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
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
My Theory
Physics Quotes & Thoughts
Big Bang
Dark Matter/Dark Energy
Dogma
Forget The Fields
Math Sucks
Particle Physics
Peer Review
Standard Model
Star Gazing
String Theory
tEmP Theories/Theorists
The Control System
Trolls
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 to access the 40k Quote Archive)