Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon

From: Landle (landlematt_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/22/05 

Date: 21 Jan 2005 23:26:12 -0800

I'd like to share Mark Mccutcheon take on it. For those who don't
know. Mark is the bestseller author of the book "The Final
Theory" which became a bestseller and praised by many...see
www.thefinaltheory.com

While I don't agree generally with Mccutcheon theory of expanding
matter. I like the part where he attempted to debunk Quantum
Mechanics by pointing out the objective reality underneath it. He
discussed about Planck Quanta, Light particle/wave duality and
the double slit experiment. He also dealt with the Photoelectric
effect, Compton scattering, Polarization, Quantum Entanglement,
ec.. Since one of your requirement for a new theory is that
it must explain the 4 basic stuff which he did. I'd share
what he wrote about them. If someone can debunk what
he said convincingly in the following (Bjoern?). I'd no
longer question QM and would put posters of de Broglie in my room
and also focus on M-theory from then on and transfer to
sci.physics.strings and leave you guys in peace :)

Now debunk him point by point and expedite my departure. I'd
continue my comment at the end of this article where I'd mix it
with Seto and Thomson Aether model to produce the mechanism
whereby the single photon double slit experiment can be explained
in their Aether Models.

Mark Mccutcheon wrote:

The Misunderstanding of "Quantized Energy"

In fact, a number of observations that currently stand as
"quantum-mechanical mysteries" have already been shown to have
much clearer and more rational explanations in Expansion Theory.
Recall the discussion of atomic structure in the previous
chapter, where it was suggested that the mysterious statistical
appearances of orbiting electrons to form "probability clouds"
are simply the result of bouncing electrons sampled at random
points in mid-bounce. Also, recall earlier in this chapter that
the current des cription of light as "photons of energy" is
another mysterious quantum-mechanical concept that is clearly
explained by the electron cluster concept of Expansion Theory.
Such examples suggest that the bizarre nature of Quantum Theory
is due to the fact that it is actually an attempt to describe
subatomic expansion without any knowledge of its existence. With
enough effort and resourcefulness we will eventually find an
abstraction to model any observation we wish to explain, no
matter what len gths we must go to in order to achieve this end.
It is suggested that Quantum Theory is one such example where our
mathematical and conceptual resourcefulness has prevailed over
the actual physical truths, as shown by the concept of "energy
quantization".

NEW IDEA: "Energy Quantization" is the merely a reference to
individual electrons".

Another feature of Quantum Theory is its explanation of energy.
Light energy, in particular, is commonly used to explore and
display the apparently quantum-mechanical nature of energy, which
is largely embodied in the concept of "energy photons." These
photons are considered to be tiny particle-like packets of
energy, which can vary in the amount of energy they contain. This
photon theory of light was supported by experiments that
displayed effects that scientists could not explain via Classical
Mechanics, such as the photoelectric effect to be discussed
shortly.

These photons were further shown to be quantized, meaning at any
energy difference from one photon to another cannot vary by an
arbitrary amount, but must occur in discrete quantized jumps or
steps. The size of these steps is extremely tiny, described by a
value known as Planck's constant, after Maxwell Planck
(1858-1947). The discovery of this tiny quantum jump between
allowed energy levels was a revolutionary discovery since it
meant that nature is not smooth and continuous at its most
elementary level, b ut that even pure energy comes in tiny
"grains" of some sort that are smaller even than photons. This
discovery is an observed phenomenon that has been given a
mathematical description in Quantum Theory, but it has never been
explained in clear physical terms.

However, once again, this unexplained quantum abstraction and
mystery has a clear physical explanation in Expansion Theory.
Recall that according to Expansion Theory these "energy photons"
Composing light are actually clusters of electrons, which clearly
shows that the discrete "quantum-mechanical energy jumps" between
them follow naturally from the fact that electron clusters can
only vary by multiples of whole electrons. Small as it is, the
single-electron variation between electron clusters is the likely
explanation for the tiny "energy quantization" seen in
experiments and described by Planck's constant in
quantum-mechanical equations of "photon energy." This is yet
another example showing that Quantum Mechanics can be a useful
tool for investigating and describing previously unknown aspects
of our world in the search for understanding, but it does not
actually provide that physical understanding itself.

The Misunderstanding of the Nature of Light

Today's quantum-mechanical characterization of light as tiny
packets of quantized energy also lies behind the well-known
mystery or paradox referred to as the wave-particle duality of
light. For centuries there has been an ongoing debate as to
whether light is a wave or a particle.

Today, it now appears that we have experimental evidence for
light behaving like both a wave and a particle. Quantum Theory
states that a traveling beam of light exists in a bizarre state
where nature has not yet "decided" whether it will be a wave or a
particle until it is detected. It is thought that the method of
detection itself breaks nature's uncertainty and forces the
reality of either a wave or a particle to manifest itself.

This concept does not state that the detection of light simply
exposes whether it was originally transmitted as a wave or
particle, since the same beam of transmitted light can be
detected as either a wave or a particle simply based on the
method chosen for its later detection. Instead, Quantum Theory
states that it is only once the light is detected as either a
particle or a wave that its originally transmitted nature is
"decided" by the universe. That is, according to Quantum Theory,
there is a bizarre ef fect in nature that reaches back in space
and time instantaneously - even across billions of light years to
distant stars - to define whether a wave or a particle was
originally transmitted, based purely on the outcome of its later
detection.

This mysterious and completely unexplainable claim of
instantaneous backward time travel is the currently accepted
scientific interpretation of experimental results today - a claim
that is commonly held up as a key example of the bizarre and
purely probabilistic nature of not only Quantum Theory but,
presumably, of the universe itself. However, as will be shown
shortly, Expansion Theory does not require such fanciful
explanations of our experimental results; but first, it is
important to clarify what we mea n when we speak of light waves,
and in fact, waves in general.

Waves and the "Wave Nature of Light"

The world around us has many examples of wavelike behavior, and
basic wave theory often represents such phenomena as purely
conceptual, disembodied oscillations in space. Such wave theory
states that when two waves line up in phase so that their peaks
coincide, as well as their troughs, these peaks and troughs add
together to form a single larger wave in what is known as
constructive interference. Likewise, when two waves are out of
phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the troughs of
the other, the peaks and troughs cancel in destructive
interference (Fig. 5-7).

Although this is a common conceptualization of wave interaction,
a closer look shows that it is an idealized abstraction that does
not strictly apply to the real world from which it was extracted.
In actuality, such a model describes idealized, disembodied waves
frozen in space and time, then mathematically added together.
While this may be a convenient model for discussing wave
behavior, such idealized frozen waves are not representative of
true waves in nature. The real waves around us are actually all
dy namic manifestations of the wave-like behavior of physical
matter, not literal idealized waves of frozen "energy" that
neatly add together as shown. Both our diagrams and our
mathematical descriptions of waves tend to represent them in this
somewhat misleading manner. Even in situations where idealized
standing waves appear to exist in the real world, such as a
rapidly vibrating guitar string, they still result from Ongoing
dynamic wave-like vibrations of physical matter.

For example, sound waves are not waves of pure "sound energy,"
but rather, bands of alternating compressed and decompressed air
molecules that are conducted along through the atmosphere in a
sort Of "domino effect" - a wave-like behavior of matter. Water
waves are also the dynamic wavelike behavior of matter in the
form of water molecules that rise and fall in an ongoing
succession - again, a matter wave composed of water molecules. In
fact, every waveform that we know of in nature - without
exception - is actually the dynamic Wavelike behavior of a large
number of matter particles moving in unison. Although such
wavelike behavior of matter may lend itself to representations in
static diagrams of idealized waves that add mathematically, it is
a conceptual oversight to assume that such pure "energy waves"
literally exist in the real world and interact via such
mathematical principles. The idealized frozen waves in the
conceptualization of Figure 5-7 - presumably waves of pure energy
- do not act ually exist any where in nature.

It may be tempting to dispute this conclusion by referring to the
example of light, which today's science tells us is composed of
waves of pure energy - that is, at least some of the time.
However, the true nature of light has been in dispute for
centuries, and the concept of light as pure energy waves" is
merely an idealization that has been borrowed from wavelike
behavior of matter in the world around us. A close look at this
issue shows that the description of electromagnetic radiation as
pure 46 energy waves" is an unsubstantiated human invention that
does not exist anywhere else in nature, and which even leads to a
violation of the laws of physics.

VIOLATION: Classical Wave Theory Violates the Laws of Physics

This is an important realization since it shows that not only do
pure "energy waves" have no proven existence in nature but
neither does their idealized wave behavior shown in Figure 5-7.
We can artificially draw waves on paper and add them together
mathematically such that they neatly reinforce or cancel each
other, but this is merely a human conceptual artifact that does
not strictly occur in this manner in the real world. And in fact,
if it did occur, it would be a violation of the laws of physics.

To see this, consider the destructive interference shown in
Figure 5-8. Instead of two idealized parallel waves, we have two
parallel laser beams emitting identical pure frequencies of light
such that they are also out of phase in the same manner as shown
earlier in the righthand frame of Figure 5-7. If the laser beams
were brought together so that they overlapped, then, according to
the pure wave theory of destructive interference, they would
simply "cancel" each other out. That is, both lasers produce lig
ht energy that immediately vanishes into thin air - no heat, no
other forms of radiation, but simply complete annihilation. This
would be the expectation according to current wave theory
regardless of the amount of energy involved, even many thousands
of watts of power. This is not a transformation of energy from
one form to another according to our laws of physics, but an
absolute destruction of energy, and once again, a clear violation
of t he Law of Conservation Of Energy.

Of course, this complete disappearance of any arbitrary amount of
energy without a trace simply due to a phase difference does not
actually occur in reality, showing that the purely mathematical
abstraction of "energy waves" and their idealized interference
patterns is not a true description of the physical world. More
importantly, this shows that lightdoes not actually behave like a
wave of pure energy even in the simplest possible experiment -
that of two identical waves of a single pure frequency meeting ,
as shown earlier in Figure 5-7. If light did behave as an
idealized wave then its energy would have to vanish into thin air
in our laser beam example, which it clearly does not do. Yet, the
idealized concept of constructive and destructive interference of
light has long been held as proof of the more classical, wavelike
behavior of pure "light energy." This flawed belief has persisted
because selective evidence has been used to support the pure wave
concept of light in our science. Despite the fact that this
simple laser experiment seriously challenges the concept of pure
waves of light energy, such evidence is overlooked in favor of
other experiments that, on the surface, appear to fit the pure
energy wave hypothesis. Once such classic experiment is the
Double-Slit Experiment, which will be examined shortly.

This idealization of light as waves of pure energy is, in large
part, responsible for the apparent paradox of the "wave-particle
duality, of light in our science, yet the preceding example calls
this very notion into question. How can we have a wave-particle
paradox when we have yet to confirm that light ever behaves as a
true energy wave? Further, the physical explanation of light in
Expansion Theory shows that it is not sometimes a particle and
sometimes a wave of pure energy, but that it is simply compos ed
of clusters of dynamically expanding electrons - i.e. light is
entirely a manifestation of physical matter. All evidence so far
points to the fact that idealized waves, and waves of pure
"energy," do not actually exist in nature, but are exclusively a
human conceptual invention. Therefore, the wave-particle duality
issue seems to be more of a conceptual oversight than a true
paradox in nature. This possibility is examined further in the
follow ing discussions of some of the classic light experiments
suppo rting our current quantum-mechanical beliefs about light
and energy.

EXPERIMENT: Rethinking the Classic Double-Slit Experiment

The double-slit experiment, first performed by Thomas Young in
1801, has become a classic experiment in our science because it
is thought to show both the wave nature of light as well as the
paradox of its dual wave-particle nature. This experiment simply
involves a barrier with two vertical slits, through which light
is able to pass. The idea is that light passing through these
slits will emerge on the other side and radiate outward as two
separate cones of light that will interfere with each other in
patt erns of constructive and destructive interference. And
indeed, with the proper selection of slit width and separation
distance between the slits, the emerging light does interfere and
cause light and dark bands on a far screen (Fig. 5-9).

This experiment is thought to be analogous to the interference
pattern that can be observed between water waves radiating from
two nearby disturbances in. a pond. Likewise, since light is
thought to be a wave of pure energy - and, in theory, idealized
waves that meet out of phase cancel each other out - the light
and dark bands have traditionally been interpreted as
constructive/destructive interference bands, validating the wave
theory of light. However, a simple experiment with overlapping
lasers, as discussed earlier, shows that light cannot be made to
cancel itself out of existence in the manner idealized in
abstract wave theory. In fact, it is a violation of the laws of
physics to even expect energy to vanish in the physical world in
this manner. So, although light and dark interference bands do
occur within the two overlapping cones of light, the dark bands
canno t be regions where waves of disembodied "light energy"
cance l each other out of existence any more than waves of
disembodied "water energy" cancel each other out in a pond. The
analogous interference pattern with water waves results from the
interaction of wavelike oscillations of matter particles (water
molecules), and so, the logical conclusion is that the
interference pattern in light is a similar manifestation of
matter particle interaction. This Would be expected if light were
actually a sea of electron clusters radiating out into space, as
shown in Expan sion T heory.

NOTE: The double-slit experiment has been misinterpreted as
evidence for the "wave theory" of light, but is actually evidence
of an interaction between groups of particles.

A further reason the double-slit experiment is a classic is
because it is also thought to show a deeply mysterious
wave-particle paradox. The paradox supposedly arises when the
intensity of the light beam is reduced to the point where only
single photons of light are transmitted one-at-a-time from the
light source. This means there should no longer be two cones of
light interfering with each other, but rather, separate light
photons traveling one at a time through one slit or the other. If
these photons the n proceed on and strike a photographic plate,
the cumulative effect over time should develop into two bright
spots on the plate - one for each slit that a photon might pass
through. However, the actual result is an interference pattern
much like the original experiment with the full light beam. This
is thought to show that, even when light is sent toward the slits
as individual particles one-at-a-time, it can still produce a
wavelike interference pattern. It is completely unexplained how t
hese individual pa rticles seem to "know" how to land in a
wavelike interference pattern on the photographic plate, doing so
even though the scenario is no longer one of interference between
two waves. This is the famous wave-particle duality paradox of
the double-slit experiment, showing that even single particles of
light mysteriously act as if they were waves passing through both
slits simultaneously.

Taking a fresh look at this apparent paradox, we can now see that
it is not actually a wave-particle paradox at all. It was just
shown that even the original interference pattern in Figure 5-9
is not a proven "energy wave" phenomenon, but merely resembles
known interference patterns between waves of particles. So, the
actual mystery of the double-slit experiment is not that these
particles of light somehow individually produce the interference
pattern of "pure waves," but only that individual particles seem
to still produce the original group particle interference
pattern. With this clarification, the experiment simply leaves us
with the question of whether this is truly a situation of
separate particles fired one-at-a-time through the slits. As
shown in the earlier discussion of light passing through a glass
block, the current Quantum Mechanical theory of "energy photons"
behaving like projectiles shot individually through space is
unsupported by experiment. Despite the evidence against such an
idea, this is precisely the claim that is made in the double-slit
experiment; therefore, there is good reason to question even this
facet of the experiment. Evidence is mounting for the possibilit
y that th e entire classic double-slit experiment may simply be a
series of logical and experimental oversights regarding the
nature and behavior of light. So then, what are we to make of the
interference pattern when it is thought that individual photons
are passing one-at-a time through the slits?

Expansion Theory shows that light proceeds through space as a sea
of expanding electron clusters pushing each other away from the
light source. It is such an expanding beam of particles that
arrives at the double slits to cause the original interference
pattern on the other side much as a wall of water molecules would
behave after passing through two such openings. When the light
intensity is reduced to the point where Standard Theory claims it
produces single photons, Expansion Theory would maintain that c
ontinuous beams of electron clusters are still produced, but are
very short-lived and sporadic since the light source is just on
the verge of being turned off. We can picture the earlier
description of agitated pools of electrons on the surface of a
light-bulb filament, but rather than a continuous supply of
electrons pooling and expanding off as a sea of clusters, the
supply is only barely enough to produce sporadic bursts of
clusters. Each bu rst would only extend a short distance through
space before its supply of electron clusters suddenly cuts off at
the source, in favor of producing another such burst a short
while later.

Since a regular-intensity light beam would normally expand across
the entire distance from the source to the detector, our
detectors are designed to trigger based on this forceful stream
of electron clusters continually arriving under their combined
expansion pressure. If such a beam has its source cut off before
arriving, it becomes an orphaned partial stream of electron
clusters in mid-air that is free to dissipate much of its
expansion pressure before reaching the detector. This is rather
like a string c oiled against a wall, which shoots away from the
wall and strikes a nearby target when it allowed to uncoil. If
the wall is removed part-way through the uncoiling process, the
spring is unable to launch itself forward with its normal full
strengh and strikes the target with much less force. In fact,
depending on when the wall is removed, the spring may not even
make it all the way to the target. Similarly, the space between
the source and the detector in the double-slit experiment may be
filled with bursts of unseen partial light beams that are unable
to trigger the detector but nonetheless pass through the slits
and interfere with each other much as before. The occasional beam
that is supplied by the source long enough to be detected
(currently thought of as a single photon fired across the
distance) would still be affected by interference between these
unseen light beams; it would simply take longer to build up the
interference pattern at the detector".

------------------------------------------

Back to Landle....

Now I'd combine this with Thomson Aether Physics Model to produce
the mechanism whereby the double slit experiment can be explained
in Thomson APM. I can't do it yet with Seto because I haven't
understood completely his hypotheses owing to very few details
shared in the site. But with Thomson his site gives great details
of them that one can grasp it easily.

To begin. Thomson said that photons are expanding angular
momentum. So in the double slit experiment. The detection of a
"photon" is when the detector has been triggered based on this
forceful stream of expanding angular momentum continually
arriving under their combined pressure from the valence electrons
Aether units. Note that in APM, the angular momentum can come
from different Aether units in a given energy level hence the
photon is not a singular angular momentum but in plural. This is
why I asked in a separate thread how a single photon could be
produced when a light beam contained millions of photons. Even if
the new LED can produce it from interaction with one electron,
the angular momentum can still be released by multiple Aether
units in a given energy level. Now the space between the source
and the detector in the double-slit experiment may be filled with
bursts of unseen partial light beams or expanding angular
momentum that are unable to trigger the detector but nonetheless
pass through the slits and interfere with each other much as
before. I'm using a portion of Mccutcheon explanation and words
now. And the occasional beam that is supplied by the source long
enough to be detected (currently thought of as a single photon
fired across the distance) would still be affected by
interference between these unseen light beams; it would simply
take longer to build up the interference pattern at the detector.

Now that's my version of how the one photon double slit
experiment can be explained in Thomson Aether Model. That's from
me Landle. Mccutcheon has explained about polarization and
Quantum Entanglement too so it can be applied to Thomson model
too. Well. Of course I think Thomson has his own explanation which
he hasn't shared at the web site. I hope he can share it now if he
has in mind one with more detailed process or in the future (if
he is reading this). To Seto. I hope you can explain the single
photon double slit experiments using your Model Mechanics. S.
Enterprize can do likewise. I only know these 3 people here who
has complete aether models. If you have one too. Let me know...
Lastly before I go. Well frankly.. I'm kinda weary of all this
Aether thing already. If Bjoern can prove what Mccutchion
described in the article above is totally BS. Then I'm off to
sci.physics.strings and outta here and may your guys discuss in
peace (and we can give praise to the lords of QM... Schrodinger,
deBroglie, Plancks, Einstein if they are entirely correct that
photon is a singular particle with the behavior of wave even if
it defies logic).

Landle

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hidden Domain - Home of the Wave Function
    ... that is the whole quantum deal. ... The particle goes to both slits. ... You are forgetting about one electron at a time experiment ... Wheeler "retarded waves, advanced waves" concept which can go back in ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Hidden Domain - Home of the Wave Function
    ... that is the whole quantum deal. ... The particle goes to both slits. ... You are forgetting about one electron at a time experiment ... Wheeler "retarded waves, advanced waves" concept which can go back in ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Vote for the generally accepted what is physically going through both slits in the Double Slit E
    ... There is no contradiction in the case of photons. ... idea that the photon is a tangible particle. ... An em wave approaches the slits, ... The primary and incident waves interfere with each ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Theory of Elementary Waves - A Review
    ... The real subatomic particle moves ... of the paths identified by the Little-waves previously emitted from B ... of experimental evidence confirms the existence of these waves – ... on the separation of the target screen from the slits. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charie McCarthy - phone home
    ... attributes of the underlying quantum space rather than of the ... individual particle. ... "undulations in the fabric of space". ... Those 'wave structures in space' are the waves *I* was speaking of. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
Loading