The magazine “I n f i n i t e E n e r g y ISSUE 43, 2002” – explains the pain… of creation. It is a MUST, to see how smart those dexters scientists really are (and to understand why ho`oponopono is not stupid naivity – I`ll drive you crazy with that, I know, but this is.. pure mathematics, it`s… muzic/harmony)
Al this can be found in: HotsonPart1.pdf (and FreeEnergy.pdf) – search it on google, if not, try yahoo and other search engines..
Things you probably din`t know about the electrons
However, for Heisenberg to put physics into the “creation” business is something else entirely. In what form does a “relation” loan out “pure energy”? Cash, check, or money order? And since there are unlimited numbers of epos around every charge at all times, it doesn’t matter how briefly each individual epo exists, this amounts to a permanent loan of infinite energy. “Creation” is the proper term for it: only God could have that much energy to loan. There are further conservation problems with any “creation” process, even one where the mass-equivalent energy is supplied by real, 0.511 MeV photons. For both electron and positron have spin (angular momentum) energy equal to \/2. By any assumption as to the size of electron and positron, this is much more energy than that supplied by photons at “creation,” or taken away by photons at “annihilation.” Somehow the “created” electron has something like sixteen times more energy than the photon that “created” it. This spin energy is real energy. It is the angular momentum needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave around the proton. Thus, it alone is directly responsible for the extension and stability of all matter. Ultimately, it supplies the energy acquired by a photon when an electron jumps from one orbit to another. This half-integer energy is the cause of Fermi-Dirac statistics, of the Pauli exclusion principle, and ultimately of the periodic table of elements. In mathematics, if you set two things spinning in opposite directions, and take the average, the spins average to zero. But in the physical world, giving two real objects large amounts of angular momentum takes real energy. Instead of honestly facing this gross abandonment of conservation, current theory dubs particle angular momentum an “intrin-sic attribute.” All that says is, “This energy is there; we don’t know where it comes from, so let’s not talk about it.” Calling it an “intrinsic attribute” is supposed to close the subject, like the Stephen Leacock aphorism: “‘Shut up,’ he explained.” Naming and agreeing to ignore it makes this 1600% violation of conservation go away. In effect, current theory proclaims a miracle every time “creation” or “annihilation” is invoked—perhaps 10100 or more times a second. This demonstrates that conservation is merely paid lip service in the present practice of physics—something to be respected if it agrees with the current paradigm, but thrown to the winds if it proves inconvenient. Even ignoring these massive violations of conservation, it seems hopelessly naïve to suppose that complex entities such as electrons and positrons, with spin, charge, and a number of other properties, could be “created out of nothing” but “pure energy.” This is like supposing that if we put a bunch of electronic components in a box, and shake them hard enough (i.e. add “pure energy”) the result will be a computer. “Pure energy” can never supply the exact and specific information necessary to make the highly complex little entities that we call electron and positron. After all, we don’t know how to make either electron or positron. What is “electric charge”? We haven’t a clue. Why are their spins quantized in half-integer values? No idea. Where do they get their immense, anomalous angular momentum? Beats us. And how on earth do they manage to pack all this into a zero or near zero radius? Yet we baldly suppose that “pure energy” knows how to do all these things we can’t do! Given all these problems with Heisenberg’s “window,” wouldn’t it have made sense to at least look at what two of the most successful equations in recent scientific history mandate? They say that electron-positron pairs already exist, everywhere. Instead of being “created” in pair production or around every ion, which as we have seen involves massive violations of conservation, they are merely raised in state from negative to positive energies. We will later look at this question more closely, and show why this “raising in state” requires no additional energy, resulting merely from the ion’s unbalanced charge. First we need to look at more problems with “annihilation.” When an electron approaches a positron, they don’t just rush together and disappear. Instead, they approach until they are a distance apart that is the width of the electronic ground state of hydrogen. At this relatively large distance (some 56,000 times the diameter of a proton) they start to orbit around each other in the configuration called “positronium.” (This in itself should have told us that something other than “annihilation” was going on.) They never get closer to each other than atomic distances. After orbiting each other in this pseudoatom for a time that depends on whether their spins are parallel or opposed, they emit two or more photons that total all of their positive energy. After that they are no longer detectable, and conventional wisdom says that their charges and spins have “cancelled” and that they have “annihilated” and are no more. But since they never get closer to each other than 56,000 times the diameter of a proton, how can they possibly “cancel and annihilate”? They never get anywhere near each other, and nothing passes between them. For them to “annihilate” would be action at a distance, a direct violation of causality. Doesn’t it make more sense to supablythat they still exist, as the Dirac equation requires, merely lowered in state to negative energies? Another problem: to say that something has charge means that it has potential energy with respect to every other charged particle in the universe, and vice versa. For an electron and positron to “annihilate” while they are a large distance apart means that, according to Maxwell’s equations, the potential energies of every charged particle in the universe must change instantaneously, except for those that are exactly equidistant from both of them. This violates conservation not only locally, but universally. It is real action at a distance, violating causality as well. But again the problem would seem to be solved merely by taking seriously what the Dirac equation says: that the spins and charges still exist, merely lowered in state to negative energies. What the equations call for validates the conservation of charge, which is violated by “creation” and “annihilation.” Just as conservation of mass-energy means that mass-energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so conservation of charge means that charge can neither be created nor destroyed. (We will later look at other supposed creations of charge, such as beta decay, and show that in each case the supposed creation was merely the separation of an existing epo.)
So we see the choice that scientists of the time had to make: whether to believe what these fabulously successful equations say about negative energy, and try to figure out what negative energy might mean, or to escape through
Heisenberg’s “window” and save the paradigm. As we know, they saved the paradigm, even though this required wholesale miracles that put science into the “creation” business on a scale rivaling the God of religion. Almost incidentally, it required immense violations of causality, of conservation of charge, and of conservation of angular momentum, as well as the mind-numbing violation of conservation of mass/energy. Thus it violated four of science’s most basic “laws.” One wonders if there are any lengths to which scientists will not go in order to save the paradigm. In this case, saving the paradigm would seem to involve the virtual abandonment of science itself. In this, they obeyed what we might call “Arp’s Axiom.” The astronomer Halton Arp (1998) noted that when faced with a choice involving a paradigm change, scientists will almost invariably choose the alternative that will save the paradigm, regardless of the evidence. [“Can we count on conventional science always choosing the incorrect alternative between two possibilities? I would vote yes, because the important problems usually require a change in paradigmwhich is forbidden to conventional science,” Arp, 1998.] Yet in this case, the odds that they made the wrong choice would seem almost incalculably high. Surely they were high enough that someone, in the time this question was being debated, would at least have suggested examining the ramifications of the other choice: of the negative energy electron-positron “sea.” At the least someone might have suggested that the choice be held in abeyance until more evidence was in. But neither of these appear to have been suggested; if they were suggested, they were certainly not done. [H. Bondi (1957) appears to be an exception. Much later, he examined negative energy within General Relativity. Also, T.E. Phipps, Jr. (1976, 1986) explores both negative energy (the “hole theory”) and negative (or “imaginary”) momentum in his “Beta Structure Hypothesis.”] The case seems to have been decided with apparent unanimity soon aftereisenberg’s “window” became widely known. (That Furry and Oppenheimer  independently made similar suggestions of course would seem to strengthen Heisenberg’s case.) Even Dirac appears not to have pursued negative energy much farther. His objections to QED were on the grounds of infinities (Pais, 1994). Would the decision have changed, had the question been held in abeyance? To consider this, we have to look at the results of this choice, immediate and longer-ranged. The first result was highly questionable by William of Ockham’s test. Heisenberg introduced four new (unobserved) entities, bringing the total number of entities instantly from seven to eleven. (The virtual electron, the virtual positron, the virtual photon, and a “relation” gone into the loan business, with infinite energy to loan out.) This was a considerable abandonment of his Machian principles. And as we know, entities have proliferated without limit ever since. Furthermore, almost immediately the theory was engulfed in infinities. For, of course, if these epos are “created” by the electron’s charge, its mass must include them—an infinite-body problem, making the mass of the electron, as Treiman (2000) puts it, “slightly infinite.” Moreover, surrounded by this infinity of positive charges, its “bare” charge had to be infinite also, or no charge would “leak out” to be measured. And virtually any electromagnetic process one could name turned out to be infinitely probable. These infinities continued to plague the theory, turning up in endless additional cases and making life miserable for everyone until, in exasperation, we fudged the answers we wanted. This only swept under the rug certain classes of infinities, but at least it allowed us to do the theory and extract additional information after some of the infinities were wished away. After the Nobel Committee had dignified this fudge with a prize, there was no longer any need to consider changing the paradigm when conflicting data threatened it. Following Heisenberg’s lead, one merely crafted unobservable entities with suitably designed properties that made it all right again. “But wait,” the defenders of the paradigmxclaim. “The electron’s magnetic ‘g’ factor agrees with experiment to better than ten significant figures. This proves that we made the right choice!” Sorry, it doesn’t. The Dirac theory also calls for positive-energy epos to surround every charge. (Moreover, as Dirac pointed out, a perturbation such as this will cause transitions from states with E positive to states with E negative.)
So this one calculation would be exactly the same, whichever choice was made. But seemingly all of the other calcula tions come up either infinite, or so imprecise as to call into question the validity of the theory. An example is the magnetic moment of the proton, in which the measured value is 10,000 times more accurate than the theoretical value (Feynman, 1985). Obviously, this is why we hear only about this measurement of the “g” factor, the one total success, not about the numerous total failures and near misses. Therefore it would seem that the accepted paradigm’s only instance in which near-perfect agreement is reached between theory and experiment is the one instance in which both choices would give the same result. It is increasingly clear that we made a choice to save the existing paradigm despite the basic laws of physics, the evidence, and the clear meaning of the equations. As a direct result, violations of conservation, entities, infinities, and ever more mathematically intractable theories proliferated without limit, right up to the present. But there is one recent development that calls into question the very basis of that choice.
The Smoking Gun
It turns out that, in effect, the equations of QM act as if time is quantized. As Prof. Treiman (2000) explains, “There is another inequality relation in quantum mechanics that is often cited, one involving energy and time. It has the look of an uncertainty principle but it stands on a different footing than the Heisenberg uncertainty relations discussed above.” He goes on to show that there is a minimum time, t, which must elapse before the wave function “changesappreciably.” [This minimum time appears to be 2e2/3mc3, or 6.26 x 10-24 seconds. We will discuss this later.] This means that the wave function changes only in increments of the constant t. From the time t = 0 to t = t there is no change in the function; then at t = t, all the change happens at once. He then shows that the modern version of what Heisenberg assumed to be the uncertainty relation Dt · DE ³ \ is really the inequality· DE ³ \. (We will examine this apparent quantization of time in more detail later.) If time is a constant that can only come in increments of t, as this inequality relation shows, then obviously it can not be taken in increments approaching zero. Furthermore, in a “perfect quantum measurement” situation (such as the Airy pattern) (Herbert, 1986) the root mean square energy deviation would equal \/t. At most it would be a random amount over this, depending on the measurement situation. Therefore Heisenberg’s “relation” is a poor “relation”: it does not have infinite amounts of energy to lend on every occasion. In a good measurement situation all the energy available is \/t. There certainly is none to spare to “create” infinite numbers of electron-positron pairs. This means that Heisenberg’s window never existed. To recap: Heisenberg’s window was not outrageously in violation of conservation only because Heisenberg’s relation was supposed to supply infinite amounts of energy to every inter- action. If that is not the case, as the above “smoking gun” emphatically shows, then Heisenberg’s window doesn’t exist. But the paradigm escaped through that nonexistent window.
It seems we need to go back to 1934 and take another look at Dirac’s negative energy solutions. As mentioned above, simply taking these equations at their word eliminates most of these infinities and gross violations of conservation. The equations say that unlimited numbers of epos already exist, everywhere, and that they are merely raised in state, not “created.” It is possible, perhaps, that there exists another “window.” Certainly defenders of the paradigm will search for one. However, Heisenberg (and other brilliant theorists, such as Pauli, Jordan, Furry, and Oppenheimer) searched for six years, then came up with a window that wasn’t. In any case, the above difficulties with the present paradigm indicate very clearly that there were immense problems with the choice they made. What might we expect to find down the “road not taken”? As noted in the opening argument, Ockham’s razor measures the progress of science in terms of simplicity. If “negative energy” is a correct road, we would expect the number of entities recognized by science, seven in 1932, to decrease further rather than to increase to nearly one hundred, as they have done since then. We would expect a consequent simplification of the mathematics involved. We would certainly expect to clear up the gross violations of conservation implicit in Heisenberg’s “creation” window. And this would, as we will show, clear up the infinities that plague current theory without recourse to fudging. This is such an ambitious project that we cannot hope to prove all of this in the present work. We merely hope to indicate the directions that future theory might take in following the clear leads of the energy equation and, most particularly, of the complete Dirac equation in the light of subsequent discoveries. And above all we should remain flexible. Clearly, this crisis at the heart of science was the result of a chronic “hardening of the paradigm.” With new discoveries being made almost daily, no theory can be expected to be the final answer. In all probability, there is no “final answer.” Therefore, while we may present a number of probable consequences of following this new road, keep in mind that they are all tentative, subject to revision as well as analytical and experimental falsification. In view of this, the first step is to take a long look at the rejected alternative, the negative energy sea that this most successful of equations calls for. In particular, what could “negative energy” represent?
I n f i n i t e E n e r g y ISSUE 43, 2002