On Quantum Physics (1)

I'm no expert on quantun physics, so what ever I say is just my uninformed view on a very complex subject.

Once upon a time people thought the sun and the planets orbited around the earth. To match the experience, some objects did not move in circles around the earth, but moved in spirals around the earth.

Then a much simpler explanation was given: All objects orbit around the Sun using newtonian physics.

It turned out to explain everything easily and the most complex models, for which mechanical aparatus were built, were dismantled as "crazy".

Fast forward to 2007. Quantum phsycis is this complex notion that a particle may be botha particle and a wave, and the particle might be in several places at the same time, but when you make it interact with some other particle, it is certainly somewhere defined, and then you can measure position or velocity, but not both at the same time, and there is the tunnel effect which means a particle can travel through space in zero time and quantum entanglement which means that 2 particles may communicate through the whole universe in zero time.

The predictions of quantum physics are awsome and some of them have already been confirmed in experiments, as for example quantum entanglement. Needless to say this means you could build a much better internet using entanglements and I have the intuition, although I haven't pictured exactly how, that you could build a faster computer using entanglements, since inside chips, they communicate, so if you reduce all those communications, you would end up with much simpler and faster chips, which means one chip could replace a 100 or a 1,000 CPUs.

Also the communication inside a computer could be done using entanglements, meaning less cables and reducing the computer size.

You could also make a backup or connect to the internet without using cables. The advantage is that nothing would travel in the air.

Quantum Physics is Flawed

I read once that a guy read about Newton and his "theory" of gravitation, basically that F = gmM / d*d, and he concluded that Newton was wrong, because he was stading on the top of the surface of the earth and the gravitational force was not infinite (the distance to the earth is zero). Little did this guy know about how to measure that "distance", if he measured from center of gravity to the other center of gravity, it would hold.

In the same vein, I think quantum physics is flawed and maybe I don't know how to measure the distance.

Although quantum physics had made great advances and has been proved correct many times, I think the main idea is flawed. Proving correct a theory just by showing a prediction and saying "see? this was predicted by the theory" is not a real proof. Think of the complex machines used to demonstrate that the Sun revolved around the earth. That machine would have predicted where each planet should be, but it doesn't make the theory true (althoguh it might be a very good approximation in case you really needed to know where the planet should be).

What's wrong with quantum physics?

It all started when the charge of an electron could not be measured correctly. A drop of a liquid either have 1 extra electron or it didn't have it, which meant that the electric charge was quantified. (Is that a word?).

Then the electron orbits were quantified. How do we know? Because given a certain energy, an electron could be taken out from a material. See? We are applying concepts from the mechanical world and applying them to these small objects we can't see and we conclude that the laws of physics still apply and since each orbit has a certain energy, we know for sure that each atom has certain permited orbits. Cool!

Then the electron orbits had a probability to be quantified, but they were all over the place. This meant that although the permitted orbits were more probable, the non permitted orbits had electrons, but electrons in very low probabilities... What? I hear you say.

We started saying that electrons had a definite mass and definite charge, and now we say that the electron might be all over the place.

Do you know how fast an electron can revolve around a nucleus?

Very fast, almost as fast as 10% the speed of light. How do we know that? Because the electron is very light, but it doesn't fall into the nucleus, therefore there must be some force (the centrifugal force) stopping the electron.

This means that when you send a particle to collide to an electron, the electron might revolve several times around the nucleus, and if you measure with which electron (which orbit) it interacted, you will see several orbits at once, even if the atom had only one electron. At least that makes sense to me.

The whole point about quantum physics is that there are no smaller particles (like we have light in the macro world) so that we can see objects without touching them. We instead have to find a bus by sending another bus and making them collide. If instead of particles we talk about buses, we will see that this is not state of the art.

Gravitons and the Speed of Light

Black holes do not let light scape because the escape velocity of black holes is beyond the speed of light. Since you need infinite energy to achieve the speed of light, you simply can't escape a black hole.

But if gravity is transmitted through gravitons and supposedly those particles travel at the speed of light, black holes would not be very strong, since gravitons would not escape. Therefore gravitons do not exist and the gravity is transmitted instantly.

But what about light? What is light really?

Why does an electric current travel at the same speed?

Think of a storm and a lighting. The individual electrons travel very slowly, but the current travels at the speed of light. The magic is that the particles in the air, atom by atom, recieve an elecrton and give an electron almost at the same time, so that the lighting can travel at the speed of light.

Now think about the light. The light travels at the same speed but in a straight line. Also it is continuous rather than spasmodic, but that's because the source of energy is continuous. If you have a continuous current you would have the same effect.

What if there is a medium on the space that allows light to travel? What if there are particles we can't see but that react to light (which is very contradictory, because if what I say is true, they would be the very reason why we see).

This would explain why light behave as a particle (travel in a straight line) and as a wave (refracts when it goes through a hole).