Quantum interference in atom-exchange reactions

As usual the quantum theorists just can’t bring themselves to admit QT is nonsense. The Bohr model was a failure and QT should never have been let loose in theoretical physics. All atoms and EMR are wave only. They are not made of particles like photons, electrons neutrons etc. Essentially the atom is a wave only superposition of EMR interfering at a single central nodal point. As the wave only classical theoretical model at these links explain:

Hydrogen Spectral Series as Harmonic Overtones of a Single Fundamental Wavelength

Photoelectric effect described by a classical model

Wave only atom

CERN ‘particle paths’ modelled as overlapping waves

This wave only atom model, by virtue of the atom being a nodal point in space and made up only of standing waves of EMR, will have a dipole N-S magnetic field associated with this nodal point. As described in the above link ‘Wave only atom’. And when this wave only atom moves relative to any other reference frame it will itself also produce wave only magnetic radiation. A circular model described in the above link ‘CERN Particle paths modelled as overlapping waves’.

In a wave only classical model, oscillating magnetic fields of EMR will interfere with each other to create the atom as a nodal point with an associated dipole magnetic field. Which then itself generates new EMR when it moves relative to any other atom in any other reference frame.

This classical model is continually confirmed by so called Quantum “research” . It seems that every time QT theorists look ever closer at the atomic scale with ever more sophisticated technology ...they always find that the atom ( and EMR) has only wave like properties. With those  properties well described by a wave only classical atomic model. As my quote below from an article on the latest Quantum research shows :

(Notice in the article on the paper, quote cited below, that the quantum researchers were surprised to find the atoms in their experiment were acting classically. As if the atoms resonant frequencies were being synchronised. They just ‘discovered’ a well documented classical effect which has been known for centuries. And called it a quantum effect!!)

 “If you zoom in on a chemical reaction to the quantum level, you'll notice that particles behave like waves that can ripple and collide. Scientists have long sought to understand quantum coherence, the ability of particles to maintain phase relationships and exist in multiple states simultaneously; this is akin to all parts of a wave being synchronized”

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-scientists-survival-quantum-coherence-chemical.html

This synchronisation phenomena does not need to resort to a quantum magic explanation. A simple wave only classical model using sympathetic resonance between two wave only resonant systems will suffice.

When will these QT theorists admit that the standard model and Quantum physics should be scrapped? And replaced with a wave only model of the universe where there is no Big Bang. No QT. No Relativity. And No standard model Particles.

When? Who knows. It’s amazing they haven’t realised this yet. It must because they studied too much maths. And not enough classical physics.

Three Photon Quantum interference and Harmonic of single energy scales

 Quantum computers have been “just around the corner” for 3 decades or more. And will never be realised. They are science fiction fantasy based on an imaginary magic pseudoscience called Quantum wave particle duality. Quantum “theorists” seem to publish almost daily their misunderstandings of the classical interference effects of wave only Electromagnetic radiation. Below is a link where once again quantum theorists have misunderstood classical resonance in atoms. Because in truth Atoms are just classical harmonic oscillators and will produce a specific range of harmonics and sub harmonics from just one source fundamental wavelength. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240423113051.htm

And from another paper on imaginary 3 photon interference I’ve quoted below some text from another paper on imaginary 3 photon quantum effects. Essentially the researchers have once again misunderstood classical wave only interference effects and harmonic oscillators. And pretended these basic classical effects are spooky quantum magic! https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.02189

“A high-quality single-photon source based on a semiconductor quantum dot [27] embedded in an open microcavity is used to deterministically produce single photons that are converted to the telecommunication band with a quantum frequency converter [28, 29]. These single photons are deterministically demultiplexed into six indistinguishable singlephoton sources [30, 31], which are manipulated in a fully programmable photonic chip [32]. Heraled by the detection of four output spatial modes with high-efficiency single-photon detectors”

This quote above is an experimental description quoted directly from the opening page of the above linked arxiv paper. And is essentially describing a classical interference effect. Nothing to do with imaginary quantum effects. 

There is no need to invoke quantum theory to describe classical wave theory of light. Here below is my classical translation of the above “Quantum” papers quoted text: 

“A (low level) light source produces wave emr that is then converted into different wavelengths of emr following centuries old knowledge of resonance and harmonic oscillators. Wavelengths which are then made to interfere with each other in what is called classical wave interference. And the resulting wavelength radiation is then detected at various detectors where wave radiation is absorbed by the detector atoms. Each atom acting sort of like a atom sized capacitor which absorbs discreet amounts of incident wave radiation and releases it in pulses to be amplified and sent to the detector hardware using the “electron” cascade effect. And misconstrued as some sort of magical spooky quantum action at a distance effect.“

The following link is a graphic description of how wave radiation and atom absorption can model imaginary ‘single double or triple photon’ quantum detection as a purely classical effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

And regarding the process cited in these papers as “quantum frequency convertors” and the supposed “surprising” harmonic order observed in SPE’s indicating a energy scale in the Science daily press release cited above.  Once again the classical nature of atoms as harmonic oscillators has been ignored in favour of quantum spookiness. 

To get the correct explanation using a classical wave only model of atoms and light that does not involve spooky quantum nonsense look to this following paper on Harmonic and sub harmonic wavelengths generated from a single fundamental wavelength in Hydrogen atoms: https://vixra.org/author/p_g_vejde

No need for any quantum magic. Any researchers or institutions wishing to try to harness classical wave interference correctly to try and exploit any possible advances in computing that classical interference could offer to computing had best stop wasting their time and budgets looking for mythical quantum dragons and spooky entangled angels. And hire me to explain how quantum theory has misled research into theoretical physics for more than a century ever since Neil’s Bohr published his misguided Electron shell model in the early 20th C. The fact is that all observed energy levels in all atoms can be modelled succesfully  using a wave only classical model. No imaginary electron shells or photons needed.

Fast Radio Burst mystery solved. They are short Gammaraybursts.

As usual the theorists haven’t the faintest idea about what mechanism produce Fast radio bursts and Gammaraybursts. In their ignorance they think imaginary massive explosions caused by imaginary black holes etc produce these flashes. Some fantasists have even imagined there is a time reversal structure, so desperate is their desire to try to explain why their “explosion” model always fails to model each successive new observation of either Gamma or Fast ray burst data. As these following links show:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-fast-radio-approach-characterize-behavior.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-astrophysics-advances-gamma-ray.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad335/pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927324000793?via%3Dihub

The actual mechanism of gamma and fast radio bursts is well described by a simple classical model where light is a wave only. GRB and FRB data is only consistent with a model where the universe is infinite and not expanding. And the speed of light is always and only c relative to its source. In other words ignore the all relativity based physics.

DO NOT make up a fantasy model that continually needs to be corrected as the actual data comes in as all established models currently do. Instead base your model on the data first and foremost. Not as an afterthought. If you do, as I do, it will always correctly predict any subsequent new observation. As the link below explains.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2019/12/grb-190114c.html

To start with all current data on Fast radio bursts is consistent with them being just very short Gammaraybursts where the burst time line itself is so short that all data above radio frequencies occurs too fast to be measured by our instrumentation above the background noise. So for instance if a FRB is observed to last only seconds, then it’s optical counterpart will be a flash in less then a thousandth of a second and the gammaray part of the burst will last in even smaller timeframes of millionth of a second or less. Too small a time to be measured currently by our latest technology.

Proof of this model is that if one looks at any FRB lightcurve it will always show an exponential decay in peak fluence from hi to low frequencies. Proportional to wavelength. The fluence of the FRB lightcurve lasts for longer times at longer wavelengths. This same decay rate is also observed in all GRB data for all observed wavelengths. Confirming that an FRB is just a very short GRB. 

So that for instance if in a GRB, the gamma lightcurve peaks at t_0 seconds and lasts 20 seconds, then the xray peak will be delayed slightly and last longer. And this trend will continue. Optical peaks later than xray and lasts for even longer. And, the trend continues through IR, far Infrared through to radio. Where shorter radio wavelength parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of the burst will not peak for hours or even days after gamma peaks. And the radio lightcurve also lasts for days and weeks longer than gamma. This model is confirmed by ALL grb and FRB data since they were first observed in the 1990’s.

The delay and stretch of each part of the EM spectrum of any burst will always follow this rule. That is that it will peak and decay later and longer proportional to wavelength.

This model of mine first developed in 1990 when GRBs were not known even to be isotropic. And, not only did I successfully predict  in 1990 that they would be isotropic. I also succesfully predicted that similar rebrightenings in all other wavelengths and lightcurves would be observed to be delayed proportional to wavelength. When no such data had yet even been observed. Nor even considered possible by the fantasies of the ridiculous fact free Neil Gehrels explosion model.

And to date, 35 years later, my models predictions have always been confirmed with each successive year. Whilst the explosion progenitor model’s predictions have failed each year since 1990.

Links to my own theories articles and videos cited above describe in more detail how this “Doppler” effect of light in a classical model can explain all GRB and FRB data. 

But in a nutshell let me here offer a simple analogy: Imagine a gedanken of a flat surface of a large body of water. Create a series of waves of a particular wavelength on this surface. Now imagine you are on a motorboat travelling with and at the same speed as those waves as they propagate across the surface of the water. You don’t measure any up and down of the waves because your are moving at the same speed as those waves. Now speed up and slowly overtake these wavefronts. What do you see or measure? Your boat now bounces up and down slowly as it overtakes/passes each wave crest. Speed your boat up again and those waves will appear to you to be at an even higher frequency. Thus the faster your boat moves, the higher the observed frequency of those waves you overtake will appear to be. Do this same gedanken with lightwaves in a non BBT universe and you will get a GRB.

This is just a Doppler effect. That is what GRB and FRB’s are. No explosions involved

Reversal of quantized Hall drift at non interacting and interacting topological boundaries.

 The following paper seems to misunderstand basic physics. And attributes what is essentially classical Newtonian physics to imaginary pseudoscientific quantum effects.

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-reveals-topological-reversal-quantum.html

This misunderstanding is based on the fact that QT theorists have assumed light is a particle *and* a wave. This is a false assumption. Light is wave only. And all imaginary magical “ quantum” effects are actually just theorists misunderstanding the wave based nature of light and pretending it’s also a particle. Any imaginary quantum effects can be just as well described by classical waves and classical polarisation. As the following links explain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H9kx9_sQYA

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Take for instance the polarisation of EMR after reflection. Notice the handedness of the incident circular polarised wave changes handedness. But only in its direction of propagation!

Because from the observers point of view the incident wave has the same handedness as the reflected wave. 

This is because polarisation of light is dictated by the angle of the magnetic field of the incident light wave. And thus the handedness of the polarisation of the reflected light will be the same as the angle of the incident light waves. 

In case this doesn’t make sense to any student of physics indoctrinated into the nonsense of ridiculous quantum theory then look at how polarisation of a reflected wave depends on the polarisation of the incident wave.

If for an observer looking at the reflection plane at t_0 the incident circular polarised wave is polarised vertically relative to the observer at 12:00 o’clock. Then its reflected wave will also be polarised vertically. In other words the polarisation angle of the light beam moving towards and hitting the mirror will be vertical,relative to the observer.

Then it follows that at t_1 the incident circularly polarised wave has rotated slightly clockwise to 1:00 o’clock and that the reflected wave now moving towards the observer will also be polarised to the angle of 1:00 o’clock. BUT...relative to the observer.

This is referred to in physics as a flipping of handedness for polarisation at reflection. But what the reference fails to mention is that yes although the handedness flips at reflection. That is only true in the direction of propagation. Whereas from an observer point of view the handedness does not flip at reflection. 

This phenomena also can explain the observations in the experiment cited above. Because the handedness of the magnetic fields of the atoms upon reflection at the barrier is dependent on the angle of the atoms magnetic field before it reflects. And notice in the experiment the  handedness of the magnetic field of the atom after reflection is the same as before it is reflected. As with EMR at reflection.

No quantum effects needed. Just a simple following of the classical physics rule of magnetism on reflection. 

Which is: From an external observers point of view looking at the mirror, if a magnetic field is reflected its angle of polarisation must be preserved. And, for the external observer, be the same for the reflected atom or light wave as the angle of polarisation of the incident atom or lightwave.

Adam Riess discovers universe isn’t expanding after all

 A new study by Riess et al seems to have confirmed that something, once again, is wrong with the BBT model. 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd

Part of the problem lies with the earlier mistake made by him and others in their nobel prize winning paper of 1998. They realised back then that the lightcurves of distant SN1a were too “dim” to be explained by the BBT. So to get around this massive failure of their BBT model they added another pre-copernican fix to their preferred model of expansion. And called this fix ‘acceleration’. 

What they failed to take into account is the fact that a non expanding model of the universe predicts that these distant SN1a will not have *time dilated* afterglow lightcurves. And thus the SN1a afterglow is predicted to appear to be fainter post peak fluence in a non expanding model than is predicted in an expanding model.

And...this is exactly what is observed in Riess et al’s 1998 data. Far from confirming the BBT with an added fix of acceleration, what they actually did was confirm the non expanding models predictions and proved that the universe isn’t expanding at all.

And so now this failure to understand the data by Big Bang theorists in 1998 has come home to haunt them again. Riess has just confirmed once again that the BBT is a failed model. And that once again Riess’s data shows the universe isn’t expanding. Except this time he can’t think of an easy excuse. Although its apparent he still doesn’t blame the BBT model. And instead says that somehow there must be new physics. New fantasies to cover up old fantasies failures is what he really means.

It is worth pointing out here the oft repeated claim made by BBT supporters that SN1a lightcurves show time dilation and confirm the BBT model. When using chi^2 fitting methods to match observed SN1a data to theoretical time dilated templates . Knop et al 2003 being one example.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309368

This claim is dubious at best. Because analysis like this fails to do a control test on the SN1a data to see if a chi ^2 match to *non dilated* lightcurve templates can give as good, or even a better match to that of time dilated templates. 

And I have shown quite clearly in my blog page on supernova-light-curves-fit-non.html  that yes in fact the same hi-red shifted SN1a data gives at least as good a match to non dilated templates as it does to BBT inspired theoretical time dilated lightcurves. If not better. Considering that to make the SN1a data fit the dilated lightcurve templates, Knop had to arbitrarily fiddle the individual Hubble Space Telescope datapoints by as much as 15 % in luminosity to make a good fit to the expanding BBT models theoretical lightcurve templates.

 

Distorted galaxies in deep field images

 Hubble has already shown us images of distorted galaxy formation in deep field images. These incidentally were not initially predicted by the BBT. However theorists now pretend this apparent isotropic evolution in galaxy shapes from the “early universe” to now is all part of the success of the predictive powers of the BBT. Presumably JWST will reveal more of these distorted galaxy shapes in the distant universe.

But can these distortions be explained in a non expanding universe? I believe it can. Using two simple methods. Firstly one must take into account optical distortion. The more distance light travels through the gas and dust filled plasma of the vacuum, the more distorted the images will be. Just as light travelling through an imperfect glass or atmospheric medium distorts light images. And this distortion of course will be isotropic. The second method relies on the simple rule of light speed in a non relativistic model of EMR. Outlined in other pages of this blog on pages like my DeSitter page in this blog. As I have said elsewhere the MMX and Sagnac experiments show us light always travels at c relative to the source. This means that if the source moves relative to the observer or vice versa the speed of light of *all the light that has ever left* the source is always still at c relative to the source. A simple example can be explained as follows: Light propagates away from a source at c. The observer moves in a circle relative to the source. Notice as the observer moves away from the source the measured light speed is slower. And when they travel towards the source the light speed increases. 

Now apply this observation to the early universe. We see a galaxy rotate from our point of view. But from a star at the edge of the galaxies POV, they see earth rotate in the sky. Lightpaths from that star are always travelling at c in a straight line towards the earth relative to the star. Whereas the earth is moving back and forth across these light paths. From the earths POV the light appears to be dragged back and forth across the sky. And the light also appears to slow down and speed up as it arrives here on earth.Even though in fact in the stars frame it is always propagating in straight lines at a constant speed c.

So in the earths frame if one then tracked the path of light from various stars around the edge of the galaxy but always kept the light travelling at c in straight lines relative to each star, then over great cosmological time frames the image of the galaxy would *appear* to warp and bend from the earths point of view. Even though in fact the galaxy itself has not warped and bent.

Black Holes in M87 and Sag A

 Recent news from Event Horizon Telescope consortium is a new discovery of a black hole at sag A in our Milky Way. With an image surprisingly similar to the BH in M87

Notice M87 didn’t have a mandatory accretion disc. The rather disingenuous excuse from NASA is that by some remarkeable coincidence the BH is face on to us. The only angle that an accretion disc wouldn’t show up in observations. I said back then this is a failed image of an imaginary BH with a lousy excuse to legitimise the image not having a mandatory accretion disc. 

Guess what? The BH in sag A also doesn’t have an accretion disc either. And guess what NASA’s excuse is this time? 

“If confirmed this means that from our vantage point we are looking down on Sgr A* and its ring more than we are from side-on, surprisingly similar to EHT's first target M87*.”(NASA)

Another amazing coincidence to back up a failed prediction about Black Holes by theorists? Or just an imaginary BH from a unsubstantiatable theory.

Mercury anomalous preccession: A classical explanation

Mercury anomalous preccession and the Flyby anomaly.

Newton assumes we use the center of mass to calculate F=G*(mM/r^2)

This is true in the sense that yes, with the mass of volume being considered as homogenous, the pull of gravity is definitely towards the Center of mass. But it doesn’t take into account the fact that mass is not all concentrated at a hypothetical center of volume. It, the mass, is spread across the volume. So how does this affect Newton’s orbital calculations when trying to model both planets orbital preccession and the flyby anomaly?

We already know Newtonian calculations can not account for the observed anomalous preccession, first noticed by Le Verrier, unless an additional gravitational force is added. Le Verrier assumed an additional mass inside its orbital path. Others including Einstein provided their own explanations. (Einstein invoked an additional 1/r^4 gravitational force as the source of the anomalous advance of preccession.) All supplied mathematical proofs. 

I believe a non relativistic solution is still needed. And have found a simpler explanation based on the assumption that if the suns mass is spread across its volume, rather than concentrated at its center, this effects an outcome on perehilion that is slightly different from F=G(mM/r^2)

And this effect is related to the fact that an orbiting body will experience an additional gravitational pull from what Newtons formula predicts, the closer it is to the suns volume. Based on the assumption that some of the suns mass is closer to the orbitting body than the center of the sun is to the orbiting body at perehilion. And therefore must exert an additional increase in gravitational pull as defined by F in the Newtonian formula above.

But how can this be quantified without resorting to Le Verrier or General Relativity?

I believe I can supply not only the theoretical explanation but also the mathematical calculation to explain not only the anomalous preccession of the planets. But also the flyby anomaly.

The theoretical explanation is outlined above by assuming the suns mass is distributed across its volume. Not at its center. I call this the classical model seeing as it is a non relativistic explanation.

The calculations are as follows: Assuming this effect is greatest at perehilion than this neccessitates calculating the additional gravitational force at the perehilion. Not at the semi major axis as Newton, Einstein and others assume.

I have found that a simple 1/r^2 formula using r at perehilion instead of at semi major axis gives a reliable outcome that quantifies the additional preccession at least as well if not better than  Le Verrier, Gerber or Einstein. Without needing to resort to fantasies about Vulcan or imaginary Spacetime. Altering distance r at perehilion slightly, by adding an additional distance R, gives an even more accurate formula that can be consistently applied to model all the planets anomalous preccessions.

Notice that in my version of the classic r^2 relationship between gravity and radius, the radius is not the radius of the sun. But the radius of the orbit at perehilion. The explanation for this is that the effect is based on the assumption that the anomalous preccession is directly related to the diameter of the sun vs the distance of the orbitting body from the suns center. Notice that the diameter of the sun as seen from the orbitting body is determined by r^2. (Its size in the sky as seen from the orbitting body gets smaller with distance using 1/r^2)

Where r is perehilion distance and R is radius of the sun, are the following “classical” formulae:

A)Preccessional advance in arc seconds=1/(r+R)^2

B)Preccessional advance in arcseconds= 1/(r+3R)^2

The following table shows column 1 planet, column 2 observed, column 3 predicted GRT (relativity), columns  4&5 predicted  classical model. 

Notice classical version B is more accurate even than GRT for predicting all the planets observed preccessions.

                 Observed.    GRT.           A         B

Mercury.     43.1          43.5          45.85    43.24

Venus.          8.0            8.6            8.54       8.33

Earth.            5.0           3.87          4.5         4.49

Mars.           *2.5           1.3            2.3         2.29

( Errors on Venus observed are 8.0 +-5.0)

(Source: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 403, 1381–1391 (2010) 

[Table 1, column 9])

It is also worth pointing out that usually reference say Mars’ “observed” is 1.3. This is actually a theoretical assumption. Erroneously assumed to be consistent with the prediction made by GRT. 

In fact it is commonly accepted that only Mercury, Earth and Venus orbits can be measured to a any sufficient degree of accuracy. Not Mars or any of the other planets.

What relativist revisionists fail to mention is that total of the best measured preccession of Mars which includes any anomalous contribution is 9.0arcseconds/Century.

Of which *2.5* is an unattributable  “uncertainty”. Not 1.3

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4722-z)

                

.

James Webb observations contradict Big Bang Theory predictions

 Getting closer now to the JWST observing galaxies in a new deep field survey that were not predicted explained or even expected from the Big Bang Theory.

But how will the BB theorists get out of admitting their theory and its predictions screwed up (again)?

Brian Cox has led the way for the new revisionist version of BBT and has explained on his BBC religious program “Universe” exactly how the new upcoming JWST data and current data on large scale structures that until now cannot be explained by the BBT, can be made consistent with current dogma.

Apparently Brian and his fellow BBT fantasists are going to pretend the galaxies and large scale structures  that shouldn’t be there in the so called “early universe” predicted by these BBT nutters (and soon to be observed by the JWST) are “echoes” of the previous Big Bang.

And in an extra footnote to the whole BBT hoax here is a quote below from the historical record showing Hubble himself didn’t think redshift was due to expansion. Because in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge having just won the Nobel prize for pretending photons could not lose energy over distance. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

Supernova Light curves fit a non expanding model

Supernova (Sn1a) lightcurves have been used to illustrate time dilation due to the Big Bang expansion. This is an argument that has failed to follow a rigorous scientific method. The authors of these papers should have also tried to see if the observed lightcurve data fits a non expanding, z=0 model.  Using data from Knop et al 2003 I have created graphs of lightcurves where there is no expansion (z=0).  The following graphs are Knops dilated lightcurve graphs on the left and  for comparison, graphs of undilated fits on the right. These show how the data can also fit a non expanding model.