Billy T, The origin of "wave Mechanics" is the De Broglie "wave associated to matter" theory. Please take a look at: "Wave Mechanics" The wave associated to matter concept evoluted after with the Schrodinger equation (Schrodinger's wave equation). I disagree with all these. They are wrong theories. Electromagnetic waves theory is another wrong theory. I show this in my manuscript. They were "good theories" because of the lack of another possible interpretation of all experimental phenomena developed by Experimental Physics. Now there are other interpretations possible, those derived from my new interpretations of some of them. I know what you will think now: "Who are you to disprove so sacred theories and so recognized personalities of the history of Physics approved by 100 years of the Physics Science Community?". The answer is that I had to pass over this questionements myself to go on. It wasn't easy and I do not expect to be easy for any reader of the manuscript. You may also ask. "how can you feel so convinced about a those new unproven theories?" The answer is that I did a really hard theoretical work checking theoretically all the issues and consequences they could have. The simple and concise style of the manuscript does not reflect that but believe me, there is a hard work behind it. It's time of a New Physics. My work is only a start-point.
Thank god you came along to set the physics world straight Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I looked at the referece you gave to "wave mechanics" and those words do appear (as the title, someone stuck on an article) but in no way do they refer to a whole discipline of study and theory as, for example "stastistical mechanics" "quantum mechanics" or "classical mechanics" and of course the "Schrodinger's wave equation" is just the analytic form of quantum mechanics (as opposted to the matrix form, both of which give the same results.) BTW many of these results are accurate perdicitons out to 10 or more significant figures. Which leads me to ask: Has your "theory" predicted anything new to even two significant figures? If yes, show it and the journal report of the experimental confirmations. If no why would anyone bother to even read it? I admit to a "vested interest" (years spent learning and testing to some extent the "old theories" that workd so well) I am not about to throw those very successful theories away on the bosts of some internet authority - publish then gvie reference and I might read. You can also submit to the conference proceeding I run as a income suplimenting sideline, but I do require the $10 submision fee. It is very small compared to the "page charges" of most journals, and they don't even guarantee "global exposure." Just post your paper here, marked: for the Conference Relating All Common Karma Propositions Or Theories, but don't forget the the fee. Billy T, editor, CRACKPOT Conference Proceedings.
Billy T, You wants the things ready, proven and published in a recognized publication, I understand. You only have to wait may be some years for this. But now is time to develop the new theories and to find new results, consequences and issues. I'm sorry but I cannot do it all. I guess new real physicists will do it for you. Meanwhile you can just expend your time posting in the internet about your learned knowledge about wrong theories and their issues as if they were a precious truth and you their wise.
martillo, If you haven't fully developed these theories to the point of making testable predictions (as you just admitted), why are you so convinced of their correctness and the complete incorrectness of the current theories. It sounds like you have a distinct lack of methodical scientific thinking skills and/or an inflated ego.
Superluminal, Good question... I will try to answer... The main reason is about the results obtained. The theories explain succesfully all main phenomena of Physics without any non-intuitive consideration and also explain some phenomena not well explained by today's Physics like the wave-particle duality, creation/annihilation of electron-positron pairs, the photoelectric phenomena, why the force between magnets is on exponent 4... I mean they really give a reasonable physical mechanism about how they happen. For the theories to be totally consistent I had to know perfectly which of today's theories are compatible and which not and I didn't have to go much deeper in this, the important points are just in the basis of the theories. There are other reasons about how the work was done, the goals, no time constraints, the really NEW ideas never thought before, the challenge to make a book about them, etc, that I cannot answer appropiately in a post.
martillo, Fair enough. Does your theory account, quantitatively, for the phenomenon of quantum tunneling?
Superluminal, fo3 and Aer: As usual I believe in another interpretation possible for the phenomenon of crossing potential barriers. It have been verified that statistically some particles traspass potentials that at a first aproach the would not be able. To explain this, the theory of uncertainity of the state of a particle introduced by Schrodinger has been taken and resulted in the "quantum tunneling" possibiliy. I believe that exist a statisticall variation in the original state of the particles but due to external physical causes not an intrinsic instability of its state. For example the real state of electrons in an atom cannot be perfectly determined due to the "thermal noise"! (well known in microelectronics). At a given temperature there is a constant average number of photons received and emitted by the atoms of any material in a dynamical equilibrium such that the average level of the total energy of the atom is mantained constant. Each electron statiscally will interact with photons at some times reaching higher energy levels and eventually get out of the atom with a variable unknown kinetic energy! Some of these electrons will have enough energy to pass a barrier that the average electrons do not pass. Then another interpretation is possible...
It seems that all your "another possible interpretations" are based on an assumption that scientists have been sloppy in their work and have not noticed something.. Modern science isn't done with a stopwatch, a ruler and an ordinary photocamera. You have to realise that experiments are done in a highly precise way and are done over and over and over again before any of the results are considered valid.
Good reply Martillo. I am promoting you to MacM's level and may not be able to continue calling him the most intelligent CRACKPOT I know. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you would you like to send some of your papers to the Conference Relating All Common Karma Propositions Or Theories, I can almost guarantee they will met the standards I maintain for articles accepted there. (I am the self apointed editor of the CRACKPOT proceeding, so pretty much what I say goes.) I will even reduce the processing fee to half of the normal $10 charge in recognition of your superior abilities in this area. Would you like to serve on the paper review pannel? I am sorry, but it is an unpaid position.
Billy T, And I will begin to create the "Parrot Library" where I will store all the posts of fanatic defenders of old wrong theories like you. People like you don't mind in what is right and what is wrong, you simply memorize ( in general you have good memory and zero reasoning capabilities) repeat what appears in any school book as knowledge treasures. You also make any kind of concessions in terms of physical and mathematical rigourosities just to mantain your well studied theories floating. And finally when you have no more arguments you become sarcastic and try to get away with a joke! You are the PARROTS of science. It would be good to create the Parrot's Forum Library just to see after the rising of new theories how stubborn humans can be. In the ages of Galileo people like you would have been in the side of those who would have liked to cut his head just to not listen his words anymore. PARROT!
The difference is, that Galileo had reasonable and scientific explanations to his theories, not just an assumption that all the scientific experiments have been done sloppy.
Not really. Anyway, if I have more time then I might read your webpage so that I could get a more clear point of what you are proposing, although after what you have said I am not expecting much.
My theories cannot be read by a closed mind. It will not be able to pass the first section! Just for an open one interested, they are presented at: "A New Light In Physics"
So those who won't accept it as the thruth are closed minded? Sounds kinda medieval.. But well.. Whatever.
Closed minded already believe in a proposition they don't want to loose and will not even consider the possibility for another proposition to be really the truth.
Oh I am considering. But it will take a lot more than a thought that "maybe there are two photons in the double slit experiment after all" to make me abandon theories that are predicting nature very, very well. Probably better then you realise.
