My New Book "I Killed Schrodinger's Cat!" is now for sale.

To Ian Griffiths (my sincerest apology for the early mistake),

We discussed putting the information into peer reviewed papers, but we felt that most of our concepts have already been proven by other "Peer Reviewed" papers and experiments.

It is not that we are contradicting current physics, it is that we are refining how things work based upon measured experimental data and we define how the universe makes things very simple.

An example:  We claim that nuclear fusion will not generate excess energy.

Proof:  Every fusion experiment since the 1960's has failed to generate breakeven energy.

The conventional physics claim that they just need a bigger and better whatever to reach breakeven.

Our analysis clearly show that the all of these experiments succeeded in proving our view that nuclear fusion is an endo-energy reaction.  We also show why that is the case and we prove that the astronomical theories about the stellar process is wrong.

As for Cosmin's example, there is no proof that electrons pass through conductors to carry electric charge.  As I recall, nearly every peer reviewed article using that theory has been approved.

In the book we offer the challenge to the scientific community.   PROVE US WRONG or consider our ideas.

We show many examples where data from failed experiments proves our theory.  The fact that those experiments failed to prove the "official" consensus does not invalidate the results.

I remember a time where scientist analyzed their data to glean the truth, not just toss it out because it did not confirm their expectations.

All we have done in our book is use "Peer Reviewed" data and drawn different conclusions.

The data does not lie.

Read our book and analyze the data yourself and you will see that our theory fits the data and accurately predicts how energy and mass flow at the subatomic level.

DAB

First of all, you have got my name wrong. Secondly, I am not trying to diminish or insult the work you have done, I was merely pointing out that no matter how much anyone wishes a theory to be true and believes it to be, unless it can be independently verified and tested, then we cannot conclude that is the way the universe works. For example, cold fusion is believed by many to be true, but no one has ever been able to reliably repeat the experiments.

If the concepts have been previously published in journals then I would be very interested in reading the articles (I would be very grateful if you could point me in their direction). But in the previous discussion on Cosmin's blog article you did not mention the existence of the articles, I am not aware of them and a search on the internet I did, did not turn up any related results. Hence, the appearance that your idea is entirely new and unprecedented.

Whilst I am not familiar with current fusion experiments this paper in nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7488/full/nature13008.html) suggests that the break-even point has been reached. But whether it has is not much of a concern. If you believe that nuclear fusion can never produce excess energy, then do you have an alternative to the current theories on the stellar process?

From the top of my head I would suggest that the Hall effect shows electrons carry the charge through a conductor. From your previous explanation, where photons are moving between electron clouds, I do not see how a magnetic field would cause a voltage to be produced. However, if you can explain it using your ideas then I would be very interested.

I have never met a scientist who tosses data out because it doesn't conform to their expectations, and it is not something that I would personal advocate. I am also unsure why you are talking about such practices, I can only imagine you misunderstood what I have previously written (which was "Your idea, from my understanding, seems to contradict known physics"). I was not saying that your ideas contradict known physics, but from my knowledge and your explanation, it appeared to me that they might.

"A moving charge produces the detected magnetic field.  This effect will occur even if no current is moving through the conductor."

First of all, my apologies for my original response as it was not particularly clear.

You are stating that a conductor, with no current flowing through it will exhibit a magnetic field. It is this that has never been observed.

"If you have a hall effect sensor, it would be interesting to see what you can measure by just putting a conductor wire under the sensor and then grab both ends of the conductor."

What you are suggesting is to apply a very small current through the conductor to see if a Hall sensor will detect a magnetic field. This is fundamentally different to your suggestion that a conductor with no current flowing through it will produce a magnetic field.

"When Heisenberg conducted his experiment to prove this postulation, he failed.  He blamed his failure on the "magic" that prevented him form locating the electron because his measurement devices interfered with the electron, hence preventing location."

Unfortunately, there is no method of obtaining information about any of the fundamental particles without interfering with them. This isn't a result of some theory, it is purely logical. If you want to detect if an electron is in a particular area of space, there is no known method of doing so without affecting the electron. If you are watching a car move at a distance, light is bouncing off it and is imparting momentum onto the car. However, this momentum is negligible for a car, but for a subatomic particle, this momentum would be enough to disturb the electron substantially.

"If the electron is really a cloud of smaller objects, then what Heisenberg really showed was that the objects are very small and numerous."

I skipped over this in your earlier comment. Your photon/ETON model states that ETONs have both charge and mass, and are combined together to form electrons. From basic electrostatics, if each ETON has a charge, then two ETONs will repel each other. Therefore, there has to be a mechanism that binds the ETONs together to form an electron.

In addition, if Heisenberg's experiment can cause an electron to break apart into single ETONs, then why do the ETONs not bind together to a certain extent, in a similar way that an atom undergoing fission does not become a jet of nucleons, it instead produces a few nucleons and two smaller atoms.

The only possible way, that I can see, of ETONs binding is at certain fixed sizes. This is highly unlikely, as all the forces that have been observed are continuous and there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

"Our calculations also showed a clear relationship between the absorption of a photon/ETON with an immediate change in mass and charge, which increased the diameter of the electron cloud.

This effect is well documented in basic LASER descriptions well accepted by engineering and physics."

Lasers are fully explained with electron levels. In laser action there is no change in mass or charge.

"Again, there is an accepted assumption that the valence levels of electrons and the multiple levels of electrons in atoms work as described."

There is no assumption, the theory matches the observed data.

"That accepted description appears to work, so few people have really looked at what really occurs."

If your theory fits and nothing has suggested anything to the contrary, then what really occurs will be what your theory tells you.

"you find an acceptance that this "something" keeps them from revealing the secrets of the universe."

I agree with you that quantum mechanics is a pain (and I have seen undergraduates struggle with its concepts) however, it is the only theory that can explain what is happening.

"Probability is a great tool for assessing data, but at no point does it resolve why the data follows the results."

This is, unfortunately, sounding like some of the arguments against QM interpretations. There have been many attempts at try to peak below QM to understand what is happening, but unfortunately none of them work. For example, the notion of a hidden variable in quantum mechanics has been argued previously, but it does not fit all of the experimental data.

"I also used Newton's laws that claim that all mass and energy are 100% conserved."

I get the impression that you come from a classical/Newtonian background. Unfortunately, Newtonian physics breaks down at both the small and large ends of the spectrum - quantum mechanics results from the small and general relativity from the large.

Many people have tried to explain both QM and GR using classical physics and it fails.

For example, it is not possible to explain how electrons can tunnel through a potential barrier using classical physics. It is only possible to explain it using quantum mechanics. If you can explain it, without the use of probabilities, I would be very interested.

Hi Ian,

You really do need to read my book.

I have found a solution that allows Newtonian physics to work nearly everywhere it is said to fail, with a few modifications I suggest.

Back to your original issue.

The Hall effect works on a moving charge generating a magnetic field.

Regardless of whether the charge is carried by an electron or an ETON, the effect is the same.  Only the magnitude differs.

I doubt that any current Hall Effect sensor is sensitive enough to detect individual ETON movement.

The charge is ridiculously small.  The distance they travel is even smaller and the speed at which the event occurs is at the speed of light.

As for my claim that there are ETON exchanges occurring in a conductor without a EMF established to move the charge, I have an answer.

If you look at my atomic model, even a pure element will have a lot of events causing ETON movement unless you can completely isolate the atoms from all range of ETON interaction.

That means you have to prevent any energy from reaching the atoms at frequencies from zero to about 10^40 Hz.

Since that isolation is unlikely, what I found was that every minute change in temperature, humidity, air pressure, or energy exposure would cause very tiny ETON transfers at the atomic level.

If you tried to could measure them you would not see the events.  Each transaction occurs very fast, the charge is very small, and the distances very short.

Unless you could detect events in the 10^40 Hz range, it would just look like noise.

For your Hall Effect sensor, it would essentially integrate all of the movements and result in no readings.

All of the many minute magnetic fields would cancel each other out.  So at the Macro level, you would see nothing.

Now, there might be a way to see the ETON effect.  Note: this suggestion has not been tried and is only a thought experiment for you to consider.

If you took a length of conductor and attached your Hall Effect sensor I think we both agree, we would see no reading.

Now if you applied heat to one end of the conductor, you might be able to detect the displacement of ETONs from the heated end of the conductor to the room temperature end.

I think you would agree, the heat would not dislodge entire electrons as each atom absorbed the IR ETONs.

You might be able to see the slow rise in ETON movement across the sensor area as the conductor tries to equalize the temperature across its volume.

It all depends on the sensitivity of your sensor and the amplitude of ETONs migrating between the atoms.

I do have a question.  If you place your Hall Effect sensor on a permanent magnet, does it read the magnetic field?

If it does, what causes the internal charge movement?  (The answer is in my book!)

DAB

"I have found a solution that allows Newtonian physics to work nearly everywhere it is said to fail, with a few modifications I suggest."

Then please do say them.

"The Hall effect works on a moving charge generating a magnetic field."

You have said this before and you are wrong. The Hall effect requires an applied magnetic field.

In other words, a Hall effect sensor measures magnetic fields not current flow.

I recommend you read the wikipedia page on the Hall effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect) at the very least as a refresher.

"I do have a question.  If you place your Hall Effect sensor on a permanent magnet, does it read the magnetic field?

If it does, what causes the internal charge movement?  (The answer is in my book!)"

If you believe that a magnetic field requires a flow of charge, you are wrong.

Magnetic fields can be generated by moving charges, but permanent magnets are magnetic due to ferromagnetism.

If a magnetic field could only be created by a moving charge, then the second law of thermodynamics would result in every permanent magnet having a decaying magnetic field - essentially all permanent magnets would lose their magnetism. This does not happen.

In addition, please could you explain:

1 - the ETON binding force - if ETONs can exist separately and combined together as an electron, what holds the electron together.

2 - how electrons tunnel through a potential barrier in your "discrete and deterministic" theory.

Hi Ian,

Apologies, you are correct, I really did not understand the Hall Effect.

But, after going to the link, I was finally able to visualize what you were talking about.

I can easily see how the magnetic field could create the potential difference laterally across the conductor.

I woke up about four hours later and began documenting a couple of ideas.  I might be able to create three patentable ideas and three research projects.  I contacted my coauthor so that we can discuss them in detail.

I sent you a contact request.  If you approve it, send me your direct email address and I will send you a free PDF of the book.

Keep asking questions, if they all stimulate me with new ideas as this one, we could have a nice lucrative friendship.

Thank you very much.

DAB

PS, I have not yet looked into the semiconductor issues of my theory, but its on the list.

I have been plagued by a severe sinus headache for the last four weeks, which really diminishes my ability to comprehend new information.

The advantages of my atomic model would allow the electron clouds to respond to the lateral Lorentz force and initiate ETON transfers perpendicular to the current flow.

Has anyone taken a Hall Effect sensor and ran it along the length of a long conductor?  It might be a quick way to assess conductor purity and other interesting items I thought of last night.

Again, thank you very much for your information exchange.

I have sent my email address to you.

"Has anyone taken a Hall Effect sensor and ran it along the length of a long conductor? It might be a quick way to assess conductor purity and other interesting items I thought of last night."

If the conductor does not have current flowing through it, then a Hall effect sensor would not detect anything. So if you had a piece of copper wire on your desk (not connected to anything) then the Hall sensor would read zero (with the exception of any noise).

If you ran the sensor along a long conductor, which doesn't have a current flowing through it, the sensor should not detect anything. However, this would be incredibly difficult to do practically, as you would have to shield the set-up from any magnetic fields (e.g. earth's), with both the errors and noise in the experiment being quite high.

I have sent my email address to you.

"Has anyone taken a Hall Effect sensor and ran it along the length of a long conductor? It might be a quick way to assess conductor purity and other interesting items I thought of last night."

If the conductor does not have current flowing through it, then a Hall effect sensor would not detect anything. So if you had a piece of copper wire on your desk (not connected to anything) then the Hall sensor would read zero (with the exception of any noise).

If you ran the sensor along a long conductor, which doesn't have a current flowing through it, the sensor should not detect anything. However, this would be incredibly difficult to do practically, as you would have to shield the set-up from any magnetic fields (e.g. earth's), with both the errors and noise in the experiment being quite high.