- Education and Science»
Why can't you draw an atom?
Quantum Mechanics provides no sizes or diameters for the particles of the Standard Model. The particle mathematicians accelerate and talk about 0D 'point' particles. This may explain why they can't draw an atom.
The naked emperor
The entire Quantum establishment is reliving Anderson's old Emperor's Clothes tale, but in reverse. The mathematical crowd is telling the robed king that he is nude. On the one hand, a mathematician defines an OBJECT as 'that which you can observe'. On the other, he claims that an electron is an object that has zero size. He asserts that 'scientists' have already smashed these 0D non-entities at the accelerators. It makes you wonder what it is that the scholars are ‘observing’.
If that argument fails to persuade you, the mathematician has a backup story on hand. He alleges that 'scientists' can't see an electron because it’s too tiny. The atom is still under investigation, and that explains why "we don't know what an electron looks like. (If we only had more funds to build bigger colliders...)"
This last one is a bald face lie! On the one hand, the mechanics boast that they have taken images of atoms, filmed electrons, and took pictures of gluons which mediate between quarks which are constituents of protons which are constituents of atoms. On the other, no one is investigating the bird's-eye architecture of the atom or of light. The entire establishment has caved in to Bohr's breathtaking explanation that it is impossible to visualize or imagine a 3D object such as an atom. Nevertheless, Bohr has already determined for all of us that these questions are outside the purview of 'science.' Structural questions of light, the atom, and 'fields' are not even among the ten most important of contemporary 'physics.' No one is investigating such matters. The mathematicians routinely delegate such issues to philosophers, which, as it turns out, aren't investigating them either.
It is also a lie because Quantum officially defines a hydrogen atom as consisting of a proton and an electron. Everyone learns this by rote in secondary school and this description is never amended at the university level. Rutherford determined early in the 20th Century that a proton has greater than zero size. No problem there! The electron, on the other hand, is a monster that no one wants to face. The electron is defined to have zero size, zero dimensions, no structure whatsoever! The electron is a non-entity that, if the decription of a hydrogen atom is to be accepted, compels you to imagine the atom as a bundle of nothing orbiting a nucleus. The mathematicians at all levels routinely explain that ionization consists of an atom that lost an electron BEAD! And electricity consists of a massive flow of these beads. So clearly, the mechanics are invoking the planetary model in these physical interpretations.
The zero-size particle
Can the Quantum electron be a particle of zero size?
The first thing we must settle is that this is not a question of verification! We don’t run a test in Science to figure this out. It is strictly a conceptual issue. An object is that which has shape. Therefore, by definition, an object has greater than zero size. Period! Or are the Quantum mathematicians willing to stake their reputations and sink deeper in the quick sand by arguing that the electron is an abstract concept such as love or intelligence?
But if the ‘scientists’ insist, we will go the extra mile and show that their own experiments make it inescapable that the electron has greater than zero size or dimensions. What the particle mathematicians have trouble answering is why the electron tracks in their bubble chambers have greater than zero width! WHAT object, what surface is it that collides against the gas molecules inside the chambers and leaves these contrails that can be imaged? In fact, when Carl Anderson discovered the infamous positron that earned him his Nobel, which is touted as the ‘positive’ nemesis of the electron, the greater-than-zero BEAD carved a groove across his wafer (Fig. 6)! There’s the diameter of your infamous electron, dear mechanics! No more excuses!
Quantum is just 'philosophy'
The contemporary world of 'science' consists of mathematical philosophers more comfortable with publishing nonsense such as time travel and dark energy than about thinking critically. We will never know what an atom looks like because no one cares any more about WHAT an atom IS or looks like. Then again, the mainstreamer complains now and then that he doesn't have a deeper meaning of Quantum. No kidding?
Meanwhile, we continue to send the checks to CERN, SLAC and KEK where the modern philosophers accelerate and smash 'point' particles and break them up into more non-entities. When some phenomenon can’t be described, the mathematicians invent a new particle and assign it a flashy Greek-letter name so as to make headlines. That’s how we ended up with muons, pions, dark matter and the amusing Higgs, a particle of mass! Never does anyone question whether the foundations are rotten to the core. That's when you know it's time to distinguish between Science and religion!
Of course, dissent is put down violently in order to shield the beloved religion of Mathematical Physics. Careers, glory, money are all on the line. Anyone rising against this madness is quietly censored. Try publishing a paper in Nature or Science criticizing Quantum, Relativity or String Theory on qualitative grounds. You have better luck publishing your argument that God doesn’t exist in L’Osservatore Romano.
Nevertheless, you’re wasting your breath because Bohr, Heisenberg, Feynman, Susskind and the rest of the crowd have already preempted you. They are already on record stating that Mathematical Physics is irrational:
Bohr: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is... If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
Heisenberg: "The problems of language here are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms. But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language... The solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which experiment lead us to form - the one of the particles, the other of the waves - are both incomplete and have only the validity of analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases... The violent reaction on the recent development of modern physics can only be understood when one realises that here the foundations of physics have started moving; and that this motion has caused the feeling that the ground would be cut from science."
Feynman: "the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that... I think I can safely say that no-one understands quantum mechanics... Do not keep asking yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, but how can it be like that?… Nobody knows how it can be like that..."
Susskind: "Modern science is difficult and often counterintuitive…Where intuition and common sense failed, they had to create new forms of intuition, mainly through the use of abstract mathematics… When common sense fails, uncommon sense must be created…"
Therefore, you are rasing a strawman, barking up a tree if you argue that Quantum is poppycock. The mechanics aren’t interested in logic or the real world. They are merely interested in Math. They add insult to injury by telling you that you are doing philosophy. It’s you who is on the wrong side of campus. The modern world of ‘science’ is not about causes or explanations. It is strictly about describing mathematically and running experiments to confirm the observation. Contemporary ‘science’ is not about understanding, but about making predictions. A mathematician is an individual who predicts that the Sun is going to be eclipsed by the Moon tomorrow morning yet can’t tell you WHY the Moon doesn’t drift out of the Solar System! He can tell you the exact force on a charge, but can't tell you how a magnet attracts another. They are not even interested in these questions any more, let alone in investigating them. We’ve replaced priests with astrologers, syllogism with the 17th Century version of the ‘scientific’ method. We have yet to do Science.
So where does that leave a rational person? How did genuine scientists lose control of Science to the religious crowd of Mathematics? Is there any chance that rationality will ever make a comeback now that generation after generation of graduates are ‘conditioned’ at university assembly lines?
The answer is that it is quite humbling to realize one day that you have awakened inside a gigantic asylum that is run by the loonies themselves.