search
top

Discussion on QM and the ether



Discussion on QM and the ether

When you are inter­ested in physics you must read “Unbe­liev­able”!

We described the hydro­gen atom as an EM-​free rota­tor and found com­plete con­sis­tent for­mu­las with QM. Sci­en­tists state that Bohr’s atom model is invalid for atoms when the charge of the nucleus exceeds the charge of the positron (Z>1) and that there­fore the pre­sented EM-​free rota­tor for atoms when Z>1 must be invalid to.

The rea­son why Bohr’s atomic model is not ade­quate to describe atoms when Z>1 is that the for­mula for the (macro­scopic) Coulomb force between two charges is only valid in describ­ing the elec­tro­sta­tic force between charges in our macro-​world. The Coulomb force is an in our macro-​world exper­i­men­tal derived for­mula. The QM-​rules at sub­atomic lev­els are not rel­e­vant any­more in our macro world and for that rea­son the Coulomb-​force for­mula is not valid at QM-​levels. At the sub­atomic (ion­iza­tion) lev­els there is inter­fer­ence of the elec­tro­sta­tic fields of the pos­i­tive charges in the nucleus. This inter­fer­ence dis­ap­pears in the macro-​world. The Coulomb-​force for the EM-​free rota­tor and Bohr’s model should be, because of the inter­fer­ence of elec­tric fields at sub-​atomic lev­els, be : or (***)

Inter­fer­ence occurs at sub­atomic lev­els because the elec­tro­sta­tic fields of the pro­tons in the nucleus seek a way out. Not all point-​volumes around the nucleus are in touch (inho­mo­ge­neous space) so the resis­tance for elec­tro­sta­tic fields dif­fers around the nucleus. The dif­fer­ent fields of the pro­tons in the nucleus fol­low the same low resis­tance “route” in space (=interference).

The elec­tro­sta­tic field around a nucleus is not homo­ge­neous. Inter­fer­ence of elec­tro­sta­tic fields at sub­atomic level is expected while at our 3-​dimensional world space/​vacuum is homogenous.

In gen­eral QM describes math­e­mat­i­cally the physics at mol­e­c­u­lar level and sub-​atomic level very well. This is even so when one real­izes that the use of math­e­mat­i­cal cor­rec­tion fac­tors by QM is not uncom­mon. Despite the sig­nif­i­cance of the math­e­mat­i­cal solu­tions QM offers there is a seri­ous flaw; the physics behind the QM-​math are not understood.

The per­spec­tive of sci­ence con­cern­ing vac­uum is an absolute empty space, although in The­o­ret­i­cal Physics the field the­ory is widely accepted and con­tra­dicts at least philo­soph­i­cally the assumed absolutely empty space.

I request the reader to answer the fol­low­ing question:

What is the chance that by coin­ci­dence the rydberg-​distance is time the Bohr-​radius, and that the Bohr-​radius is times the Compton-​radius, and that the Compton-​radius is times the Planck-​radius and that at the same time the 12 atomic ion­iza­tion lev­els of the atom are iden­ti­fied, Planck’s con­stant elim­i­nated as an inde­pen­dent nat­ural con­stant, the ori­gin of the math­e­mat­i­cal con­stant e and π is located and the mys­te­ri­ous aspects of mol­e­c­u­lar QM are answered?

These obser­va­tions and the high like­li­hood of space not being absolutely empty, the accep­tance by Sci­ence of the field the­ory and the com­plete expla­na­tion of the phe­nom­e­non of stel­lar aber­ra­tion, should be able to per­suade sci­en­tists to at least look in to the mat­ter. How­ever new the­o­ret­i­cal ideas and dis­cov­er­ies coun­ter­marches estab­lished and tra­di­tional the­ses and there­fore are fiercely rejected by science.

Is it impos­si­ble that sci­ence erro­neously con­cluded that vac­uum is absolute empty space?

Com­plete math­e­mat­i­cal and phys­i­cal under­stand­ing of QM in the case of Bohr’s atomic model can be achieved when we con­sider space filled with point-​volumes with radius QD. The matrix of point-​volumes fill­ing up space around the nucleus is imper­fect for elec­trons (Rc) at dis­tances smaller than the ryd­bergcon­stant. The res­o­nance of QD in the “matrix of space” from the Planck-​distance to the rydberg-​distance can be sim­u­lated math­e­mat­i­cally. This sim­u­la­tion will show the 12-​ionization lev­els of the elec­tron orbit­ing around the nucleus. Many, many other quan­tum res­o­nance dis­tances between the QD and the rydberg-​distance will be identified.

The reader should real­ize that the above shown rela­tions between Rr/​Rb=Rb/Rc=Rc/QD=is the con­se­quence of the 3-​dimensional prop­er­ties of the elec­tron. The elec­tron cir­cles around the nucleus and the dimen­sion of the elec­tron deter­mines the dis­tances where space is “per­fect” for the elec­tron. Should the elec­tron have other dimen­sions than Rc the observed dis­tances Rr and Rb would change accordingly.

The quan­tifi­ca­tion of dis­tance in the pre­sented EM-​free rota­tor is com­pletely con­sis­tent with the energy quan­tifi­ca­tion of QM. The solu­tion is even much more sim­ple because in QM every atom has its own energy quan­tifi­ca­tions while with the EM-​free rota­tor and the geo­met­ri­cal energy traps at the ion­iza­tion lev­els the dis­tance quan­ti­sa­tion for every atom is the same.

The radius of nuclei are accord­ing to QM approx. 10^−12 meter. The QM vol­ume of nuclei con­tain there­fore approx. 1018 point vol­umes. Any QED-​particle/​process can the­o­ret­i­cally be real­ized with the pres­ence of 1018 point vol­umes. Dragged ether is con­sis­tent with any QM/​QED (sub) nuclear process or par­ti­cle dis­cov­ered or cal­cu­lated by The­o­ret­i­cal Physics. Despite the con­sis­tency of dragged ether with QM, sci­en­tists argue that dragged ether is vio­lat­ing QM/​QED and there­fore the dragged ether the­ory must be false!

Next chap­ter: Bib­li­og­ra­phy

When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!

We described the hydrogen atom as an EM-free rotator and found complete consistent formulas with QM. Scientists state that Bohr’s atom model is invalid for atoms when the charge of the nucleus exceeds the charge of the positron (Z>1) and that therefore the presented EM-free rotator for atoms when Z>1 must be invalid to.

The reason why Bohr’s atomic model is not adequate to describe atoms when Z>1 is that the formula for the (macroscopic) Coulomb force between two charges  is only valid in describing the electrostatic force between charges in our macro-world. The Coulomb force is an in our macro-world experimental derived formula. The QM-rules at subatomic levels are not relevant anymore in our macro world and for that reason the Coulomb-force formula is not valid at QM-levels. At the subatomic (ionization) levels there is interference of the electrostatic fields of the positive charges in the nucleus. This interference disappears in the macro-world. The Coulomb-force for the EM-free rotator and Bohr’s model should be, because of the interference of electric fields at sub-atomic levels, be :  or (***)

Interference occurs at subatomic levels because the electrostatic fields of the protons in the nucleus seek a way out. Not all point-volumes around the nucleus are in touch (inhomogeneous space) so the resistance for electrostatic fields differs around the nucleus. The different fields of the protons in the nucleus follow the same low resistance “route” in space (=interference).

The electrostatic field around a nucleus is not homogeneous. Interference of electrostatic fields at subatomic level is expected while at our 3-dimensional world space/vacuum is homogenous.

In general QM describes mathematically the physics at molecular level and sub-atomic level very well. This is even so when one realizes that the use of mathematical correction factors by QM is not uncommon. Despite the significance of the mathematical solutions QM offers there is a serious flaw; the physics behind the QM-math are not understood.

The perspective of science concerning vacuum is an absolute empty space, although in Theoretical Physics the field theory is widely accepted and contradicts at least philosophically the assumed absolutely empty space.

I request the reader to answer the following question:

What is the chance that by coincidence the rydberg-distance is  time the Bohr-radius, and that the Bohr-radius is  times the Compton-radius, and that the Compton-radius is  times the Planck-radius and that at the same time the 12 atomic ionization levels of the atom are identified, Planck’s constant eliminated as an independent natural constant, the origin of the mathematical constant e and π is located and the mysterious aspects of molecular QM are answered?

These observations and the high likelihood of space not being absolutely empty, the acceptance by Science of the field theory and the complete explanation of the phenomenon of stellar aberration, should be able to persuade scientists to at least look in to the matter. However new theoretical ideas and discoveries countermarches established and traditional theses and therefore are fiercely rejected by science.

Is it impossible that science erroneously concluded that vacuum is absolute empty space?

Complete mathematical and physical understanding of QM in the case of Bohr’s atomic model can be achieved when we consider space filled with point-volumes with radius QD. The matrix of point-volumes filling up space around the nucleus is imperfect for electrons (Rc) at distances smaller than the rydbergconstant. The resonance of  QD in the “matrix of space” from the Planck-distance to the rydberg-distance can be simulated mathematically. This simulation will show the 12-ionization levels of the electron orbiting around the nucleus. Many, many other quantum resonance distances between the QD and the rydberg-distance will be identified.

The reader should realize that the above shown relations between Rr/Rb=Rb/Rc=Rc/QD=is the consequence of the 3-dimensional properties of the electron. The electron circles around the nucleus and the dimension of the electron determines the distances where space is “perfect” for the electron. Should the electron have other dimensions than Rc the observed distances Rr and Rb would change accordingly.

The quantification of distance in the presented EM-free rotator is completely consistent with the energy quantification of QM. The solution is even much more simple because in QM every atom has its own energy quantifications while with the EM-free rotator and the geometrical energy traps at the ionization levels the distance quantisation for every atom is the same.

The radius of nuclei are according to QM approx. 10^-12 meter. The QM volume of nuclei contain therefore approx. 10^18 point volumes. Any QED-particle/process can theoretically be realized with the presence of  10^18 point volumes. Dragged ether is consistent with any QM/QED (sub) nuclear process or particle discovered or calculated by Theoretical Physics. Despite the consistency of dragged ether with QM, scientists argue that dragged ether is violating QM/QED and therefore the dragged ether theory must be false!

Next chapter: Bibliography

top