For Bill Hobba on QED
From: Sergey Karavashkin (selflab_at_go.com)
Date: 12/27/04
- Next message: Sergey Karavashkin: "For Henri Wilson on Clocks synchronisation"
- Previous message: Fred Bloggs: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: For Bill Hobba on QED"
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: For Bill Hobba on QED"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Dec 2004 15:20:21 -0800
From:Bill Hobba (bhobba@rubbish.net.au)
Subject:Re: Clocks synchronisation
Newsgroups:sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.astro
Date:2004-12-19 16:16:07 PST
Dear Bill,
I have to post this reply as a separate thread, since by some
technical reason, meanwhile I cannot post to the thread. Google team
of technical support is now seeking, what's wrong with my account.
People many times saw theories claimed exhaustively true - so to say,
'by definition'. For instance, a communistic idea . . . ;-) In
physical sciences, during about 300 years the Inquisition fired
scientists who doubted Aristotle theory. The same story with
'heat-generating substance' - sorry, I don't know exact English term,
as this word long ago disappeared from literature, as well as
'fluxies', and many other things.
Saying specifically of QED, we have to remember first, QED was not
first theory. Bohr's theory was initial, and it was built strongly on
classical formalism. Two postulates introduced by Bohr not a least
limited classical mechanics. So the postulate that electron does not
radiate in stationary orbit was a temporary assumption in absence of
knowledge of spiral dynamic fields - we have them yielded a year ago,
see our paper
"On physical nature of postulate of existence of stable stationary
states of oscillators"
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#quant
Today this postulate became unnecessary, and this in no way belittles
Bohr's theory, only deepens it. His second postulate, quantified
absorption of energy with excitation, also does not contradict the
classical mechanics, if we understood that atom is a resonance system
and naturally has resonance transitions. This is a temporary thing
that the size of transition quantum is determined numerically - until
the problem has been solved, - with all outwardly simple appearance,
this problem is not so simple.
Looking deeper into QED, we can see Lagrangian representation taken
from classical mechanics. Schroedinger equation is simply a record of
classical wave equation in general. De Broglie wave expression also is
a rehash of complex record of wave equation solution for a wave in
infinite space. Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a perverted rehash
of classical theorem of wave packet band width. And I would mark, the
equations of classical wave physics taken by the authors of QED are
only simplified modelling equations, as in the middle 20th century
wave physics was not able to yield many necessary solutions. These
solutions became possible only when we yielded our method, and I can
say, in general case both the equations and solutions quite differ
from those known. But QED has withered just on the borrowed equations,
and I can say as the co-author of advanced method, classical wave
physics also has no way ahead from the equations QED has used. Thus,
so-called success of QED is based on Bohr's theory and classical wave
physics and is confined to them.
Note also, not only this limits QED's validity. There is no secret
that QM, QED, QFT encounter a great difficulty in describing the
phenomenology of phenomena, - and this is quite understandable. All
postulates of photon theory are wrong and irrelevant to reality. These
theories took equations of classical physics merely after an outward
similarity; jointly with unvital postulates and perverted initial
ideas on which classical wave physics theorems were based, they could
create only a monster. This is just what happened. I multiply, on
different threads showed separate aspects of this what I'm saying now,
and always saw from supporters of quantum physics, how helpless they
are, how cannot they understand that something is possible out of
their artificial attempts. And here the main point arises. Of course,
one can disregard mistakes, logical faults, and how artificial are
their computations. With it, on one hand, one will see these theories
free of faults. But on the other, these discrepancies nonetheless
remain in power. The only problem is, these who disregard have stopped
development - and this naturally reflects on scientific prestige of
nation - is this of no importance?
Thus, you can judge, is this a philosophical position or not. And no
one makes you to comprehend what I'm saying. Rest if you wish. We
simply march ahead. Those who want will hear. ;-)
Regards,
Sergey
- Next message: Sergey Karavashkin: "For Henri Wilson on Clocks synchronisation"
- Previous message: Fred Bloggs: "Re: Is zero even or odd?"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: For Bill Hobba on QED"
- Reply: Franz Heymann: "Re: For Bill Hobba on QED"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
