Brick by Brick

 In my latest paper, Spin Quantization in a Classical Model, I show another instance where quantum properties, in this case the two values of spin in a magnetic field, can arise from an underlying classical universe.  This contrasts with the popular view that classical physics has been thoroughly tried and found wanting experimentally, so we shouldn't waste our time on Newton's Laws and Maxwell's Equations which give us our whole modern technological society.  Instead we should consider only the rigorously verified theory that Schrodinger's cat is alive and dead at the same time, that electrons are spin-up and spin-down at the same time (as if a basketball could rotate clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time), and similar rubbish.

The rhetorical supports for Quantum Mechanics are going to have to be debunked one by one so sensible people do not have to begin the debate by explaining "Why are you against science?"  Randell Mills has struck a great blow by giving an electron model in which the electron does not have to (and in fact can't) spiral into the nucleus.  All he had to do was give it a shape like every other thing in nature.  In comparison, the quantum assumption of a point particle with no extent (yet also having a chance to be anywhere) looks simplistic - even foolish.  Of course your point particle had to spread its probability everywhere.  That's the math and the universe trying to tell you it has a size and shape like every other natural object!

The basis for the point particle assumption seems to be akin to the "infinite distance to the fixed stars", a flat earth, or a plane wave.  They are plausible simplifications that may make math or concepts easier to deal with: is something big? Say it is infinite and you don't have to worry about how big.  Is it nearly flat near you? Say it is perfectly flat everywhere and it's easier to describe.  Is it way smaller than you can see or measure?  Say it is a mathematical point.  This kind of estimation is not always and everywhere a mistake, but there are clearly boundaries where it breaks down.  The flat earth model breaks down when you go into orbit.  Photons from a truly infinitely far away star would never reach you.  And point electrons can't stably orbit a nucleus.  But, wonder of wonders, this pathology of their oversimplified model became evidence for the falsehood of classical physics.  

Classical physics plus a point electron produces unstable atoms.  So what do we reject, an unfounded assumption that the electron is a point, or the classical physics that powers the continuing technological revolution?  The physics has to go!  Long live the point!  Meanwhile when their own theory produces contradictions, it is a sign of sophistication, entering into nature's inmost secrets.  Nice trick: Your theory plus point electrons produces contradictions, so your theory is false.  My theory plus point electrons produces contradictions, so Nature actually has these contradictions in it!  Hand over the Nobel!