Some thoughts on Scientific explanations

Aug 14, 2012

So a thought I had today about Quantum effects that I’ve read recently.

I am trying to relate my understanding and what feels right to current Quantum and modern Science definitions. It just doesn’t add up for me. So I enjoy when others can explain some of them. Part of my problem is that we focus too much on the EFFECT of things. Then we label effects or conditions “things”. When usually they are not things per say. Then that messes up all the others that are then based on these “things” and on down the line. While having to continually change the rules or math to match the current theory.

To show an example of this problem is the “calorie”. There are multiple definitions and applications of this calorie. Most people think it is a “thing” that is in our food that we eat. When in actuality it is a measurement of energy. I feel the same when a photon or gluon or other labels we use for what seem to be different conditions or piece of a cycle are used. I think the electron can be looked at in the same way. http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana03.htm

With the difference being the Atomic electron vs the Experimental electron used in our labs today.

From the link above. Dewey B Larson’s explanations.

—— All of these “solutions” of the problems that have been encountered in the development of the concept of the electron as an atomic constituent have, of course, modified the characteristics of the atomic electron very drastically. As the nuclear atom was originally conceived, the negatively-charged constituent was presumed to be the same electron that is observed experimentally. This experimental electron is a definite and well-defined thing, notwithstanding its impermanence. We can produce it at will by specific processes. We can measure its mass, its charge, and its velocity. We can control its movement and we have methods by which we can record the path that it takes in response to these controls. Indeed, we have such precise control over the electron movement that we can utilize it as a powerful means of producing magnified images of objects which are too small for optical magnification. In short, the experimental electron is a well-behaved and perfectly normal physical entity. But such an electron cannot even begin to meet the requirements which have been established step by step for the atomic electron, as the concept of this particle has been gradually modified to “solve” one problem after another. The atomic electron, as it is now portrayed, is not a definite and tangible entity such as the experimental electron. It does not conform to the usual physical laws in the manner of its experimental counterpart, but has some unique and unprecedented behavior characteristics of its own, including a strange and totally unexplained ability to jump from one orbit to another (or to do something entirely incomprehensible which has the same effect) with no apparent reason and, so it seems, complete immunity from all physical limitations. We can deal with it only on a statistical basis, and even then, as Herbert Dingle points out, we can make our statistical methods for dealing with such particles effective “only by ascribing to the particles properties not possessed by any imaginable objects at all.”30 Furthermore, as already mentioned, the leading theorists of the present day tell us that the atomic electron cannot be accommodated within the three-dimensional framework of physical space; it must be regarded merely as a symbol rather than as an objectively real particle. In view of this fact that the atomic electron no longer has even a remote resemblance to the experimental electron, it is manifestly absurd to continue basing physical theory on the fiction that the two are identical.

The previous conclusion that there is no proof that the electron is a constituent of the atom must therefore be extended to assert specifically that the electron as known experimentally is definitely not a constituent of the atom. The hypothetical negatively-charged atomic constituent currently sharing the name “electron” with the experimental particle is something of a totally different character, a purely theoretical creation, unrelated to anything that has ever been observed and itself not capable of being observed: an “abstract thing, no longer intuitable in terms of the familiar aspects of everyday experience,” as Margenau describes it. —–

So now I want to ask a few questions to anyone that can help me understand Quantum Tunneling:

I was given an explanation by someone who is working with this effect and it sounds like he is getting great results.  Thanks Rasaviharii!

Here is how he explained it “they are measured by their effect… when an atom absorbs a photon (for example) it then emits an electron… the effect is measured by voltage and current output… if the input is equal to the output, then no quantum tunneling has occured… however if the output is greater than input, then you know some of the electrons quantum tunneled… quantum tunneling is a way for an atom to emit an electron without the need to have absorbed another particle”

1. How is it that a photon is a mass-less particle? Definition of a particle: particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass. So wait it is a particle but not with particle properties?

2. What does it mean for the atom to absorb a photon that has no mass? Then emits an electron? The wave or the particle? And then it is measured by electricity?

3. Does this quantum tunneling have to be imitated by something to then know if this has happened?

4. After reading up on this process… does the Atom itself absorb the photon or does the electron absorb it?

 

I have many more but this could get exhausting…

Could all of this really heady and intricate labels and ideas just be simplified with following nature’s 2 cycle pump system of compression and radiation?

I mean with an Electric Universe theory (especially Walter Russell’s theories), we could seem to answer all of these with a more common and easy approach.

Could we say we are dealing with electrical potential and the changes in the measurement or expression of electricity which is nature’s worker? That it is being “released” based on the manipulation of the cycle of centripetal or centrifugal vortices?

What if electricity and potential is just the effect of stress and strains of changing polarity or conditions?

That these opposed conditions are always seeking equilibrium in the stillness or non-motion but have to repeat and create more tensions.

So please understand that I am not saying these things don’t exist but that we could make this alot easier. Why do we have to apply different rules to things that are smaller and then create names for these things that seem to be just different pieces to the same puzzle just at a different stage etc…? This up down sideways quarks and others just don’t match with the axiom “as above so below”.