A reply to “Bremsstrahlung Radiation a better mechanism”

In his new article on Bremsstrahlung, Mathis applies his model (*) of spins and predicts that in this process, electrons turn into photons.

What we will see is that the mechanism of Bremsstrahlung, though roughly correct, is not completely correct. The electron is not emitting a photon, it is becoming a photon.

Mathis takes offence with current theory’s lack of explanation as to why and especially how electrons can emit – that is create – photons. They are not there before, so how can they be there afterwards? He repeatedly expresses the view that scientific description of nature should be “mechanical”.

But notice how convenient it is for them that quantum mechanics has no mechanics. Although they claim to be physicists, the fact that QM and QED are not mechanical allows them to dodge all physical questions.

We do not profess to know what Mathis means when he uses the term “mechanical”, but picture a model of small colliding spheres, not unlike billard balls. In this picture, interaction and forces are transmitted via collisions. Although it seems intuitive for nature to be “mechanical” in this everyday sense, there is no deeper reason why this should be true. Common sense tells us for example that the earth is flat, which is cleary not the case. It remains to say that contempary “non-mechanical” theories like electrodynamics and quantum mechanics are not only useful but make incredibly precise and well verified predictions and are justified in this pragmatist sense.
Mathis clings to his mechanical view because he cannot imagine the universe to be otherwise. His side blow

I thought we were done with force at a distance

to modern theory is in vain, because since the advent of field theory, building so called “local” theories is not a problem anymore. (There, force is mediated through local fields (e.g. the electromagnetic field), which explains the mysterious action at a distance that troubled Newton.)

On a philosophical side note, science has many heuristics, which “explain” how electrons emit real photons in the bremsstrahlung process (for example a cloud of virtual photons surrounding the electron). But they aren’t to be taken at face value from a philosophical perspective. They only thing science can do is make predictions and verify their consistency with experiments. It is true that scientists tend to have a lot of faith in their models, especially if they are established beyond reasonable doubt like general relativity and the standard model. But in the end they will have to hold up to experiment.

This brings us to the most problematic point in Mathis’ theory: He claims that the electron turns into a photon. This would imply that the electron’s negative charge somehow gets lost in the process, leaving the universe with an overall excess of one positive charge. To the best of our knowledge, so far no processes have been observed that violate charge conservation.

(*) “model” is really too strong a word for Mathis’ thinking. He uses heuristics, rather than clearly defined terms, in order to shed light on the problem. His method however, only enables him to make vague descriptions of what might be the case, but fails to produce predictions comparable to experiments.

About these ads
This entry was posted in physics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A reply to “Bremsstrahlung Radiation a better mechanism”

  1. Jonathan says:

    In response to the various citations, and otherwise un-noted quotes on QM which I am sure Mathis has made several, It is obvious that he does not have any understanding of Qm at all. First and foremost it is something which I am studying in order to finish the doctoral school, and his claims are absolutely ridiculous. Many people in the current cycle of graduate school, or any school for that matter, have noticed the incredible problem which is QM. The entire creation, with some small part being excluded, was and is being come up with in reverse.

    I first noticed some inconsistencies with Qm when exposed to the Heisenberg Principle and other elementary ideas used as the foundations of all other theorries in Qm. I was searching this out and found Miles Mathis and his ideas about this, which at first might seem resonable. However, it became very clear, and as you mentioned above in his oversight, that this is purely experimental procedure and was derived by understanding the experimental data and techniques being employed at that time. While this approach is not standard and only creates further problems in the heuristc thinking being employed in so many fields today, something he admits and others emerging from study in our current society also notice, he fails to acknowledge the reason for experiemntation and points out that people are needing to make sure their ideas are coming with exerimental confirmation.

    It is in this regard that we know without reading more than two paragraphs from his webpage that he does not know whathe is talking about. As Einstein pointed out to both Heisenberg and Schodinger, they were taking experimental data and techniques and forming their formulas and ideas to match and explain those, which is problematic and the step which should come after original theorry has been developed. rather than resolve this the approach has been slightly pushed together in the ideas they presented in order to use one persons ideas as the easiest method for this problem and the other persons ideas for another.

    All this said it is funny that he says well electrons must be turning into photons, etc, etc… It is not the experimental data which should be questioned in order to better undertand physics, it is the fundamental ideas and whether or not they could have been capable of explaining the scenerio they attempt to explain without the experimental data present. The data should have been confirmation and not the foundation.

    Just to mention something which has come to draw a little attention today concerning this idea of questioning foundations of physics. Many have thought that the ideas presented by Coulomb and others who studied as best they could the effects of electricity etc… should be reevaluated, as the information they had to deal with and the methods of verifying those results have been far improved upon, and perhaps the ideas they had concerning the nature of these phenomenon are not completly true. While you may have been able to get some formulas here and there from their originals and they provide the data you want, it is a false assumption that just because his ideas on lets say electron-electron repulsion are somewhat verifiable and the material you are dealing with today might have a little to do with electron-electron repulsion that you should automatically adopt and use his formulas in your work. If they cannot be derived independant of his theories in order to show your own to be correct (before experimentation) and then by checking your evaluation against his to see if they match then you have made your results to match a theory which may or may not have scewed your own results and therefore provide the avenue for problems in the future with more complex tasks involving your ideas.

    Anyway, just stating some ideas concerning that above and Mathis, and the problematic nature of QM which makes it so easy for people to try to contradict it.

  2. Erto says:

    Hi. I’ve been a regular reader of both miles website and this blog for a while. Just so you know, I am NOT a physicist of any sort, but virtually all I know (including my profession) is mainly self taught, so I study everything I have an interest in. Well, since I am in no position to debate either physics or math (yet), I would like to propose to this blog new posts regarding what I believe are more important ideas Miles presents. Specifically, I would appreciate an analysis of his Relativity corrections concerning variable assignments (last post on this: http://milesmathis.com/rel222.html) and also on his various corrections on the moon, the roche limit and many other apparent proofs of his charge theory, which I believe is the most important idea of all his work.

    As for your post on Bremsstrahlung Radiation, differently from previous posts, I wasn’t able to understand your point. It seems to me that Mathis attempts to explain the genesis (mechanics) of forces such as electromagnetism, and (arrogantly) presents (sometimes clever) ideas, but I have read your post three times now and haven’t found anything that contradicts the possibility of an electron becoming a photon. He presents mechanics for that, via stacked spins, so you should address that, I suppose. I feel many if not all of his most important attacks on the standard model are not very well addressed.

    And thank you for the clarification on Miles’ post on Goldbach’s Conjecture.

    • crashloop says:

      My main argument would indeed be the conservation of electrical charge. A single electron which has charge e can never become a single photon which has charge 0.

      • Erto says:

        But it seems that with his explanation of charge the mutation from electron to photon by losing outer spins is very plausible. And as he points out there’s really no mechanical explanation of charge by the standard model (at least not yet). According to Miles charge equals photon field. Also, an electron, according to him, is just a photon with more spins, and every time a particle loses spin, it gains velocity (again, according to him), so no laws violated here, right? I’m not saying he’s right, I’m saying it’s plausible so far. To make ones mind is really up to accepting his charge model or not… I believe that’s why he tries to present so much data to back him up… that’s why I urge you to debate these deeper issues he presents… specifically his photonic charge model.
        Thanks for the reply.

        • Cee says:

          Dear Erto,

          The problem is that in all particle experiments done so far, we have never seen the violation of that physicists call “the conservation of electric charge”. In all experiments, if 3 negative charges went in, 3 negative charges came out. Notw that this does not exclude that the incoming charges were three electrons, but the outcoming charges were 10 positrons and 13 electrons. If electrons could turn into photons, it seems that this principle would be violated unless the spins somehow carry the charge away with them.

          As to discussing his charge model, the problem here is that his model is not very precicely formulated. Don’t you have the feeling that he could have written the same article and proposed, that protons, not electrons, turn into photons? Or that electrons turn into photons by adding spins?
          Furthermore, I’m not really sure what a “mechanical” model is. I feel that you, like Mathis, are implying little balls bouncing off each other. I fail to see why nature should be like that. (Most certainly, the idea that nature should work by the exchange of photons, vector bosons, and the like, is not a very good explanation either! But the fact is that these words are only an intuitive simplification of the much more complicated mathematical model behind the modern Standard model.)

  3. erto says:

    Well, I believe that he really means poolball mechanics, because that’s how he explain things. Particularly I don’t feel that physics NEEDS to be about poolballs, but nevertheless I agree about his criticism of virtual particles and the sort. And I really believe that eventually concepts of this sort will give room to more accurate and logical descriptions of reality, after all, virtual photons really describe nothing that we can logically imagine to exist, since they’re not defined as real. I don’t believe that’s really an attack on QM. though, since I believe it’s already accepted we don’t have to logically grasp physics’ concepts – quantum reality might be unimaginable, after all. But the fact is that, once we believe in this, it’s easy to propose any theories, and his critique on this is very valid, to me.
    Back to your reply, his model is not precisely formulated for sure, he even admits that, he says it’s unfinished work himself, but the standard model is LESS precisely formulated, because it doesn’t describe very well any particles and motions. We are not sure what mass is, what energy is, what an electron is, what charge is… we have mathematical definitions, but we can’t visualize them, and I believe that’s a weak point for now, and I won’t believe that science will NEVER figure out a way to visualize them – it’s always succeeded on this. And I don’t buy Copenhaggen interpretation neither, just because nobody visualized wave motion YET doesn’t mean we never will, and Mathis (and others) have proposed solutions to this, some better described than others, none accepted yet, but it’s been proven POSSIBLE, to say the least.
    Now, regarding the conservation of electric charge (CEC), there are a lot of papers proposing (possible) different ways that the CEC law might not be applicable in all cases, just google “nonconservation of electric charge” and you will see a few. Anyway, I find it reasonable that, if proven that charge has any equivalence, like mass and energy (e=mcˆ2), charge “transforming into” photons might not brake any laws. It would just be our understanding of what charge is that needs an update. Or actually, an explanation.
    And regarding particle mutation via added or subtracted spins, Mathis really does explains all quanta as one particle alone (quantum) with differing levels of spin. I don’t see how an electron can become a photon by adding spins, for this would make the photon a larger and slower particle than the electron, which we know can’t be true. But of course, anyone can come up with any logic to explain any number of things, like “no particles, only waves” etc… but his charge model seems to be backed by many data (see his papers on the Moon, Mercury, C orbits, etc) just to be discarded with no consideration. G as a scaling constant is very clever also, don’t you admit that? I don’t really buy his expanding matter gravity yet, because it’s very hard to verify that through experiment, it’s much like virtual photons to me… how can we prove it?
    Finally, your final statement about the much more complicated mathematical standard model is an argument against you for those who believe (I do) that the simplest explanation is always more likely to be true (in terms of probability that is always true). Many great minds of all sciences believed in that, but Copenhaggen was a fatal blow, I guess, since NO explanation is just as good since then. (You might notice I don’t buy the Copenhaggen interpretation: just because we can’t figure out a visualization doesn’t mean there isn’t one, and there are already some plausible visualizations proposed today, including Mathis’, so to me the Copenhaggen Interpretation is disproven entirely). And of course the explanation of nature as exchange of vectors is a good explanation! It’s way better than virtual particles! IF you can explain the same thing with virtual particles exerting virtual forces AND with real particles exerting real forces, and BOTH get correct predictions, which one would you choose?
    I believe the reason there’s so much mysticism and pseudo-science today is precisely the lack of scientific rigor of the Stanrdard Model. There are so many holes open to so many interpretations and theories that anyone can pose as a prophet holding the correct reading of the scriptures. Mathis’ analysis of the gravity probe experiment shows just how sloppy physics has become, and there are many examples. Even on “inside” publications! A couple of months ago, Scientific American had an article criticising how the Big Bang’s problems are never addressed, even though they are urgent and reason enough why we should never regard Big Bang as a more promising theory than any other (specifically the exponential inflation solution, which really presents more problems then solutions). Next moth they issued a special edition on the Big Bang’s predictions and the possible outcomes of the Universe (as usual). In the end, I find that Mathis made some mistakes (like any other person, physicist or not) but has some powerful ideas that should be tested, that’s all. And keep up your analysis, it’s important to know where he might be right, and where he sure is not.
    PS: I still urge to do a consistent , thorough, analysis of his charge field theory. I haven’t found serious holes in it. And please consider his cosmological corrections if you post on this. Your last post on his cosmological analysis (Saturn and Jupiter) was REALLY lame.

  4. Antoine says:

    No precedents?
    How about Lee and Yang got the Nobel Prize in 1957 for predicting broken symmetry?

    Problem is current crop of physicists are too busy to take the time to really dig into alternative stuff. Its just too much of a leap of faith for the energy and time they can give. Every single one I tried to get to look at his stuff at best glances over and scoff.

  5. webpage says:

    And the irony is that you can enjoy and can feel proud for this
    thing inyour bathroom. These locking systems
    can be applied to ground floor homes, too, around a patio.
    It is much easier, as you don’t miss out on any corners or edges. Things to ConsiderWhile cutting the patio door, but keep in mind when looking to purchase a new door and fitting it to the police.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s