Author’s warning, this chapter may be shocking for the faint of heart.
Why? Why did this theory actually arise? As a chemist, I have some idea of the behavior of atoms and molecules. And quantum theory didn’t really fit into that idea. But the main trigger was the increasingly incredible published scientific articles and theories about the universe, etc., based on quantum theory. Sometimes I thought to myself that no one could possibly be serious about this. After all, quantum theory can’t even properly explain the behavior of matter on Earth, let alone explain it in the universe under extreme conditions. The very idea that matter does not change its behavior under any conditions seemed unrealistic. Quantum theory is not very capable of changing the behavior of matter, precisely because it is based on probability and it does not change. When Einstein was thinking about the theory of relativity, he was certainly aware that the behavior of matter changes with gravity (and speed). But the theory at the time did not allow for the behavior of matter to change. So, if he could not relativize the behavior of matter, he had to relativize time. And so the first time-space bending happened. Although it is not stated in my theory, the more thoughtful ones have certainly realized that I do not need any theory of relativity in question of gravity, because this theory can relativize the behavior of matter. For example, by the fact that higher gravitation slows down the pulsation of a particle. From the perspective of this particle, it really seems as if time has slowed down. So one day I decided to try to come up with a completely new theory using today’s knowledge. It wasn’t easy at all not to be influenced by everything that schools taught me. Those learned ideas constantly led me to bad solutions. I immediately verified every new solution against known facts. And I often went back and invented again and again until I was satisfied. When I found a mechanism for how particles could communicate with each other, I started building my first atom models. It was all just in my imagination for now. I immediately started to confront these ideas with my knowledge or the data on Wikipedia. Although I had to slightly correct my ideas a few times, they basically corresponded to the facts. Sometimes I was surprised myself by how close the agreement was. So as I gradually developed my theory. I had to think about quantum theory. Where in the history of science did it go wrong? Suddenly I began to realize what was wrong with quantum theory.
Today, quantum theory seems to me like absolute science fiction. The more I think about it, the more it seems like science fiction. There are several indications that quantum theory is not real, and yet it has persisted in science for about 100 years. Quantum theory is based, among other things, on the probability of a phenomenon. We can see two main types of processes in the universe: one is a random event, and the other is a completely precise procedure. If we stick to proton-electron systems, the electron’s motion around the proton is assumed to be “random”. Or rather, not completely random. The decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron is a completely precise process. The proton and electron have their absolutely exact masses, there is no dispersion. Why would nature, after such a perfectly precise process, switch to a completely random process? Even in this theory, the electron has a certain degree of freedom, however, it is still connected to its proton and cannot move completely freely as it pleases. It is in the transition from a precise procedure to a random process that I see one of the weaknesses of quantum theory. Another mistake is the introduction of static charge. Not only is the physical nature of the charge not explained, but it is also not explained how information about the charge spreads through space or the mechanism of interaction between positive and negative charges. If a static, process-explaining parameter is introduced, the entire subsequent theory will also be very static. It is therefore not surprising that most dynamic processes are labeled as mysteries according to this theory. If someone is sad about the term charge, they can still use it in this theory. It just won’t have a static character. So the particle doesn’t have a static charge because it is, but a dynamic charge because of what it does.
Another characteristic of quantum theory is that it explains very little in essence. Quantum theory is fundamentally not a physical theory, but a mathematical one. In mathematical theory, you can use various axioms, parameters do not have to have a clear physical meaning, you do not have to solve interaction mechanisms, etc. You can even violate the basic laws of physics. One example of such a violation is the assumption that particles can attract each other without having to do any action or work to do so. This is exactly what he says about the charges of the electron and proton. It is a direct violation of the fundamental law of action and reaction. Is it assumed that the laws of physics do not apply to particles? In other words, do different laws of physics apply to a world made of particles than to those particles? If the theory does not have clearly described physical meanings of parameters, defined mechanisms of interactions, then from the point of view of physics it cannot be a full-fledged physical theory, but only a mathematical approximation. And that is exactly what quantum theory is. It is a mathematical approximation of reality, which in some closed parameter space is able to imitate the behavior of matter. However, in no case can it be used to investigate the behavior of, for example, the universe outside this space and certainly not in limit regions. But that is exactly what many scientists do. They create derived theories based on quantum approximation, which very likely have little in common with reality.
Another question, certainly interesting for sociologists, is how come during those 100 years or so no one has tried to do something similar to me. When solving a mathematical problem, it is always most important to understand the basis itself correctly. If you don’t understand the task correctly, then even a brilliant solution won’t lead to the correct result. I too, while developing this theory, still doubted its correctness. But every other known phenomenon explained or agreement with experimental data reduced the probability that the PIV theory was fundamentally wrong. And that is exactly what critical thinking should be used for. They should include questions like:
Are these assumptions correct, logical and highly likely?
Isn’t there another, more logical solution?
Am I able to really explain all the parameters logically?
Have schools and the education system unlearned critical thinking from students and therefore future scientists? Could it be that in order to pass school, it is usually assumed that a student will repeat what the professor said during tests?