The Electrogravital Theory IV

Let us consider, for example, the hydrogen atom.
According to the EGT, its nucleus (i.e. the proton), due to its positive charge, attracts Ether’s negative electrins and repels the positive ones.
Conversely, an electron rotating around its nucleus at a radius r, due to its negative charge, attracts Ether’s positive electrins and repels the negative ones.
Thus, in the environment of the hydrogen atom a “disturbance” in Ether’s positive and negative electrins occurs, and the rotating electron behaves like a “circular electric string” of radius r, whereon stationary Ether waves are formed (Etheric waves) of wavelength λ. For these Etheric waves the following relation applies:

2πr = n · λ (1)

where n = 1, 2, 3, …
In the case of these stationary Ether waves (Etheric waves), which are formed on the circular orbit of the rotating electron, the crests are electrins of the Ether which oscillate with the minimum oscillation amplitude and the troughs are electrins of the Ether oscillating with the maximum oscillation amplitude.
Therefore, in this case, the rotating electron moves only in specific circular orbits of radius r, which are given by relation (1).
Consequently, in the case of the hydrogen atom mentioned above, the stationary material waves –which Wave Mechanics accepts– are nothing more but stationary Etheric waves that are created on the circular orbit of the rotating electron. Consequently, after everything referred to above, we come to the following conclusion: :

Conclusion

In the case of electrons rotating around atomic nuclei:

a. The stationary material waves, formed on the electron’s orbits (as Wave Mechanics accepts) are stationary Ether waves (Etheric waves).

b. The “matter – wave” duality, which Wave Mechanics accepts in the case of these rotating electrons, does not exist in nature.

c. Every material body (such as the rotating electrons in question) never exhibits matter and wave properties (as Wave Mechanics erroneously asserts) for the following reason:

According to the EGT, every material body has only particle properties, and never wave properties.

EXPERIMENTAL PROOF

The question that reasonably results is the following:

QUESTION: How can it be for Wave Mechanics to be incorrect, when it has been “established” as accurate through a series of experiments, such as the Davisson – Germer experiment, the experiment of two slots, etc?

The answer to this question is provided below:

According to the EGT, in order to prove that Wave Mechanics is a totally erroneous theory of Physics, we need to carry out the following simple, yet very important, experiment.

The “FOURFOLD EXPERIMENT” OF THE EGT

The “fourfold experiment” of the EGT is conducted in four phases, as follows:

PHASE Ι: With electromagnetic waves.
PHASE ΙΙ: With neutrons.
PHASE ΙΙΙ: With protons.
PHASE ΙV: With electrons.

1. Conducting the experiment with electromagnetic waves.

Let us assume that (Fig. 1) there is a source S (transmitter), emitting electromagnetic waves (microwaves) of wavelength λ:

λ = 0,001 cm

Let there be a slit d of width:

d = 10 · λ
d = 0,1 mm

In this case, these electromagnetic waves of length λ = 0,001 cm that pass through the slit of width d = 0,1 mm will diffract and will give us, on screen Β, a distribution curve Ε₁ with maxima (max)_{i ,} (i=1,2,3,…) and minima (min)_j, (j=1,2,3,…).
Τhe maxima (max)_i and minima (min)_j are detected by means of a detector D (receiver), moving on the barrier Β.

fig. 1

a. As it is well-known, the maxima (max)_{i ,} (i=1,2,3,…) are given by the following formula:

By substituting in formula (2) the values d = 0,01 cm, λ = 0,001 cm and k = 1, 2, 3, …, we obtain respectively the following diffraction angles:

Note: Apparently, for the central maximum (max)_o we have an angle:

b. Moreover, the minima (min)_j, (j=1,2,3,…) are given by the following formula:

By substituting now in formula (4) the values d = 0,01 cm, λ = 0,001 cm and j = 1, 2, 3,…, we obtain respectively the following diffraction angles:

Consequently, after everything described above, we observe that when the radiation of microwaves λ = 0,001 cm passes through the slit of width d = 0,1 mm, it diffracts, giving us on screen Β the following:

1. Τhe central maximum (max)_o with a diffraction angle given by relation (3)
2. Maxima (max)_{1 ,} (max)_2, (max)_3, … with diffraction angles given by relations (Α).
3. Minima (min)_1, (min)_2, (min)_3,… with diffraction angles given by relations (Β).

2. Conducting the experiment with neutrons

As it is well-known, according to Wave Mechanics, a body of mass m, when moving at a velocity V, is equivalent to a material wave whose wavelength λ is given by the L. de Broglie equation:

where h is Planck’s constant.
Let us now assume that there is a neutron m_n. As it is well-known, the mass m_n of this neutron is:

Consequently, (by Wave Mechanics) if we want a moving neutron to be equivalent to a material wave with wavelength λ = 0,001 cm (i.e. equal to the wavelength of the microwaves of case (1) described above), then according to relation (5) this neutron should move at a velocity:

Thus, in this case, through the experimental apparatus of Fig. 1, we emit from source S slow neutrons moving at a velocity V = 3,95 cm/sec and passing through the slit of width d = 0,1 mm.

Now, the question that is being raised is the following:

QUESTION: According to Wave mechanics, will these slow neutrons that are being emitted by source S at a velocity V = 3,95 cm/sec, diffract when passing through the slit of width d = 0,1 mm, giving us on screen Β a distribution curve Ε₂, which is identical to the distribution curve Ε₁ of the electromagnetic waves referred to in case (1)?
In other words, will the maxima (max)_i and minima (min)_j on curve Ε₂of theneutronscoincide, respectively, with the maxima (max)_i and minima (min)_j on curve Ε₁ of the electromagnetic waves, Fig. 1, as given by relations (3), (Α) and (Β);
The answer to this question is NO on account of the following:
By the EGT, matter has only particle and never wave-particle properties (as Wave Mechanics wrongly asserts), thus, the above slow neutrons moving at velocity V = 3,95 cm/sec, when passing through the slit d = 0,1 mm will gather at point (area) M, without diffracting, according to relations (3), (Α) and (Β), as Wave mechanics holds.

3. Conducting the experiment with protons.

As it is well-known, mass m_p of a proton is almost equal to a neutron’s mass m_n, (m_p= m_n).
In this case, we emit slow protons from source S (Fig. 1) at a velocity V = 3,95 cm/sec (equal to the neutron’s velocity referred to in case (1)). If these slow neutrons pass through the slit of width d = 0,1 mm, will they diffract and give us on screen Β a distribution curve Ε₃ identical to the electromagnetic waves’ curve Ε₁ and to the neutrons’ curve Ε₂, according to the above relations (3), (Α) and (Β)?
The answer to this question is NO, that is, the exact same one given earlier in the case of the neutrons.

4. Conducting the experiment with electrons.

As it is well-known, mass m_e of an electron is:

Therefore, (according to Wave mechanics), if we want a moving electron to be equivalent to a material wave of wavelength λ = 0,001 cm (i.e., equal to the wavelength of the microwaves in case (1)), then on the basis of relation (5) this electron should move at the following velocity:

Thus, in this case, by means of the experimental apparatus of Fig. 1, we emit from source S electrons at a velocity V = 7273 cm/sec, passing through the slit of width d = 0,1 mm. Now the following question is being raised:

QUESTION: According to Wave mechanics, will the above electrons that are being emitted by source S at a velocity V = 7273 cm/sec diffract when passing through the slit of width d = 0,1 mm, giving us on screen Β a distribution curve Ε₄ identical to the microwave’s distribution curve Ε₁ of case (1)?
The answer to this question is NO, that is, the exact same one given earlier in the case of the electromagnetic waves, the neutrons and protons.

After everything discussed above, we come to the following basic conclusion:

Conclusion

In order for Wave Mechanics to be an accurate Theory of Physics, then during the performance of the EGT’s “fourfold experiment” (as the latter is described above), the distribution curves Ε₁, Ε₂, Ε₃, Ε₄ of the electromagnetic waves, the neutrons, protons and electrons must all be equal to one another, that is:

while each distribution curve Ε1, Ε2, Ε3, Ε4 should yield the same diffraction angles, as the latter are given by relations (3), (Α) and (Β).

However, by the EGT, matter has only particle and never wave-particle properties (as Wave Mechanics wrongly asserts); consequently, if EGT’s “fourfold experiment” is carried out, its results will prove that Wave Mechanics is an utterly erroneous Theory of Physics.

THE ELECTRON EXPERIMENT
(Experiment e – 72 – 1 )

The “fourfold experiment” of the EGT mentioned earlier can be also carried out in one phase only (experiment e – 72 - 1), namely, with electrons moving at a velocity V = 72,73 cm/sec and passing through a slit of width d = 1 cm!!!
In this case, based on law (5) of L. de Broglie is λ = 0,1 cm and therefore d = 10 λ.
Moreover, according to Wave Mechanics, in the case of experiment e – 72 -1 the outcome of the electrons’ diffraction will be the exact same one (as shown in curve Ε₄ of Fig. 1), since the ratio is the same in both these cases, i.e.:

a. , (λ = 0,001 and d = 0,01, relations (2) and (4)), and

b. (λ = 0,1 and d = 1, according to experiment e –72 -1).

Consequently, the following question is being raised:
In experiment e –72 - 1, will the electrons that move at a velocity V = 72,73 cm/sec diffract when passing through the slit of width d = 1 cm!!!, as Wave Mechanics asserts?
According to the EGT, the answer to this question is definitely NO! Under no circumstances will the electrons in experiment e – 72 - 1 diffract!
Experiment e –72 -1 is easy to conduct and involves a very low cost.
The performance of experiment e –72 -1 will prove once and for all whether Wave Mechanics (and thus Quantum Mechanics) are two accurate or wrong Theories of Physics.
Experiment e – 72 - 1 is one of the most simple and important experiments that have been recommended so far in the history of Physics. Perhaps it can be considered as the most important experiment of the last 100 years!
Why then is this simple and significant experiment not being carried out so that it can be established whether Wave Mechanics (and thus Quantum Mechanics) are two accurate or wrong Theories of Physics?

Note: e – 72 –1 , as symbolism, denotes electrons moving at a velocity v = 72 cm/sec and passing though a slit of width d = 1 cm.

THE TWO-SLIT EXPERIMENT WITH ELECTRONS
(Experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2)

The two-slit experiment with electrons (Experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2) is described below:

Electrons moving at a velocity V = 727 cm/sec (that is, λ = 0,01 cm according to L. de Broglie law), pass through two slits S₁ and S₂ of width d = 10λ, namely d = 0,1 cm (d = 1 mm).
Slits S₁and S₂, lie at a distance b = 2 cm from one another, (Fig. 1.1).

Fig. 1.1

Thus, in this case, (if Quantum Mechanics truly applies) the electrons passing through the two slits S₁andS₂should form on screen S bright fringes (electron concentration) and dark fringes (zero electron concentration), Fig. 1.1.
Also, according to what we already know, Επίσης, distance f between two successive bright or dark fringes is stable and equals:

Therefore, experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2, given that λ = 0,01 cm and b = 2 cm, assuming that e.g. L = 100 cm, then the distance f based on relation (a) will be:

The following question is being raised:
In experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 (Fig. 1.1) the electrons passing through the two slits S₁and S₂will cause bright and dark fringes to form on screen S; will these fringes lie at a stable distance f = 0,5 cm from one another, as Wave Mechanics asserts?
According to the Electrogravitational Theory the answer to the above question is NO!
In other words:
The electrons passing through the two slits S₁and S₂will fall directly onto screen S, without ever forming bright and dark fringes, as Wave Mechanics sates (Fig. 1.1).
Experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 is a simple and low-cost experiment to conduct.
Consequently, the results of experiment DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2 will allow us to establish once and for all whether Wave Mechanics (and thus Quantum Mechanics) are two accurate of wrong Theories of Physics.
Why then isn’t this simple yet important experiment (DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2) carried out, so as to know which of the two theories is accurate, Quantum Mechanics or the Electrogravitational Theory?

Note: Symbolism “DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2” denotes “two-slit experiment with electrons moving at a velocity V = 727 cm/sec and passing through two slits S₁and S₂of width d = 0,1 cm (d = 1 mm), lying at a distance b = 2 cm apart”.

EXPERIMENT e – 1111

As it is well-known, according to L. de Broglie law:

An electron, in order to have a wavelength λ = 6500 (i.e. equal to the wavelength of the red monochromatic light), should move at a velocity:

Thus, on the basis of values (c) here above, the velocity v at which the electron should move is:

Let us assume now (Fig. 1.2) that there are two extremely smooth plates Μ₁ and Μ₂ (metal, glass plates, etc) which we bring into contact.
Plates Μ₁ and Μ₂ are sufficiently thick so as not to be penetrated by electrons being emitted by source S.

Fig. 1.2

Also, let us assume that the gap d (the slit) between the two plates Μ₁ and Μ₂ is:

Note: The slit’s width d=6^.10^-4 cm is checked by means of Lasser rays and is measured with the aid of a microscope, as well as by other methods.
Moreover, with the help of modern technology we can create a slit between two plates of width less than 6^.10^-4 cm.
Therefore:

After everything referred to above, experiment e – 1111 (Fig. 1.3) is carried out as follows:
We cause monochromatic electrons to be emitted from a source S at a velocity v = 111.905 cm/sec, (v = 1.119 m/sec), according to relation (d).

Fig. 1.3

These electrons, when passing through slit d separating the two plates Μ₁ and Μ₂ (always according to Quantum Mechanics) should diffract and produce on screen S₀ light and dark fringes (light fringes = electron concentration, and dark fringes = zero electron concentration), where Κ₀ is the central light fringe.

1. As it is well-known, dark fringes Β₁, Β₂, Β₃,… are given by the following relation:

where k = 1, 2, 3,…

Therefore, for the first (k = 1) dark fringe Β₁, from relation (g), we obtain:

Similarly, for the second (k=2) dark fringe Β₂ from relation (g), we obtain:

and so forth for the remaining dark fringes Β₃, Β₄, Β₅,… (k = 3, 4, 5,…).

2. Similarly, light fringes W₁, W₂, W₃,… are given by the following relation:

where m = 1, 2, 3,…

Consequently, for the first (m = 1) light fringe W₁ from relation (h), we obtain:

Furthermore, for the second (m = 2) light fringe W₂ from relation (h), we obtain:

and so forth for the remaining light fringes W₃, W₄, W₅,… (m = 3, 4, 5,…).

The critical question that is being raised is the following:
During the conduct of experiment e – 1111 (Fig. 1.3), will the electrons that are emitted from source S diffract and will they produce on screen S₀ dark fringes Β₁, Β₂,… with diffraction angles α₁=6^ο,22’, α²=12^ο,51’ ,… and light fringes W₁, W₂,… with diffraction angles b₁=9^o,35’, b₂=15^o,71’ , …, as Quantum Mechanics holds?
According to the EGT, the answer to the above question is NO.
More specifically, the electrons that are emitted from source S will pass through slit d and will all reach point K₀, without diffracting at all!!!

At this point, we should stress that in our (Fig. 1.3), if source S emits red monochromatic light of wavelength λ = 6.500 (as mentioned above, relation σχέση (b)), then apparently this light will diffract and will produce dark fringes Β₁, Β₂,… (α₁=6^ο,22’, α²=12^ο,51’ ,…) and light fringes W₁, W₂,… (b₁=9^o,35’, b₂=15^o,71’ , …).
As it can be understood, experiment e – 1111 is if major importance for Physics.
Moreover, this experiment is easy to perform and has a low cost.
Consequently, the performance of experiment e – 1111 will prove once and for all whether Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics are two accurate or erroneous Theories of Physics.
Why, therefore, isn’t this simple experiment (e – 1111) carried out?

Note: The symbolism e – 1111 stands for “(one-slit) electron diffraction experiment, where electrons are moving at a velocity v = 1.111 m/sec (that is, a velocity equal to the one given by relation (d.1)).

EXPERIMENT e – T – 1

Let us assume (Fig. 1.4) there are two thin plates Α and Β (metal, glass plates, etc) which are not penetrated by electrons of moderate or high kinetic energy or that these electrons are reflected when they fall onto these plates.
On these two plates Α and Β, we built respectively two identical windows (slits) d₁ and d₂ of dimensions e.g.:

d₁=d₂= 3 mmx 30 mm

Fig. (1.4)

We now bring the two plates Α and Β into contact, so as to have a common slit d created, whose dimensions are d = 3 mm x 30 mm, (i.e. the two slits d₁ and d₂coincide ), (Fig. 1.5a).

Fig. 1.5 (a)

Plate Α remains at all times steady, while on the contrary plate Β (always adjoining plate Α) moves at a very low velocity, e.g. v_ο = 1 mm/sec, thus closing completely the window (slit) d of plate Α after a time t > 3 sec (Fig. 1.5b).

Fig. 1.5 (b)

Experiment e – T – 1 is carried out as follows:
Let us assume (Fig. 1.6) that we have two sides Α and Β forming the common slit d.

We cause monochromatic electrons to be constantly emitted from a source S; these electrons move at a moderate or high velocity e.g.:

v = 10⁶ cm/sec, namely:

v = 10 km/sec.

Given that, at this phase, slit d is big enough (d = 3 mm), these electrons, when passing through slit d, will obviously not diffract and will fall directly onto screen S₀, at a width d₀ = 3 mm.
While source S continues emitting electrons, we slowly begin to close the window (slit) d, moving plate B at a very low velocity v₀ = 1 mm/sec for a time t > 3 sec, (Fig. 1.7).

Fig. 1.7

According to the L. de Broglie law, these moving electrons will have a wavelength λ, namely:

Therefore, during the movement of plate Β, the common slit d between the two plates Α and Β will start to become more and more short, and once the slit’s width equals:

then the electrons which are emitted from source S (according to what Wave Mechanics asserts) should diffract and produce on screen S₀ dark and light fringes.
By continuing to reduce the slit’s width d, other dark and light fringes will be generated on screen S₀, in different places than those of the previous fringes, since the slit’s width d is not constant but changing, and diminishes constantly.
Consequently, after a time t > 3 sec, when the window (slit) d is completely closed, then part of the electrons that were emitted from source S should diffract on screen S₀, and an electron scattering should occur at a width D, (Fig.1.7) (as Wave Mechanics holds).
The question that is being raised is the following:
During the performance of experiment e – T – 1, will a part of electrons that are constantly emitted from source S and pass through a slit of an ever diminishing width d, from d = 3 mm to d = 0 mm, scatter on screen S₀(Fig. 1.7), as Wave Mechanics asserts?
The answer to the above question is NO. More concretely, during the conduct of experiment e – T – 1, (according to the EGT) there will be absolutely no electron diffraction (scattering) on screen S₀.
As it can be observed, experiment e – T – 1 is of great importance to Physics since it will help prove that matter does not have any wave properties but only particle ones. Experiment e – T – 1 is a simple, low-cost experiment.
Why then is it not carried out?
Note: Experiment e – T – 1 introduces an innovation in the field of electron diffraction experiments.
More specifically, whereas to this day, in experiments such as the single and double-slit experiment, the Davisson – Germer experiment, etc, the slit’s width d has been constant, in experiment e – T – 1 the slit’s width d is changing (diminishes) with time; for this reason, experiment e – T – 1 will be referred to as “electron diffraction experiment, of a variable slit width”.

EXPERIMENT e – T – 2

Experiment e – T – 2, (Fig. 1.8) is an electron interference experiment. For the purposes of this experiment, the “Fresnel mirrors”.

Fig. 1.8

The data of experiment e – T – 2, are given below:

1. Source S emits monochromatic electrons moving at a velocity

On the basis of the L. de Broglie law, these electrons have a wavelength:

2. Angle α of the two mirrors is:

α = 0,04^ο

3. Distance R is:

R = 0,5 m

4. Distance d is:

d = 2 m

The electrons that are emitted from source S, after being reflected on the two mirrors M₁ and M₂, interfere on screen S₀ thus forming light and dark fringes, where P₀ is the central light fringe.
As it is well-known, the distance Δy between two successive fringes is:

By substituting the above values in relation (i), we obtain:

The question that is being raised is the following:
In experiment e – T – 2, will the electrons that are emitted from source S at a velocity v = 1.119 m/sec cause dark and light fringes to be formed on screen S₀, where the distance between two successive fringes is Δy = 2,34 mm, as Quantum Mechanics asserts?
The answer to this question is NO.

Experiment e – T – 2 will demonstrate (once more) that matter has only particle properties and never wave properties, as Quantum Mechanics wrongly holds.
Experiment e – T – 2, is easily conducted and of low cost.
Why then isn’t this important Physics experiment carried out?
Note: In experiment e – T – 1 mentioned above, we used the “Fresnel mirrors”.

Following the same rational, we can use the “Lloyd mirror” (Fig. 1.9) instead of the “Fresnel mirrors” (Fig. 1.8), in order to prove that matter has only particle properties and never wave ones.

Fig. 1.9

NOTABLE REMARK

As it can be observed from the five experiments referred to above, namely:

Α. The “fourfold experiment” (with electrons)
Β. The single-slit experiment (e – 72 – 1)
C. The double-slit experiment (DS – e – 727 – 0,1 – 2),
D. Experiment e – 1111,
Ε. Experiment e – T – 1
F. Experiment e – T – 2

In experiments (Α), (Β), (C), (D), (F) low energy electron are used.
These electrons can be easily obtained from:

1. A heated metal.
2. A photocell.
3. A conductor through which electric current flows.
(As it is well-known, in this case, the conductor’s free electrons move at very low speeds, e.g. v = 1 cm/sec).
4. An ionized gas.
5. Various other cases (e.g. electron detachment from metal points, etc).
6. From high speed electrons which with the use of proper electric fields are decelerated at low speeds, even at v = 0.
7. From high speed electrons which when passing through various materials (e.g. water, paraffin, metals, etc) are decelerated at low speeds, even at v = 0.
8. On the contrary, in experiment e – T – 1 the electrons that are used are of moderate or high energy and can be obtained:
   a. From a radioactive source.
   b. From electron accelerators (betatron).
   c. From electrons which are accelerated with the use of electric fields, etc.

“PURE DIFFRACTION EXPERIMENTS” (P.D.E.)

The above-mentioned six experiments (Α), (Β), (C), (D), (Ε), (F) will be referred to as “pure diffraction experiments (P.D.E.), since the electrons that are emitted from their source do not pass through a crystal until they reach the screen, as is the case for example in the Davisson – Germer experiment.
This fact is of major importance because it is the crystal that deceives us and thus we are led to erroneously interpret the results of the Davisson – Germer experiment, and of various other crystal-involving experiments, as well.
The “pure diffraction experiments” (P.D.E.) are particularly important to Physics and play a major role in the experimental checking of Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics that will allow us to prove whether matter has wave properties or not.
After everything discussed above, the following basic conclusion can be drawn:

CONCLUSION

In order to verify whether Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics are two accurate or erroneous Theories of Physics, their experimental checking should be conducted only through “pure diffraction experiments” (P.D.E.), such as the above-mentioned six experiments (Α), (Β), (C), (D), (Ε), (F). In no case whatsoever should this checking take place by means of non “pure diffraction experiments” (i.e. experiments involving the use of crystals), such as the Davisson – Germer experiment, etc.
Crystals must be totally absent from our experiments. Reiteration: CRYSTALS MUST BE TOTALLY ABSENT FROM OUR EXPERIMENTS.
This signifies that:
For the experimental checking of Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics Bragg’s law must never be employed.
In other words, in our experiments, the electrons that are emitted from their source should reach the screen without interference from any crystal during their course.
Unfortunately, no “pure diffraction experiments” (P.D.E.) have been carried out so far in order to have Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics experimentally verified, which is a major omission for modern Physics.
Let us hope that such experiments (P.D.E.) will be conducted soon.
It is imperative that the above experiments be carried out so that we can establish if Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics are two accurate or erroneous Theories of Physics.

RECAPITULATION TABLE

WAVE MECHANICS, QUANTUM MECHANICS AND EGT

According to the EGT, the following laws apply:

LAW Ι: A body of mass m and electric charge , moving on a circular orbit of radius r and at a constant velocity V , generates on its circular orbit stationary Ether waves (Etheric waves) of wavelength λ, for which the following relation applies:

where q^o is the absolute value of the electrin’s electric charge (positive or negative).
Note: The absolute value q^o of the positive or negative electrin, is equal to the absolute value e of the electron’s electric charge, that is, q^o=e=1,6^.10^-19Cb.

q is the absolute price of the electric charge of the rotating body, and
h is Planck’s constant.

The formulation of this law is the outcome of the following physical cause:
This electrically charged body of mass m and electric charge , moving in a circular orbit of radius r at a constant velocity V, attracts the heteronymic and repels the homonymic electrins of Ether.
As a result of this, this rotating body functions like an “electric string” with stationary Ether waves (Etheric waves) being formed on its circular orbit.
Moreover, as it can be observed, the law expressed by relation (18) (which applies for circular orbits), is a quantitative –and not a qualitative– generalization of the corresponding L. de Broglie law:

The difference between the L. de Broglie law (11) and the law of the EGT (10) lies in the following:

a. The L. de Broglie law (11) applies only to the microcosm for circular orbits (e.g. of rotating electrons of atomic nuclei), while it does not apply to the macrocosm for the circular orbits of electrically charged bodies bearing an electric charge , as is the case with the law of the EGT (10).
b. The L. de Broglie law (11) is independent of the electric charge of the rotating body, while on the contrary the law of the EGT (10) is a function of the electric charge of this rotating body.

Thus, in the case of the hydrogen atom, for instance, because for the electron rotating around the hydrogen’s atomic nucleus

Therefore, on the basis of relations (12) and (10) , the de Broglie law (11) and the law of the EGT (10) coincide, yielding the same quantitative results.

After everything analyzed above, the great error of Wave Mechanics lies in the following:
In the case of e.g. the hydrogen atom, it qualitatively identifies the stationary Ether waves (Etheric waves) formed on the circular orbit of the rotating electron with the stationary material waves, failing of course to specify both the nature of these material waves and the physical cause responsible for their formation.
Because, according to the EGT, the electron that rotates, for instance, around the hydrogen’s atomic nucleus exhibits exclusively particle properties and never wave properties, as Wave Mechanics wrongly asserts.

LAW ΙΙ: A body of mass m and electric charge , moving on a circular orbit of radius r and at a constant velocity V, generates on its circular orbit stationary Ether waves (Etheric waves) of wavelength λ for which the following relation applies:

where n = 1, 2, 3, …

From the combination of relations (13) and (10), it results that:

Therefore, after everything stated above, it transpires that:
LAW ΙΙI: A body of mass m and an electric charge , moving on a circular orbit of a radius r and at a constant velocity v, has an angular momentum mvr which is a quantized dimension, namely:

After the formulation of the above three laws, we are led to the following conclusion:

Conclusion

The laws of the EGT are more generalized than the corresponding laws of classical Wave Mechanics for the reasons given below:
a. In the case of closed orbits, the laws of the EGT take into account also the electric charge of the moving body which causes the formation of the stationary Ether waves (Etheric waves), which Wave mechanics (choosing to ignore the existence of Ether) terms “stationary material waves”.
b. In the case of electrons rotating around atomic nuclei, and because according to relation (12),

relations (10) and (15) of the EGT coincide in terms of quantity (not of quality) with the corresponding relations of classical Wave mechanics (and Quantum Mechanics).

NOTABLE REMARK

Apparently, the above three laws do not apply only when the body moves on a circular orbit of radius r and at a constant velocity v.
These three laws equally apply when the body follows any closed orbit, e.g. an ellipse, etc.

MACRO-QUANTUM MECHANICS
THE QUANTIZATION EFFECT IN MACROCOSM

Let us assume (Fig. 2) that inside the magnetic field Β of an accelerator Α there is a body of mass m and electric charge (e.g. a proton) which moves on a circular orbit of radius r at a constant velocity v.

fig. 2

As it is well known, in this case, during this body’s motion, the centrifugal force F will be equal to the Laplace force F΄, (F = F΄), namely:

where Β is the intensity of the accelerator’s magnetic field. Thus, from relations (13) and (10) it results that

Now, by solving the system of equations (16) and (17) relative to v and r, we obtain:

Where h₀ is a constant that we will call electrogravitational quantum constant, which is equal to:

From relations (18) it can be observed that the body’s velocity v and radius r are quantized dimensions which may have only specific values, that is, those corresponding to numbers n = 1, 2, 3, …

Also, from relation (16) we obtain:

Yet, because the body’s kinetic energy Κ is:

then, relations (21), (20) and (18) yield:

As it can be observed in relation (22) the body’s kinetic energy is a quantized dimension, that may have specific values corresponding to numbers n = 1, 2, 3,…
After everything analyzed above, the following conclusion can be drawn:

Conclusion

In the case of any body of mass m and electric charge , moving on a circular orbit of radius r and with a constant velocity v, its kinetic energy Κ, its velocity v and the radius r of its orbit are quantized dimensions; the latter, i.e. Κ, r and v, may have only specific values, such as these are given by relations (22) and (18).

EMISSION AND ABSORPTION OF RADIATION OUTSIDE THE ATOM

After everything discussed above, the following can be observed:

1. In the example of Fig. 2 , when a body (or a particle), due to an external cause, shifts from a certain energy level Κ₁ to a greater energy level Κ₂, Κ₂ > Κ₁, then it will absorb a quantum of energy hv, of frequency v, namely:

2. Reversely, if the body (or particle) shifts from an energy level Κ₁ to a lower energy level Κ₂, Κ₂ < Κ₁ , then it will emit a quantum of energy hv, of frequency v, namely:

Consequently, if the influence of the external cause occurs in time dt and then ceases, e.g. an increase in the intensity Β of the magnetic field from a value Β₁ to Β₂, Β₂ > Β₁ and then return of value Β₂ back the to the initial value Β₁ , (in time dt), then this body or particle will absorb and emit energy in quanta, on the basis of the foregoing.

This phenomenon of energy absorption and emission in quanta can be observed in the case e.g. of a proton moving inside an accelerator on a circular orbit r and with a constant velocity v, when we change the value of the magnetic field from Β₁ to Β₂ in time dt.

Consequently, the following conclusion is drawn:

Conclusion

In the same way that radiation is absorbed and emitted in quanta in the microcosm (e.g. in the atom), it (as well as every form of energy in general) is also absorbed and emitted in quanta in the macrocosm (e.g. inside an accelerator). Therefore, the quantization of various physical dimensions is not an exclusive property of the microcosm but is also observed in the macrocosm.
The exploration of the above phenomena leads to a new branch of Physics that we will call Macro-Quantum Mechanics (MQM).

RECAPITULATION

1. The wave-matter duality does not exist in nature, as Wave Mechanics and thus Quantum Mechanics wrongly assert.
Matter has only particle properties, never wave ones. The so-called “Wave” properties of matter (as Wave Mechanics wrongly asserts) are nothing more but Wave properties of the Ether, when the latter interacts with the body’s hylions.

2. Given the fact that matter has only particle properties and never wave properties, and because all phenomena in nature are governed by the cause-and-effect relationship, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in Quantum Mechanics is an totally erroneous principle of Physics.

More specifically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle should be reformulated as a simple mathematical relation of Statics (Theory of errors) based on the following:

The absolute cause-and-effect relationship that exists in nature, and
The absolute particle properties of matter which, according to the EGT, never exhibits wave-particle properties.

3. According to the EGT, the new revised Wave Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics should be predicated upon the following:

The absolute cause-and-effect relationships that exists in nature, and
The postulates, laws and conclusions of the EGT, as the latter have been analyzed in earlier chapter.

EPILOGUE

According to the EGT, matter has only particle properties and never wave-like ones, as modern Physics wrongly asserts. Nature is utterly governed by cause-and effect laws. The L. de Broglie law is totally wrong.
Consequently, since the L. de Broglie law is utterly wrong so will the postulates of Quantum Mechanics be. The experimental checking of Quantum Mechanics should take place only by means of “pure diffraction experiments” (P.D.E.).
If the latter is not put into practice, we will continue being on the “wrong track” (as we are at present) and have an erroneous perception of the physical reality.
Quantum Mechanics is a major fallacy for modern Physics and unfortunately it has lasted too many years.
In a nutshell, Quantum Mechanics is a pseudo-physics which does not reflect at all the physical reality.
Finally, present-day Quantum Mechanics should be revised, while the “New Quantum Mechanics” that will be spawned should be based on the postulates and laws of the EGT, as discussed in previous chapters.