Change your thinking, change your life!

Consequences Of A

Spring-And-Loop Theory 8:

Quantum World

YouTube [30min] | MP3 [30min]

by Floyd Maxwell, BASc


Quantum World


Beginning at the beginning

Wikipedia is generally a good starting point, so let's quote from the first paragraph of the Quantum page:

"In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction."

"...the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values."

"A photon is a single quantum of light."

"The energy of an electron bound to an atom is quantized, which results in the stability of atoms."

"As incorporated into the theory of quantum mechanics, this is regarded by physicists as part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature at the smallest length-scales."


 

The 80:20 Rule

Spring-And-Loop Theory can agree with the first four points,
but thinks quantum mechanics (QM) is non-fundamental in important ways.

Let's embrace (at arm's length) the essence of QM, gaining from and clarifying the current view of the quantum world.

Kenneth W. Ford's "101 Quantum Questions" is well thought out and thorough. Let's dissect it, in the interests of science.


 


The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.
- Albert Einstein

 

Careful with those building blocks!

Ford's introduction lists "concepts of the quantum world":

(1) Quantization: Nature is granular, or lumpy -- both in the bits of matter that make up the world and also in changes that occur.

(2) Probability: Probability rules events in the small-scale world -- even when we know everything there is to know about the events.

(3) Wave-Particle duality: Matter can exhibit both wave and particle properties.

(4) Uncertainty principle: There is a fundamental limit in nature in the precision to which certain measurements can be made.
...

[red is where Spring-And-Loop Theory and QM differ...]

...
(5) Annihilation and creation: All interactions involve annihilation and creation of particles.

(6) Spin: Even "point particles" (those with no apparent physical extension) can spin, and spin is a quantized property.

(7) Superposition: A particle or system of particles can exist in two or more states of motion at the same time.

(8) Antisocial particles: Particles called fermions obey an exclusion principle. No two identical ones can occupy the same state of motion at the same time. Because of the exclusion principle, the periodic table exists.
...

[Seven points of agreement, five new things to consider.]

...
(9) Social particles: Particles called bosons can (and even "like to") cluster into the same state of motion, making possible an ultimate "togetherness" called the Bose-Einstein condensation.

(10) Conservation: Certain quantities remain constant during all processes of change. Other quantities ("partially conserved quantities") remain constant during particular kinds of change.

(11) Speed limit: The speed of light sets a speed limit in nature. (This consequence of relativity theory is most dramatically revealed in the quantum world).

(12) E=mc2: Mass and energy are united into a single concept, so that mass can be changed to energy and energy to mass (another consequence of relativity theory that shows itself tellingly in the quantum world).


 

#1 - The foundation stone...

Housing construction today differs considerably from earlier times. Perhaps the single greatest improvement is the move from dirt floors to concrete.

Dirt was permeable to moisture. Sealed concrete is not.

Finding a way to keep humans drier also meant we had a chance to preserve things for longer periods of time. Books would never have survived earthen floors, and then where would science be?

With the wave-particle concept, physicists today are trying for a dirt-concrete hybrid, with disappointing results.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says particles are never waves.
 

...is Ethercrete

In COASALT 4: The Ether, Spring-And-Loop Theory explained that the ether, dubbed the Universal Matrix, is made up of Planck-sized springs of ultra high energy.

With springs one hundred billion billion times smaller than an atom, and moving at the speed of light, it is understandable why the "ether" has yet to be tagged and bagged.

In the macro world, springs transmit light and other rays across empty space. In the quantum world, springs have great importance as well.


 

#2 - Nature doesn't waste her time

In a world of just "particles" and "space", annihilation and creation seem like reasonable, if wasteful, activities.

But annihilating what isn't there...

...is harder than it looks.

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks a photon is not a particle.
 

Why particularize when you can bump?

Wikipedia says "a particle is a small localized object".

Spring-And-Loop Theory says a photon is a bump -- one spring hitting another. Two people high-fiving each other in the Black Hole at a Raiders game.

Even more profoundly, a photon never exists.
Like gravity, it is an effect only.


 

#3 - Two states is one too many

The notion of superposition -- particles existing in two or more states of motion at the same time -- is a necessary tenant of the particle-wave-particle hybrid model that makes present-day QM so inscrutable.

Spring-loop systems don't need to behave like spring space.
But they are naturally influenced by what the springs are doing.

If the springs roll like a wave,
the spring-loop particles will bob in the surf.

Spring-And-Loop Theory's non-hybrid approach, while less eco-friendly, yields a more truck-like final structure. And it is trucks, not hybrids, that contractors depend on to build things.


 


I have little patience for scientists who take a board of wood, look for its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes where the drilling is easy.
- Albert Einstein

 

#4 - Perhaps a minor quibble but...

...there is nothing dramatically revealed about the speed of light in Mr. Ford's book.

The index says "speed of light" can be found on just three pages (in the page 40 to 43 range).

"For particle interactions, a useful scale of time is the time it takes light to travel across a proton. ...there is also a Planck time. This is the time it takes light to travel one Planck length."
- Page 40

 

A miss is as good as a mile

The truth is all there, in those two excerpted sentences. It just isn't put together.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that the Planck time is the time it takes a bump (of "light" or otherwise) to propagate across one spring. Which is one Planck length in diameter (by definition).

So near, yet so far.


 

#5 - Mass and energy are not united

Present day QM reveals what it doesn't know when it comes to mass-energy "equivalence" talk.

Mass and energy are not "united into a single concept".

Mass can not be changed to energy.
Energy can not be changed to mass.
 

A man and his money...

...are soon parted. By the right woman.

Springs lose their ability to spring in the presence of matter loops.
And when matter loops are unrolled, springs are once again free to spring again. With their usual gusto.

When you unclamp part of a fishnet,
you don't change the clamp into the net.

By the way, the man gains more from being in love, than from being in money. Clamped can be a good thing.


 


Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
- Richard Feynman

Science reveals the beliefs of so-called experts.


 

Point made...up

On page 16, Mr. Ford (i.e. QM) says the electron "has no size and is a true point". On page 17 he elaborates that "an electron appears to be a dimensionless point".

Brings to mind physicists telling us a black hole is a singularity.

I wonder how many believe such nonsense. All QM can say for sure is "we don't know how big or small an electron is because we can't measure it directly, and our equations give the nonsense result of it being a dimensionless point of size zero."

But that doesn't sell very well.
 

Very small bundles indeed

On page 27 we are informed that "light exists in bundles".

No effort is made to emphasize that this is "in theory". To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever received a light bundle via FedEx, for example.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that light doesn't exist. It is a transient effect, like that from striking a bell. When you strike a bell, does the "ring" exist? In bundles?


 


"Physicists are always looking for unifications"
- page 37

Oh, if only that were true.


 

QM disses Big G

On page 35, we are told that "Within an atom, electromagnetism far outcompetes gravity -- so much so that gravity can be entirely ignored in the atomic realm".

Given that no one understands how gravity works, how do we know this with such certainty?

In COASALT 7: The Atom, Spring-And-Loop Theory said that gravity is what pulls electrons to the nucleus. Rather than the "plus attracts minus"  non-explanation  miracle.


 

Supersonic air molecules

Page 39 mentions that "air molecules move around at 500 m/s". This translates to about 1,200 mph. Almost twice the speed of sound.

Despite my education as a Chemical Engineer, and having made over 50 orbits of the Sun, I had never heard this fact before.

I had imagined atoms moving in air exactly like flecks of dust, or water mist move -- at a few hundredths of a meter per second.

Has anyone ever considered that this is incredibly fast?
 

Exploring further

Air molecules moving ten thousand times faster than dust grains requires a whole new explanation. I'm genuinely surprised this isn't on
Wikipedia's List of Unsolved Problems in Physics.

Spring-And-Loop Theory would say that once the atoms are freed from the gravitational attraction of one to another.

Yes, van der Waals forces must be gravitational

They are then easily pushed around by the ultra powerful, ultra small, and ultra plentiful springs they are surrounded by.
 

Calculation

6.02 * 1023 atoms/mole occupy 24.5 l at 25 C

The Planck volume is 4.22419 * 10-105 m3

Basis: 1 liter of air (and springs)

Yields:

2 * 1022 atoms
  and
1095 springs

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times as many springs as atoms? Yes, this could be the reason
air molecules travel around at supersonic speeds.


 


The foundation [of quantum mechanics] will be consolidated or replaced by a more comprehensive one.
- Albert Einstein

 

Next up, electron orbital speeds

An electron orbits the nucleus 1017 times per second, at about 1% to 10% of the speed of light. - Page 39

What causes such a high rate of speed? Conventional physics has no explanation whatsoever. It just is.

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks that springs, moving at the speed of light, could cause the smallest "stuff" in direct contact with them to travel at one-hundredth to one-tenth of their speed.

It is a reasonable number, and is
comparable to the speed we can stir
a liquid, versus the speed the liquid keeps moving at after stirring stops.
 

Congealed gummy bears

Page 41 says "mass and energy are really the same thing. Mass is just congealed energy, and energy has inertia (the defining feature of mass). Energy is mass. Mass is energy."

If mass and energy were the same, the "c" in that famous equation would have no units. Eating a chocolate bar gives us energy for running, but so does drinking water when we are dehydrated. Yet neither undergo fission or fusion in our body.

"c2 in Einstein's equation is (just) a proportionality constant."
     - page 41

Please pass the inertia

Spring-And-Loop Theory acknowledges that "energy" has inertia. But not because it is mass. Rather because it interacts with mass (i.e. loops), and matter loops have inertia.

The spring energy of "space" has no inertia, and if it did, we would not be able to coast through it.

Statements like:

"Mass and energy are the same thing."
"Mass is congealed energy."
reflect what QM doesn't know and is just speculating about.

Awkward.


 


The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them.
- Albert Einstein

 

A charge by any other name

Page 46: "But what is charge? You might say that it is that certain something, that je ne sais quoi, that causes particles that have it to attract or repel one another... Most important, charge is what enables particles to emit and absorb photons. That is the essence of what charge is. It 'couples' charged particles to photons."

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that charge is proof of the ether.

The ether couples "charged particles" (i.e. spring-loop systems) with springs (that can emit photonic bumps).
 

Stationary states of confusion

On page 54, Mr. Ford reassures us that "The wave nature of matter helps clarify why stationary states of motion exist."

Look, no matter how strong the desire to immortalize the "particle-wave-particle" flight of fancy is, saying that particles of matter become waves clarifies nothing.

Be it the Big Bang's "inflation" hack, or QM's particle-wave-particle dance, Spring-And-Loop Theory distrusts 'miracles'.
 

No one expects quantum superposition

Page 57: "How does the atom decide which direction is up? ...The startling answer is 'It doesn't matter.'"

The ether (of springs) decides. The springs force particles to be in one of a set number of orientations. When you throw the billiard balls back in their plastic carrying tray, there are only certain places they can go into.

QM attributes this to 'superposition' -- the idea that a particle can be in two or more states at the same time.

This is QM at its worst.
 

A pint of hundred year old jitters

Mr. Ford covers the "still startling" quantum jumps on pages 61 & 62, adding that "Albert Einstein repeatedly said he didn't like it, and other physicists have said, in effect, 'we don't really like it either, but it is a fact of the quantum world.' ...Nothing causes it. Nothing triggers it. It just happens." And that "despite its unpredictable abruptness, [it] follows all the rules."

Extra energetic springs cause quantum jumps.

To Spring-And-Loop Theory, it is an electron "car" choosing to take a different route around the nucleus "building". If it goes in a larger circuit, there is an energy (and time) cost...but the car can do it if it gets "pushed" into it.
 

Lack of answers is a good thing?

Mr. Ford's Question 27 is "What is the role of probability in QM?" He answers with "a starring role."

Given that we can't directly measure quantum things, there will always be some element of uncertainty and speculation but we don't need to know where things are to have a good model.

Spring-And-Loop Theory doesn't think ignorance is bliss.


 

Muons: The electron's step-dad?

"Who ordered that?" - I. I. Rabi

The Standard Model doesn't appreciate new discoveries. Something about square pegs and round holes, I imagine.

"Why does the muon weigh?" - Richard Feynman

"...so much" was the implication. Mr. Ford adds "In truth,
no one yet knows the answer to Feynman's question."

The SM, and QM, classify the muon as a heavy electron.
We could reclassify Pluto as a heavy brick. Just a thought.
 

Muonic home wrecker

It turns out that when the hydrogen atom's electron is replaced by a muon, the hydrogen's proton radius
decreases.

The Standard Model requires muons to be just heavy electrons, and expects muonic hydrogen to be equivalent to regular hydrogen. Instead, the muon breaks the Standard Model.

Given that the force holding electrons to the nucleus is gravitational, it is logical to Spring-And-Loop Theory that a heavier "satellite" will make the "planet" more dense. After all, the Sun's gravity makes its hydrogen ten times denser than lead.

Spring-And-Loop Theory has no problem with the muon.


 

Agreement, and foreshadowing

"as entities get smaller, they seem to get simpler."
- Page 117

Spring-And-Loop Theory is in complete agreement.


 

The photon can't carry a tune

"The photon is a 'force carrier'"
- Page 140

Not quite.  A photon is a bump. An effect.

The only thing "carrying" a force is the spring, as it transmits the bump to the next spring, and the next, and the next.

But really, there is no carry.
 

Not so anti

"It is just a matter of convention that negative leptons are called particles and positive leptons antiparticles."
- Page 156

In COASALT 6: 222 Answers, Spring-And-Loop Theory stated that antiparticles are just another type of spring-loop system.

It appears QM is moving ever closer to the same realization.


 


The truth of a theory can never be proven, for one never knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions.
- Albert Einstein

 

An indirect measure of completeness

"the strong force has the most conservation laws"

"the e/m force has fewer conservation laws"

"the weak force has the least conservation laws"

"no one knows [if] the gravitational interaction, the
weakest of all, violates still more conservation laws?"

- Page 160

More conservation is good

The strong force is the simplest: the basic spring-loop bond.
Little wonder it is the most accurately modelled. [More]

The e/m force is also simple. Springs bumping against springs.
But it has the widest ramifications, and greatest range of effects. Earning it second place.

The weak force is poorly understood, if at all. Springs letting go of loops, thrashing around violently until they recombine -- this is not what we learn in Physics 101.  Unfortunately.

And Big G? Next to nothing is what classic and quantum physics know about it. We can't even model the motion of the stars around the Milky Way's black hole. Dark matter is the Universe's way of telling us our theories are full of "dark matter".

Only Spring-And-Loop Theory has a simple model of how gravity works, "what it looks like" and how it propagates -- and has proposed the truly revolutionary idea that it is gravity keeping nucleons together, and causing electrons to orbit the nucleus.


 


The partial differential equation entered theoretical physics as a handmaid but has gradually become a mistress.
- Albert Einstein

 

The Planckverse

With Question 65, Mr. Ford talks about the de Broglie equation,
      wavelength * momentum = Planck's constant
making the point that wavelength is a wave property and momentum is a particle property.

Has anyone considered that the wavelength in question is not that of the particle?

If we are to avoid any "superposition" nonsense, it is imperative to realize that the ether (i.e. springs) are involved.
 

Ubiqui-Planck

Mr. Ford then observes on page 175 that "Planck's constant h appears in every equation of quantum physics."

Planck's constant is ubiquitous because it defines the spring (i.e. ether "stuff") size.

On page 176 we read "e=mc2 does not contain Planck's constant 'h' because it is a classical equation which happens to be valid in the quantum world as well."


The theory of relativity, as I developed it originally, still does not explain atomism and the quantum phenomena.
- Albert Einstein

Is that why? Or is it because both sides are governed by h, and the two h's cancel? Einstein's equation is an equivalence, a relation, between two things. Once e & m (i.e. springs & loops) are made relative, h (i.e. size) does not matter, and it drops out.
 

Circuit training

Page 177: de Broglie says there are only certain orbits due to destructive interference "wiping out" most orbital possibilities.
Of those particle waves.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says that gravity dictates the possible electron orbits, as it does the distances where planets can maintain a stable orbit around the Sun.

Two planets get too close together, and their new gravitational interaction destabilizes them into more distant orbits.
 

Orbital auto mechanics

The number of routes a car can follow to compass a downtown office building are also finite.

It is energetically impossible for a car to drive on anything but roads when trying to "circle the block". Travel downtown is quantized. Circumnavigating a building from two blocks away instead of one is just cincturing in a higher orbit.


 


"The electron is not to be looked at as a particle
accompanied by a wave. Rather, it is a wave.
"

- Page 179
Nothing is a wave. The electron is a particle, and the ether of springs is merely wave-like.


 

QM almost gets it

"It is almost as if there is a repulsive force countering the attractive electric force.  In energy terms, there are two competing effects." - Page 180

There is indeed a force countering the attractive gravitational force. The repulsive ether spring force. [More]

"Locked within that rock is an energy -- a mass energy of 9 * 1016 joules per kilogram." - Page 41

"Locked"? Yes, this is more like. "Mass energy"? Not so much.
 

On second thought

"The electron's wave nature gets in the way." - Page 180

No, the ether wave. The 800 pound gorilla-in-the-room wave.

"The neutron provides an exception to this rule. It can be slowed so much that despite its large mass it can have a large wavelength and ...spread itself over a space as large as that occupied by several atoms." - Page 181

On the intuitive level, does this make an ounce of sense?
The neutron destabilizes the "particle-wave-particle" concept.

"There is something fuzzy about waves." - Page 182

But springs, and spring-loop systems, are ultra precise,
to the point of every electron being exactly like every other.


 


Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing but an inner voice tells me this is not yet the real thing.
- Albert Einstein


 

The crux of the problem

"Thomas Young established once and for all that light consists of waves1, not particles.  Or so it was thought.  Waves can diffract and interfere, but particles cannot, went the reasoning.  Now, of course, we know that particles can diffract and interfere, too2.
But to give waves their due, particles behave this way only because they have a wave character.3  De Broglie had it right.4"

- Page 183

Strike one, two, three and four.
QM is out, even with a Black Sox ump.

Since light -- i.e spring bumps -- is neither a particle, nor a wave, all these back-and-forth mistakes are understandable.

Mais ou est le bon sens?
 

Ah, that's not the lesson taught

"What the two-slit experiment teaches us -- and what myriad other experiments confirm -- is that a particle acts as a particle when it is created and annihilated (emitted and absorbed) and acts as a wave in between. To get our heads around it, we just have to give up the idea that a photon is a particle at any moment other than the moments of its birth and death.
- Page 186

...and inhale very deeply!

Or we could adopt a better theory.

We've adopted better theories before.

Why should this time be any different?


 


If I had to convey the essence of Albert Einstein in a single word, I would choose "simplicity".
- Banesh Hoffman

 

The preaching will continue...

"The wave nature of the electron means that it can never follow a simple track, either circular or in-and-out. Its wave is always spread out." - Page 192

That is not at all how Spring-And-Loop Theory sees it.

Spring-And-Loop Theory has something -- gravitational interaction -- affecting the electron. QM says the electron is influenced by...mathematics! Who needs a force when you have electron shadow boxing?
 

...until the hypnosis takes effect

"The energy is 'lumpy'" - Page 193

Yes, but why? Because of the discrete nature of springs.

"There are some things in quantum physics that we just have to accept whether we find them reasonable or not." - Page 194

Spring-And-Loop Theory prefers to be unhypnotized.

"Planck's constant sets the scale of the quantum world."
- Page 198

It sure does, but why can't we figure out what it says about
what the quantum world looks like?


 

See-saws sicken senior stomachs

"Are waves necessary? Not really." - Page 205

This latest reversal refers to waves being replaced with "calculating all possible paths, and their relative likelihood."
In other words, with probability. Which is just as vague. The discussion finishes on the next page with "waves are not necessary, but they are surely convenient."

Another pointless discussion, except to underline how unsatisfactory the particle-wave-particle notion is.


  I believe Quantum Mechanics' limitation to    statistical laws will be a temporary one.
  - Albert Einstein

"What is going on in the quantum world so closely mimics wave behavior that we might as well use waves to describe that world." - Page 206

Except that we attribute the waves to the particles, rather than the underlying ether! When will we begin to see the ether?
 

Behind the observations

Page 207:
Q 78 "How are particles pushed close to the speed of light?"
A 78. "Electrically"

The electrodynamic force is springs pushing against springs, so particles are pushed close to the speed limit by spring bumps.

Page 209: In a cyclotron, at relativistic speeds, outer orbital paths take longer to transit.

Outer paths involve more spring interactions than inner paths.
At lower speeds, the time for each spring bump is insignificant but
spring bump times add up near Vmax.

"Electrons, when accelerated, tend to radiate away energy as photons."
- Page 209

Electrons are small enough to be significantly impeded by Planck-scale springs.


 

Ferme ta theorie QM

Q 100 "What is the 'measurement problem'?"
A 100: "'Shut up and calculate' goes Mermin's aphorism."

- Pages 259-260


People don't want to hear the truth because
they don't want their illusions destroyed.

- Friedrich Nietzsche

QM leaves intuition far behind.
And so we arrive at the state of affairs today.

"collapsing wave functions, aka Copenhagen convention"
- Page 260

Leads to the mind-boggling 'many worlds' concoction.

All because the "particles become waves become particles" neurons fired long enough for someone to write it down.


 


Why do we spend more time extending bad theories than we do reviewing the impossible conjectures that led to them?


 

This is how it starts

"Imagine you have a proton in one hand and an electron in the other. You release them. What happens? They are drawn together by an electric force."
- Page 180 (emphasis added)

Look, we can agree they are drawn together.

But inventing "plus attracts minus" doesn't make it so. At best, it is a working placeholder, until something better comes along.

Spring-And-Loop Theory says electrons and nucleons are attracted gravitationally.
 

And it peaks with...

...the double slit experiment.

"When a wave passes through an opening or by an edge, it bends. That is called diffraction." - Page 182

So the particle must be a wave...at times. But it clearly begins and ends as a particle. So it is both. Case closed.

Spring-And-Loop Theory thinks diffraction is better explained by the wave-like response of springs, to a particle entering the picture.
 

Luckily, all is not lost

"Decoherence ...replaces the idea of a collapsing wave function with the idea of a quantum system interacting with its 'environment'"
- Page 263

Eureka!


 

Trust the gray beards

"In his older years, Wheeler moved more toward the viewpoint of Einstein, coming to regard quantum mechanics as provisional, as a layer on top of a deeper -- and perhaps simpler -- core."
- Page 263


 


The tendency of a group of human beings to quickly come to believe something that its individual members will later see as obviously false is truly amazing.
- Lee Smolin

 

Mr. Ford's final thoughts

Behind it all
is surely an idea so simple,
so beautiful,
so compelling that when --
in a decade, a century,
or a millennium --
we grasp it,
we will all say to each other,
how could it have been otherwise?
How could we have been so stupid for so long?

- John Wheeler

 


 

COASALT

Introduction

The Speed Of Light   Black Holes   Einstein's Equation   The Ether   Gravity
222 Answers   The Atom   Quantum World   Neutrino   Black Holes Revisited
The Comedy Of Science   et=mc3   Comparing Physics Theories
Diffuse Interstellar Bands   Einstein's Ether Talk   No Strong Force
The Electron   Relativity   Unification   Assumptions   Modeling   The Greatest Story  
 


 


Spring-And-Loop Theory by Floyd Maxwell is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Other subjects   Site Map   Contact
 

Quotes provided by:

Click here (then click Join Group) to subscribe