Re-writing Feynman’s Lectures?

I have a crazy new idea: a complete re-write of Feynman’s Lectures. It would be fun, wouldn’t it? I would follow the same structure—but start with Volume III, of course: the lectures on quantum mechanics. We could even re-use some language—although we’d need to be careful so as to keep Mr. Michael Gottlieb happy, of course. 🙂 What would you think of the following draft Preface, for example?

The special problem we try to get at with these lectures is to maintain the interest of the very enthusiastic and rather smart people trying to understand physics. They have heard a lot about how interesting and exciting physics is—the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and other modern ideas—and spend many years studying textbooks or following online courses. Many are discouraged because there are really very few grand, new, modern ideas presented to them. The problem is whether or not we can make a course which would save them by maintaining their enthusiasm.

The lectures here are not in any way meant to be a survey course, but are very serious. I thought it would best to re-write Feynman’s Lectures to make sure that even the least intelligent would be able to encompass almost everything that is in the lectures. 🙂

This is the link to Feynman’s original Preface, so you can see how it compares. 🙂

Now that sounds like a project, doesn’t it?

Jean Louis Van Belle, 22 May 2020

Post scriptum: It looks like we made Mr. Gottlieb and/or MIT very unhappy already: the link above does not work for us anymore (see what we get below). That’s very good: it is always nice to start a new publishing project with a little controversy. 🙂 We will have to use the good old paper print edition. We recommend you buy one too, by the way. 🙂 I think they are just a bit over US$100 now. Well worth it!

To put the historical record straight, the reader should note we started this blog before Mr. Gottlieb brought Feynman’s Lectures online. We actually wonder why he would be bothered by us referring to it. That’s what classical textbooks are for, aren’t they? They create common references to agree or disagree with, and why put a book online if you apparently don’t want it to be read or discussed? Noise like this probably means I am doing something right here. 🙂

Gottlieb

The wavefunction in a medium: amplitudes as signals

We finally did what we wanted to do for a while already: we produced a paper on the meaning of the wavefunction and wave equations in the context of an atomic lattice (think of a conductor or a semiconductor here). Unsurprisingly, we came to the following conclusions:

1. The concept of the matter-wave traveling through the vacuum, an atomic lattice or any medium can be equated to the concept of an electric or electromagnetic signal traveling through the same medium.

2. There is no need to model the matter-wave as a wave packet: a single wave – with a precise frequency and a precise wavelength – will do.

3. If we do want to model the matter-wave as a wave packet rather than a single wave with a precisely defined frequency and wavelength, then the uncertainty in such wave packet reflects our own limited knowledge about the momentum and/or the velocity of the particle that we think we are representing. The uncertainty is, therefore, not inherent to Nature, but to our limited knowledge about the initial conditions or, what amounts to the same, what happened to the particle(s) in the past.

4. The fact that such wave packets usually dissipate very rapidly, reflects that even our limited knowledge about initial conditions tends to become equally rapidly irrelevant. Indeed, as Feynman puts it, “the tiniest irregularities tend to get magnified very quickly” at the micro-scale.

In short, as Hendrik Antoon Lorentz noted a few months before his demise, there is, effectively, no reason whatsoever “to elevate indeterminism to a philosophical principle.” Quantum mechanics is just what it should be: common-sense physics.

The paper confirms intuitions we had highlighted in previous papers already, but uses the formalism of quantum mechanics itself to demonstrate this.

PS: We put the paper on academia.edu and ResearchGate as well, but Phil Gibbs’ site has easy access (no log-in or membership required). Long live Phil Gibbs!

Louis de Broglie’s mistake

So, yes, where did he go wrong? We wrote a paper with a brief history of quantum-mechanical ideas, focusing on some of the well-known contributions of great minds – including the ones we already talked about in previous posts – to the Solvay Conferences.

We hope to show there was nothing inevitable about the new physics winning out. In fact, we suggest modern-day physicists may usefully go back to some of the old ideas – most notably the idea that elementary particles do have some shape and size  – and that they should, perhaps, try somewhat harder to explain intrinsic properties of these particles, such as angular momentum and their magnetic moment, in terms of classical physics.

The contributions which we discuss are those of Ernest Rutherford, Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and, yes, Louis de Broglie. However, we also singled out Louis de Broglie’s ideas in a more comprehensive but also more technical paper on de Broglie’s wavelength, elementary particles, the wavefunction and relativity.

Enjoy !

PS: ResearchGate accepted my request to join the ‘research community’ as an independent researcher, so you can also find us on ResearchGate now. In fact, if you want to look at our core papers only, just go there! 🙂

 

 

Rutherford’s idea of an electron

Electrons, atoms, elementary particles and wave equations

The New Zealander Ernest Rutherford came to be known as the father of nuclear physics. He was the first to provide a reliable estimate of the order of magnitude of the size of the nucleus. To be precise, in the 1921 paper which we will discuss here, he came up with an estimate of about 15 fm for massive nuclei, which is the current estimate for the size of an uranium nucleus. His experiments also helped to significantly enhance the Bohr model of an atom, culminating – just before WW I started – in the Bohr-Rutherford model of an atom (E. Rutherford, Phil. Mag. 27, 488).

The Bohr-Rutherford model of an atom explained the (gross structure of the) hydrogen spectrum perfectly well, but it could not explain its finer structure—read: the orbital sub-shells which, as we all know now (but not very well then), result from the different states of angular momentum of an electron and the associated magnetic moment.

The issue is probably best illustrated by the two diagrams below, which I copied from Feynman’s Lectures. As you can see, the idea of subshells is not very relevant when looking at the gross structure of the hydrogen spectrum because the energy levels of all subshells are (very nearly) the same. However, the Bohr model of an atom—which is nothing but an exceedingly simple application of the E = h·f equation (see p. 4-6 of my paper on classical quantum physics)—cannot explain the splitting of lines for a lithium atom, which is shown in the diagram on the right. Nor can it explain the splitting of spectral lines when we apply a stronger or weaker magnetic field while exciting the atoms so as to induce emission of electromagnetic radiation.

Schrödinger’s wave equation solves that problem—which is why Feynman and other modern physicists claim this equation is “the most dramatic success in the history of the quantum mechanics” or, more modestly, a “key result in quantum mechanics” at least!

Such dramatic statements are exaggerated. First, an even finer analysis of the emission spectrum (of hydrogen or whatever other atom) reveals that Schrödinger’s wave equation is also incomplete: the hyperfine splitting, the Zeeman splitting (anomalous or not) or the (in)famous Lamb shift are to be explained not only in terms of the magnetic moment of the electron but also in terms of the magnetic moment of the nucleus and its constituents (protons and neutrons)—or of the coupling between those magnetic moments (we may refer to our paper on the Lamb shift here). This cannot be captured in a wave equation: second-order differential equations are – quite simply – not sophisticated enough to capture the complexity of the atomic system here.

Also, as we pointed out previously, the current convention in regard to the use of the imaginary unit (i) in the wavefunction does not capture the spin direction and, therefore, makes abstraction of the direction of the magnetic moment too! The wavefunction therefore models theoretical spin-zero particles, which do not exist. In short, we cannot hope to represent anything real with wave equations and wavefunctions.

More importantly, I would dare to ask this: what use is an ‘explanation’ in terms of a wave equation if we cannot explain what the wave equation actually represents? As Feynman famously writes: “Where did we get it from? Nowhere. It’s not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger, invented in his struggle to find an understanding of the experimental observations of the real world.” Our best guess is that it, somehow, models (the local diffusion of) energy or mass densities as well as non-spherical orbital geometries. We explored such interpretations in our very first paper(s) on quantum mechanics, but the truth is this: we do not think wave equations are suitable mathematical tools to describe simple or complex systems that have some internal structure—atoms (think of Schrödinger’s wave equation here), electrons (think of Dirac’s wave equation), or protons (which is what some others tried to do, but I will let you do some googling here yourself).

We need to get back to the matter at hand here, which is Rutherford’s idea of an electron back in 1921. What can we say about it?

Rutherford’s contributions to the 1921 Solvay Conference

From what you know, and from what I write above, you will understand that Rutherford’s research focus was not on electrons: his prime interest was in explaining the atomic structure and in solving the mysteries of nuclear radiation—most notably the emission of alpha– and beta-particles as well as highly energetic gamma-rays by unstable or radioactive nuclei. In short, the nature of the electron was not his prime interest. However, this intellectual giant was, of course, very much interested in whatever experiment or whatever theory that might contribute to his thinking, and that explains why, in his contribution to the 1921 Solvay Conference—which materialized as an update of his seminal 1914 paper on The Structure of the Atom—he devotes considerable attention to Arthur Compton’s work on the scattering of light from electrons which, at the time (1921), had not even been published yet (Compton’s seminal article on (Compton) scattering was published in 1923 only).

It is also very interesting that, in the very same 1921 paper—whose 30 pages are more than a multiple of his 1914 article and later revisions of it (see, for example, the 1920 version of it, which actually has wider circulation on the Internet)—Rutherford also offers some short reflections on the magnetic properties of electrons while referring to Parson’s ring current model which, in French, he refers to as “l’électron annulaire de Parson.” Again, it is very strange that we should translate Rutherford’s 1921 remarks back in English—as we are sure the original paper must have been translated from English to French rather than the other way around.

However, it is what it is, and so here we do what we have to do: we give you a free translation of Rutherford’s remarks during the 1921 Solvay Conference on the state of research regarding the electron at that time. The reader should note these remarks are buried in a larger piece on the emission of β particles by radioactive nuclei which, as it turns out, are nothing but high-energy electrons (or their anti-matter counterpart—positrons). In fact, we should—before we proceed—draw attention to the fact that the physicists at the time had no clear notion of the concepts of protons and neutrons.

This is, indeed, another remarkable historical contribution of the 1921 Solvay Conference because, as far as I know, this is the first time Rutherford talks about the neutron hypothesis. It is quite remarkable he does not advance the neutron hypothesis to explain the atomic mass of atoms combining what we know think of as protons and neutrons (Rutherford regularly talks of a mix of ‘positive and negative electrons’ in the nucleus—neither the term proton or neutron was in use at the time) but as part of a possible explanation of nuclear fusion reactions in stars or stellar nebulae. This is, indeed, his response to a question during the discussions on Rutherford’s paper on the possibility of nuclear synthesis in stars or nebulae from the French physicist Jean Baptise Perrin who, independently from the American chemist William Draper Harkins, had proposed the possibility of hydrogen fusion just the year before (1919):

“We can, in fact, think of enormous energies being released from hydrogen nuclei merging to form helium—much larger energies than what can come from the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism. I have been thinking that the hydrogen in the nebulae might come from particles which we may refer to as ‘neutrons’: these would consist of a positive nucleus with an electron at an exceedingly small distance (“un noyau positif avec un électron à toute petite distance”). These would mediate the assembly of the nuclei of more massive elements. It is, otherwise, difficult to understand how the positively charged particles could come together against the repulsive force that pushes them apart—unless we would envisage they are driven by enormous velocities.”

We may add that, just to make sure he get this right, Rutherford is immediately requested to elaborate his point by the Danish physicist Martin Knudsen: “What’s the difference between a hydrogen atom and this neutron?”—which Rutherford simply answers as follows: “In a neutron, the electron would be very much closer to the nucleus.” In light of the fact that it was only in 1932 that James Chadwick would experimentally prove the existence of neutrons (and positively charged protons), we are, once again, deeply impressed by the the foresight of Rutherford and the other pioneers here: the predictive power of their theories and ideas is, effectively, truly amazing by any standard—including today’s. I should, perhaps, also add that I fully subscribe to Rutherford’s intuition that a neutron should be a composite particle consisting of a proton and an electron—but that’s a different discussion altogether.

We must come back to the topic of this post, which we will do now. Before we proceed, however, we should highlight one other contextual piece of information here: at the time, very little was known about the nature of α and β particles. We now know that beta-particles are electrons, and that alpha-particles combine two protons and two neutrons. That was not known in the 1920s, however: Rutherford and his associates could basically only see positive or negative particles coming out of these radioactive processes. This further underscores how much knowledge they were able to gain from rather limited sets of data.

Rutherford’s idea of an electron in 1921

So here is the translation of some crucial text. Needless to say, the italics, boldface and additions between [brackets] are not Rutherford’s but mine, of course.

“We may think the same laws should apply in regard to the scattering [“diffusion”] of α and β particles. [Note: Rutherford noted, earlier in his paper, that, based on the scattering patterns and other evidence, the force around the nucleus must respect the inverse square law near the nucleus—moreover, it must also do so very near to it.] However, we see marked differences. Anyone who has carefully studied the trajectories [photographs from the Wilson cloud chamber] of beta-particles will note the trajectories show a regular curvature. Such curved trajectories are even more obvious when they are illuminated by X-rays. Indeed, A.H. Compton noted that these trajectories seem to end in a converging helical path turning right or left. To explain this, Compton assumes the electron acts like a magnetic dipole whose axis is more or less fixed, and that the curvature of its path is caused by the magnetic field [from the (paramagnetic) materials that are used].

Further examination would be needed to make sure this curvature is not some coincidence, but the general impression is that the hypothesis may be quite right. We also see similar curvature and helicity with α particles in the last millimeters of their trajectories. [Note: α-particles are, obviously, also charged particles but we think Rutherford’s remark in regard to α particles also following a curved or helical path must be exaggerated: the order of magnitude of the magnetic moment of protons and neutrons is much smaller and, in any case, they tend to cancel each other out. Also, because of the rather enormous mass of α particles (read: helium nuclei) as compared to electrons, the effect would probably not be visible in a Wilson cloud chamber.]

The idea that an electron has magnetic properties is still sketchy and we would need new and more conclusive experiments before accepting it as a scientific fact. However, it would surely be natural to assume its magnetic properties would result from a rotation of the electron. Parson’s ring electron model [“électron annulaire“] was specifically imagined to incorporate such magnetic polarity [“polarité magnétique“].

A very interesting question here would be to wonder whether such rotation would be some intrinsic property of the electron or if it would just result from the rotation of the electron in its atomic orbital around the nucleus. Indeed, James Jeans usefully reminded me any asymmetry in an electron should result in it rotating around its own axis at the same frequency of its orbital rotation. [Note: The reader can easily imagine this: think of an asymmetric object going around in a circle and returning to its original position. In order to return to the same orientation, it must rotate around its own axis one time too!]

We should also wonder if an electron might acquire some rotational motion from being accelerated in an electric field and if such rotation, once acquired, would persist when decelerating in an(other) electric field or when passing through matter. If so, some of the properties of electrons would, to some extent, depend on their past.”

Each and every sentence in these very brief remarks is wonderfully consistent with modern-day modelling of electron behavior. We should add, of course, non-mainstream modeling of electrons but the addition is superfluous because mainstream physicists stubbornly continue to pretend electrons have no internal structure, and nor would they have any physical dimension. In light of the numerous experimental measurements of the effective charge radius as well as of the dimensions of the physical space in which photons effectively interfere with electrons, such mainstream assumptions seem completely ridiculous. However, such is the sad state of physics today.

Thinking backward and forward

We think that it is pretty obvious that Rutherford and others would have been able to adapt their model of an atom to better incorporate the magnetic properties not only of electrons but also of the nucleus and its constituents (protons and neutrons). Unfortunately, scientists at the time seem to have been swept away by the charisma of Bohr, Heisenberg and others, as well as by the mathematical brilliance of the likes of Sommerfeld, Dirac, and Pauli.

The road then was taken then has not led us very far. We concur with Oliver Consa’s scathing but essentially correct appraisal of the current sorry state of physics:

“QED should be the quantized version of Maxwell’s laws, but it is not that at all. QED is a simple addition to quantum mechanics that attempts to justify two experimental discrepancies in the Dirac equation: the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The reality is that QED is a bunch of fudge factors, numerology, ignored infinities, hocus-pocus, manipulated calculations, illegitimate mathematics, incomprehensible theories, hidden data, biased experiments, miscalculations, suspicious coincidences, lies, arbitrary substitutions of infinite values and budgets of 600 million dollars to continue the game. Maybe it is time to consider alternative proposals. Winter is coming.”

I would suggest we just go back where we went wrong: it may be warmer there, and thinking both backward as well as forward must, in any case, be a much more powerful problem solving technique than relying only on expert guessing on what linear differential equation(s) might give us some S-matrix linking all likely or possible initial and final states of some system or process. 🙂

Post scriptum: The sad state of physics is, of course, not limited to quantum electrodynamics only. We were briefly in touch with the PRad experimenters who put an end to the rather ridiculous ‘proton radius puzzle’ by re-confirming the previously established 0.83-0.84 range for the effective charge radius of a proton: we sent them our own classical back-of-the-envelope calculation of the Compton scattering radius of a proton based on the ring current model (see p. 15-16 of our paper on classical physics), which is in agreement with these measurements and courteously asked what alternative theories they were suggesting. Their spokesman replied equally courteously:

“There is no any theoretical prediction in QCD. Lattice [theorists] are trying to come up [with something] but that will take another decade before any reasonable  number [may come] from them.”

This e-mail exchange goes back to early February 2020. There has been no news since. One wonders if there is actually any real interest in solving puzzles. The physicist who wrote the above may have been nominated for a Nobel Prize in Physics—I surely hope so because, in contrast to some others, he and his team surely deserve one— but I think it is rather incongruous to finally firmly establish the size of a proton while, at the same time, admit that protons should not have any size according to mainstream theory—and we are talking the respected QCD sector of the equally respected Standard Model here!

We understand, of course! As Freddy Mercury famously sang: The Show Must Go On.

The self-appointed science gurus

Sean Carroll recently tweeted this:

Sean Caroll

I could ‘t help giving him a straight answer. I actually like Sean Carroll, but I hate how he and others – think of John Gribbins, for example – self-appoint themselves as the only ‘gurus’ who are entitled to say something about grand theories or other ‘big ideas’: everyone else (read: all non-believers in QFT) are casually dismissed as ‘crackpot scientists’.

In fact, a few weeks before he had sent out a tweet promoting his ideas on the next ‘big ideas’, so I couldn’t help reminding him of the tweet above. 🙂

Sean Caroll next tweet

This is funny, and then it isn’t. The facts are this:

  1. The ‘new physics’ – the quantum revolution – started almost 100 years ago but doesn’t answer many fundamental questions (simply think about explaining spin and other intrinsic properties of matter-particles here).
  2. Geniuses like Einstein, Lorentz, Dirac and even Bell had serious doubts about the approach.
  3. Historical research shows theories and scientists were severely biased: see Dr. Consa’s review of quantum field theory in this regard.

I am very sorry, Dr. Carroll. You are much smarter than most – and surely much smarter than me – but here you show you are also plain arrogant. :-/ It’s this arrogance that has prevented a creative way out of the mess that fundamental physics finds itself in today. If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging !

The last words of H.A. Lorentz

I talked about the Solvay Conferences in my previous post(s). The Solvay Conference proceedings are a real treasury trove. Not only are they very pleasant to read, but they also debunk more than one myth or mystery in quantum physics!

It is part of scientific lore, for example, that the 1927 Solvay Conference was a sort of battlefield on new physics between Heisenberg and Einstein. Surprisingly, the papers and write-up of discussions reveal that Einstein hardly intervened. They also reveal that ‘battlefield stories’ such as Heisenberg telling Einstein to “stop telling God what to do” or – vice versa – Einstein declaring “God doesn’t play dice” are what they are: plain gossip or popular hear-say. Neither Heisenberg nor Einstein ever said that—or not at the occasion of the 1927 Solvay Conference, at least! Instead, we see very nuanced and very deep philosophical statements—on both sides of the so-called ‘divide’ or ‘schism’.

From all interventions, the intervention of the Dutch scientist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz stands out. I know (most of) my readers don’t get French, and so I might translate it into English one of these days. In the meanwhile, you may want to google-translate it yourself!

It is all very weird, emotional and historical. H.A. Lorentz – clearly the driving force behind those pre-WW II Solvay Conferences – died a few months after the 1927 Conference. In fact, the 1927 conference proceedings have both the sad announcement of his demise as well his interventions—such was the practice of actually physically printing stuff at the time.

For those who do read French, here you go:

DISCUSSION GENERALE DES IDEES NOUVELLES EMISES.

Causalité, Déterminisme. Probabilité.

Intervention de M. Lorentz:

“Je voudrais attirer l ’attention sur les difficultés qu’on rencontre dans les anciennes théories. Nous voulons nous faire une représentation des phénomènes, nous en former une image dans notre esprit. Jusqu’ici, nous avons toujours voulu former ces images au moyen des notions ordinaires de temps et d’espace. Ces notions sont peut-être innées; en tout cas, elles se sont développées par notre expérience personnelle, par nos observations journalières. Pour moi, ces notions sont claires et j ’avoue que je ne puis me faire une idée de la physique sans ces notions. L ’image que je veux me former des phénomènes doit être absolument nette et définie et il me semble que nous ne pouvons nous former une pareille image que dans ce système d’espace et de temps.

Pour moi, un électron est un corpuscule qui, a un instant donne, se trouve en un point détermine de l ’espace, et si j ’ai eu l ’idée qu’a un moment suivant ce corpuscule se trouve ailleurs, je dois songer à sa trajectoire, qui est une ligne dans l’espace. Et si cet électron rencontre un atome et y pénètre, et qu’après plusieurs aventures il quitte cet atome, je me forge une théorie dans laquelle cet électron conserve son individualité; c’est-à-dire que j ’imagine une ligne suivant laquelle cet électron passe à travers cet atome. Il se peut, évidemment, que cette théorie soit bien difficile à développer, mais a priori cela ne me parait pas impossible.

Je me figure que, dans la nouvelle théorie, on a encore de ces électrons. Il est possible, évidemment, que dans la nouvelle théorie, bien développée, il soit nécessaire de supposer que ces électrons subissent des transformations. Je veux bien admettre que l’électron se fond en un nuage. Mais alors je chercherai à quelle occasion cette transformation se produit. Si l’on voulait m’interdire une pareille recherche en invoquant un principe, cela me gênerait beaucoup. Il me semble qu’on peut toujours espérer qu’on fera plus tard ce que nous ne pouvons pas encore faire en ce moment. Même si l’on abandonne les anciennes idées, on peut toujours conserver les anciennes dénominations. Je voudrais conserver cet idéal d’autrefois, de décrire tout ce qui se passe dans le monde par des images nettes. Je suis prêt à admettre d’autres théories, à condition qu’on puisse les traduire par des images claires et nettes.

Pour ma part, bien que n’étant pas encore familiarisé avec les nouvelles idées que j’entends exprimer maintenant, je pourrais me représenter ces idées ainsi. Prenons le cas d’un électron qui rencontre un atome; supposons que cet électron quitte cet atome et qu’en même temps il y ait émission d’un quantum de lumière. Il faut considérer, en premier lieu, les systèmes d’ondes qui correspondent à l ’électron et à l’atome avant le choc. Après le choc, nous aurons de nouveaux systèmes d’ondes. Ces systèmes d’ondes pourront etre décrits par une fonction ψ définie dans un espace a un grand nombre de dimensions qui satisfait une équation différentielle. La nouvelle mécanique ondulatoire opèrera avec cette équation et établira la fonction ψ avant et après le choc.

Or, il y a des phénomènes qui apprennent qu’ il y a autre chose encore que ces ondes, notamment des corpuscules; on peut faire, par exemple, une expérience avec un cylindre de Faraday; il y a donc à tenir compte de l’individualité des électrons et aussi des photons. Je pense que je trouverais que, pour expliquer les phénomènes, il suffit d’admettre que l’expression ψψ* donne la probabilité que ces électrons et ces photons existent dans un volume détermine; cela me suffirait pour expliquer les expériences.

Mais les exemples donnes par M. Heisenberg m’apprennent que j’aurais atteint ainsi tout ce que l’expérience me permet d’atteindre. Or, je pense que cette notion de probabilité serait à mettre à la fin, et comme conclusion, des considérations théoriques, et non pas comme axiome a priori, quoique je veuille bien admettre que cette indétermination correspond aux possibilités expérimentales. Je pourrais toujours garder ma foi déterministe pour les phénomènes fondamentaux, dont je n’ai pas parlé. Est-ce qu’un esprit plus profond ne pourrait pas se rendre compte des mouvements de ces électrons. Ne pourrait-on pas garder le déterminisme en en faisant l’objet d’une croyance ? Faut-il nécessairement ériger l’ indéterminisme en principe?

I added the bold italics above. A free translation of this phrase is this:

Why should we elevate determinism or  – as Born en Heisenberg do – its opposite (indeterminism) to a philosophical principle?

What a beautiful statement ! Lorentz died of a very trivial cause: erysipelas, commonly known as St Anthony’s fire. :-/

Where things went wrong, exactly !

As mentioned in my previous post, Oliver Consa traces all of the nonsense in modern physics back to the Shelter Island (1947), Pocono (1948) and Oldstone (1949) Conferences. However, the first Solvay Conference that was organized after WW II was quite significant too. Niels Bohr and Robert Oppenheimer pretty much dominated it. Bohr does so by providing the introductory lecture ‘On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity’, while Oppenheimer’s ‘Electron Theory’ sets the tone for subsequent Solvay Conferences—most notably the one that would consecrate quantum field theory (QFT), which was held 13 years later (1961).

Indeed, the discussion between Oppenheimer and Dirac on the ‘Electron Theory’ paper in 1948 seems to be where things might have gone wrong—in terms of the ‘genealogy’ or ‘archaelogy’ of modern ideas, so to speak. In fact, both Oppenheimer and Dirac make rather historical blunders there:

  1. Oppenheimer uses perturbation theory to arrive at some kind of ‘new’ model of an electron, based on Schwinger’s new QFT models—which, as we now know, do not really lead anywhere.
  2. Dirac, however, is just too stubborn too: he simply keeps defending his un-defendable electron equation— which, of course, also doesn’t lead anywhere. [It is rather significant he was no longer invited for the next Solvay Conference.]

It is, indeed, very weird that Dirac does not follow through on his own conclusion: “Only a small part of the wave function has a physical meaning. We now have the problem of picking out that very small physical part of the exact solution of the wave equation.

It’s the ring current or Zitterbewegung electron, of course. The one trivial solution he thought was so significant in his 1933 Nobel Prize lecture… The other part of the solution(s) is/are, effectively, bizarre oscillations which he refers to as ‘run-away electrons’.

It’s nice to sort of ‘get’ this. 🙂

Tracing good and bad ideas

Today I decided to look for the original Solvay Conference papers, which were digitized by the libraries of the Free University of Brussels: here is the link to them.  I quickly went through the famous 1927 and 1930 Conferences (Einstein did not attend the 1933 Conference – nor did he attend the 1921 Conference) – but, to my great consternation – there is no trace of those so-called ‘heated discussions’ between Heisenberg and Einstein.

A few critical questions here and there, yes, but I don’t see anything even vaguely resembling an ‘ardent debate’ or a so-called ‘Bohr-Einstein controversy’. Am I mistaken—or am I missing something?

The fact that it’s all in French is quite interesting, and may explain why Einstein’s interventions are rare (I am not sure of the language that was used: the physicists then were multi-lingual, weren’t they?). The remarks of the French physicists Leon Brillouin, for example, are quite interesting but not widely known, it seems.

Funny remarks like Heisenberg telling Einstein ‘to stop telling God what to do’ are surely not there ! Are they folklore? Would anyone know whether these remarks are documented somewhere? I am just trying to trace those historical moments in the evolution of thought and science… 🙂

Things like this make me think a great deal of the ‘controversy’ between old (classical) and new (quantum) physics is actually just hype rather than reality. One of my readers sent me this link to a very interesting article in the LA Times in this regard. It’s a quick but very worthwhile read, showing it’s not only physics who suffers from ‘the need to sell’ real or non-existing results: here is the link—have a look!

In fact, I realize I am still looking for some kind of purpose for my new site. Perhaps I should dedicate it to research like this—separating fact from fiction in the history of ideas?

PS: I just checked the Wikipedia article on Heisenberg’s quotes and it seems Heisenberg’s “stop telling God what to do” is, effectively, disputed ! Interesting but, in light of its frequent use – also quite shocking, I would think.

PS 2: I jotted down the following based on a very quick scan of these Solvay Conferences:

Dr. Oliver Consa starts his scathing history of the sorry state of modern-day physics as follows:

“After the end of World War II, American physicists organized a series of three transcendent conferences for the development of modern physics: Shelter Island (1947), Pocono (1948) and Oldstone (1949). These conferences were intended to be a continuation of the mythical Solvay conferences. But, after World War II, the world had changed. The launch of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), followed by the immediate surrender of Japan, made the Manhattan Project scientists true war heroes. Physicists were no longer a group of harmless intellectuals; they had become the powerful holders of the secrets of the atomic bomb.”[1]

Secrets that could not be kept, of course. The gatekeepers did their best, however. Julius Robert Oppenheimer was, effectively, one of them. The history of Oppenheimer – father of the atomic bomb and prominent pacifist at the same time – is well known.

It is actually quite interesting to note that the Solvay Conferences continued after WW II and that Niels Bohr and Robert Oppenheimer pretty much dominated the very first post-WW II Solvay Conference, which was held in 1948. Bohr does so by providing the introductory lecture ‘On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity[2], while Oppenheimer’s ‘Electron Theory’ sets the tone for subsequent Solvay Conferences—most notably the one that would consecrate quantum field theory (QFT), which was held 13 years later (1961).[3]

Significantly, Paul Dirac is pretty much the only one asking Oppenheimer critical questions. As for Albert Einstein, I find it rather strange that – despite him being a member of the scientific committee[4] – he actually hardly interferes in discussions. It makes me think he had actually lost interest in the development of quantum theory.

Even more significant is the fact that Dirac was not invited nor even mentioned in the 1951 Solvay Conference.

[1] Oliver Consa, Something is rotten in the state of QED, February 2020.

[2] See the 1948 Solvay Conference report on the ULB’s digital archives.

[3] Institut international de physique Solvay (1962). La théorie quantique des champs: douzième Conseil de physique, tenu à l’Université libre de Bruxelles du 9 au 14 octobre 1961.

[4] Einstein was a member of the Solvay scientific committee from the very first conference (1911) – representing, in typical style, a country (Austria, not Germany) rather than an institution or just being a member in some personal capacity – till 1948. He was not a member of the 1951 scientific committee. The reason might well be age or a lack of interest, of course: Einstein was 72 years in 1951, and would die four years later (1955).

The difference between a theory and an explanation

That’s a weird title, isn’t it? It’s the title of a fun paper (fun for me, at least—I hope for you too, of course), in which I try to show where quantum mechanics went wrong, and why and when the job of both the academic physicist as well as of the would-be student of quantum mechanics turned into calculating rather than explaining what might or might not be happening.

Modern quantum physicists are, effectively, like economists modeling input-output relations: if they are lucky, they get some kind of mathematical description of what goes in and what goes out of a process or an interaction, but the math doesn’t tell them how stuff actually happens.

So this paper of ours talks about that—in a very detailed way, actually—and then we bring the Zitterbewegung electron model and our photon model together to provide a classical explanation of Compton scattering of photons by electrons so as to show what electron-photon interference might actually be: two electromagnetic oscillations interfering (classically) with each other.

The whole thing also offers some reflections on the nature of the Uncertainty Principle.

Here is the link on the academia.edu site ! In case you do not have an academia.edu identity, here’s the link to the paper on Phil Gibbs’ alternative science site.

Enjoy ! 🙂 When everything is said and done, the mystery of quantum mechanics is this: why is an electron an electron, and why is a proton a proton? 🙂

PS: I am sure you think my last statement is nonsensical. If so, I invite you to think again. Whomever can explain the electron-proton mass ratio will be able to explain the difference between the electromagnetic and strong force. In other words, he or she will be able to connect the electromagnetic and the strong ‘sector’ of a classical interpretation of quantum mechanics. 🙂

Explaining the Lamb shift in classical terms

Corona-virus is bad, but it does have one advantage: more time to work on my hobby ! I finally managed to have a look at what the (in)famous Lamb shift may or may not be. Here is the link to the paper.

I think it’s good. Why? Well… It’s that other so-called ‘high precision test’ of mainstream quantum mechanics (read: quantum field theory)m but so I found it’s just like the rest: ‘Cargo Cult Science.’ [I must acknowledge a fellow amateur physicist and blogger for that reference: it is, apparently, a term coined by Richard Feynman!]

To All: Enjoy and please keep up the good work in these very challenging times !

🙂

Making sense of it all

In recent posts, we have been very harsh in criticizing mainstream academics for not even trying to make sense of quantum mechanics—labeling them as mystery wallahs or, worse, as Oliver Consa does, frauds. While we think the latter criticism is fully justified –we can and should think of some of the people we used to admire as frauds now – I think we should also acknowledge most of the professional physicists are actually doing what we all are doing and that is to, somehow, try to make sense of it all. Nothing more, nothing less.

However, they are largely handicapped: we can say or whatever we write, and we do not need to think about editorial lines. In other words: we are free to follow logic and practice real science. Let me insert a few images here to lighten the discussion. One is a cartoon from the web and the other was sent to me by a friendly academic. As for the painting, if you don’t know him already, you should find out for yourself. 🙂

Both mainstream as well as non-mainstream insiders and outsiders are having very heated discussions nowadays. When joining such discussions, I think we should start by acknowledging that Nature is actually difficult to understand: if it would be easy, we would not be struggling with it. Hence, anyone who wants you to believe it actually all is easy and self-evident is a mystery wallah or a fraud too—at the other end of the spectrum!

For example, I really do believe that the ring current model of elementary particles elegantly combines wave-particle duality and, therefore, avoids countless dichotomies (such as the boson-fermion dichotomy, for example) that have hampered mankind’s understanding of what an elementary particle might actually be. At the same time, I also acknowledge that the model raises its own set of very fundamental questions (see our paper on the nature of antimatter and some other unresolved issues) and can, therefore, be challenged as well. In short, I don’t want to come across as being religious about our own interpretation of things because it is what it is: an interpretation of things we happen to believe in. Why? Because it happens to come across as being more rational, simpler or – to use Dirac’s characterization of a true theory – just beautiful.

So why are we having so much trouble accepting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics? Why are we so shocked by Consa’s story on man’s ambition in this particular field of human activity—as opposed to, say, politics or business? It’s because people like you and me thought these men were like us—much cleverer, perhaps, but, otherwise, totally like us: people searching for truth—or some basic version of it, at least! That’s why Consa’s conclusion hurts us so much:

“QED should be the quantized version of Maxwell’s laws, but it is not that at all. […] QED is a bunch of fudge factors, numerology, ignored infinities, hocus-pocus, manipulated calculations, illegitimate mathematics, incomprehensible theories, hidden data, biased experiments, miscalculations, suspicious coincidences, lies, arbitrary substitutions of infinite values and budgets of 600 million dollars to continue the game.”

Amateur physicists like you and me thought we were just missing something: some glaring (in)consistency in their or our theories which we just couldn’t see but that, inevitably, we would suddenly stumble upon while wracking our brains trying to grind through it all. We naively thought all of the sleepless nights, all the agony and all the sacrifices in terms of time and trouble would pay off, one day, at least! But, no, we’ve been wasting countless years to try to understand something which one can’t understand anyway—something which is, quite simply, not true. It was nothing but a bright shining lie and our anger is, therefore, fully justified. It sure did not do much to improve our mental and physical well-being, did it?

Such indignation may be justified but it doesn’t answer the more fundamental question: why did we even bother? Why are we so passionate about these things? Why do we feel that the Copenhagen interpretation cannot be right? One reason, of course, is that we were never alone here. The likes of Einstein, Dirac, and even Bell told us all along. Now that I think of it, all mainstream physicists that I know are critical of us – amateur physicists – but, at the same time, are also openly stating that the Standard Model isn’t satisfactory—and I am really thinking of mainstream researchers here: the likes of Zwiebach, Hossenfelder, Smolin, Gasparan, Batelaan, Pohl and so many others: they are all into string theory or, else, trying to disprove this or that quantum-mechanical theorem. [Batelaan’s reseach on the exchange of momentum in the electron double-slit experiment, for example, is very interesting in this regard.]

In fact, now that I think of it: can you give me one big name who is actually passionate about the Standard Model—apart from one or two Nobel Prize winners who got an undeserved price for it? If no one thinks it can be  right, then why can’t we just accept it just isn’t?

I’ve come to the conclusion the ingrained abhorrence – both of professional as well as of amateur physicists – is rooted in this: the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to a surrender of reason. It is, therefore, not science, but religion. Stating that it is a law of Nature that even experts cannot possibly understand Nature “the way they would like to”, as Richard Feynman put it, is both intuitively as well as rationally unacceptable.

Intuitively—and rationally? That’s a contradictio in terminis, isn’t it? We don’t think so. I think this is an outstanding example of a locus in our mind where intuition and rationality do meet each other.

Matter and antimatter

Matter and anti-matter: what’s the difference? The charge, of course: positive versus negative. Yes. Of course! But what’s beyond? Our ring current model offers a geometric explanation, so we thought we might try our hand at offering a geometric explanation of the difference between matter and anti-matter too. Have a look at the paper. It’s kinda primitive, but I need to start somewhere, right? 🙂

The metaphysics of physics

I just produced a first draft of the Metaphysics page of my new physics site. It does not only deal with the fundamental concepts we have been developing but – as importantly, if not more – it also offers some thoughts on all of the unanswered questions which, when trying to do science and be logical, are at least as important as the questions we do consider to be solved. Click the link or the tab. Enjoy ! 🙂 As usual, feedback is more than welcome!

New physics…

In my previous post, I wrote about the End of Physics. Of course, we need to replace the Old Physics by the new. I have structured a new website (ideez.org), and created the very first page for it. It is probably the most fundamental one, as it deals with all of the matter-particles: it uses the ring current model to explain their geometry which – in turn – explains all of their intrinsic properties. No magic here ! Or… Well… Maybe it’s the right kind of magic ! No Bright Shining Lies, in any case ! Enjoy ! JL

The End of Physics?

I just uploaded an update of my 10-page summary of what—paraphrasing Wittgenstein—I think might be the case. 🙂 So what’s that? It’s a basic description of what I think of as reality—at the most fundamental level, that is—in terms of a concise set of (classical) equations that speak to us (or to me, I should say). Needless to say, that set of classical equations includes an interpretation of the Planck-Einstein relation: E = h·f or E·T = h, in which T is interpreted as the cycle time of a particle.

The reader who hasn’t read me before will probably raise his (or her?) eyebrows here: the cycle time of a particle? Seriously? What do you mean by that?

Well… I won’t try to explain, really. The gist of it is this: think of it as a clock. The frequency of that clock is either on or off—relative to what we may refer to as some fundamental frequency of spacetime. If it’s on (the same frequency), our particle will be stable. If not, it will disintegrate into stable(r) constituents—electrons, protons, photons or neutrinos. Or—if we’re talking much larger conglomerates falling apart—some stable configuration of them: think of a neutron inside a nucleus, a hydrogen atom, a simple naked nucleus, or an actual atom (but here we’re entering the realm of chemistry—as opposed to elementary physics).

As a result, the paper has become a bit longer. Well… More than a bit, perhaps: it’s 20-25 pages now. The point is this: I feel it’s pretty complete, but I am left with the following issues and questions—or ‘clusters of analysis’ as I’d say in my line of business (which is finance and project management—not QM!):

  1. Is the (electric) charge inside an electron – and a proton—any matter-particle, really – a fractal structure or not?
  2. What is the nature of the ‘stronger’ force inside of the proton: I vaguely distinguish between the fundamental frequency and one or more higher modes of spacetime – but that needs to be ‘translated’ into a better ‘visual’ image of what might or might not be going on.
  3. Electron-positron pair creation/annihilation. Or—more generally speaking—the question of the fundamental nature of anti-matter in general.

I have a few preliminary thoughts on that, but I’d like to invite comments—because I am really puzzled by the above and talking about it surely helps! My guts instinct tells me this:

1. The idea of the zbw charge inside matter-particles being some fractal structure is appealing and not. It’s appealing because the radius of the zbw charge inside a proton must be smaller than the classical electron radius – so some fractal structure (to explain the origin of mass) is definitely something to consider.

—But then it’s also not appealing because it keeps that ambiguity: is Nature continuous or not? Is a charge some finite structure or not? Perhaps we should just accept the idea of a charge combines all of our concepts: force, mass—and the idea of (in)definiteness? 🙂

[I am joking and then I am not: I often feel the Uncertainty Principle is where the Pope thinks God might be hiding, so if we abolish that, the Vatican will need something else, right?]

2. The idea of the ‘strong’ (or ‘stronger’) force grabbing onto the same charge (i.e. the electric charge) is great because it greatly simplifies the analysis. The idea of a strong force grabbing onto a strong charge is appealing (we had already invented a unit for the strong charge) but it hugely complicates our thinking of the proton as some unitary particle. Why? Think of this question: what force grabs on what charge, and how exactly, and how do the two charges then relate to each other?  – no strong charge needed! I really must thank Giorgio Vassallo here for pointing out I should try to simplify as much as possible when thinking about the QCD sector. [I hope Dr. Vassallo appreciates the compliment—can’t be sure of that coz he’s rather taciturn. :-)]

3. The third of the three questions is the most difficult one. From all of Dirac’s formal or informal remarks on the state of our knowledge, it’s clear he struggled very much with that too. The gist of the matter is this: our world could be an anti-matter world. We may think of that as a mathematical fiction: who cares if we write q or −q in our equations? No one, right? It’s just a convention, and so we can just swap signs, right?

Well… No. Dirac had noticed the mathematical possibility early on—in 1928, to be precise, as soon as he had published his equation for the free electron. He said this about it in his 1933 Nobel Prize Lecture:

“If we accept the view of complete symmetry between positive and negative electric charge so far as concerns the fundamental laws of Nature, we must regard it rather as an accident that the Earth (and presumably the whole solar system), contains a preponderance of negative electrons and positive protons.”

The carefully chosen ‘preponderance’ term shows he actually did imagine some stars could possibly be made of anti-matter, and he said as much in the very same lecture:

“It is quite possible that for some of the stars it is the other way about, these stars being built up mainly of positrons and negative protons. […] The two kinds of stars would both show exactly the same spectra, and there would be no way of distinguishing them by present astronomical methods.”

Strangely enough, he doesn’t mention Carl D. Anderson who – just the previous year (1932) – had actually found the trace of an actual positron on one of his cloud chamber pictures of what happens to cosmic radiation when it enters… Well… Anderson’s cloud chamber. 🙂 Anderson got his own Nobel Prize for it – and one that’s very well deserved (the reader who’s read our previous posts will know we have serious doubts on the merit of some (other) Nobel Prizes).

The point is this: we should not think of matter and anti-matter as being ‘separate worlds’ (theoretical and/or physical). No. Pair creation/annihilation should be part and parcel of our ‘world view’ (read: our classical explanation of quantum physics). So what can/should we do with this?

[…]

Nothing at all, perhaps. If we stare at the equations long enough, they all start making sense after a while, don’t they? Especially when enjoying a Belgian beer or a good glass of wine. Feynman quoted an unknown poet in one of his introductory lectures to his Lectures:

“The whole universe is in a glass of wine.”

Again, after having deified Feynman for decades, I regret to say that I now have to think of Richard Feynman as being a very complicated personality defending mainstream thought rather than trying to revolutionize scientific thought. :-/ Having said that, I still fully agree with most of his metaphorical statements, and the one above surely tops my list. 🙂

Freeman Dyson’s death

As we are doing stupid stuff anyway – like writing to the Nobel Prize Committee – I thought I should just go all the way, and finally contact the man who must know the truth on whether or not mainstream QM is just a gigantic hoax: a sophisticated mass deception effort—think of it as a PR stunt to keep big tech projects going!

The name of the man is Freeman Dyson. He’s the last man standing of the post-WW II generation which I now refer to as the Mystery Wallahs. He’s 96, I think.

[…]

Oh hell ! I just checked: he passed away too. Just 10 days ago, on 28 February 2020. He died, apparently, from the complications from a fall in the cafeteria in Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Studies, from which I got his email address. This is plain eerie: I was writing to a dead man ! :-/

I did not receive any error or other message. I guess they haven’t deactivated his email account yet. :-/

[…]

Post scriptum—or my obituary, I guess: Despite the rather romantic image of Freeman Dyson as the crazy iconoclastic or ‘heretic’ scientist (he never bothered to get a PhD, for example), I do not associate him with anything good—if only because of his stance on climate change, and I thank the NY Times journalist who wrote his obituary for writing what should be written here:

“He doubted the veracity of the climate models, and he exasperated experts with sanguine predictions they found rooted less in science than in wishfulness: Excess carbon in the air is good for plants, and global warming might forestall another ice age.”

That should generate enough dislike, I’d think. However, I don’t like him because of an entirely different: the reason why I finally wrote him that email he now can’t read. Perhaps it’s better this way: I hope he takes what I now think of as a Bright Shining Lie to the grave.

It’s probably a futile hope: editorial lines of scientific journals will probably not change any time soon. Sayre’s Law: “Academic politics is much more vicious than real politics.” Sayre thought it was “because the stakes are so small.”

I agree with Oliver Consa here: the latter probably isn’t true. US$600 m projects do warrant a decent PR fight, don’t they? I, therefore, suspect the Mystery Wallahs will prevail. As most – if not all of them – also said they do believe in God, I guess that suits everyone then. :-/

From: Jean Louis Van Belle
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 7:09 AM
To: ‘dyson@ias.edu’ <dyson@ias.edu>
Subject: Last man standing…

Dear Professor – I hope this email reaches you. I’ve been thinking of writing you for many years, as you are the ‘last man standing’ of a incredibly smart group of people who basically developed what we now refer to as the Standard Model of physics.

As I am reaching a rather ripe old age myself now – but still trying to establish what, in my world (which is consulting and finance), is referred to as some kind of ‘basic version of truth’ – there are many topics and questions I would want to ask, but I’ll reduce them to one very simple question on the enclosed paper, which was written by a very smart young man: Dr. Oliver Consa (Something is rotten in the state of QED, Feb 2020).

The question is this: what do you think of Dr. Consa’s ‘version of truth’?

Kindest regards – Jean Louis

Jean Louis Van Belle
Phone: +32 (0)471 079 892
Skype ID: jean.louis.van.belle
Email: jeanlouisvanbelle@outlook.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jean-louis-van-belle-85b74b7a/
Blog: https://readingfeynman.org/
viXra org: https://vixra.org/author/jean_louis_van_belle
Academia.edu: https://independent.academia.edu/JeanLouisVanBelle

None of us is as smart as all of us.” (Kenneth Blanchard)

Another catastrophe in the making?

It’s funny, but I feel the scientific atmosphere may resemble that of the end of the 19th century: what was supposed to be the triumph of classical physics (with Maxwell publishing his famous equations of electromagnetism) suddenly turned into a catastrophe: the ultraviolet catastrophe, to be precise. And it required an Einstein to publish a radical theory altering the world view (relativity theory). I feel a similar catastrophe – and a better theory of quantum mechanics as well, of course! – may be in the making. Hence, I couldn’t restrain myself and thought it’s time for some fun. So I wrote the following letter to the Nobel Prize Committee.

Let’s see if they react. I don’t think so, but then one never knows, right? 🙂

QUOTE

Dear Sir/Madam – I am just an amateur physicist but, having followed the popular physics scene for many years now, I feel I must alert you to a growing feeling that the Nobel Prize Committee may have been awarded to some rather ‘non-productive forms of atomic theory’ lately.

The mainstream interpretation of quantum physics has been criticized severely, both by professional as well as amateur physicists (for a very professional critique, see – for example – the latest article by Dr. Consa: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf).

Also, awarding a Nobel Prize because experiments reveal ‘signature signals’ of the hypothesized W/Z bosons, quarks and/or Higgs particles do not confirm these ‘intermediate vector bosons’ or these (virtual and non-virtual) quarks and gluons actually exist. There are also other credible ‘mechanisms’ explaining mass and/or the anomalous magnetic moment (the ring current model of electrons and protons, on which I publish myself (see: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0160v1.pdf and https://vixra.org/pdf/2003.0094v1.pdf) is just one example of what I think of as credible alternative explanations).

To many of my colleagues – amateur physicists just like me – it feels like the Nobel Prize Committee has really been in a hurry to ‘consecrate’ the Standard Model asap. If this is to confirm the ‘triumph’ of the mainstream interpretation of physics, then I am afraid the effect is just the opposite.

This is just an opinion, of course – but I just wanted to alert you to it – because the unease with the ‘Standard Model’ seems to be spreading quite rapidly lately and has become very palpable, I would think. In this regard, I refer to books such as Hossenfelder’s ‘Lost in Math?’ and other ‘mainstream researchers challenging other mainstream researchers.’

Kindest regards – Jean Louis

Jean Louis Van Belle
Phone: +32 (0)471 079 892
Skype ID: jean.louis.van.belle
Email: jeanlouisvanbelle@outlook.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jean-louis-van-belle-85b74b7a/
Blog: https://readingfeynman.org/
viXra org: https://vixra.org/author/jean_louis_van_belle
Academia.edu: https://independent.academia.edu/JeanLouisVanBelle

None of us is as smart as all of us.” (Kenneth Blanchard)

UNQUOTE

Mainstream QM: A Bright Shining Lie

Yesterday night, I got this email from a very bright young physicist: Dr. Oliver Consa. He is someone who – unlike me – does have the required Dr and PhD credentials in physics (I have a drs. title in economics) – and the patience that goes with it – to make some more authoritative statements in the weird world of quantum mechanics. I recommend you click the link in the email (copied below) and read the paper. Please do it! 

It is just 12 pages, and it is all extremely revealing. Very discomforting, actually, in light of all the other revelations on fake news in other spheres of life.

Many of us – and, here, I just refer to those who are reading my post – all sort of suspected that some ‘inner circle’ in the academic circuit had cooked things up:the Mystery Wallahs, as I refer to them now. Dr. Consa’s paper shows our suspicion is well-founded.

QUOTE

Dear fellow scientist,

I send you this mail because you have been skeptical about Foundations of Physics. I think that this new paper will be of your interest. Feel free to share it with your colleagues or publish it on the web. I consider it important that this paper serves to open a public debate on this subject.

Something is Rotten in the State of QED
https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf

Abstract
“Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today.”  (12 pag.)

Best Regards,
Oliver Consa
oliver.consa@gmail.com

UNQUOTE

A theory of matter-particles

Pre-scriptum (PS), added on 6 March 2020: The ideas below also naturally lead to a theory about what a neutrino might actually be. As such, it’s a complete ‘alternative’ Theory of Everything. I uploaded the basics of such theory on my academia.edu site. For those who do not want to log on to academia.edu, you can also find the paper on my author’s page on Phil Gibb’s site.

Text:

We were rather tame in our last paper on the oscillator model of an electron. We basically took some philosophical distance from it by stating we should probably only think of it as a mathematical equivalent to Hestenes’ concept of the electron as a superconducting loop. However, deep inside, we feel we should not be invoking Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics to explain what a proton and an electron might actually be. The basics of the ring current model can be summed up in one simple equation:

c = a·ω

This is the formula for the tangential velocity. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation and the Planck-Einstein relation explain everything else[1], as evidenced by the fact that we can immediately derive the Compton radius of an electron from these three equations, as shown below:F1The reader might think we are just ‘casually connecting formulas’ here[2] but we feel we have a full-blown theory of the electron here: simple and consistent. The geometry of the model is visualized below. We think of an electron (and a proton) as consisting of a pointlike elementary charge – pointlike but not dimensionless[3] – moving about at (nearly) the speed of light around the center of its motion.

Picture1

The relation works perfectly well for the electron. However, when applying the a = ħ/mc radius formula to a proton, we get a value which is about 1/4 of the measured proton radius: about 0.21 fm, as opposed to the 0.83-0.84 fm charge radius which was established by Professors Pohl, Gasparan and others over the past decade.[4] In our papers on the proton radius[5],  we motivated the 1/4 factor by referring to the energy equipartition theorem and assuming energy is, somehow, equally split over electromagnetic field energy and the kinetic energy in the motion of the zbw charge. However, the reader must have had the same feeling as we had: these assumptions are rather ad hoc. We, therefore, propose something more radical:

When considering systems (e.g. electron orbitals) and excited states of particles, angular momentum comes in units (nearly) equal to ħ, but when considering the internal structure of elementary particles, (orbital) angular momentum comes in an integer fraction of ħ. This fraction is 1/2 for the electron[6] and 1/4 for the proton.

Let us write this out for the proton radius:F2What are the implications for the assumed centripetal force keeping the elementary charge in motion? The centripetal acceleration is equal to ac = vt2/a = a·ω2. It is probably useful to remind ourselves how we get this result so as to make sure our calculations are relativistically correct. The position vector r (which describes the position of the zbw charge) has a horizontal and a vertical component: x = a·cos(ωt) and y = a·sin(ωt). We can now calculate the two components of the (tangential) velocity vector v = dr/dt as vx = –a·ω·sin(ωt) and vy y = –a· ω·cos(ωt) and, in the next step, the components of the (centripetal) acceleration vector ac: ax = –a·ω2·cos(ωt) and ay = –a·ω2·sin(ωt). The magnitude of this vector is then calculated as follows:

ac2 = ax2 + ay2a2·ω4·cos2(ωt) + a2·ω4·sin2(ωt) = a2·ω4ac = a·ω2 = vt2/a

Now, Newton’s force law tells us that the magnitude of the centripetal force will be equal to:

F = mγ·ac = mγ·a·ω2

As usual, the mγ factor is, once again, the effective mass of the zbw charge as it zitters around the center of its motion at (nearly) the speed of light: it is half the electron mass.[7] If we denote the centripetal force inside the electron as Fe, we can relate it to the electron mass me as follows:F3Assuming our logic in regard to the effective mass of the zbw charge inside a proton is also valid – and using the 4E = ħω and a = ħ/4mc relations – we get the following equation for the centripetal force inside of a proton:
F4How should we think of this? In our oscillator model, we think of the centripetal force as a restoring force. This force depends linearly on the displacement from the center and the (linear) proportionality constant is usually written as k. Hence, we can write Fe and Fp as Fe = -kex and Fp = -kpx respectively. Taking the ratio of both so as to have an idea of the respective strength of both forces, we get this:F5

The ap and ae are acceleration vectors – not the radius. The equation above seems to tell us that the centripetal force inside of a proton gives the zbw charge inside – which is nothing but the elementary charge, of course – an acceleration that is four times that of what might be going on inside the electron.

Nice, but how meaningful are these relations, really? If we would be thinking of the centripetal or restoring force as modeling some elasticity of spacetime – the guts intuition behind far more complicated string theories of matter – then we may think of distinguishing between a fundamental frequency and higher-level harmonics or overtones.[8] We will leave our reflections at that for the time being.

We should add one more note, however. We only talked about the electron and the proton here. What about other particles, such as neutrons or mesons? We do not consider these to be elementary because they are not stable: we think they are not stable because the Planck-Einstein relation is slightly off, which causes them to disintegrate into what we’ve been trying to model here: stable stuff. As for the process of their disintegration, we think the approach that was taken by Gell-Man and others[9] is not productive: inventing new quantities that are supposedly being conserved – such as strangeness – is… Well… As strange as it sounds. We, therefore, think the concept of quarks confuses rather than illuminates the search for a truthful theory of matter.

Jean Louis Van Belle, 6 March 2020

[1] In this paper, we make abstraction of the anomaly, which is related to the zbw charge having a (tiny) spatial dimension.

[2] We had a signed contract with the IOP and WSP scientific publishing houses for our manuscript on a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics (https://vixra.org/abs/1901.0105) which was shot down by this simple comment. We have basically stopped tried convincing mainstream academics from that point onwards.

[3] See footnote 1.

[4] See our paper on the proton radius (https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0160).

[5] See reference above.

[6] The reader may wonder why we did not present the ½ fraction is the first set of equations (calculation of the electron radius). We refer him or her to our previous paper on the effective mass of the zbw charge (https://vixra.org/abs/2003.0094). The 1/2 factor appears when considering orbital angular momentum only.

[7] The reader may not be familiar with the concept of the effective mass of an electron but it pops up very naturally in the quantum-mechanical analysis of the linear motion of electrons. Feynman, for example, gets the equation out of a quantum-mechanical analysis of how an electron could move along a line of atoms in a crystal lattice. See: Feynman’s Lectures, Vol. III, Chapter 16: The Dependence of Amplitudes on Position (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_16.html). We think of the effective mass of the electron as the relativistic mass of the zbw charge as it whizzes about at nearly the speed of light. The rest mass of the zbw charge itself is close to – but also not quite equal to – zero. Indeed, based on the measured anomalous magnetic moment, we calculated the rest mass of the zbw charge as being equal to about 3.4% of the electron rest mass (https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0315).

[8] For a basic introduction, see my blog posts on modes or on music and physics (e.g. https://readingfeynman.org/2015/08/08/modes-and-music/).

[9] See, for example, the analysis of kaons (K-mesons) in Feynman’s Lectures, Vol. III, Chapter 11, section 5 (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_11.html#Ch11-S5).