draw bridge  
 
Science Home
 
  fan belt  
      

Home
Detailed Pages
▼▼▼  
 

Various Science  6

 
Quantum Mechanics Contradictions

 

electrons

 

Radiation of just the right frequency can bump an electron several times on the same side of its orbit to add energy to the electron. Physicists misinterpreted the numerous hits upon an electron as a packet of energy called a photon.

Physicists admit there is a contradiction in quantum mechanics. They say radiation exists both as particles (photons) and waves while admitting those are contradictions. Even though the two concepts contradict each other, physicists apply them both to light.

Radiation as waves is known to get weaker the farther it travels. Photons do not. A photon is a defined amount of energy based on frequency which does not change over distance.

Radiation as waves is known to vary in amount of energy due to amplitude differences. Photons do not. A photon has fixed energy based upon frequency only.

The claim that the energy of light is independent of amplitude or distance as photons is obviously incorrect. The assumption is based on a misinterpretation of the effect of light upon electrons.

Planck's constant is used to show the relationships. It says that the energy of light is equal to a constant times the frequency. Making a direct relationship between energy and frequency says light is a packet of energy (photon) determined by the frequency of light. Since there is no such thing, Planck's constant (or equation) is nonsense. Yet it is used in a large part of physics creating false relationships and erroneous assumptions.

One of the reasons for assuming radiation is like a particle is that it imparts energy to orbiting electrons in large leaps. Electrons which orbit nuclei will only increase their energy in stages, as they jump from one "orbital" to another. It looked like a packet of energy was needed to cause that result.

The radiation which imparts energy to orbiting electrons has to be just the right frequency. The assumption is that the reason why the frequency has to be just right is because there are different amounts of energy in each frequency, and a particle of energy seems to be required.

That isn't what happens. Particles have length, width and height; energy does not. The reason why the frequency has to be just right is because a wave must bump the electron on one side of its orbit only. If both sides are bumped, one effect will neutralize the other. When the frequency is just right, an electron can be bumped repeatedly, until it acquires enough energy to jump to a higher orbit. With repeated bumps, a lot of low energy waves will do the same thing as a few high energy waves, as long as the frequency is the same as the electron orbit frequency.

In not understanding what happens, the assumption is that there is always the same amount of energy at any frequency. The difference between low energy and high energy waves disappears, and only the frequency looks relevant. So the assumption is that only the frequency determines the energy of light waves.

In reality, a single wave does not have to have the same energy within it as the electron acquires. Just bump the electron enough times and a low energy wave will do the same thing as a high energy wave, as long as they are both the right frequency for the electron. The false packet (photon) contains however many waves that are required to produce a visible effect upon the electron—sometimes maybe 10 waves, and sometimes maybe 100 waves.

A major glaring contradiction which should nullify the whole concept of photons is that the energy of a photon does not get weaker as it travels farther from its starting point. Everyone knows light gets weaker the farther it travels. But photons do not. Their energy is determined by their frequency regardless of how far they are from the source.

Doesn't this contradiction scream out the answer? If the same thing happens with strong and weak radiation, wouldn't it take more waves with weak radiation to do the same thing as fewer waves with strong radiation?

In other words, there is no difference between strong and weak radiation in the photon concept. Yet physicists know in other contexts that radiation can be weak or strong. The photon concept indicates that the energy is determined by frequency only, which eliminates any difference between strong and weak radiation at any particular frequency.

Not resolving such contradictions moves the subject out of the science domain. Science does not exist until the contradictions are removed. The purpose of science is to produce reliable evidence for objective reality. Contradictions destroy the reliability.

How can physicists be so wrong with quantum mechanics and be such wizards on subjects such as relativity? Relativity is nonfalsifiable, because it is totally contrived. It is only the obscurity which makes it unquestionable fact.


Allowing contradictions which are evident in physics says physicists are not attempting to produce science. There is no reason to adhere to contradictions in science, when the purpose of science is to increase basic knowledge with reliability under all conditions.

Obviously, physicists have some other purpose than producing science. Their obvious purpose everywhere is to function as super engineers. It's a noble purpose. Super engineers are needed for developing technology. But engineering is supposed to be called engineering not science.

In many ways engineering is the opposite of science. Engineers must use the most expedient method of reproducing technical procedures for creating products. In doing that, their procedures only apply to the narrowly defined conditions. Such procedures cannot be reliably applied anyplace else.

So the problem with physicists producing engineering instead of science is that their procedures cannot be applied to any purpose other than narrowly defined purpose which produces a technical result.

That means, physicists are totally unqualified for determining whether carbon dioxide produces a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Physicists do not have a science for evaluating that effect. Not the least problem is that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows about 40 times too much radiation given off by matter at normal temperatures. Reduce the radiation by a factor of forty and the fake greenhouse effect is a sick joke.

The criticism of their sick joke can be based upon five hundred years of evolved knowledge in science. Newton's laws are the only factor in basic physics knowledge that can be used.

Observations in physics tend to be reliable when actually measured, but very little in physics is actual observation. Some of the astronomy produces important observations, but the interpretation becomes unreliable to the extent that fraudulent principles of physics are applied.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided to arbitrate the physics of the greenhouse effect and said that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a pollutant and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to remove it from the atmosphere.

That result uses the claim of physicists as a determining fact for the science of the subject. It's not appropriate to arbitrate science based on human opinions. Science is an accumulation of evidence which allows truth and knowledge to evolve forward. No scientists can arbitrate science and say what the truth and knowledge of science is. Of course, lawyers and journalists don't know that; so they claim the science is settled on greenhouse gases. There is no such thing as settled science. Science is an accumulation of evidence with continuous evolution of knowledge and its reliability. Having know-nothings arbitrate the subject is a guaranty of social ruin.

The proper application of science is to show evidence of evolved knowledge with suitable explanations, so conflicts can be resolved. Nothing in physics beyond Newton's laws meets such standards. Physicists are not allowed to question enforced claims in physics. So the only criticism of physics that occurs is produced by retired physicists or outsiders, while no attempt to respond to such criticism is made by physicists.

Therefore, courts are not supposed to be arbitrating science. Congress, however, must arbitrate social disputes, not by proclaiming what science is but by producing laws which reduce problems.


The reason why physicists do that is because they want to pretend to have unquestionable knowledge with absolute results as a method of eliminating criticism and the endless demands of rationality. They want finality for every result. Only fakery produces that result.

In other words, incompetent corrupters prevail wherever there is darkness, because openness and accountability are needed to produce rationality and resulting truth. In the dark, force prevails over rationality. The darkness of physics resulted in force of incompetents prevailing over rationality of their critics.

The corrupters who prevail in the dark conspire to create the power of numbers. The dynamic of conspiracy replaces the methods of science in physics. Relativity exists for no other reason. It is a tool for conspirators to solidify their power by obliterating rationality in physics.

For incompetents to prevail, they need to shove out rational persons. So they designed irrationality into physics as a method of prevailing over rational persons.

Recently, that standard prevailed throughout society resulting in fascists taking over social structures including government. Fascism is the socialization of corruption.


That's why claims of gravity wave measurements are made in contempt for science and rationality—claiming to measure motion at 100 million times smaller than the vibration of atoms (one tenth of an attometer). The absurdity has the purpose of obliterating rationality; so physicists can prevail in building their image of godliness with nothing but incompetent corruption for results.

And it's why a helicopter on Mars is claimed, while Mars only has one percent as much atmosphere as Earth, which makes a helicopter an impossibility. Perversion of standards needs to be glamorized to wall off criticism and pretend that critics are the corrupters.

Relativity Contrived

What Corruption Is TOP     

     top      

 

Radiative Transfer Equations
 
Invalid Measurements
 
Absorption Without Emission
 
Quotes By Incompetents
 
Other Factors
 
Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
 
Joule's Constant
 
Origins Of Errors
 
Relativity Fraud
 
Nuclear Fusion
 
Quantum Mechanics
 
ATP Theory
 
Fossil Fuels
 
Electricity Problem
 
Renewable Energy
 
Electric Vehicles
 
Fake Efficiency
 
Gravity Waves
 
Firing Scientists
 
Peer Review Fraud
 
IPCC
 
Evolution Biology
 

     

 

 
 
 Home Page 
 
 Moral Philosophy 
 
 Political Philosophy 

 
 
 
 Sociology   
 
   News Pages   
 
   Religion   
 
   Detailed Pages