How Radio waves destroy Einstein's photon and particle-wave duality. Quantum mechanics debunked. Quantum mechanics debunked.

Radio waves disprove the photon particle-wave duality. Quantum mechanics debunked.

Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect

March 12, 2024


In quantum mechanics, electro-magnetic waves are claimed to be particles, or photons, in a contradictory postulate which is called 'particle-wave duality'. In this theory an EM wave is equivalent to a particle, named photon, and a single photon particle is, obviously, equivalent to an EM wave.


So by equating a wave with a particle, all properties of the EM wave, such as frequency and wavelength (and no amplitude ?!), are transferred to the photon particle. The problem which obviously occurs is that in the case of radio waves their wavelength can be many kilometers long. Ergo, you end up with a photon particle that is many kilometers long.

If all EM waves are particles (aka photons), then how can a radio wave particle (photon) be several MILES long ?

Obviously, it can't, and obviously, quantum mechanics are wrong.

Which was obvious from the very beginning, since it contains an obvious contradiction, which can only be wrong.

So the particle-wave duality is a logical impossibility, as well as a physical impossibility in the case of radio waves, and therefore quantum mechanics are wrong.



Another obvious problem that arrises from this particle-wave duality is that photons do not have any amplitude, while radio waves and all waves obviously do have one (not for Einstein, or Plank, who forgot to insert it in the EM energy equation*). Because a wave with no amplitude is just a straight line, and not a wave.

In QM, the amplitude of an EM wave is given by the number of photon particles, which are waves with no amplitude ! But that would mean that a wave is not a particle, but many many particles (a clear inconsistency in the theory).  Which would all be lines, and not waves (another inconsistency). So in contrast to the point particles of classical physics, in quantum physics they would be line particles, and not wave particles. And, no matter how many such line particles there are, they would still form a line with no amplitude, and not a wave with amplitude.   

 

And if a radio wave has amplitude, and it obviously has one, because radio data is transmitted by varying the amplitude of radio waves, then why doesnt the equivalated radio photon particle have an amplitude ? And how does it wave, if it has no amplitude, and it’s just a line particle ?

Obviously, it can’t, and obviously, quantum mechanics are double wrong. Or quadruple wrong. Quadruple wrong mechanics.

 

 

 * Plank claimed that EM wave has energy E=hf, which is not proportional with amplitude, which is wrong since the energy of a wave is proportional to it’s amplitude squared, and a wave with no amplitude has no energy because it’s not a wave, but a straight line. 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when...
Read more

Refractional redshift completely disproves General Relativity & Big Bang theory

Image
  An introduction to Refractional redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift Marius L. Vasile - absolute skeptic    ' Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches)' -Wikipedia ' Astronomers don't know anything '- Vasilepedia In this paper I will prove that refraction  causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction ...
Read more

Shapiro time delay is caused by refraction. Gravitational time dilation does not exist.

' The  Shapiro time delay  effect, or  gravitational time delay  effect, is one of the four classic Solar System  tests of general relativity .  Radar  signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present.  The time delay is caused by  time dilation , which increases the time it takes light to travel a given distance from the perspective of an outside observer. [...] ' Throughout this article discussing the time delay, Shapiro uses  c  as the speed of light  and calculates the time delay of the passage of light waves or rays over finite coordinate distance according to a  Schwarzschild solution  to the  Einstein field equations .'-  Wikipedia And, just like Pound and Rebka, completely ignores refraction. Which makes his whole calculation wrong, because he does not understand basic physics, ...
Read more