Born: May 17, 1988, 30 years and 11 months, Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Tran attended Fairfax High School in Los Angeles, California. But, she graduated from Birmingham High School in 2006.
For the next two years, she went to Pierce College in Washington to major in Graphic Design. She graduated from it in 2008.
From 2013 to 2016, she starred as Vivian Johnson in the web series The Bay. She currently stars as Virginia Loc on TNT's series Claws.
Tran was raised in Los Angeles, California. by her Vietnamese mother and Jamaican godmother. Her father is African-American. Tran first attended high school at Fairfax High School before switching schools, graduating from Birmingham High School in 2006.
Tran began her career in the fashion industry as a personal shopper. From 2009–2012, she worked at Nordstrom located at the Westfield Topanga mall in Canoga Park, CA. Later, Tran worked as free-lance celebrity stylist in Hollywood. She first gained public attention when she began dating R&B artist, Chris Brown, in 2010.
At the same time, Tran began modelling by participating in photoshoots for local brands, posing as the face of Lady Crooks, the women's division under the streetwear brand Crooks and Castles for their Summer 2013 collection. She also began working on her own clothing line, The Kill. Tran later won the role of Vivian Johnson in the Emmy award-winning web series The Bay, which she co-starred in from 2013 to 2016.
In 2014, Tran appeared in volume one of the photography book, Love West Coast Girls by celebrity photographer Mike Miller. That same year, she hosted the BET Awards red carpet and multiple events during the official BET Weekend. She had previously co-hosted the BET show 106 & Park. Tran's TV One movie, The Fright Nite Files, was screened that year.
In 2015, Tran was featured in the Spring/Summer lookbook for French-based athletic brand Le Coq Sportif. She also appeared on the covers of several magazines, including Rolling Out, Flaunt Magazine, Ouch Magazine, The Hundreds, Cliche Magazine, Bleu Magazine and Annex Magazine, including two feature stories on ELLE.com. Her work led her to a contract with Wilhelmina Models LA in 2015.
Tran's first featured film, 3-Headed Shark Attack, was released that summer, followed by the lead in the short film PrXde. She later gained recognition for her performance as Vanessa Ivy in the fashion web series by StyleHaul titled Vanity, sponsored by the makeup brand Maybelline.
After supporting roles in A Weekend with the Family and The Nice Guys, Tran landed the lead in Only for One Night, portraying Chloe, a married woman whose perfect life deals with betrayal when her sister drugs her husband and sleeps with him. All three movies were released in 2016.
After her departure from The Bay, Tran began co-starring in TNT Claws (2017), a tv series about five diverse manicurists working at the Nail Artisan of Manatee County salon in South Florida.
This is about recognizing my mistakes and learning from them, … I own up to all the poor choices I have made and pray for the better. I pray everyday to God to strengthen me as a human and a young woman.
She has Vietnamese ancestry on her mother's side, while she is of African-American descent on her father's side.
Numerous tattoos (mostly quotes) over her body.
She first appeared in the TV movie Rip the Runway as herself (model) in 2013.
She tries to eat healthy most of the time. Though she likes to eat junk food, especially McDonald's, but she cuts back the quantity of such energy-sucking foods and sweets in summer. In turn, she drinks a lot of water.
She is a foodie, if she craves for anything like burgers, sandwiches, steaks, etc, she will eat it. If she wants to eat a burger, she will go to In-N-Out to satisfy her hunger and craving.
In the past, she has tried suspension workout called TRX and even boxing.
Tran has modeled for LoveSicc Clothing, Lady Crooks for their Summer 2013 collection.
She reportedly refuses to pose n*de during the photo shoots.
She has worked as a personal shopper in the past, where she used to help customers to buy any fashionable item.
For three years, from 2009 to 2012, she has worked at Nordstrom shop in a mall in California.
Karrueche has even worked as a freelance stylist for celebrities in Hollywood.
Karrueche has hosted BET Awards 2014.
Her beauty icon is Jennifer Lopez for her skin.
She is best friends with Angela Simmons and Seiko Huffman.
Visit her official website @ karruechetran.com.
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.


Fairy tale is a type of short narrative that typically features such folkloric characters, such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants or gnomes, and usually magic or enchantments. However, only a small number of the stories thus designated explicitly refer to fairies.
Fairy tales are high fantasy based on stories that are not only not true, but that couldn't possibly be true, while Legends are sometimes perceived as real or plausible. Fairy tales may merge into legends, where the narrative is perceived both by teller and hearers as being grounded in historical truth. However, unlike legends and epics, they usually do not contain more than superficial references to religion and actual places, people, and events; they take place once upon a time rather than in actual times.


text:
Trying Hard to Catch Up and Make My Reading Goal
I set myself an annual reading goal, as I have the last several years. I have succeeded in meeting those goals, but this year I have gotten behind. See previous blog for the reason (clue: the third book in the Thomas Cromwell trilogy).
By Hisham Matar
This excellent book is an aching combination of a family displaced, a father's disappearance and a son's quest to find his father. The events detailed include the existence of the kingdom of Libya (1951-1969), which was ended with Qaddafi's overthrow of King Idris I (in 1969). Libya suffered under various powers' domination through history—including under the Ottoman Empire and under Italy's colonization of the country. These details are necessary to help understand the deep sense of loss that Libyan patriots experienced when Qaddafi rose to power. The revolution quickly devolved into autocracy and tyranny.
His family had been living in Cairo, Egypt. His father was an outspoken critic of Qaddafi. Eventually, his father was abducted in Cairo and presumably handed over to Qaddafi's henchmen. It is at that point that the father disappears. Matar, who had been studying in London, begins a search that lasts several decades to find his father.
The book not only examines the wrenching loss the family feels, and that Mater feels as a son, but also looks unsparingly at the evils of overwhelming dominating power that places little to no value on the life of someone as accomplished as Matar's father.
The Mosquito: a Human History of Our Deadliest Predator
By Timothy Winegard
I had a very personal reason for wanting to read this book. When I was three years old, living with my parents, my younger sister who was just eight months old was bitten by a mosquito, and developed malaria fever and died within a few weeks. That is my earliest memory. In part, because of that, I have always followed news about mosquitos and malaria and humanity's effort to control or even eradicate this plague.
I confess that I was disappointed in the book. Rather than being a scholarly work, detailing the mosquito's impact on humans, the book moves from antiquity to the current time, rehashing previously available information about how mosquitos have plagued human, as the cause of various disease, notably yellow fever and malaria.
The author spends a great deal of time chronicling various events where battles were decided in favor of one army or another—and then he interweaves somewhat speculatively that mosquitos decided the outcome of these battles. This tendency is particularly true in the more ancient history sections. There were chapters that were genuinely interesting, and seemed more grounded in the author's general thesis.
So, long analysis shortened—there are passages that are interesting and informative. And there are passages that are tedious, speculative and seemingly aimless.
Killers of the Flower Moon: the Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI
By David Grann
I had seen the title of this book multiple times on various emails recommending books. The title intrigued me so finally I bought it (in e-read format).
Such a promising title. Such a promising premise. Such a failure to live up to either.
To be fair--the writer did a great deal of research into a horrific time in American history, focusing on a string of murders in Oklahoma where Osage native Americans, who happen to have been relocated to tribal lands that were later found to have oil repositories. The resulting boom made many of these Osage hugely wealthy. In a systematic and highly calloused way, white Americans married Osage tribal members, had themselves declared the manager of financial affairs and heirs in the potential death of the Osage spouse. AND then proceeded to systematically murder the Osage--whether by outright violence, such as shooting someone dead, blowing up a house, or by slower more subtle means of poisoning.
These events occurring in the 1920s mark a very dark time in U.S. history. In a convergence of historical events, the murders were occurring about the time that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was being established. Solving the murders became largely the work of one FBI special agent, Tom White. Through long and arduous work, he eventually tracks down the primary culprits, brings them to justice and an eventual successful trial.
But the story does not end there.
The author gathered so much information, so many records, so many contacts that he continued with reading through the volumes of notes he acquired, interviews he had conducted and such. What he found was that the 1920 murders that were detailed in the Killers of the Flower Moon account were only a handful among possibly hundreds of Osage swindled out of their possessions, and by various means dispatched. What the author discovered is that rather than being a self-contained story tracking "who killed Anna Brown" the story was of multiple murders.
My main criticism is that as a result of pursuing two separate theses, the book begins to drag. I applaud the author's exhaustive research, but times "less is more." The reader becomes numbed to the impact of so many murders. That does not make them acceptable, but it does make them seem routine and thereby less important.
OK--back to reading. Working on catching up.
Posted by KGMom at 8:11 PM No comments:

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Kenworth T660s with PACCAR MX Engines Drive Home Savings for Woody Bogler Trucking.
ROSEBUD, Mo., January 30, 2012 - Tracy Bogler remembers the stories. How his grandfather started the family's delivery business with a one horsepower machine. "Well, if you consider horses as machines, you're accurate," said Bogler with a smile. "My grandfather started his delivery business with horse and wagon delivering clay from Chamois, Mo., to Farbar, Mo. - a distance of 107 miles."
In 1926, William Bogler bought a 2-year old chain driven truck, but quickly learned that his horse and wagon could get to Farbar quicker, and more reliably. Back to hay fed transportation versus gas fed he went. Eventually, trucks won out.
As the company diversified in the '30s, adding five trucks and later gaining a milk delivery business, William's son, William Woodrow "Woody" Bogler, joined his dad. "My dad was 15 when he got behind the wheel of a truck making milk runs," said Bogler. "It was a few years before he was supposed to, but he did fine. And, he loved what he was doing. Then, when dad graduated from high school, he went off to fight in Korea. Instead of spending his paychecks overseas, he sent them home to invest in the trucking company. And when he returned home in 1954, he had a nest egg saved and became president of the company."
Today, a rich history is in the blood of Tracy Bogler, who has carried the company's torch after his dad suffered a stroke in 2002. Operating a fleet of 125 long-haul tractors and 200 trailers - a mix of dry van and end dumps, Bogler said the company's time-honored reputation for reliable deliveries, coupled with controlling expenses have been the hallmark for the company's longevity.
Case in point is the company's recent decision to standardize on the Kenworth T660, matched with the PACCAR MX engine, rated at 455 hp, driven through an Eaton® UltraShift® Plus 13-speed transmission. The tractors are purchased through MHC Kenworth - Kansas City.
Tracy Bogler, president of Woody Bogler Trucking, is shown with one of the company's fuel-efficient Kenworth T660s equipped with the PACCAR MX engine.
"We're getting 4/10ths of a mile per gallon better with the T660 and MX engine over the other trucks in our fleet," said Bogler. "In fact, our best driver is getting almost 8 mpg."
The fleet runs in all lower 48 states. General goods are hauled in dry vans, while the end dumps haul clay to cement plants - clay is used as a 'sweetener' for bricks. Each tractor averages about 130,000 miles per year.
The fuel economy improvement means about a $4,000 savings per year, per truck. And, once the entire fleet is converted over to the T660, the math shows a fleet savings of around $500,000. To help maximize fuel savings, the company uses side skirts on its dry van trailers, plus wide-base tires throughout. APUs and fuel-fired heaters help reduce idling. The trucks also feature disc brakes and roll stability systems.
Looking under the hood of one of the fleet's fuel-efficient Kenworth T660s equipped with a PACCAR MX engine are, from left, Tracy Bogler, president of Woody Bogler Trucking; and Nick Wilburn, the company's director of maintenance.
"That told me a lot. And when we're entering a period of time when retaining drivers is critical to any operation, we were happy to hear the drivers love being behind the wheel of their Kenworths."
As for engine performance, Bogler had to decide on new power from the engines he used to run. "I rented a couple of tractors with different engines to compare performance and came away wanting the PACCAR MX," he said. "It's been a great decision. They're quieter and the power and torque are what we need. Plus the fuel economy is great. We also have the backing of MHC Kenworth. They've been great to work with and have come up with some great ideas on spec'ing. They're there for any service work we might need on the tractor or engines. Kenworth's over-the-road service network also is outstanding. Having confidence in your truck dealer is a big part of any trucking operation."
While Tracy Bogler looks at 2012, he's cautiously optimistic about the economy. "We had a better year in 2011 (revenues exceeded $30 million) than we forecasted, and we're expecting another solid year in 2012," he said. "We've been around for a long time - since the days of horse and buggy. I think my grandfather would be proud to see how his legacy has grown and endured."


Spray quenching refers to a wide variety of quenching processes that involve heat removal facilitated by the impingement of a quenchant medium on a hot metal surface. This article provides information on the basic concepts of spray quenching, and discusses the most commonly used techniques in quench tank agitation to establish uniformity of the quenched part. Common techniques include quenchant stirring, quenchant circulation, and submerged jet/spray mixing. The article also describes the effect of quenching agitation and reviews heat-transfer characteristics of immersion quenching and spray quenching with water.


Pictures of contemporary exterior pendant lighting is created to be the inspiration of for you. This image was published on January 27, 2017 and published by admin this is fall into the category Home Decor, the size of image is 1024 x 788 and this post has 10 related images. If you have any questions please Contact Us. Hope it could inspire you, our beloved reader in lonelybloggers.com, back to article please click Contemporary Pendant Lighting for Minimalist House.


text:
Q: Combining medcouple in ggplot's boxplot ggplot's boxplot render any dot outside the range [Q1 - 1.5 * IQR, Q3 + 1.5 * IQR] as an outlier. As discussed in the R blog, this is not always a good idea, as
false outliers may be reported due to asymmetric distributions. In that case, adjbox, from the robustbase R package, is often suggested. However, the quality
of the plot is not as good as ggplot2.
My question is: does anybody know how to combine the exponential model used
in adjbox to be used by ggplot when detecting outliers?

A: You're probably going to have to supply the values yourself. Referencing the example used in the adjbox() help file:
library(robustbase)
if(require("boot")) {
  ### Hubert and Vandervieren (2006), p. 10, Fig. 4.
  data(coal, package = "boot")
  coaldiff <- diff(coal$date)
  op <- par(mfrow = c(1,2))
  boxplot(coaldiff, main = "Original Boxplot")
  adjbox(coaldiff, main  = "Adjusted Boxplot")
  par(op)
}

This produces the following boxplots:

Then you can get the values that the adjbox() function used:
coald <- data.frame(coaldiff = diff(coal$date))  #$
adjboxStats(coald$coaldiff)$stats
# [1] 0.0000000 0.1013005 0.3107461 0.7529090 3.7180014

These are the values used to draw the adjusted boxplot. You can use supply this information to ggplot() and then calculate your own boxplots. There are probably better ways of doing this, but the first thing that I thought of doing was to make a new data set including the adjusted boxplot values:
library(ggplot2)
library(plyr)
d <- ddply(coald, .(coaldiff), transform,
  ymin = adjboxStats(coald$coaldiff)$stats[1],
  ymax = adjboxStats(coald$coaldiff)$stats[5],
  middle = adjboxStats(coald$coaldiff)$stats[3],
  lower = adjboxStats(coald$coaldiff)$stats[2],
  upper = adjboxStats(coald$coaldiff)$stats[4])

# Boxplot with unadjusted values:
p <- ggplot(d, aes(factor(1), coaldiff))
p + geom_boxplot()

# Boxplot with adjusted values (note that you have to add the outliers back in):
p + geom_boxplot(aes(ymin=ymin, ymax=ymax, middle=middle, upper=upper, lower=lower),
  stat="identity") +
  geom_point(data=subset(d, coaldiff < ymin | coaldiff > ymax))

This will give you ggplot2 versions of the above plots:

Also note that Hadley Wickham advises against this "without a lot of thought" in a response to a similar question.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


VINwiki found two stolen Lamborghin..
The Most Expensive & Rare Cars Of A..
Lamborghini Countach LP400 review. ..
Is the Chevy Corvette Z06 Finally a..
Man Spent 17 Years Building a Lambo..
The Lamborghini Diablo Was the Craz..
Here's a Tour of a USA-Legal R34 Ni..
Lamborghini Maintenance COSTS HOW M..
Unwrapping a NEW Bugatti Chiron - T..
Here's Why the McLaren F1 Is the Gr..


text:
February 2005 - Volume 8 - 1
Purpose and procedure
Purpose and procedure (25 January, 2005) Free
Other articles noted (25 January, 2005) Free
Chronic, long episode mania exists in children (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: a pooled long term persistence rate of 40% for childhood OCD is lower than previously expected (25 January, 2005) Free
Intramuscular haloperidol-promethazine sedates violent or agitated patients more quickly than intramuscular lorazepam (25 January, 2005) Free
Cognitive behavioural therapy reduces short term rehospitalisation compared with psychoeducation in inpatients with schizophrenia (25 January, 2005) Free
Adding psychosocial therapy to methylphenidate may not improve its effectiveness in stimulant responsive children with ADHD (25 January, 2005) Free
Fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy improves symptoms of major depressive disorder in adolescents (25 January, 2005) Free
School-based interpersonal psychotherapy improves depression in older adolescents (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: long term psychotherapy in combination with antidepressants increases compliance and response rates in people with depression (25 January, 2005) Free
St John's Wort improves somatoform disorders (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: acamprosate and naltrexone are safe and effective but have low compliance rates for people with alcohol dependence (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: donepezil improves cognitive and global function in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: atypical antipsychotics may be useful in treating behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia but cause adverse effects (25 January, 2005) Free
A joint crisis plan negotiated with mental health staff significantly reduces compulsory admission and treatment in people with severe mental illness (25 January, 2005) Free
A structured needs assessment does not improve clinical outcomes for clients under the care programme approach (25 January, 2005) Free
An individual placement and support programme is more effective than skills training and temporary employment for people with severe mental illness (25 January, 2005) Free
Eating disorders, especially anorexia nervosa, are associated with an increased risk of attempted suicide in young women (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: depression and anxiety during pregnancy are strong indicators of postpartum depression (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: tricyclic related drugs, but not classical tricyclics, are a tolerable alternative to SSRIs in older people with depression (25 January, 2005) Free
Review: vaccines containing thimerosal are not associated with autistic spectrum disorders in children (25 January, 2005) Free
Stable monotherapy with clozapine or olanzapine increases the incidence of diabetes mellitus in people with schizophrenia (25 January, 2005) Free
Major depression is common in people over the age of 50, particularly in those at socioeconomic disadvantage, or with poor physical health and previous depressive symptoms (25 January, 2005) Free
Canadian study finds that antidepressant use has increased in people with major depression over the past decade (25 January, 2005) Free
PTSD plus depression are comorbid conditions but depression can occur independently in the acute aftermath of trauma (25 January, 2005) Free
Mental disorders are highly prevalent in Germany (25 January, 2005) Free
Glossary (25 January, 2005) Free
Copyright © 2019 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, Royal College of Psychiatrists & British Psychological Society. All rights reserved.


Rather of subscribing to a trend exercise or diet regimen, you ought to create a health and fitness overview that will keep you fit and healthy and balanced for a life time instead than for a few weeks. Component of any kind of fitness overview is consistency and variety. The adhering to are some tips to aid you stick as well as develop with a physical fitness overview.
You require to start sluggish if you are new to working out. This is not just because your endurance will certainly be less than various other folks, but it is since if you do way too much too soon, you run the risk of seriously injuring on your own. Thus, do not expect to run a marathon in the very first months of utilizing your health and fitness guide. Rather, you wish to build up your toughness and also endurance. Attempt brand-new tasks and also check the affects on your body. You need to attempt to do small reps of various exercises and also function your method up when it pertains to swimming laps or running.
Next off, when creating your fitness overview, it is crucial to really make goals that are both long- and also temporary. The more objectives you reach, the much more most likely it is that you will really feel passionate to keep at your fitness overview and to change the means you live your life.
When you get to an objective, you should celebrate. Instead, do something that assists you remain with your health and fitness overview.
When it comes to a fitness guide, high quality and also not quantity issues: you need to do the workouts appropriate or they will not be effective. Therefore, as opposed to racing your method with crises, make every single one count. Talk as well as view video clips to professionals to ensure that you find out exactly how to do exercises correctly. This is not only to ensure that your exercises are effective however also to make sure that you secure on your own from injury. You take the chance of badly hurting yourself if you are not raising weights properly. You will certainly not just be in discomfort yet will certainly have to curb much of your physical fitness overview if you are injured.
Always stretch before any kind of exercise. This will make your physical fitness guide that a lot successful. This way, you can be certain that your muscles await what's to come, and you can stay clear of injury.
When performing a fitness and also developing guide, you need to make sure that you take on all areas of your body. Rather, make your health and fitness overview as all-inclusive and diverse as feasible. Yoga exercise is a wonderful means to remain fit and to maintain you limber and adaptable.
Next, when grace fit oxford creating your physical fitness overview, it is crucial to truly make objectives that are both long- and temporary. The even more goals you get to, the a lot more likely it is that you will certainly really feel passionate to maintain at your health and fitness overview and to alter the way you live your life. When it comes to grace fit lose weight a fitness overview, high quality and not amount matters: you require to do the exercises right or they will not be reliable. When establishing as well as implementing grace fit home workout a health and fitness guide, you require to make certain that you tackle all areas of your body. Rather, make your health and fitness overview as extensive as well as diverse as possible.


text:
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------
// <copyright file="ActorCell.cs" company="Akka.NET Project">
//     Copyright (C) 2009-2015 Typesafe Inc. <http://www.typesafe.com>
//     Copyright (C) 2013-2015 Akka.NET project <https://github.com/akkadotnet/akka.net>
// </copyright>
//-----------------------------------------------------------------------

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using Akka.Actor.Internal;
using Akka.Dispatch;
using Akka.Dispatch.SysMsg;
using Akka.Serialization;

namespace Akka.Actor
{
    public partial class ActorCell : IUntypedActorContext, ICell
    {
        /// <summary>NOTE! Only constructor and ClearActorFields is allowed to update this</summary>
        private IInternalActorRef _self;
        public const int UndefinedUid = 0;
        private Props _props;
        private static readonly Props terminatedProps=new TerminatedProps();

        private long _uid;
        private ActorBase _actor;
        private bool _actorHasBeenCleared;
        private Mailbox _mailbox;
        private readonly ActorSystemImpl _systemImpl;
        private ActorTaskScheduler _taskScheduler;

        public ActorCell(ActorSystemImpl system, IInternalActorRef self, Props props, MessageDispatcher dispatcher, IInternalActorRef parent)
        {
            _self = self;
            _props = props;
            _systemImpl = system;
            Parent = parent;
            Dispatcher = dispatcher;

        }

        public object CurrentMessage { get; private set; }
        public Mailbox Mailbox { get { return _mailbox; } }

        public MessageDispatcher Dispatcher { get; private set; }
        public bool IsLocal { get{return true;} }
        protected ActorBase Actor { get { return _actor; } }
        public bool IsTerminated { get { return ReferenceEquals(_systemImpl.Mailboxes.DeadLetterMailbox,_mailbox) || _mailbox.IsClosed; } }
        internal static ActorCell Current
        {
            get { return InternalCurrentActorCellKeeper.Current; }
        }

        public ActorSystem System { get { return _systemImpl; } }
        public ActorSystemImpl SystemImpl { get { return _systemImpl; } }
        public Props Props { get { return _props; } }
        public IActorRef Self { get { return _self; } }
        IActorRef IActorContext.Parent { get { return Parent; } }
        public IInternalActorRef Parent { get; private set; }
        public IActorRef Sender { get; private set; }
        public bool HasMessages { get { return Mailbox.HasUnscheduledMessages; } }
        public int NumberOfMessages { get { return Mailbox.NumberOfMessages; } }
        internal bool ActorHasBeenCleared { get { return _actorHasBeenCleared; } }
        internal static Props TerminatedProps { get { return terminatedProps; } }

        public ActorTaskScheduler TaskScheduler
        {
            get
            {
                var taskScheduler = Volatile.Read(ref _taskScheduler);

                if (taskScheduler != null)
                    return taskScheduler;

                taskScheduler = new ActorTaskScheduler(this);
                return Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _taskScheduler, taskScheduler, null) ?? taskScheduler;
            }
        }

        public void Init(bool sendSupervise, Func<Mailbox> createMailbox /*, MailboxType mailboxType*/) //TODO: switch from  Func<Mailbox> createMailbox to MailboxType mailboxType
        {
            var mailbox = createMailbox(); //Akka: dispatcher.createMailbox(this, mailboxType)
            Dispatcher.Attach(this);
            mailbox.Setup(Dispatcher);
            mailbox.SetActor(this);
            _mailbox = mailbox;

            var createMessage = new Create();
            // AKKA:
            //   /*
            //    * The mailboxType was calculated taking into account what the MailboxType
            //    * has promised to produce. If that was more than the default, then we need
            //    * to reverify here because the dispatcher may well have screwed it up.
            //    */
            //// we need to delay the failure to the point of actor creation so we can handle
            //// it properly in the normal way
            //val actorClass = props.actorClass
            //val createMessage = mailboxType match {
            //    case _: ProducesMessageQueue[_] if system.mailboxes.hasRequiredType(actorClass) ⇒
            //    val req = system.mailboxes.getRequiredType(actorClass)
            //    if (req isInstance mbox.messageQueue) Create(None)
            //    else {
            //        val gotType = if (mbox.messageQueue == null) "null" else mbox.messageQueue.getClass.getName
            //        Create(Some(ActorInitializationException(self,
            //        s"Actor [$self] requires mailbox type [$req] got [$gotType]")))
            //    }
            //    case _ ⇒ Create(None)
            //}

            //swapMailbox(mbox)
            //mailbox.setActor(this)

            //// ➡➡➡ NEVER SEND THE SAME SYSTEM MESSAGE OBJECT TO TWO ACTORS ⬅⬅⬅
            //mailbox.systemEnqueue(self, createMessage)
            var self = Self;
            mailbox.Post(self, new Envelope {Message = createMessage, Sender = self});

            if(sendSupervise)
            {
                Parent.Tell(new Supervise(self, async: false), self);
            }
        }

        [Obsolete("Use TryGetChildStatsByName", true)]
        public IInternalActorRef GetChildByName(string name)   //TODO: Should return  Option[ChildStats]
        {
            IInternalActorRef child;
            return TryGetSingleChild(name, out child) ? child : ActorRefs.Nobody;
        }

        IActorRef IActorContext.Child(string name)
        {
            IInternalActorRef child;
            return TryGetSingleChild(name, out child) ? child : ActorRefs.Nobody;
        }

        public ActorSelection ActorSelection(string path)
        {
            return ActorRefFactoryShared.ActorSelection(path, _systemImpl, Self);
        }

        public ActorSelection ActorSelection(ActorPath path)
        {
            return ActorRefFactoryShared.ActorSelection(path, _systemImpl);
        }

        IEnumerable<IActorRef> IActorContext.GetChildren()
        {
            return GetChildren();
        }

        public IEnumerable<IInternalActorRef> GetChildren()
        {
            return ChildrenContainer.Children;
        }

        public void Become(Receive receive)
        {
            _state = _state.Become(receive);
        }

        public void BecomeStacked(Receive receive)
        {
            _state = _state.BecomeStacked(receive);
        }

        [Obsolete("Use Become or BecomeStacked instead. This method will be removed in future versions")]
        void IActorContext.Become(Receive receive, bool discardOld = true)
        {
            if(discardOld)
                Become(receive);
            else
                BecomeStacked(receive);
        }

        [Obsolete("Use UnbecomeStacked instead. This method will be removed in future versions")]
        void IActorContext.Unbecome()
        {
            UnbecomeStacked();
        }

        public void UnbecomeStacked()
        {
            _state = _state.UnbecomeStacked();
        }

        void IUntypedActorContext.Become(UntypedReceive receive)
        {
            Become(m => { receive(m); return true; });
        }

        void IUntypedActorContext.BecomeStacked(UntypedReceive receive)
        {
            BecomeStacked(m => { receive(m); return true; });
        }

        [Obsolete("Use Become or BecomeStacked instead. This method will be removed in future versions")]
        void IUntypedActorContext.Become(UntypedReceive receive, bool discardOld)
        {
            if (discardOld)
                Become(m => { receive(m); return true; });
            else
                BecomeStacked(m => { receive(m); return true; });
        }

        private long NewUid()
        {
            var auid = Interlocked.Increment(ref _uid);
            return auid;
        }

        private ActorBase NewActor()
        {
            PrepareForNewActor();
            ActorBase instance=null;
            //set the thread static context or things will break
            UseThreadContext(() =>
            {
                _state = _state.ClearBehaviorStack();
                instance = CreateNewActorInstance();
                //TODO: this overwrites any already initialized supervisor strategy
                //We should investigate what we can do to handle this better
                instance.SupervisorStrategyInternal = _props.SupervisorStrategy;
                //defaults to null - won't affect lazy instantiation unless explicitly set in props
            });
            return instance;
        }

        protected virtual ActorBase CreateNewActorInstance()
        {
            var actor = _props.NewActor();

            // Apply default of custom behaviors to actor.
            var pipeline = _systemImpl.ActorPipelineResolver.ResolvePipeline(actor.GetType());
            pipeline.AfterActorIncarnated(actor, this);

            var initializableActor = actor as IInitializableActor;
            if(initializableActor != null)
            {
                initializableActor.Init();
            }
            return actor;
        }

        public void UseThreadContext(Action action)
        {
            var tmp = InternalCurrentActorCellKeeper.Current;
            InternalCurrentActorCellKeeper.Current = this;
            try
            {
                action();
            }
            finally
            {
                //ensure we set back the old context
                InternalCurrentActorCellKeeper.Current = tmp;
            }
        }

        public virtual void Post(IActorRef sender, object message)
        {
            if (Mailbox == null)
            {
                return;
                //stackoverflow if this is the deadletters actorref
                //this._systemImpl.DeadLetters.Tell(new DeadLetter(message, sender, this.Self));
            }

            if (_systemImpl.Settings.SerializeAllMessages && !(message is INoSerializationVerificationNeeded))
            {
                Serializer serializer = _systemImpl.Serialization.FindSerializerFor(message);
                byte[] serialized = serializer.ToBinary(message);
                object deserialized = _systemImpl.Serialization.Deserialize(serialized, serializer.Identifier,
                    message.GetType());
                message = deserialized;
            }

            var m = new Envelope
            {
                Sender = sender,
                Message = message,
            };

            Mailbox.Post(Self, m);
        }

        protected void ClearActorCell()
        {
            //TODO_ UnstashAll stashed system messages (this is not the same stash that might exist on the actor)
            _props = terminatedProps;
        }

        protected void ClearActor(ActorBase actor)
        {
            if (actor != null)
            {
                var disposable = actor as IDisposable;
                if (disposable != null)
                {
                    try
                    {
                        disposable.Dispose();
                    }
                    catch (Exception e)
                    {
                        if (_systemImpl.Log != null)
                        {
                            _systemImpl.Log.Error(e, "An error occurred while disposing {0} actor. Reason: {1}",
                                actor.GetType(), e.Message);
                        }
                    }
                }

                ReleaseActor(actor);
                actor.Clear(_systemImpl.DeadLetters);
            }
            _actorHasBeenCleared = true;
            CurrentMessage = null;

            //TODO: semantics here? should all "_state" be cleared? or just behavior?
            _state = _state.ClearBehaviorStack();
        }

        private void ReleaseActor(ActorBase a)
        {
            _props.Release(a);
        }

        protected void PrepareForNewActor()
        {
            _state = _state.ClearBehaviorStack();
            _actorHasBeenCleared = false;
        }
        protected void SetActorFields(ActorBase actor)
        {
            if (actor != null)
            {
                actor.Unclear();
            }
        }
        public static NameAndUid SplitNameAndUid(string name)
        {
            var i = name.IndexOf('#');
            return i < 0
                ? new NameAndUid(name, UndefinedUid)
                : new NameAndUid(name.Substring(0, i), Int32.Parse(name.Substring(i + 1)));
        }

        public static IActorRef GetCurrentSelfOrNoSender()
        {
            var current = Current;
            return current != null ? current.Self : ActorRefs.NoSender;
        }

        public static IActorRef GetCurrentSenderOrNoSender()
        {
            var current = Current;
            return current != null ? current.Sender : ActorRefs.NoSender;
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Welcome to INDICA Support & Documentation page. Here you can rise the support ticket, request your new INDICA installation or a new eDiscovery Cloud Case, add new reviewers to your existing case and access documentation and FAQ.
In case of urgent matters, write us an email at support@indica.nl or give us a call on +31 (0) 30 2270165 during business hours (9.00 - 17.00 CET).


text:
<?php
namespace Google\Service\Compute\MachineTypes;

/**
 * The "machineTypes" collection of methods.
 * Typical usage is:
 *  <code>
 *   $computeService = new Google_Service_Compute(...);
 *   $machineTypes = $computeService->machineTypes;
 *  </code>
 */
class Resource extends \Google\Service\Resource
{

  /**
   * Retrieves the list of machine type resources grouped by scope.
   * (machineTypes.aggregatedList)
   *
   * @param string $project
   * Name of the project scoping this request.
   * @param array $optParams Optional parameters.
   *
   * @opt_param string filter
   * Optional. Filter expression for filtering listed resources.
   * @opt_param string pageToken
   * Optional. Tag returned by a previous list request truncated by maxResults. Used to continue a
    * previous list request.
   * @opt_param string maxResults
   * Optional. Maximum count of results to be returned. Maximum value is 500 and default value is
    * 100.
   * @return \Google\Service\Compute\MachineTypeAggregatedList
   */
  public function aggregatedList($project, $optParams = array())
  {
    $params = array('project' => $project);
    $params = array_merge($params, $optParams);
    return $this->call('aggregatedList', array($params), "\Google\Service\Compute\MachineTypeAggregatedList");
  }
  /**
   * Returns the specified machine type resource. (machineTypes.get)
   *
   * @param string $project
   * Name of the project scoping this request.
   * @param string $zone
   * Name of the zone scoping this request.
   * @param string $machineType
   * Name of the machine type resource to return.
   * @param array $optParams Optional parameters.
   * @return \Google\Service\Compute\MachineType
   */
  public function get($project, $zone, $machineType, $optParams = array())
  {
    $params = array('project' => $project, 'zone' => $zone, 'machineType' => $machineType);
    $params = array_merge($params, $optParams);
    return $this->call('get', array($params), "\Google\Service\Compute\MachineType");
  }
  /**
   * Retrieves the list of machine type resources available to the specified
   * project. (machineTypes.listMachineTypes)
   *
   * @param string $project
   * Name of the project scoping this request.
   * @param string $zone
   * Name of the zone scoping this request.
   * @param array $optParams Optional parameters.
   *
   * @opt_param string filter
   * Optional. Filter expression for filtering listed resources.
   * @opt_param string pageToken
   * Optional. Tag returned by a previous list request truncated by maxResults. Used to continue a
    * previous list request.
   * @opt_param string maxResults
   * Optional. Maximum count of results to be returned. Maximum value is 500 and default value is
    * 100.
   * @return \Google\Service\Compute\MachineTypeList
   */
  public function listMachineTypes($project, $zone, $optParams = array())
  {
    $params = array('project' => $project, 'zone' => $zone);
    $params = array_merge($params, $optParams);
    return $this->call('list', array($params), "\Google\Service\Compute\MachineTypeList");
  }
}


text:
NEW—Murray to Republican Leaders: Drop Trumpcare, Return to Regular Order, & Allow Bipartisan HELP Negotiations to Continue
Murray: "I am still at the table ready to finish the promising work Chairman Alexander and I were able to do, and I think that can happen quickly as soon as Republican leaders allow it"
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, issued the following statement continuing to urge Republican leaders to reverse course on Cassidy-Graham-Heller, the latest version of Trumpcare, and allow bipartisan negotiations between her and Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) to move forward:
"I know there are members on both sides of the aisle in the Senate who would prefer to work together, under regular order, to lower premiums for families rather than rush a partisan, deeply harmful repeal bill through the Senate—especially given how much common ground we were able to find. I am still at the table ready to finish the promising work Chairman Alexander and I were able to do, and I think that can happen quickly as soon as Republican leaders allow it."


text:
/ income & its distribution / employment, job security and working conditions / education
income & its distribution employment, job security and working conditions education
We spend most of our waking hours engaged in some form of work. Our income, working conditions, and education have a tremendous impact on our health outcomes. When everyone has access to high-quality education, to meaningful work, and to a decent income, we are thinking and acting upstream.
How much do lifestyle choices really matter for health?
Living Wages make communities resilient
Trish Hennessy knows inequality. The founding director of the CCPA's project to examine increasing income inequality in Canada recently gave a Walrus Talk on resilience, and the key importance of making a living wage for weathering life's challenges. She also sat down with Upstream founder Ryan Meili, to discuss why... read more
at work, home, Stories, Blog, living wage, Housing, sdoh, resilience
Living wages help employers too
$16.77 per hour is how much workers in Saskatoon need to earn just to afford the basics of life. But why would a business pay more than the legislated minimum wage? The Better Good's owner Laura Neufeld recently told Upstream of her experience as a Living Wage employer, and why... read more
Stories, at work, Blog, living wage, economics, employment, business
3 comments Share
A basic income guarantee may be the best medicine
194 physicians signed a letter sent today to Ontario's Minister of Health requesting his leadership to introduce a Basic Income Guarantee for the people of Ontario. It is a reflection of pervasive income-related health problems they see every day. Adequate, stable income is the only treatment. read more
in the community, Stories, home, Blog, lisa simon, BIG, basic income, living wage, health, sdoh, hiap, at work
25 years later - There's still a lot of work to do
Upstream Policy Director Charles Plante talks to Kevin Stanfield on the Global morning news about where Canada and Saskatchewan are on child poverty - 25 years after a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to eradicate poverty. read more
The Health Effects of Income Inequality: A Jet with 110 Canadians Falling Out of the Sky Each Day, Every Day, 365 Days a Year
An article for Upstream from Dennis Raphael, York University &Toba Bryant, University of Ontario Institute of Technology The crash of an airliner is a tragic disaster that triggers major investigations and quick action to make sure the same problem doesn't occur again. As a result, these are events are, thankfully,... read more
at work, Blog
Child Poverty: 25 Years Later
Action, home
Inequality begins in the crib: Poor kids who do everything right don't do better than rich kids who do everything wrong
This article explores the myth of meritocracy and paints a clear picture of how poverty creates systemic barriers to achieving health and well-being. read more
Early childhood development, Income, Education
Organized Labour is Good Medicine
How do labour unions make us healthier? Simply put, inequality makes us sick, and it turns out that organized labour is a good antidote. The Tyee argues that "labour organizing not only achieves livable wages for members, but exerts pressure against the widening income gap". read more
"My Basic Income": Michael Bohmeyer's Story
More than exercise or diet, income is the leading factor in determining our health, with poverty being the root cause of poor health for so many Canadians. Enter: basic income. That is, a minimum income below which no Canadian would fall—an idea that could make an enormous difference to our collective, long-term... read more
Income, story, Policy, at work
Money for Nothing? The idea of a guaranteed annual income
Increasingly, we understand that social factors are better predictors of health than genetics, or lifestyle choices like diet and exercise. It may surprise you to hear that income is the leading social determinant of health in Canada.** A Guaranteed Annual Income is one upstream idea that is getting a lot of attention... read more


text:
Alternative theories
7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory
By andrewgray,
June 22, 2007 in Alternative theories
andrewgray
LocationAustin, Texas, USA, Earth
October 2012 Update Edit:
This forum is about our new Intermittent Electron Theory that has been recently published
in Physics Essays:
The Theory of Intermittent Electrons
April 2020 Update Edit:
Announcing Four New Videos:
New Wisdom Unifies Physics!
These four videos explain the paper, "The Theory of Intermittent Electrons" and this forum.
("A video says a 1,000,000 words").
So here they are. Get busy watching them and then commenting right here!
Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!
https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing
Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!
Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)
Finally, I am working on the final unifying video:
Episode 4: Gravity!
It will be done this year. You will have to wait in suspense to see how this theory unifies Physics.
But it is coming!
Note: If you have a slow internet connection you can download these videos directly to your computer
from Google Drive and watch them locally on your computer.
You can then put them on a thumb drive and give the videos to your friends and tell them to come here
and comment on them!
Now... Back to the original 2007 thread:
Here are the biggest problems with QM as I see it and the solution to these problems:
1) The Photoelectric Paradox.
The photoelectric effect setup for a 10 eV UV "photon" is like this:
A UV "photon" is incident on a metal plate with an energy of approximately 10 eV. An electron with the max energy is ejected with an energy of approximately
Emax = hv - Ф = 10 eV - 3 eV = 1.12 x 10-18 J
This implies that the photoelectron has a momentum of , or
|Pe| = 270 |PUV|
Check the arithmetic yourself. This is no arithmetic error. The photoelectron ends up with 270 times the momentum of the UV "photon". Think about this for a moment...
Now, it is possible for QM theory to conserve momentum in this case by giving the metal plate a huge momentum in the "backwards" direction. This is how QM must respond. The metal plate recoils with a large momentum in the "backwards" direction, away from the photoelectron:
Just how the "photon" in QM theory gives the metal plate such a large momentum in the transverse direction is not exactly clear, and a little doubtful in my opinion. However, this is not all.
It is also fairly well known that the most likely angle for the electron ejection is at 90o. See
Phys. Rev. 37 (1931): Milton A. Chaffee - The Angular Distribution of...
The electron can actually absorb a "photon" and be ejected in a direction greater than 90 degrees heading back to where the "photon" came from. How can the "photon knock the electron backwards" through absorption? This just does not make sense, and this does not seem like a particle absorption. This phenomena seems like a transverse electric force reaction, plain and simple. If this is the case, then the polarization of the wave must come into play:
If I am correct, then the UV light that is polarized perpendicular to the metal plate will eject electrons much more readily than UV light polarized in the horizontal plane. (We will see how this works later).
And indeed, this is the case!
Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3703&context=lbnl
Quoted from Evidence of Vectorial Photoelectric Effect on Copper
"The QE dependence on angle of incidence and light polarization is a long standing problem [4–8] that largely remains to be understood."
"A QE enhancement is found for light with electric field perpendicular to the sample's surface, showing a vectorial photoelectric effect."
We see that Quantum Mechanics has absolutely failed here with this new information!
It appears that the polarization of the wave must be brought into consideration, but QM has treated this as a particle interaction. Bohr's Principle of Complementarity does not allow the wave nature to be brought in:
Quoted from Neils Bohr
"a single quantum mechanical entity can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never simultaneously as both."
And since "photons" in QM theory are circularly polarized with a "spin" equal to 1, this portion of the theory has failed in this paradox as well, as vertically polarized EM radiation is required to solve this paradox!
What is required is a new theory which we will see in a moment.
2) The Bremsstrahlung Paradox.
The setup for a 25 KeV x-ray machine is like this:
X-rays are emitted when 25 KeV electrons are blasted onto a metal plate. The electrons enter the surface and bounce around, probably thousands or millions of times like "Ricochet Rabbit", emitting radiations of all frequencies up to a cutoff frequency, called the Bremsstahlung Cutoff Frequency, in all directions. According to QM, this maximum frequency is given by the energy of a "photon" with energy given by:
But does this really make sense?
Suppose that an x-ray "photon" with almost the maximum frequency is given off. This implies the following scenario:
Think about this scenario for a moment. To have an interaction that creates a "photon" with nearly the max energy, a single interaction must nearly stop the electron and produce the max energy "photon".
But these are conservative Coulomb fields that the electron is interacting with. If an electron comes in for a close encounter with a nucleus or another electron, it leaves the encounter with approximately the same speed that it came in with. We know this from scattering experiments. A single encounter that stops the incoming electron is just not feasible. It's just not going to happen. It's probably going to take millions of deflections to stop the electron. Check it yourself.
So again, Quantum Mechanics has failed. A single interaction to mostly stop the Bremsstahlung electron is just not feasible.
(What really is happening comes later)
3) Electron Spin
It was in the latter part of the last century that electrons were discovered to be smaller than 10-15 cm from electron scattering experiments. This was a problem because it then became impossible for the electron to have a magnetic moment without it's surface velocity exceeding the speed of light. So the statement in modern physics is that:
"Electron spin is not something spinning".
Many 1st year QM students do this calculation. But there is another problem with electron spin that has surfaced. Recall that magnetic moments precess in a magnetic field. There are many instances in modern physics where this is used. However, it is known that a precessing magnetic moment would radiate. Whenever there are time dependent fields, there is radiation. Whenever there is an acceleration involving charges, there is radiation. Precessing magnetic moments radiate, that's all there is to it. But atomic electrons do not radiate in a magnetic field. Hence, it seems to me that electrons probably do not have a magnetic moment, and hence do not have angular momentum. So we now have two oxymorons:
"Electron magnet moment is not a moment."
A point particle just cannot have "something spinning", and a point particle cannot have a "moment" of any kind.
This is just not acceptable to the purely logical mind, and if you will open it, you will see that this New Theory is much better.
4) Wave Particle Duality
One thing unique to QM theory is its invention of the wave-particle paradox. It seemed like wave-particle duality was necessary because the evidence was mounting for the baffling behavior of both light and electrons. In particular, the most baffling of these was the low intensity double slit experiment. Look on the net and see that this experiment is still being argued around after nearly a century.
The double slit output:
1) How can the "photon" know about the other slit if it goes through just one?
2) How can the "photon" interfere with itself it if it just goes through one slit?
The first myth that needs to be cleared up is cleared up with the following statement:
One film dot ≠ One "photon" detection.
Many QM books have pictures of film dots accumulating like the above picture. Well consider this:
For 200 ISO film, minimum blackening is .004 lux-sec, or 0.04 millijoules/cm². See:
Radiometry and photometry in astronomy
So take 1% of this minimum blackening illumination, and consider 0.0004 mJ/cm². This illumination is below the threshold of the film. In other words, this illumination is so weak that no dots are formed on the film. Now, one visible "photon" has an energy of about
2 x 10-19 Joules
If you do the division, you get that about 200 trillion "photons" can strike a cm² of the film without producing a film dot. Think about this for a moment. 200 Trillions-worth of "photon-energy" can strike a cm² of the film and not produce a single film-dot. So these pictures, like the one above, in first year QM books are a serious exaggeration.
So what would happen if an extremely low intensity wave were incident on some ISO 200 speed film? Well, film has tiny silver bromide crystals. These crystals must have crystal defects, or they are not light sensitive at all. So a lot of light could hit these crystals with no effect.
But some crystals have defects, some with more defects than others. These are the most light sensitive crystals. These "most sensitive" crystals are randomly distributed across the film. When the incident light wave intensity just reaches the threshold for film-dot production, it is these "most sensitive" crystals that are randomly activated first. This random activation of the "most sensitive" crystals would start to make a pattern like that seen in figure 5.25A from being struck by a low intensity wave.
A low intensity wave incident on film would produce the patterns seen in the above figure because the film is discrete crystals.
No harm done, you say as you consider yourself an advanced physicist? OK, then let's move on to the next best "one-photon-at-a-time" claim, photomultipliers. The double slit can be done with supposedly "one-photon-at-a-time" photomultipliers:
http://www.wm.edu/physics/SeniorThesis2005/TarSeniorThesis.pdf
"The polarizing filters are used to cut the light down to an intensity low enough that only one photon is in the apparatus at a time. . . Using the detector slit, the photomultiplier tube measures photon counts at different positions of the screen. Counts can be plotted with respect to X and the interference pattern constructed."
The same myth needs to be cleared with the following statement:
One photomultiplier tick ≠ One "photon" detection.
The same reasoning applies to this apparatus. Photomultipliers, like any detection device (be it film, digital camera, etc) has a threshold illumination below which no detection takes place. For example, take the photomultiplier tube in the above paper, with, for example, a blocking area of 10 μm². put it 1 meter away from the double slit and set the crossed polarizers so that the illumination is so low that the photomultiplier ticks once per second. Now move that photomultiplier 100 meters away from the double slit, and increase the blocking area proportionately so it is looking down the same solid angle.
Theoretically, according to QM, the same number of photons going down the solid angle at one meter will still be going down the solid angle at 100 meters. So the number of ticks supposedly will be the same. Wrong, the intensity at 100 meters is so low that the photomultiplier will not record one tick per second. It will record nothing but noise. Not convinced? Try it yourself. Next, try moving the photomultiplier a kilometer away and see if it will tick while looking down the same solid angle.
Again, to the purely logical mind, wave-particle paradox is not acceptable, and if there is a better way, the purely logical mind would be open to it.
Next, consider "one-electron-at-a-time" double slit experiments in a electron microscope. Here are A. Tonomura's photos:
http://modelofreality.org/ElectronInterfere.png
http://www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp/rd/moviee/doubleslite-n.wmv
Look familiar? Well, they had to use film in this experiment as well. Again, the myth needs to be cleaned up by this statement:
One film dot ≠ One electron detection.
Many electrons can strike a film crystal with no crystal defects and produce no dots. In addition, "cross-the-gap" high voltage currents tend to surge. They build up on the electron gun tip, surge across the gap as a group, then start to build up again. Think about a thunderstorm and lightning. A huge charge builds up in the clouds at high voltage. Does it flow smoothly across-the-gap to the ground? No! There are plenty of electrons to interfere with each other as they high voltage surge "across-the-gap" like a lightning strike.
These one-particle-at-a-time claims are not realistic. QM is not needed to explain wave particle duality, and again, if a more logical explanation were available, the truly open mind would at least look at it.
5) Quantum Entanglement.
The famous EPR paper started it all. (Einstein, Podalski, & Rosen). Then came J.S. Bell's paper and his now famous "Bell's Inequality". And finally Alain Aspect's experiments using Bell's Inequality applied to "photons". The bottom line of all this came to the QM concept that:
Bell's Inequality places restrictions on probabilities based on local realities. Since Bell's inequality is violated, then local reality is impossible.
So now we will have a discussion about raw logic. In mathematics if we have a hypothesis and come to a point in its proof where we get:
4+1 ≠ 5
Well, we simply abandon the hypothesis as incorrect. Like electron spin. Electron spin was hypothesized by two graduate students in 1925. Later we found out that
Electron Spin ≠ Something Spinning
So likewise in this case, we need to abandon the electron spin hypothesis as incorrect. BUT! The spin Nobel Prize has already been awarded and one must not say that this Nobel Prize is wrong. (Even though a purely logical mind might be tempted).
So here we find ourselves with yet another QM oxymoron:
Local Reality ≠ Reality
So we start out with a hypothesis about photon polarizations and find that there is no reality. So if you ask Mr. Vulcan, just based on pure logic, he will say that there is some hypothesis that needs to be abandoned.
The Photon Hypothesis needs to be abandoned. The only reason it has not been abandoned until now is that there has not been a suitable replacement. Now there is.
6) Renormalization.
The electron's mass-energy is roughly 1/2 MeV. This mass-energy is the amount contained in a static electric field emanating from a charge with a radius roughly
rc = 2x10-13 cm
An electron, however, is known to be more like
re = 2x10-15 cm
or smaller. The electric field energy from such a small particle is roughly 50 MeV. This is troublesome to say the least. If the resultant mass-energy of the electron is indeed just 1/2 MeV, then the mass function for a static electron must go negative below this "classical electron radius".
So once again we have a logical contradiction:
A static electron's actual size < minimum permitted size
So how has QM handled this paradox? With Renormalization. Renormalization is a process where one is faced with infinities in equations. To rid these infinities, one plays games so that a +∞ integral can cancel out a -∞ integral. A Nobel Prize was actually awarded to Gerardus 't Hooft for a particularly clever way to cancel infinities. But listen to what the famous physicist Paul Dirac had to say about renormalization:
Quoted from Paul Dirac
"I am very disturbed by the situation because the so-called good theory quantum theory does involve neglecting infinities in an arbitrary way. This is not sensible. Sensible Mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it's small; not because it's infinitely great and we do not want it."
As soon as he started to criticize the mainstream for illogic, he was out of there. It appears that raw logic will not necessarily advance your physics career.
Next, listen to what the inventor of renormalization had to say about it:
Quoted from Richard Feynman
"But no matter how clever the word, it is what I call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent."
"I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
So again we are faced with the raw logic of having to abandon some hypothesis. The point particle electron is logically inconsistent. But which hypothesis do we abandon?
Well, we have only one choice.
The static electron viewpoint must be abandoned. Raw logic dictates that the structure of the electron must be dynamic. A static negative mass function cannot be possible. We shall abandon the static electron for a New Theory with a dynamic electron structure!
7) A better theory is now possible.
So we now have the fundamental criteria for the new theory.
1) The electron's structure must be dynamic.
2) It must cover the photoelectric effect.
3) It must cover the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.
4) It must have stable, nonradiating atoms, especially in a B field.
5) It must allow for electron interference.
6) It must allow for Compton Scattering, Hydrogen Spectra, etc. . .
The first four fundamental criteria give us no choice but to insist that an electron be a pulsating particle.
That is, an electron turns its electric field ON and OFF. And its does so according to De Broglie:
The faster an electron in accelerated, the faster it pulsates:
When the electron is ON, it is susceptible to a greater force in an electric field than when it is off. ( the justification for all this exists. Later . . . )
This pulsating particle scenario allows for a stable, nonradiating atom:
Why does this atom not radiate? Because radiation comes from accelerating charges. The electron is only accelerated
while it is OFF. When it is ON, it travels in a straight line. Hence, this atom will not radiate.
Now for the fascinating parts.
The photoelectric effect.
Consider a free electron in a metal, pulsating with a certain frequency. When visible light is incident on the electron, what does it do?
Remember this: If an electron is static, then when an oscillating electric force hits the electron, it simply moves up and down going nowhere.
However, this is not true if the electron is pulsating. If the electron is pulsating just right, it might take off either up or down. This depends on the correlation of electron pulsation frequency with the light. If the electron is ON in phase with the peaks of the light wave, then the electron ill simply go UP and DOWN, also going nowhere. However, if the electron is ON only during the UP part of the light wave, and OFF during the DOWN part of the light wave, then the electron will move upwards very rapidly. It is influenced less by the down part of the light wave, since the electron is OFF! So the electron is accelerated upwards.
Now the electron pulsations start to quicken according to De Broglie:
(the factor of ½ will become clear later) The electron starts to pulsate faster and faster until it no longer is in phase with just the UP part of the light wave. When it becomes fast enough so that the electron is ON in phase with both peaks of the wave, the acceleration is over. The electron returns to just going UP and DOWN in its co-moving inertial frame. A non-acceleration resonance has occurred! This resonance occurs at the moment that ½ the electron's De Broglie frequency reaches the frequency of the light wave. The electron stops accelerating when
Stop and imagine this for a moment. Packets of energy hνlight given to a charged particle without "photons"! No momentum considerations!
And finally take note: This pulsating theory succeeds in explaining the vectorial photoelectric effect while Quantum Mechanics fails.
Next, the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency.
Imagine that a 25 KeV electron collides with a metal plate and goes through the following motion:
For a brief moment in the diagram above, the Bremsstrahlung electron goes through an oscillitory motion with a period of about 1x10-18 seconds. This is certainly possible, as almost any random motion would be possible to imagine. Thus, the electron must briefly radiate with a frequency of 1x1018 Hz. There is just no logical way around this. And this radiation's frequency is below the limiting νmax=E/h. You want a 25 keV electron to radiate at a certain frequency below the limit? Well, just move it back and forth at a lower frequency, and it must radiate at this frequency. No way around it.
So the question again becomes:
If the electron gets moved back and forth at a frequency higher than the limit, then why doesn't it radiate at this frequency?
The answer is the Nyquist Frequency Limit. Here is a simple explanation. Lets say that a Bremsstrahlung electron goes through the following motion:
January 2014 Edit: Here is another (better) animation explaining the Nyquist limit:
https://modelofreality.org/16.html
where we have included in the diagram where the Bremsstrahlung electron has pulsed ON proportional to De Broglie. We see that since the movement frequency is less than the De Broglie frequency, then the motion and radiation approximate what we usually associate with an oscillating charge. The radiation frequency closely approximates the movement frequency. No surprise here.
But now lets say that the Bremsstrahlung electron gets moved around much more radically with a much higher movement frequency, like this
We see that the movement frequency is much higher than the pulsation frequency, and the radiation cannot be generated at this frequency. The charge is "OFF" during much of the acceleration. Thus, the radiation cannot follow the movement, and the radiation is aliased down to a lower frequency. This emitted frequency limit is called the Nyquist frequency limit. It is half the electron pulsation frequency. (hence the factor of ½).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
Now this Nyquist frequency chopping is different than frequency modulation. Here is the difference:
If you modulate a frequency at 1022 Hz with a frequency of 1018 Hz, the resultant frequency is basically still at 1022 Hz.
The modulated wave still acts like a 1022 Hz wave, while the chopped wave aliases back down to 1018 Hz.
For example, if the modulated wave went through a Bragg diffraction crystal lattice (x-ray spectrometer), it would still act like a 1022 Hz wave. But if the chopped wave went through, it would act like a 1018 Hz wave.
So back to the Bremsstrahlung cutoff frequency. If an electron were pulsating at a certain frequency and generating radiation, we would expect the radiation to be limited to ½ that frequency. The Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency!
So imagine this for a moment. We have gotten a Bremsstahlung cutoff frequency without using photons, while even allowing for thousands of bumps and ricochets!
This is a much more logical explanation, and I hope you will open your purely logical mind to it.
The Hydrogen Spectra
Recall that this new theory has allowed us to have stable, nonradiating electron orbits.
These orbits do not radiate because the electron is not accelerated while it is ON. We must conclude that the requirement that the electron only be ON while the proton is OFF establishes only certain allowed orbits. If the electron deviates from these allowed orbits, then it will be ON while the proton is ON, and in this case, it will radiate energy. This radiation friction and the huge increase in the force between them will disrupt the trajectory until the electron returns to an allowed orbit.
The advantage of this pulsating model for the hydrogen atom is that the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation actually exists within the atom. In all physical systems, the system's resonant frequencies actually exist within the system! That is, something is vibrating at these frequencies! In the Schrodinger theory for the hydrogen atom, the electron is normally in a ground state which is actually spherically symmetric and static! The Schrodinger/Born picture has resonant frequencies which do not exist in their static system.
We start the new scenario by assuming that the electron orbits are quasi-circular (not necessarily the case, but most likely). Let ve be the unknown De Broglie frequency of the pulsating electron for some allowed orbit. Let vp be the De Broglie frequency for the proton. Then for stable, quasi-circular orbits we must have
where Tp and Te are the proton's/electron's pulsation periods and np and ne are integers. This condition keeps the electron in sync with the proton so that they never are ON at the same time.
Since the electron's allowed orbits only have the proton's E field ON while the electron is in its OFF state, the average electric force between them may be different than the time averaged Coulomb's Law. We write
where mV²/r is is the average centripetal force on the electron, and k' is some fraction of the normal Coulomb force constant.
Next, we assume that the resonant frequencies of the hydrogen atom are simply the orbital frequencies of the electrons in their allowed orbits. That is, if an electron in a hydrogen atom were subject to a force that perturbed it, then it would tend to radiate electromagnetic energy that was at these resonant orbital frequencies. Conversely, if electromagnetic radiation were incident on an atomic electron at its resonant orbital frequency, then the atom would start to absorb energy from the resonant wave.
To get the approximate radii of the corresponding electron orbits, we set V= rω
where ω is the orbital angular frequency of the electron. Solving for ω we get
Substituting in the empirical Rydberg relation gives:
The general trend in this new scenario is exact opposite that of Bohr's atom. In Bohr's theory, the 6th orbit corresponds to 36ro (ro=Bohr radius of .53A) , or about 19 angstroms. It seems unlikely that such a large orbit would play much of a part in the Lyman series. But the (1,6) Lyman spectral line is strong.
So in this new scenario, the higher the resonant orbital frequency, the smaller the orbital radius.
In this new scenario, these are the actual radii of the electronic orbits, with the exact orbital frequencies being the same as the resonant light frequencies:
Orbital Electron Frequencies = Hydrogen Spectrum Frequencies
So if you heat hydrogen gas, or run a current through it, these orbits will be perturbed. These perturbations will disturb the orbits so that the electrons are accelerated while ON, and hence they will start to radiate at their natural frequencies!
It cannot be stressed enough here. These natural frequencies exist within the atom and these natural frequencies are stimulated by perturbations, just like all physical systems with resonances.
In order to keep the new theory's explanation simple, I have neglected to even mention the hydrogen molecule.
Here is how this new pulsating model views the hydrogen molecule:
The Hydrogen Molecule and the Reality-Based Covalent Bond
It is now much easier to understand the hydrogen molecule. Hydrogen is a magnetic dipole. It is attracted to other hydrogen atom like two magnets are attracted to each other. From a distance, the hydrogen atom appears electrically neutral. The magnetic forces still exist, though. Thus, two hydrogen atoms would be pulled towards each other with a relatively small magnetic force until the Coulomb forces come into play. If a collision occurs with a small enough separation distance, an H2 molecule is formed by Coulomb forces.
A stable hydrogen molecule can be constructed using Coulomb attraction as shown in the figure. The two electrons circulate in the same direction in between the two protons, their separation vectors forming two equilateral triangles.
The four pulsating particles are synchronized, allowing only for certain electron orbits so that the stable molecule does not radiate. We finally are able to see a reality-based covalent bond! The two electrons are shared by and are in between the two hydrogen nuclei.
So I believe that when you run a current through hydrogen gas, it is the molecular hydrogen spectra that you are seeing. This would make sense because the majority of the hydrogen gas is in the diatomic molecular state. So the relative proportions of how the electrons are distributed into the orbitals is predicted by the absorption spectrum of hydrogen. Since the Lyman series is the only series seen in the absorption spectrum of hydrogen, then one would suspect that the electrons would be distributed across the Lyman orbitals at room temperature. (And not mostly in one ground state). The relative intensities of the Lyman absorption spectrum would be proportional to how many electrons were in each Lyman orbital (of molecular hydrogen).
Energy conservation is fascinating in this pulsating theory. On the macroscopic level, all the pulsations of gazillions of particles time-average to Coulomb's Law, and everything is as expected. But on the microscopic level we have tunneling in this theory! Suppose the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is momentarily OFF. Then at that moment, the electron can be quickly moved to a higher orbit without much energy being expended. The electron can "tunnel" to a higher orbit while the nucleus is OFF! So, for example, during collisions with spectrometer current-electrons, the hydrogen's electrons can be moved to different orbits sometimes without having to fight the full centripetal nuclear Coulomb forces.
And when a spectrometer electron collides with the hydrogen electrons, the electrons become "out of sync" with the nuclei, and radiation results. This radiation is at the frequency of electron revolution. This radiation causes "radiation friction". This friction cannot last forever, as the electrons start to feel the nuclear forces while they are ON. Something will change. The orbits will either change or the electrons will decay into the nuclei. Since we do not see spontaneous neutron production, it is safe to assume that the orbitals change back to stable orbits, with or without tunneling.
Electron Interference
This pulsating model for electrons allows a more reasonable picture for electron interference. Here is the setup:
We have already discussed how high voltage cross-the-gap-currents tend to surge. So a pulse of
coherent electrons emerges from the tip of the electron gun. They make their way towards the positively charge
filament, pulsating in unison since they are coherent. Now when they are bent around the filament, the two sides will
cross in only one place. If the electrons are ON when they cross, a tremendous repulsive force will keep them from
continuing on their way, and they will not strike the film on their original path (a minimum). If the electrons are OFF
when they cross, they will continue on to the screen and hit the film on their original path (a maximum).
This New Theory covers all the fundamentals of microscopic physics. It is hoped that our logical minds
can simply take this a new theory as something that can just be tried and tested, no big deal.
Andrew A. Gray
Edited January 19, 2021 by andrewgray
Last Reply 11 hr
andrewgray 195 posts
Qfwfq 40 posts
Erasmus00 36 posts
rodin 27 posts
October 2012 Update Edit: This forum is about our new Intermittent Electron Theory that has been recently published in Physics Essays: The Theory of Intermittent Electrons
Erasmus00
Many of your reasons for abandoning quantum mechanics actually do have explanations. Consider your "photoelectric paradox." The first thing to realize is that this treatment of the photoelectric eff
You are correct, though the radiation equation WOULD imply spherical radiation for this system. The solution to this paradox is the simple fact that a blinking electron is incompatible with maxwell's
TheFaithfulStone
Your post has lots of pictures that you obviously spent a lot of time on.
Me thinks you misunderstand the photoelectric effect.
arkain101
LocationBritish Columbia, Canada.
I agree, it is something to think about, and something else to test for.
Thanks for sharing, I will be looking into this more.
Many of your reasons for abandoning quantum mechanics actually do have explanations. Consider your "photoelectric paradox." The first thing to realize is that this treatment of the photoelectric effect is really a (fairly good) approximation. Very complicated interactions are lumped into the "work function" of the metal.
Now, how can the photon give such a large momentum to the emitted electron? Well, momentum is a vector property, and the metal that ejects the electron is quite massive compared to the electron itself. Hence, a high transverse momentum back the other direction simply means the metal itself is moving forward very slightly, such that the total is the initial momentum of the photon.
Rather than address every new point, lets ask a question about your new theory: If the electrons electric field "pulses" on and off this comprises a changing electric field- why doesn't this create radiation? Its not just accelerating charges, its changing electric fields that create radiation.
-Will
Erasmus00,
Yes QM allows the momentum to be conserved. The plate moves away from the electron with a large momentum that is also "slightly forward" (as shown). But how does the photon give the plate such a large momentum? That is just one of the questions.
Good question about radiation from pulsating charges.
Spherically symmetric changing electric fields do not generate radiation. Why is this? Take the Maxwell equation:
Consider a pulsating charge with its E field turning on and off. This electric field is time dependent, but it is strictly radial. That is,
The curl of anything strictly radial is zero. Therefore, there is no changing magnetic field (actually no magnetic field at all). No changing magnetic field implies no radiation.
Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray
Akrain101,
jungjedi
thanks for the pictures.im going to read through it.
You are correct, though the radiation equation WOULD imply spherical radiation for this system. The solution to this paradox is the simple fact that a blinking electron is incompatible with maxwell's equations.
[math] \nabla X B =\frac{1}{c} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \cdot E + \frac{4\pi}{c} J [/math]
Taking the divergence of both sides, using maxwell to replace divergence of E
[math] 0 = \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot J [/math]
This is a continuity equation and in your blinking electron case it is violated. Why is it that it is violated? Simple- your theories imply that charge isn't strictly conserved.
Jay-qu
LocationTrying to float on an ocean of hydrogen.
As Will says, you are correct... except for the last sentence which I don't find consequential.
Now to his excellent remarks I will add: What about the other Maxwell equation, displacement current and curl of B? Unless you conjecture the electron's charge flowing in and out (which would neatly solve Will's objection) you would have the curl of B oscillating in time and tangently propagating the displacement current's oscillations. I'm having a spot of trouble imagining this being spherically symmetric though. Integrating might be tricky, I 'll give it a thought.
You are correct. However, the Macroscopic Maxwell's Equations would remain unchanged, as the time variations of individual charges is completely negligible.
As you point out, the charge continuity equation will have to be changed. This New Theory does not have strict charge conservation at the microscopic level. Only a time-averaged charge conservation.
At a more fundamental level, this New Theory actually says something about the electron structure, which I have not presented yet. This new structure reveals an "upgraded" Coulomb's Law. At first, one might be tempted to write:
but this is not the case. This New Theory reveals that charges are still susceptible to external electric force even if the charge is "OFF". I will show how if there is interest.
So each charge, q1(t) and q2(t) would have two characteristics: 1) if the charge were "ON" or "OFF", and 2) how much external electric force the charge "is accepting".
The modified "Microscopic Maxwell's Equations" will be more complex, which we knew must be the case a priori. (Maxwell's equations have failed). However, at the macroscopic level, things remain unchanged.
Qfwfq said:
What about the other Maxwell equation, displacement current and curl of B? Unless you conjecture the electron's charge flowing in and out (which would neatly solve Will's objection) you would have the curl of B oscillating in time and tangently propagating the displacement current's oscillations. I'm having a spot of trouble imagining this being spherically symmetric though. Integrating might be tricky, I 'll give it a thought.
Qfwfq,
Here is the spherical symmetry:
Just imagine the charge "turning on suddenly, then turning off". It has spherical symmetry just like a static electron model does.
Technically, if one defines charge in the "old Maxwell way" as being related to the [math]\nabla \cdot E[/math], then both positive and negative "charge" travels out with each pulse, since the [math]\nabla \cdot E[/math] is related to lines of E that end somewhere.
These modified "Microscopic Maxwells Equations" are going to be complicated. Are you interested in helping me write them down, or are you hostile to the idea in any way?
Finally, let me say that we know that Maxwell's equations can be derived from simply assuming that some radial Coulomb force law exists in the rest frame of one charge, and that the force on another charge is then radial and velocity independent. Once these assumptions are made, then all of Maxwell's equations are completely predicted.
The same is true in this case. All one needs to do is sit down and write a modified Coulomb's Law. Then all modified Maxwell's Equations follow mathematically.
Edited September 30, 2020 by andrewgray
coldcreation
Interesting Andrewgray,
I still have to read all the text.
Question: Aside from the details mentioned above, what globally changes within the standard model if you are correct in your hypothesis, i.e., what are the consequences, say, on cosmology, astrophysics, celstial mechanics, if any. Why should the mainstream abandon QM to adopt you new view? Are there any practical (or economically advantageous) applications to be derived from your model?
Why should the mainstream abandon QM to adopt you new view? Are there any practical (or economically advantageuos) applications to be derived from your model?
ColdCreation,
QM has "non-local reality". This is now accepted. This means that QM does not "actually describe what is really going on".
A New Theory that works and describes what is actually going on is superior. That is all there is to it. In order to get to the next level of understanding, one must know what is "really going on".
So the mainstream should adopt this New Theory so we can get to the next level of understanding, knowing what is really going on.
Economic applications? Well, this would be similar to asking Einstein if there were any economic applications to his rebellious E=mc2. He wouldn't have had a clue, now would he?
. . . what globally changes within the standard model if you are correct in your hypothesis, i.e., what are the consequences, say, on cosmology, astrophysics, celstial mechanics, if any?
The biggest consequence that this New Theory has on cosmology and astrophysics is its impact on Thermal (blackbody) Radiation theory, and the assumptions made from it on the Cosmic Background Radiation data.
As you probably recall, Thermal (blackbody) Radiation Theory came from:
1) Rayleigh-Jeans counting standing wave modes in a cubic cavity of a "black-body". Their energy density diverged due to the infinite number of ways to put small wavelengths in a cavity.
2) Planck "quantizing" the number of ways to put radiation in the cavity, allowing the energy density to converge.
3) Choosing Planck's constant to match experimental data.
This New Theory sheds new light on Thermal Radiation.
Andrew Ancel Gray
Your blinking charge, as you have said, is incompatible with maxwells equations (maxwell's equations imply strictly conserved, not on average conserved charges). Hence, if your theory is right Maxwell's equations need to be reexamined.
One important consequence of Maxwell that you are invoking to show no radiation can be summarized as "no monopole radiation" i.e. no spherically symmetric radiation field. HOWEVER, this is a consequence of the conserved charge, in order to change a field we must move charges from one point to another (creating dipole or higher order radiation).
In your theory, however, a field DOES change without moving one particle from another. I believe this can lead to radiation. Consider that the abrupt field changes will lead to large derivative of E terms, which should lead to displacement current, hence magnetic fields.
Also, your theory would hae only local "hidden variabes" and aspect type experiments, I believe, have demonstrated the non-local correlations of reality.
I've been contemplating various expermental apparratus' of which would be ideal for testing out many of the QM weak spots you pointed out.
One of which is to test the particle-wave double slit experiment without film. Instead, one would use various kinds of detectors, to pick up currents, or what have you. As you point out photo film is a crude method for this particular experiment, and has far too much room for error to form any kind of emperical evidence.
Another thought was to run this sort of test with more than 1 set of slits.
There must be other tests that can be done to further understand the nature of light and matter. (that would be my main point)
I understand what you are saying regarding changing E fields. However, consider this:
If any vector field is spherically symmetric, then it must be completely radial. There is no way to have any tangential vector field anywhere if spherical symmetry is demanded.
Yes, there are "displacement currents", but they are radial and spherically symmetric also. All the magnetic fields coming from these "displacement currents" cancel out.
Agreed?
. . . Aspect type experiments, I believe, have demonstrated the non-local correlations of reality.
Yes, if one assumes that two correlated photons emerge from these Aspect sources, then local reality cannot exist. In my "logic discussion" in the first post, I discuss this as one of the main reasons for abandoning the photon hypothesis.
If the photon hypothesis is abandoned, then we are back to having local reality.
There is no way to come up with any kind of "reality-based" local "hidden variables" to explain the Aspect Experiments if photons are demanded to exist. Therefore, photons cannot exist. It is simple logic, if one demands reality.
akrain,
Yes, there finally are experiments to displace QM. To discuss these experiments, we need to discuss:
Magnetic Moments of Atoms
A magnetic moment μ in a magnetic field is known to precess. The torqe
is perpendicular to L and makes it precess.
For a body that is rigid and has a magnetic moment, this precession can be smooth and uniform. However, electrons in orbit around an atom cannot be modeled as rigid. Consider the hydrogen atom in a magnetic field B, for example. The electron below is shown in five different places along its orbit:
The torque that causes the precession goes as:
It is amazing to see that the torque at positions 2 & 4 vanishes!
Also, the torque at positions 1 & 3 is at a maximum!
The torque at position 5 has a z component!
(Take note: This means that Lz is not constant for a non-rigid magnetic moment precessing in a magnetic field).
This means that the motion of electrons around an atom
in a B field is not a smooth and uniform precession as we have been lead to believe!
The magnetic torque changes from max to zero twice with every orbit, and has z-components.
This motion is actually a wild nutation/precession, with the z-component of the angular momentum changing periodically.
This scenario will radiate, there is no question about it. Radiation friction will be generated. Now it is well known that nutational precessions accompanied by friction tend to change rapidly. Spin a top. Watch it precess and wildly nutate at first. The friction immediately dampens the nutation so that it goes into a smooth, stable, precession. The friction dampens the wild nutations first.
The same thing will happen here. The radiation friction will dampen the nutations in such a way that the electron is forced into a stable orbit. Otherwise, the electron will either decay into the nucleus, or be cast away in ionization. These don't occur, so the electron must be forced into a smooth, stable orbit. And there are just two stable orbits, one with L UP and one with L DOWN.
We finally see that angular momentum and magnetic moments are not "quantized" by the strong magnetic fields of the Stern Gerlach experiment. They are induced.
For example, if silver atoms enter a strong magnetic field with continuous values of Lz, then they are immmediately induced into either the UP or DOWN states.
Remember: Induced, not quantized.
The New Stern Gerlach Experiments
The usual Stern Gerlach Experiment setup is like this:
A huge magnetic field with a large derivative in the z-direction is used to separate the UP and DOWN magnetic moments of silver atoms. We see that the output is induced into the "UP" or "DOWN" states as predicted.
But notice that it is the derivative of the B field
that does the separation, and not the B field itself. However, it is the B field itself that does the inducements. So what we need is:
We need a B field that has a strong z derivative,
but the B field itself is small.
This way, the small B field will not be able to induce the silver atoms to the UP and DOWN states, but the z-derivative will still deflect the atoms. Such a B field is possible. If one could superimpose magnetic fields (this is more difficult than it sounds), then:
one could end up with a field that had a large z-derivative, but a small value for the field itself. This would allow the silver atoms with their continuous values for Lz to be deflected without a huge B field inducing them all towards the totally UP or DOWN states. This would allow
the continuous Lz spectrum to be recovered, proving space quantization and quantized spin incorrect.