Read this page to understand why GUTCP is worth spending some time to understand.
Anyone with some amount of formal physics training will quite likely view GUTCP with deep skepticism. GUTCP's success is predicated on the rejection of certain postulates that mainstream science has generally accepted as settled. This page sets out to demonstrate why the parts of QM that GUTCP obviates isn't so big a leap of faith as imagined. And indeed, why GUTCP is so successful once the erroneous postulates have been identified and discarded.
QM is Non-physicalEdit
Any student of physics who has advanced beyond purely classical topics, if they are honest, will admit experiencing apprehension when first introduced to the core concepts of Quantum Mechanics. Things, we are told, aren't what they seem when you get to the very small scales of atoms and photons. "Weird" is the watchword and everyday conundrums and nonsensicalities are waved away as the price for studying things at this scale. What's more, QM seems unable to come up with some very basic answers to some very basic questions. Such as:
- If the electron is a dimensionless point what is the real basis for spin?
- Why can't QM get ionization energies right for any atom besides hydrogen without resorting to adjustable parameters that have little or no theoretical justification?
- Why does an accelerating charge radiate?
- Is it really acceptable to arbitrarily discard infinities (i.e. renormalization) to force sensible results from a theory?
- What is the fine structure constant and why does it keep popping up everywhere like an uninvited guest?
These are just a few of these seemingly fundamental, yet unanswered, issues that confront us even today. The list is essentially unchanged since the introduction of the Bohr model of the electron in 1913. Rather than solving these core issues, physics has merely bypassed them and instead pursued multi-billion dollar atom smashers that spew massive quantities of highly measured nonsense (and not a few PhDs).
Fallacy of the Bohr ModelEdit
Clearly, something went very wrong in the first decades of the 20th Century when the rapid progress that had been made up to that point all of a sudden came to a screeching halt. In fact, the problem is precisely the Bohr model of the electron. It seemed to fit the observed spectrum from hydrogen radiation so well that surely it must have been the exact solution. However, it suffers from critical defects, such as no particular explanation for the so-called "ground state" of hydrogen. In order to account for the unexplained, explanations were created, whether or not they made a tremendous amount of sense. For instance, to explain the stability of hydrogen to radiation at the ground state, both particle-wave duality (PWD) and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) were introduced, despite the lack of any physical meaning for either. These postulates were derived to rescue a particular mathematical interpretation, not because they described physical reality. Physics has been struggling ever since to keep these two postulates (particle-wave duality & HUP) in place despite very good evidence that neither is true.
Lab evidence for QM better explained classicallyEdit
The most common reason cited by those objecting to GUTCP is that PWD and HUP have been "proven" many times over in the lab. However, the evidence from these experiments was interpreted in an era when the prevailing thought was that the only possible explanation was PWD and HUP, thus were seen as confirmation of these mechanisms. However, when considered in the light of GUTCP, better explanations for every one of these phenomena can be found from classical effects. In case after case, dual slit, Aspect, Bell's inequality, tunneling, it can be shown from GUTCP that a classical explanation fits the actual experimental evidence better than QM.
Finding the Right DistributionEdit
Rather than accepting the Bohr model and all of the limitations and nonsensicalities it implies, GUTCP abandons this dead-end. Instead, it starts from first principles, seeking answers to the fundamental questions before moving on. For instance:
- Instead of an infinitely dense point charge, is there a distribution of current density for the bound electron that would satisfy the observed boundary conditions such as the stability of the hydrogen ground state to radiation? (Answer: yes, a two-dimensional membrane, spherically encompassing a nucleus).
- How can a spherical distribution of current density, in which charge is being accelerated as it orbits the nucleus, be stable to radiation? (Answer: this is explained with the Nonradiation Condition whereby an extended distribution of current has been demonstrated to be stable to radiation using known classical laws. Its conceptualization dates back to 1910; even earlier if Maxwell's Equations are considered as the foundation. Specifically, it states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light )
- Can this distribution predict all four quantum numbers, not just three? (Answer: yes, a particular distribution can be found that predicts spin as well as the other quantum numbers).
- Do we really need wave-particle duality and HUP? (Answer: no - every experiment claimed as evidence for these effects is better described by this new current density distribution).
In hindsight, it's easy to see when progress stopped: precisely the moment at which the Bohr model was adopted as fact, despite the obvious departure from reality. Once corrected, GUTCP easily solves all of the problems that have continued to vex mainstream physics.
Reasonable skepticism requires proof of GUTCP phenomena. Such proof is easy to demonstrate to anyone with some degree of math and physics education. This page gathers some of the most remarkable results of GUTCP and compares them to the corresponding result from Quantum Mechanics, if one exists:
Atomic ionization levelsEdit
Provides highly accurate closed formed equations for all ionization levels for atoms with one through twenty electrons using only fundamental physical constants found in the definition for the fine structure constant (alpha).
Provides accurate levels for hydrogen only. All other atoms are incorrectly modeled by QM. What models that do exist postulate the use of non-physical constants and other purely mathematical techniques.
Lepton mass ratiosEdit
The mass ratios for Muon/Electron and Tau/Muon are accurately described by closed-formed equations in alpha only that match observed values to the limit of experimental accuracy.
The Standard Model takes the lepton mass ratios as fundamental constants.
Physical manifestation of alphaEdit
GUTCP correctly identifies the physical manifestation of the fine structure constant, also commonly referred to as alpha, as being the ratio to the Bohr radius of a spherical resonator cavity whose resonant frequency matches the photon with the rest mass of an electron. GUTCP shows that the reason alpha is so pervasive is because it is fundamental to pair production, and therefore dominates every aspect of physical matter.
QM provides no insight into the nature of alpha. Feynman admonished all good theoretical physicist to worry about this glaring lack.
GUTCP correctly identifies why only three generations of particles exist. Electron/positron pairs are generated by default from pair production, muon/anti-muon derive from an artifact due to electrical energy, tau/anti-tau due to magnetic energy. The solution to the lepton mass ratios rely on these observations. We can save many $100B on the next round of colliders seeking yet more lepton generations. They don't exist.
The Standard Model has no answer for why only three generations exist.