by 2 - ‎Related articles

    I have not suitable idea for that now. but I believe that the size of electrons changes depending on the applied voltage.


    Muon (-) → electron + mu neutrino + anti-electron neutrino


    The size of the electrons is more variable and the size determines the voltage.


    >Large signals of charged light mesons are observed in the laser-induced particle flux from ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) layers.Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)


    Lasers are powerful electric field pulses.When electrons receive a pulse of an electric field for a long time, the voltage rises and changes to muons and mesons.Isn't the meson generated after the laser irradiation started?


    HN(0) (s=1)→(p+e−)(p+e−) →K±+K0L+K0S+π±→ decay →μ−,HN0 s=1→p+e−p+e− →K±+KL0+KS0+π±→ decay →μ−,


    It's similar to my theory, but needs some consideration.One thing is that protons and electrons do not combine as they are. Because electrons lose energy when they fall into protons. The electron needs to get energy just before it falls.



    Physics that lost philosophy becomes a playground for mathematics. I insist on being a natural philosophy.


    please look this video.

    If you see this video and you claim gravity, I will not say anything to you.


    5.Space does not exist. Einstein introduced the mathematical concept "space" without verification


    This is impossible to persuade as long as you believe in Pythagoreanism. I have been discussing with many people until I came to this forum. Physics is rationalism. Physics considerations cover not only atoms, but also the earth, the solar system, and the entire universe. New physics is required to be established under different conditions of these scales.

  • The size of the electrons is more variable and the size determines the voltage.


    >Large signals of charged light mesons are observed in the laser-induced particle flux from ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) layers.Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)


    Lasers are powerful electric field pulses.When electrons receive a pulse of an electric field for a long time, the voltage rises and changes to muons and mesons.Isn't the meson generated after the laser irradiation started?




    avatar-default.svg Dr Richard wrote: HN(0) (s=1)→(p+e−)(p+e−) →K±+K0L+K0S+π±→ decay →μ−,HN0 s=1→p+e−p+e− →K±+KL0+KS0+π±→ decay →μ−,


    It's similar to my theory, but needs some consideration.One thing is that protons and electrons do not combine as they are. Because electrons lose energy when they fall into protons. The electron needs to get energy just before it falls.


    By size do you mean mass? Does this relate to (I think Yukawa's idea about mesons) having a quantal spectrum of different masses and associated fields? Electrons becoming muons seems very unlikely since Kaon and pion mesons were detected too.


    Yes, the laser pulse stimulates a higher rate of meson release over the spontaneous background level. The only other experiments/situations where mesons are emitted are by proton collisions in particle accelerators or by cosmic ray collisions with atmospheric nitrogen/oxygen nuclei etc. So one possibility is that the spontaneous level of meson release is from transfer of kinetic energy to protons in UDH undergoing a spontaneous level of fusion reactions (when the inter-proton distance becomes <0.5 pm) causing similar kinetic particle acceleration within the UDH sample and thus proton disintegration/fragmentation releasing quark/antiquark mesons. These decay to muons which in turn induce further fusion reactions, and the whole process can be stimulated by laser pulses or even by background room light. There even might be interactions with background radiation (-muons and neutrinos/antineutrinos) or pions emitted within the sample having sufficient mass and kinetic energy may interact via their fields/ or directly fragment

    protons. So there are many possibilities here which need further investigation (I now think Team Google would be better off studying this rather than repeating old F & P electrolytic experiments - but never mind - other physicists just seem to ignore Holmlid's work)


    In this case the energy is supplied by photons presumably.

  • I have not suitable idea for that now. but I believe that the size of electrons changes depending on the applied voltage.


    The size of the electrons is more variable and the size determines the voltage.



    Obviously, if the results claimed by Holmlid are as he interprets him, some quite surprising things must have happened.

    However I don't think that "the size of the electrons depends on the applied voltage" is helpful without some reference to:


    (1) something defining what is meant by "the size of the electrons"

    (2) reference to experimental or theoretical work justifying this statement.

  • kazunori miura , I found out that you have a book, your ideas in the book have evolved since you published it? I am wondering if you have any formal education in physics or you just are self taught. I have nothing against self teaching, btw, just I want to understand better how you have come to these ideas. Surely THHuxleynew seems to think your ideas are nonsense, but I have curiosity about how someone can arrive to such ideas and the thought process. I have no bias against new ideas if they can shed light over old conundrums.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.


  • All this has been taken from https://etherealmatters.org/sam
    The user kazunori miura Keeps making slight (erroneous) changes to the Structured Atom Model and then continues to give it a name and tries to compete with SAM.
    I would appreciate it, if you would stop depicting the nucleus based on SAM in this very wrong manner.

    Posting about your own ideas is great, and challenge anyone and anything you see fit. But you have been doing this from day one we launched this model.
    So please understand this has nothing to do with the Structured Atom Model (SAM)

    nb. You keep switching 3He and 3H constantly which throws of any logic of the number of protons and electrons.

    Edo

  • All this has been taken from https://etherealmatters.org/sam
    The user kazunori miura Keeps making slight (erroneous) changes to the Structured Atom Model and then continues to give it a name and tries to compete with SAM.
    I would appreciate it, if you would stop depicting the nucleus based on SAM in this very wrong manner.

    Posting about your own ideas is great, and challenge anyone and anything you see fit. But you have been doing this from day one we launched this model.
    So please understand this has nothing to do with the Structured Atom Model (SAM)

    nb. You keep switching 3He and 3H constantly which throws of any logic of the number of protons and electrons.

    Edo

    Edo,

    My idea was before I knew about SAM. The important point is that the Coulomb force of electrons inside the nucleus gives repulsive force to the orbital electrons. SAM has taken over the nuclear electron theory of the 1920s, but cannot eliminate the mistakes in quantum mechanics. Think of the five physics mistakes I have pointed out. please,