[humanbydefault]

There is a fundamental question when dealing with metaphysical terms like this one. To be honest with you, I felt horrified the day I watched the NOVA scientific film titled "The elegant universe." I would like to see Einstein's facial expression after watching Dr. Brian Green trying to go through a wall in the attempt to compare in macroworld-like examples one of the greatest BLUNDERS of XXst. century modern physics. INCREDIBLE!
No doubts about it, tunneling is all about propagation of energy across "barriers" of "higher energy levels" and other obstacles that make impossible to accept under any circumstances... including in the frame of correct applications of quantum mechanics.
This is literally what I wrote in the first sentence of my book's description:
"QM is today a perfect compromise between an ABSURD REALITY (we've built for ourselves) and a bunch of lucky experimental results..." Well... The wave function is part of that absurd reality and I'll planed to discredit it with all my ways available in my common sense arsenal.
There are two main factors that induced earlier physicists to chose a mathematical formulism without a shread of logic instead of a more plausible and acceptable alternative explanation.
The first factor is TIME. Time is still "glued" to space in general relativity and its relashionship with ENERGY and its pattern of interaction is not understood yet [my personal opinion].
The second factor is referred to the atomic model and its structure. I think that those who regularly read my articles are well aware of my views about reality inside the atom and how I explain those "sub-atomic particles" in my own terms.
Tunneling then was said to be the movement of a "sub-atomic particle" [electron, proton, neutron and even an alpha particle] from one level of energy to a next in an act of magic. The magic act is ladies and gentlemen being blame on the existence of a wave function that every PARTICLE [even us] has access to "when needed." In physics there is an old concept very well proved and experimentally demonstrated called "TRANSPARENCY." This concept is [in my theory] what explains why a quantum of energy is able to move [as an invisible entity] across other patterns or harmonics without being "disturbed." Those physicists who studied SOLITONS in past decades elaborated the concept very well. They saw how those "solitons" overlapped each other without interference of any sort.
I said in this thread of mine, that quanta of E-M energy PRODUCED inside N-type semiconductors [silicon dopped with atoms having an unbalanced harmonic in a higher level of energy] were able to move throughout P-type without any "DIFUSSION." NEVER EVER an "electron" made in N-TYPE atomic oscillators were occupying lower levels of energy to later continue its way as if nothing had happened. When voltage was manipulated in transistors the current was controlled by other means.
If you understood the picture described in my atomic model, electrons were nothing more than "spatial projection of harmonics." The interesting aspect of the concept is that there are further SPATIAL PROJECTION AFTER ELECTRONS and those ones are spreaded across the crystal. The amazing FACT in play here is that those PROJECTIONS OF THE SAME HARMONIC [we thought as electrons before] are the true REASON for what we see and identify as TUNNELING. Energy modulated inside a temporal reality will accept a sort of "difussion" under the conditions imposed by the nature of their HARMONICS. A pretty simple example of it is seen in music. Those who play musical instruments have often realized that when you make a string vibrate the vibrations will also be observed in other strings that are "tuned" into one of its harmonics. The manipulation of voltage [energy applied to atomic oscillators] could be regulated in a way that the process is similar to a musical "tunning" of the overall energy. There isn't any wave function with no explanation whatsoever! There is [on the other hand] an explanation to the NEED of having a WAVE FUNCTION in physics today and that responds to the "mathematical representation" introducing this posting on top.

HUMANBYDEFAULT
www.humanbydefault.com

**** I appologize to members of the FORUM and outsiders for the annoying inclusion of not welcomed and desperate attacks against my views from the same member. Since there is no WAY to block or ignore the [only] source of INTERFERENCE, I suggest you to simply ignore and pay no attention to it whatsoever... please! continue enjoying my tour into the unknown!

[subversion]

Hey man, don't talk bad. I'm interested in your ideas, I sympathize with your frustration. I also think though that if you've got something really monumental to say that you can say it in one sentence or even LESS, in the case of my theory. So don't get mad and don't talk bad about this forum because the people on this forum are the best people on the planet, including you. We are not dogmatic, we are all thinking creatively and uniquely. Instead, answer me this simple question which your theory, if it is valid, should have the answer to. How did the universe start? You should be able to answer this very simply question in one sentence, then I might be able to understand and discuss your theory. If your theory doesn't answer this question, what is the overriding basis for your theory in one or two sentences?

[humanbydefault]

As a matter of fact I just did it! No need to "talk bad" right? Even my previous warning has been ERASED FROM EXISTENCE... ["he" got the message right].
You know my friend Sub. it is called HARRASEMENT in the place I came from.
ANY INTELLIGENT MEMBER OF THIS FORUM could simply "click" in my postings and in his and verify the pattern of a non-stop discrediting campaign against my views. My only fault has been to IGNORE everything this member has posted along with what he or the ones who support UNCERTAINTY AND PROBABILITIES could say here or everywhere else... That's my only guilt.
I have not posted comments or opinions in ANY of his threads. I am not looking for CONFRONTATIONS with any one of the beautiful family of this FORUM either.
But you have missed the point and don't rush to answer me until you think a little bit about it.
--------------------------

No body knows me personally! This isn't personal my good friend. Those annoying attacks are a DESPERATE WAY to make me derail my attention from what I'm saying and you know why? BECAUSE I'M GETTING PRETTY CLOSE TO MAKE YOU (members of the forum who read my articles often) "SEE" THAT COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC COULD BE EMPLOYED IN EXPLAINING THE WEIRDNESS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS... AND THAT IS DANGEROUS!
There is no other "explanation" plausible in this case. In my neighborhood such behavior is called DOGMATIC. But we don't come from the same place, do we?
Being said that... I edited for content some of what I said earlier. I moved it from PG-13 to G.A. [general audience]... You are very welcome!
This is a temporary posting too. It will be erased from here once the content get to the right "receptors." One thing though... Such desperate and unfit behavior made (us) waste TIME in minuscles explanations, but I believe that things are much more clear now.
"It ain't worth the effort..." So! I'll continue sharing with you and THE REST OF THE WORLD my highly dangerous ideas after all! who knows? Maybe one of these days I'll get something more than just personal attacks and empty blames...
THIS IS NOT A REGULAR POST... NOTHING INTERESTING HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT SCIENCE AND FOR THAT I TRULLY APPOLOGIZE TO THOSE MEMBERS WHO HAVE FOLLOWED MY PREVIOUS POSTINGS AND ARTICLES.
I'm working in my next topic [remember?] "God's Particle" The Higg's Boson.
Until our next encounter...
HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

...If your theory doesn't answer this question, what is the overriding basis for your theory in one or two sentences?[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick answer: NO! It doesn't! What my "theory" [which I'd better refer to it as a hypothesis, just like every single (constantly changing) human ideas, models and perceptions about the universe] is also changing by the day... No in the fundamental basis UPON I built subjects like the nature of TIME, MATTER AND a need for a more REALISTIC ATOMIC MODEL, but in finding better ways to prove my points. If you haven't got the idea of what my points are I INVITE YOU to read any of my articles published before. There are more than just one disagreement with present orthodox views of those issues referred above.

Now! this is the interesting point I found in you Question.
Did you said "how the universe started"? I would never use such word... It seems like another regular laboratory experiment. I would use the verb "TO ORIGINATE" in its proper verbal conjugation. As I said before I have NO CLUE how we got here in the first place and I'd suggest to anyone who think that has found such theory [and of course a way to PROVE IT] to send a MEMO to the White House in Washington and propose it to the president of the U.S.A.

You see... There is a WAR going on about teaching creationism, evolution or intelligent design and I believe that if someone came up with a theory that goes to the very beginnings could also explain to us where we all came from... I hate to confess that COSMOLOGY is not one of my favorites. I guess this will be somewhat disaapointing for you, but one of my greatest defect is that I'm honest with myself. I always felt attracted to what is now called the quantum world. The true nature of matter, time and "traveling quanta" [known as "subatomic particles"] that kind of "STUFF" is what really interests me. Do not misunderstand me! I respect those who look throughout telescopes and speak about stars we wouldn't reach ever, but as I said, there are colors and you chose the want you like better. That's not my color anyway.

One last POINT. Precisely in this very thread I have proposed PRACTICAL WAYS [available in the year 2005] to PROVE my points about the real nature of "electrons" INSIDE THE ATOM. Irradiating a single atom wouldn't be able to result in the "KNOCKING" of many [ACCORDING TO BOHR'S ATOMIC MODEL AND THE "PARTICLE THEORY."] However, if many "electrons" were scattered as U-V photons are made to collide against a single atom of Sodium [for example] that would mean my good friend that:

"I HAVE PROVED MY POINT!" (it also means that) "MY PROPOSED ATOMIC MODEL IS ACCEPTABLE!" (for reference you may go to my articles "Rediscovering the atomic model" [parts I, II AND III].
* one last point: Even as early as my first article in this forum account for a way to prove the effect of the vacuum in the final spectrum observed in the "Two slit experiment's screen." I also proposed a way to prove the modulation taking place inside atomic oscillators. Irradiating a higher-energy photons [otherwise "transparent" to the material] and lowering the external temperature we would be able to obtain the "photoelectric effect" and the basis to assume that is the increasing of MASS inside those atomic oscillators and their consequent increase of modulation capacity.

It's being a pleasure answering your questions.

HUMANBYDEFAULT
www.humanbydefault.com

[subversion]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault

I would use the verb "TO ORIGINATE" in its proper verbal conjugation. As I said before I have NO CLUE how we got here in the first place and I'd suggest to anyone who think that has found such theory [and of course a way to PROVE IT] to send a MEMO to the White House in Washington and propose it to the president of the U.S.A.

I have indeed found such a theory and it is indeed proveable. However, this man you speak of in the White House, he will be the last to know. I hate him, utterly. If it were for people like him, I'd never release the TOE. In many ways, I feel he must be assasinated before releasing the TOE is even worthwhile. What a crazy quest this is, but all the more real. Don't forget that I AM SUBVERSION personified

Originally Posted by humanbydefault

You see... There is a WAR going on about teaching creationism, evolution or intelligent design and I believe that if someone came up with a theory that goes to the very beginnings could also explain to us where we all came from... I hate to confess that COSMOLOGY is not one of my favorites. I guess this will be somewhat disaapointing for you, but one of my greatest defect is that I'm honest with myself.

I have been meaning to make a thread about the intelligent design/evolution debate, in which case I think both parties are slightly misleading themselves. Intelligent design ignores that there is evolution and evolution ignores that the design evolution creates is, well, intelligent. I appreciate your honesty when you say you don't like cosmology. I love cosmology, and I'm not particularly crazy about QM, though I know it has it's merits. Each to his own. But yes, my theory, in describing the origination of the universe, does have implications for where we came from, but I'm still trying to come to terms with that. I haven't fully accepted it and don't want to talk publicly about it.

Originally Posted by humanbydefault

It's being a pleasure answering your questions.

Thank you for answering my questions, I appreciate the honesty. As I am very busy, I will try to find the time to examine and interpret your theory about the atom, so I can give better feedback. BTW, did you know that your website is down?

kudos, subv

[humanbydefault]

“DIRTY TALKING”

“A prudent question is one-half of wisdom” (Francis Bacon).



Lately [which is very unfortunate] some experimentalists have begun to question the same principle that help early scientists in the final design of the “Table of the elements:” “The Pauli exclusion principle.”

Didn’t I warn you earlier about the true nature of the inhabitants of the planet of HUMONS?

These guys couldn’t explain the unusual configuration of electronic orbits while dealing with “high temperature superconducting materials” [which I found it nothing but another proof of the incompetence of the actual atomic model]. Their mathematical tricks didn’t work anymore and what did they blame for their miseries?

A principle that has no possible objection in the entire universe and one that [if applied correctly I may add] could save them some well-deserved embarrassment. This happens every time experimentation “takes the wheel” and theory sits in the back and falls asleep.

I think is time to “play with some numbers” and really show these guys, who are the true players in this field.

GO PROFESSOR!


The “Pauli exclusion principle” –as even pets could explain if we let them do it- states the correct “electron” occupancy in each sub-shell. The word “electron” has two quotation marks hanging in each side of the word, as you may have noticed, and you know why since it comes from me… right?

Good! It means that we began to understand each other just by using a couple of marks… It’s a start!

Experimentalists fit the pattern of those “artists” trying to paint first the human fingers leaving the palm for the end. It’s nice that we try to find some sort of “order” or “method” to play smart on front of nature and be able to “predict” what type of configuration we will find in this or that atomic structure.

Have you ever tried to put together a jigsaw puzzle of an abstract painting? I haven’t but I could make a wild guess why they don’t sale any even in the case it actually existed: because we have no previous [mental] record of what we plan to accomplish.

The “Pauli exclusion principle” along with the sub-shell overlapping phenomena observed in those lattices find their reason for being inside deeper harmonic patterns inside the atom. It was said in the past, that “nucleons” in ‘Shell Theory” occupy a similar electronic configuration… I spoke about it in my previous article, didn’t I? I went further that when I said that we should consider “electrons” as nothing less that spatial projections of “protons” “quarks” and still deeper patterns unknown to us.

Would that be a good reason to “disable” it and consider the exclusion principle the next prospectus for the theoretical “junkyard?” If they got too desperate in trying to fit their results with theory, there will be nothing that could prevent them from doing it… “Life is short” [you know?] and once the ‘Noble prize” commission endorse it… “You could take it to the bank”!

I feel sympathetic with them believe it or not. They are trying to do the impossible while looking for ways to explain superconductivity in “doped” ceramics known as MOTT.

Does the “Pauli exclusion principle” work? You bet! Could it be [blindly] applied to every single lattice?

I’m not going to answer that question just yet, you will!

IF we could demonstrate by experimental procedures of course, that indeed those electron-occupancy coincided with the same nucleonic configuration [as previously explained in my articles] I feel optimist that we could still save what ever is left from Pauli’s work.

There’s got to be a way to match those nucleonic spectrums with electronic ones inside the same lattice. You are the physicist, so you tell me!

As long as your “subatomic concept of particles” continue alive, there is no hope to answer those “maze-looking” structures at electronic levels… That’s for sure! With an increase complexity of semiconductors [due in part to doping procedures and temperature-dependent structural changes] today’s primitive model of the atom falls short in their expectations. A change is needed and rather sooner than later!

Pauli’s principle is about one energy family. The overlapping observed in electronic sub-shells obeys the natural interposition of spatially projected harmonics of [assumed] “excited protons” or what I called “nucleonic bonding” at deeper levels. The higher the position of the [electronic] sub-shell the higher the step on the ladder where its “parent” [the proton] was standing inside the “nucleus.”

Do me a favor! Open you cellular and look at the little bars [those showing you the level of the receiving signal]. You’ll find a little one followed by another a little higher and [if you are lucky] may be a third one even taller than the second one. Imagine the small bar as the harmonic pattern of one quark. The second will depend on the existence of the first one and we will call it “proton.” The third will depend on the existence of the one named “proton” and we will call it “electron.” Conceiving the existence of a big bar without the previous appearance of its corresponding predecessor would be an impossible… or the signal to change your phone ASAP.

Those heavy atoms we find in the table of elements will certainly present a pretty complex configuration as we get distant from the nucleus. With the inclusion of new “energy families” in nucleonic bonds the spatial projection of those ones will make their presence felt across the entire crystal.

What do we get then gentlemen? A complex interference [interaction] of mutually overlapping “Pauli exclusion principle” independently one from another. The final result…? If we don’t take into consideration a more advanced atomic model it’s not hard to imagine it! Total chaos!

In lay terms I would say that your “quantum mechanics got flushed down the toilet”… Excuse my French! It was you who stuck to the “particleness” of your “subatomic particles” not me!

“Electrons were unfairly given the status of elemental particle in the past by one of your “guys” hundred and eight years ago:


1) You gave them a real mass just as Pinocchio its child status.

2) You turned them into an entity with an independent status of existence.

3) You assigned them with spin, jumping habits and a “mind of its own” used to make its mind whether which slit will be chosen to go right through it in the two slit experiment.


After all those gifts [that only Gods could offer] you expected them to be able to do the impossible while defying a growing number of obstacles encountered on those “Fermi levels” and “gaps” multiplying like apples on a tree.

And what is your HUMON response?


“Let’s put the blame on “Pauli’s Principle” and see what happens… The Internet is filled with those hypotheses… Don’t believe me? Try it and see for yourself that I’m not kidding this time.

If you asked me I’d suggest you to reconsider the particle status of you electrons “outside the atom” as holders of electrical charges considering them what they are: E-M quanta and nothing else.

Consider also those “super electrons” of yours [inside the atom] as what they really are:

Spatial projections of harmonics sharing the spinning mass of one-lepton.


HOLES ARE BOSONS INSTEAD OF FERMIONS

(This announces was brought to you by the professional society of golfers)


In the good old days of “solid state physics” a controversial concept was the headache of everyone attracted by the field: “A hole.” How could something which meaning was “the absence of something,” would move across a lattice? To make things worse they explained that it was OK and it was a simple “illusion,” just like the one observed on the lights moving on top of a movie theater. That in fact we were observing the movement of “electrons” and not the empty space left by them.

I’ve got to tell you: HUMONS are the masters of illusion whether you like them or not!

A doping of a silicon wafer with “impurities” obtained by other atoms left a harmonic in a state of “incompleteness.” Whether the incomplete harmonic was built on the outermost sub-shell or on one below the so-called “conduction level” the point is to guarantee one lepton mass capable of manufacturing an electron. My problem with that is that if we assume “electrons” to be E-M energy re-modulated inside entangled couplings [harmonics] how could we justify the same electrons moving across “valence bands?”


If I assumed the configuration of “conduction electrons” to be fermions and therefore carriers of a tiny center of mass due to its complex nature, how could we accept the idea of those same electrons occupying non-entangled harmonics?


How could we account for the difference in energy density depending on harmonic positions [according to my atomic model]?


There is one simple answer to that problem! Holes are bosons! Very special kind of bosons, I may add but nothing more than bosons! They moved across the crystal just like light does carrying a less dense energy than their “upstairs neighbors” [the conduction electrons] but nevertheless moving electrical charges in opposite direction. It’s logical to think that the overall flowing of current across the semiconductor will be the vector sum of the total transfer on both directions.

In this analysis too you could appreciate the importance of defining the harmonic structure on one side and the nature of the current as E-M quanta of energy fabricated on those patterns.


With this last thought I say good by to all of you! I hope that those attempts to abolish the “Pauli exclusion principle” from our theories will end up in the same “garbage can” destined to keep inside a reality dressed today with beautiful mathematical costumes reminding us the arrival of hollowing.


M. De Zayas [author]


You may also go to www.humanbydefault.com and check it out on my book… my “libel” perhaps?

ã Copyright 2005
Last edited by Robert : 09-28-2005 at 01:28 AM. Reason: Removed extra blank lines

humanbydefaultView Public ProfileSend a private message to humanbydefaultSend email to humanbydefaultVisit humanbydefault's homepage!Find all posts by humanbydefaultAdd humanbydefault to Your Buddy List

#8

**** This article was removed from a wrong place and include in its right context. Its part of an effort to organize my postings in one place.

[humanbydefault]

INDEX OF MY WORK

”Is Quantum Tunneling what “they” claim it to be?”
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1064

”Spin... Spin ... You little electron!”
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1045

OOPS! As many electrons as it takes! Right professor?
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1039

“Imagination”
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=925

”Looking for The Wrong Particle at The Wrong Place”
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=969

”Bose-Einstein Condensate: same matter-different feeling.”
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=990

”A theoretical CLEAN-UP in DIRTY PHYSICS.”
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=949

"REDISCOVERING THE ATOMIC MODEL" [Part three]
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=937

"REDISCOVERING THE ATOMIC MODEL" [Part two]
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=824

"REDISCOVERING THE ATOMIC MODEL" [Part one]
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=823

The Young's Experiment
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=798

"Between the devil and the deep blue sea"
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=764

Alien Harmonics versus Quantum Mechanics
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=805

Living in the Stone Age of Humanity: The Year 2005
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=810

“Popcorn Literature”… Not Any More!
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=814