Merged Theory links Newtonian/Quantum the amazing Frank Znidarsic

[ben m]

I can explain where 1.094 Mhz m came from and how it can replace h can you explain the causation of a substitute for G? Even have a substitute?

Sure, I can build a Cavendish balance and obtain data on my constant T.

ETA: Its value is T = 6.40x10^11 kg/m^3 Hz^-2. From that I can derive the motion of all that planets!

 

[Evilgiraffe]

Mattus,
In all fairness, even though the Bohr model is about as relevant as the plum pudding model of Rutherford, orbitals are still in use as descriptors in the mainstream.

Orbitals aren't part of the Bohr model. Bohr had quantised orbits. The familiar s,p,d and f orbitals are spatial solutions of the Schrödinger equation.

 

[Skwinty]

Oh, I know that; that is, it works well enough for hydrogen.

OK, couldn't tell if you were being serious or facetious.

 

[Skwinty]

Orbitals aren't part of the Bohr model. Bohr had quantised orbits. The familiar s,p,d and f orbitals are spatial solutions of the Schrödinger equation.

Did I state that orbitals were part of the Bohr model?

 

[JCM]

Your argument is essentially circular in nature

You are right it is circular and this is the tract of circular math Frank was stuck in for 10 years
Short Clip
But he found a way out

This clip wraps it together with math

 

[Dancing David]

CONCLUSION
The field of quantum physics revolves around the stationary quantum state. A speed has emerged from experiments involving low level nuclear reactions. This author, with the use of this speed, has developed results as a condition of the transitional quantum state. This new understanding suggests that a macroscopic body may be forced into a state of quantum transition. Trillions of atoms may be adjoined within a single transitional state. Strong gravitational and long range nuclear forces may be produced. The use of these strong, long range forces could provide new sources of propulsion, allow for the reduction of nuclear waste, and lead to the development of new sources of energy.

1. I. Bernard Cohen, Henry Crew, Joseph von Fraunhofer, De Witt Bristol Brac, The Wave theory, light and Spectra. Ayer Publishing, 1981
2. Robert Bunsen, Journal of the American Chemical Society, Volume 22, 1900
3. L Hartmann, Johann Jakob Balmer, Physikalische Blätter 5 (1949), 11-14
4. W. Ritz, Magnetische Atomfelder und Serienspektren, Annalen der Physik, Vierte Folge. Band 25, 1908, p. 660–696.
5. Planck Max, On the Law of the Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum, Annalon der Physik, Vol. 4, p 553, (1901).
6. Einstein Albert, Development of our Conception of the Nature and Constitution of Radiation, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, (1909)
7. Bohr Niels, On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules, Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, Vol. 26, pp 1-25 (1913)
8. Maxwell James Clerk, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 155, (1865)
9. Lewis deBroglie, Recherches sur la théorie des quanta (Researches on the quantum theory), Thesis, Paris, 1924
10. Max Born, The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Nobel Lectures, 1964
11. A Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Roses, Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 - 780 (1935)
12. Miley George H., Nuclear Transmutations in Thin-Film Nickel Coatings Undergoing Electrolysis, 2nd International Conference on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, (1996).
13. Mosier-Boss, Szpak S., Gorden F.E. and Forsley L.P.G., Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition Experiments, European Journal of Applied Physics, 40, 293-303, (2007)
14. Storms Edmond, Cold Fusion, A Challenge to Modern Science, The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol 9, No. 4, pp 585-594, (1995)
15. Rothwell Jed, Infinite Energy, Issue 29, p 23. (1999) "50 nano-meters ..is the magic domain that produces a detectable cold fusion reaction"
16. Arata Y. and Fujita H., Zhang Y., Intense deuterium nuclear Fusion of Pycnodeuterium-Lumps Coagulated Locally within highly Deuterated Atomic Clusters, Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Vol. 78, Ser.B, No.7 (2002)
17. Li Ning and Torr D.G., Gravitational effects on the Magnetic Attenuation of Superconductors, Physical Review B, Vol 46, #9, (1992)
18. Reiss Harrald, Anomalies Observed During the Cool-Down of High Temperature Superconductors, Physics Essays, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 2002).
19. Tajmar M., deMathos C, Coupling of Gravitational and Electromagnetism in the Weak Field Approximation, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003011
20. Podkletnov E. and Levi A.D., A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu307-x Superconductor, Physica C, vol 203, pp 441-444 (1992).
21. Papaconstantopoulus D. A. and Klein B. M., Superconductivity in Palladium-Hydrogen Systems, Phys. Rev. Letters (July 14, 1975)
22. M. Modarres, Momentum Distributions of Nuclear Matter, 1987 Europhys. Lett. 3 1083
23. A. Sommerfeld, Principles of the Quantum Theory and the Bohr Atomic Model, Naturwissenschaften (1924), 12 1047-9
24. Richard Feynman, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, 1988
25. The Lex Foundation, What is Quantum Mechanics, page 189, 1996
26. Znidarsic Frank, A Reconciliation of Quantum Physics and Special Relativity, The General Journal of Physics, Dec 2005, http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf

So which of these publications from an uncited reference is a repliaction of the alleged cold fusion phenomena?

Is English your first language, you have no presented data or evidence for replication, nor did you cite sources for them.

 

[Dancing David]

Why doesnt the electron ever crash into the nucleus? That is can anyone give a causative explanation as to why two attractive forces never attract each past a certain point? Isn't the atom a perpetual motion machine?

Let's face it the current state of quantum mechanics is not even a true branch of physics. Physics is the study of CAUSATION. I mean what CAUSES orbits to be quantized in discrete steps?

Do you know what the word quanta means?

Frank has left the quantum magic for magicians and brought physics back to science

Um the Religion and Philosophy forum is that away >>>>>

You don't know what the definition of science of physics is either. QM is physics wether you like it or not and it is modeled rather well despite that fact that under current models it appears acausal.

The fact that you are resorting to philosophy and semantics does not argue well for your ideas.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

Did I state that orbitals were part of the Bohr model?

Not in so many words, but it was fairly heavily implied by what you wrote.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Mattus,
In all fairness, even though the Bohr model is about as relevant as the plum pudding model of Rutherford, orbitals are still in use as descriptors in the mainstream.

But the plum pudding model was Thomson's.

 

[Skwinty]

Not in so many words, but it was fairly heavily implied by what you wrote.

Mmm, I thought that was what Mattus was implying. I mean, you could have said that I was implying that was what the plum pudding model implied.

 

[Skwinty]

But the plum pudding model was Thomson's.

You are right, but it directly led to Rutherfords model.
Sorry, my mistake, I knew that Rutherford was involved.

The 1904 Thomson model was disproved by the 1909 gold foil experiment, which was interpreted by Ernest Rutherford in 1911 to imply a very small nucleus of the atom containing a very high positive charge (in the case of gold, enough to balance about 100 electrons), thus leading to the Rutherford model of the atom.

 

[jasonpatterson]

Why doesnt the electron ever crash into the nucleus? That is can anyone give a causative explanation as to why two attractive forces never attract each past a certain point? Isn't the atom a perpetual motion machine?

What you don't seem to understand is that ANY explanation of the workings of the universe is subject to these sorts of questions at some level. If you ask, "Why?" enough times an honest, knowledgeable person will eventually have to answer, "We don't know, it is simply observed to be true." The difference here is that rather than admitting that you don't know (or that Znidarsic doesn't know, anyway) you are comfortable with just accepting the crap that he's made up.

Made up crap vs. honest admission of ignorance... I know which I choose.

 

[ben m]

The speed of transition can be proven from first principles, meaning that it is not simply empiracle.

(An empiracle is a small, cute baby empire.)

Your calculation is nonsense, JCM. The quantity f*lambda isn't "the speed of a quantum transition", it's the speed of light. By definition. It's not 1.094x10^6 m/s, it's 3x10^8 m/s. Look up any photon you like and do the math. (A handy wavelength to measure yourself is that of your home microwave: http://www.physics.umd.edu/icpe/newsletters/n34/marshmal.htm) I have no idea where you got 1.094e6 from.

Anyway, who cares, because that's not the unknown in your calculation. Q is. You wrote down the expression for the energy stored on a flat-plate capacitor of dimensions lambda x lambda x lambda (and you used a hideously inaccurate approximate equation for the capacitance), charging it up to an arbitrary amount Q. Then you randomly rearranged the equation to pull out a factor of f, to make it look like E = something * f---and ignored the fact that you the "something" contains your still-unknown charge Q. Q is not the fundamental electron charge, by the way, as you will find out if you do the math. Nor the fundamental up quark charge. Nope. It's some random constant---with, yes, units of charge---that you will learn when you do a quantum experiment just like everyone else.

But I'm mostly amused by your thinking the speed of light is 10^6 m/s. Dude, the electrons in your TV tube are going faster than that. If that were the speed of light, you'd need five-inch pupils just to be able to read. If that were the speed of light, there'd be a four-second delay in coast to coast phone calls. If that were the speed of light, the planets would cross the sky with redshifts and blueshifts (especially Mercury's) noticable to the naked eye.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The speed of transition can be proven from first principles, meaning that it is not simply empiracle.

We're all waiting to see you do so. As far as I can tell from the rather incomprehensible paper you're referencing, the value for Vt is derived from the ratio of the energy and frequency of a photon; in other words, from Planck's constant. Until I see a derivation of the value of Vt from some other source, it's nothing more than a rearrangement of terms, and - yes - purely empirical.

Dave

 

[JCM]

Until I see a derivation of the value of Vt from some other source, it's nothing more than a rearrangement of terms, and - yes - purely empirical.

Ok well this is what I was getting at I am sorry if I come off as very ignorant I am not a physicist and am a math major so its the math in this work that gets me not the physics but from what I understand it can be derived elsewhere and this is the diamond in Franks coal. I havent mentioned how yet and without doing so all of this is as you said before circular using plancks to get plancks whop de do. But the equation is using the quantum transition rather than planck's even though they may appear to be the same number. This is because the transition number is derived at not may up. It is derived by the study of sound waves propagation within the nucleus and deals with impedance matching. I am still trying to understand how Frank derived 1.094 Mh m but it is stated indeed the derivation of the value of Vt does come from some an other source. Yes frank is an electrical engineer but principles such as impedance matching have been applied by him to quantum models resulting in this research.

Please check out this video it as I said begins to explain where the derivation of 1.094 Mhz m is coming from

The next video continues explaining how Frank derived the 1.094 MHz m speed of quantum transition.

Your calculation is nonsense, JCM. The quantity f*lambda isn't "the speed of a quantum transition", it's the speed of light.

In this equation

lambda = wavelength of photon during transition not "the speed of light".
f = Frequency of the emitted photon = known by experimental measurement

The eq. is stating that the speed of transition is equal to the frequency of the emitted photon

But I'm mostly amused by your thinking the speed of light is 10^6 m/s.

Sorry but that is not what I am stating. First of the number is 1,094,000 m/s second the number is the speed of quantum transition not the speed of light but yes I can see how your misunderstanding could be amusing.

If you think I am confused watch the math explain in this short video

(An empiracle is a small, cute baby empire.)

So the Vatican? Well now not in times of the past

Um the Religion and Philosophy forum is that away

Well maybe I shouldnt mention the Vatican

QM is physics wether you like it or not and it is modeled rather well despite that fact that under current models it appears acausal.

ACAUSAL is not science, sorry. It may work pragmatically, that is Mayan priests could predict eclipses perhaps not knowing the causation of the eclipse but believing in sky god migration patterns or something (this might be totally wrong). They could predict phenomena but did not know their causation. That is the current state of QM you may be able to predict things reliably but you have stated yourself it appears without causality.

There is causality and Frank is able to explain it finally.



The mentioning of Bohrs model and what not relates to this video as well in that its explains that the REAL radius of a proton is 1.2fm as the proton is fuzzy at the end and most texts just measure the "non fuzzy" density at the center .877 fm but the fuzziness extends to 1.2fm
but the actual distance is that is K_f=1.36 fm

The difference here is that rather than admitting that you don't know (or that Znidarsic doesn't know, anyway) you are comfortable with just accepting the crap that he's made up.

Made up crap vs. honest admission of ignorance... I know which I choose.

Looking at this work you cannot seriously think Frank just made it up. Ok maybe you can seriously but I can't. it is simply too in depth and the math is undeniable. I admit ignorance and find ways out of it like Franks unorthodox viewpoint. Not simply because of it being unorthodox in fact not at all, but because of it's ability to fill in gaps in a manner that is verifiable and scientific. I underline that because that is what qualifies me accepting it not worship of personality, wanting to explain everything, believing in made up stuff, etc... Only due to the fact of Frank's science do I accept it

Frank Himself explaining some of his theory

Please watch the vids they are better at explaining than myself.

Trust me the level of this work is not on par with ghosts and bigfoot this is real science

The final video brings it all together

 

[Dancing David]

JCM, QM is science and you don't understand that reality does not need to conform to your expectations.

Um sure this guy did whatever you say he did, as soon as you privide the proof.

But 'sound waves propagation within the nucleus', that is nonsense. Surely you have garbled something or it is nonsense.

Electron transitions will not cause sound waves in the atom's nucleus. It may cause adjoining electrons in various shells to respond, but there are no electrons in the nucleus.

 

[Mashuna]

So you admit you don't understand the science, but you're convinced it's true, revolutionary and overturns QM. Well, that's good enough for me...

 

[JCM]

but there are no electrons in the nucleus.

I am speaking of nucleons

 

[JCM]

So you admit you don't understand the science, but you're convinced it's true, revolutionary and overturns QM. Well, that's good enough for me...

Which is why I want input of those that understand the science and take a look at FRANKS work not mine at explaining it. The work not my summary of the papers abstract.
And not to simply dismiss it in terms of "well it has psudeo physics terms but is completely misunderstanding the science"
I want concrete examples using math dissecting the work entirely not a simple skim of the premise. If its wrong ok but dont just tell me show me in his work in his equations. You can't prove a negative but I am giving you work to disprove not dismiss. Claims are stated in his research and backed up with work

 

[RussDill]

I am speaking of nucleons

How would one measure a sound wave traveling through a neutron or proton? How would it arrive? How would it leave?