Reframing the Debate: A Path Forward or Backward?

[DROBNJAK]

It's interesting that the same thing that has us mystified as to why they're here - they come to often and do silly things from a scientific perspective - is exactly the kind of behaviour we'd expect if they were here for economic motivations that we cannot understand. Like bitcoin farming, mining gold, having > 10% of humans exist to service money, etc. We don't make sense from a scientific perspective, but we do make sense from an economic perspective.

The reason why aliens are here is purely economic.

There are more than several dozens of species of aliens, but grays are the most dominant. Think same of nations on Earth, there several hundreds of nations, but Americans are most dominant, with 300 million in 9 billion. Greys and their "masters" are most likely the oldest and the most prevalent species in our part of universe.

Now some time ago, grays had split into two species. Worker sub-species, known as "grays" and rarely seen "master" species. Split was very similar to what is happening right now in our human society. Almost 50% of jobs (read 50% of families) will disappear over next 30 years to robots and AI. Some families will never get off the state welfare for many generations into future.

Eventually, this situation begs for evolutionary intervention that will create android worker sub-species. 100-200 years from now, if not much earlier, most likely we shall be starting to temper with our own evolution along social class fault lines.

As in any economy, "Master" species needs as much of cheap labor as it can get hold off. For some unknown reason "master" species need wombs to produce gray androids. For that they use our women. 4 out of 5 abductions are women, and only 1 in 5 are men. Conservative estimates suggest that, just in US, 6 million people had been abducted for this purpose. Pregnancy is short and harmless to our women, it only lasts about 3 months and then they take android baby out and baby continues in incubator on the board of the ship. And that is the economic reason why aliens are here. They are simply harvesting our species as a breeding cattle.

This economic purpose is the main reason that aliens want to maintain secrecy. That's even before any of our governments voiced opinions that would represent our interests. Any war between aliens and us would cripple android worker production rates and create potentially significant damage to alien economy.

You might say that I am being sinister, but its not even my idea. There is a great video on YouTube where the psychologist Dr David Jacobs who had been studying abductions, on a government grant, for 20+ years summarizes his finding.

Essentially that is the most practical explanation from the point of view of an advanced civilization. That is the reason why aliens try to sidetrack abductees with such trivial lies about how they are here to save the planet Earth from our mismanagement or from some silly catastrophe we are facing in future etc.

 

[DROBNJAK]

You've raised this objection many times, but when I think about it, I can't recall any specific cases where soil or plant samples have been collected, can you? I can recall some cases where a device has landed and left landing pad impressions, and I can recall a few cases where trace residue evidence was left behind, but I can't recall any cases where we've found a lump of soil missing. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened; it's been ages since I've pored over case reports, but you seem to think that millions of cases involve soil/plant samples being collected, and I just don't see any basis for that.

Yeah, you are there right in my territory. Just search for UFO researcher Ted Philips. He was known for his collection of 4,000 soil sample from various UFO landing sites. He's got plenty of videos on YT. As well, look up material scientist Phyllis Budinger, BSc who examined Delphos case soil & plant samples and now works as MUFON's chief material scientist.

Physical traces are followed by alien implants, just search for Dr. Roger K. Leir and Darrel Sims. Dr Leir surgically extracted alien implants while video taping procedure to which minimum of two legally qualified witnesses were present and who signed affidavits. Implants were studied by material scientist Steve Colbern ( "Alien Evidence-Your Main Source for Information about Aliens and their Technology". ), who is expert on carbon nano tubes. After analyzing implants with professional equipment Colbert said that these were 3D computers made of carbon nano cubes that were emitting EM radiation as if they were trying to communicate with something.

But no physical UFO trace evidence discussion would be complete without analysis and report done by Los Alamos Laboratory on Bob White's object, with full report produced and signed on Los Alamos Lab's letterhead paper ;-). To whom are you going to believe if not to Los Alamos Lab where all the nukes are designed and tested ;-):

There on the record two material scientist to to say that Bob Whites sample was once a super-conductor.

Great guys from History Channel managed to steal the letterhead shot.



And very similar to Ray Stamford, here is another case where military spy plane crew captured electro-magnetic signatures of an UFO that trailed their plane, the famous vintage case "RB-47 - Case Report for the AIAA". Case was reviewed by none the less than the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and you get all the technical details about frequencies etc.

Actually UFO physical trace cases abound. I can give you dozens, but what's the point when the loudest voice is always the most ignorant one. Its much more productive to compile and interpret available physical evidence in an attempt to create a big picture and a in pursuit of better insight, than to waste time in endless circular debates.

 

[wwkirk]

Yeah, you are there right in my territory. Just search for UFO researcher Ted Philips. He was known for his collection of 4,000 soil sample from various UFO landing sites. He's got plenty of videos on YT. As well, look up material scientist Phyllis Budinger, BSc who examined Delphos case soil & plant samples and now works as MUFON's chief material scientist.

Physical traces are followed by alien implants, just search for Dr. Roger K. Leir and Darrel Sims. Dr Leir surgically extracted alien implants while video taping procedure to which minimum of two legally qualified witnesses were present and who signed affidavits. Implants were studied by material scientist Steve Colbern ( "Alien Evidence-Your Main Source for Information about Aliens and their Technology". ), who is expert on carbon nano tubes. After analyzing implants with professional equipment Colbert said that these were 3D computers made of carbon nano cubes that were emitting EM radiation as if they were trying to communicate with something.

But no physical UFO trace evidence discussion would be complete without analysis and report done by Los Alamos Laboratory on Bob White's object, with full report produced and signed on Los Alamos Lab's letterhead paper ;-). To whom are you going to believe if not to Los Alamos Lab where all the nukes are designed and tested ;-):

There on the record two material scientist to to say that Bob Whites sample was once a super-conductor.

Great guys from History Channel managed to steal the letterhead shot.



And very similar to Ray Stamford, here is another case where military spy plane crew captured electro-magnetic signatures of an UFO that trailed their plane, the famous vintage case "RB-47 - Case Report for the AIAA". Case was reviewed by none the less than the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and you get all the technical details about frequencies etc.

Actually UFO physical trace cases abound. I can give you dozens, but what's the point when the loudest voice is always the most ignorant one. Its much more productive to compile and interpret available physical evidence in an attempt to create a big picture and a in pursuit of better insight, than to waste time in endless circular debates.

Can you give a link to Ted Phillip's website? I can't find it.

 

[Randall]

... Bob White's object, with full report produced and signed on Los Alamos Lab's letterhead paper ;-). To whom are you going to believe if not to Los Alamos Lab where all the nukes are designed and tested ;-)

Who else are we to believe? My vote goes here: Bob White Artifact debunked

 

[DROBNJAK]

Can you give a link to Ted Phillip's website? I can't find it.

Ted is now at least into his late 80s, so his site is not maintained any more. You can either watch his lectures on YT or search various articles on Google. His site never had lots of material and was very crude, anyway.

Who else are we to believe? My vote goes here: Bob White Artifact debunked

I debunk you, you debunk me and merrily merry go around goes on its way.

I can debunk anything. Just tell me what you want me to debunk.

I read that article few years ago. That guy is a typical lazy debunker, symmetrically equivalent to a typical UFO hoaxer. One just can not hoax the spectroscopic analysis and two leading Los Alamos scientists. If that "skeptic" understood how spectroscope works would just shut his mouth and never speak again.

 

[Randall]

I debunk you, you debunk me and merrily merry go around goes on its way.

Except you haven't debunked the explanation. Everything about the artifact is explainable by the kind of process described in the Skeptic's article. But if you want to go with what UFO hunters has to say, be my guest and enjoy the reputation that goes along with it. In the meantime I'll add this quote from the article.

" ... This is the product of “Thermal Spray Technology” where metal powders are used to coat products such as John Deere combine parts, Harley Davidson shifter forks etc, or anything desiring a longer life. We also do classified military projects and parts for the oil and gas industry. The techniques are in powder form and the arc process uses various metal wires. In any case, the metal is heated to a molten matter and sprayed at mach III to Mach V onto the product. We use many different metals from Aluminum to Chromium, which the over spray collects into stalagmites on the surface of the intake hood behind the product. We have three different processes called “Plasma”, “Arc”, and HVOF. We use either Hydrogen or Helium for fuel, and I have many of these things and some are cool looking. ... Tell these bull shitters they are chasing rainbows, hey, I’ve seen an interstellar vehicle, and this does nothing for us believers ..."​

Obviously this type of technology is right up there with the kind of properties described in the UFO hunters carefully edited hyperbole. Note that the comment above was written by a believer not a UFO debunker. BTW, I think you're making some really good contributions here, and your enthusiasm is welcomed, but some of the other folks here are also very well informed, and I've found it's wise to revisit my assumptions when I run into views that challenge them. I'm usually on pretty solid ground, but once in a while someone sets me straight and it's always welcomed.

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

You might say that I am being sinister, but its not even my idea. There is a great video on YouTube where the psychologist Dr David Jacobs who had been studying abductions, on a government grant, for 20+ years summarizes his finding.

I'm going to overlook the ridiculous specificity and faux certitude of your "Alien Facts & Motivations" post and focus specifically on your incorrect identification of the fraud that is Dr. David Jacobs. He is not, in point of fact, a "psychologist," he is a recently retired Associate Professor of History from Temple University. He has zero experience in psychology. He has never been the recipient of a "government grant" to study abductions. The man is a Budd Hopkins protege and dangerous amateur hypnotist peddling an "evil alien/hubrid agenda" storyline to sell books. Do your homework before posting that kind of garbage in the forum.

 

[Randall]

The reason why aliens are here is purely economic ... There are more than several dozens of species of aliens, but grays are the most dominant ... Now some time ago, grays had split into two species...

To my knowledge there's insufficient evidence to substantiate those claims. It seems more like speculation or conjecture or some sort of channelled, hypno-regressed, or mythological content. We could just as easily theorize that all the various shapes and sizes of craft and aliens are a manifestation of a single race of beings with high-tech active camouflage that can make them and their ships appear to be pretty much whatever they want. Personally I think that makes more sense than multiple races from different places because it seems unlikely that so many worlds would develop interstellar or trans-universal transport technology and all find themselves arriving here at the same time, and all behave in the same elusive manner.

 

[Trajanus]

We could just as easily theorize that all the various shapes and sizes of craft and aliens are a manifestation of a single race of beings with high-tech active camouflage that can make them and their ships appear to be pretty much whatever they want.

Sure, possible. There have, however, been cases where humans interacted directly with various beings, so several may be genuine.

Personally I think that makes more sense than multiple races from different places because it seems unlikely that so many worlds would develop interstellar or trans-universal transport technology and all find themselves arriving here at the same time, and all behave in the same elusive manner.

You may well be right. But one could argue that all races progress only to a certain "peak level" long attained by a number of worlds, and they may form a federation whose members abide by certain rules.

 

[DROBNJAK]

" ... This is the product of “Thermal Spray Technology” where metal powders are used to coat products such as John Deere combine parts, Harley Davidson shifter forks etc, or anything desiring a longer life. We also do classified military projects and parts for the oil and gas industry. The techniques are in powder form and the arc process uses various metal wires. In any case, the metal is heated to a molten matter and sprayed at mach III to Mach V onto the product. We use many different metals from Aluminum to Chromium, which the over spray collects into stalagmites on the surface of the intake hood behind the product. We have three different processes called “Plasma”, “Arc”, and HVOF. We use either Hydrogen or Helium for fuel, and I have many of these things and some are cool looking. ... Tell these bull shitters they are chasing rainbows, hey, I’ve seen an interstellar vehicle, and this does nothing for us believers ..."​

RADIOACTIVITY?

Does this company coat their customer products with radioactive spray? That guys is a typical lazy debunker who shoots from a hip and ignores the evidence that is contrary to his view.

This skeptic conveniently overlooked one particularly important property of Bob White's object. It was RADIOACTIVE. So much so that it:

1) destroyed electronics inside hotel's safe twice. Safe's electronics is normally enclosed in 3mm (1/12") thick aluminum casing just to prevent 'zapping' where thief uses spark gaps from piezo igniter to 'zap' electronics. The only other something that can penetrate 3mm of aluminum wall is gamma rays that are product of radioactive decay.

2) it was exposing X-ray films. On the beginning of one of other videos they show film that was exposed and clearly had showing the mirror image patterns from the object itself.

3) One can not fool a scientist doing x-ray diffraction analysis, because instrument enables him to look at material on atomic level. Scientists in the video said that material was "polycristaline semiconductor" (nano-crystal) and that "cutting edge of nanotechnology, didn't exist in 1985" and it even today it is very rare and only can be made in science labs.

4) Object contained 4.3% of silver. Who's crazy enough to spray underside of agricultural machinery with silver? Silver is both expensive and very soft and very conductive (meaning, helps rusting). That coating was meant to increase resistance to wear and tear and reduce rusting.

Product “Thermal Spray Technology” just happens to look similar, but it is not the same thing. You are comparing opinion of some car mechanic to a Los Alamos scientist with 15-20 years of experience in the most sophisticated top-level national security lab of in US. That approach is politics, not a genuine skepticism.

 

[Randall]

RADIOACTIVITY?

Does this company coat their customer products with radioactive spray? That guys is a typical lazy debunker who shoots from a hip and ignores the evidence that is contrary to his view.

This skeptic conveniently overlooked one particularly important property of Bob White's object. It was RADIOACTIVE. So much so that it:

1) destroyed electronics inside hotel's safe twice. Safe's electronics is normally enclosed in 3mm (1/12") thick aluminum casing just to prevent 'zapping' where thief uses spark gaps from piezo igniter to 'zap' electronics. The only other something that can penetrate 3mm of aluminum wall is gamma rays that are product of radioactive decay.

2) it was exposing X-ray films. On the beginning of one of other videos they show film that was exposed and clearly had showing the mirror image patterns from the object itself.

3) One can not fool a scientist doing x-ray diffraction analysis, because instrument enables him to look at material on atomic level. Scientists in the video said that material was "polycristaline semiconductor" (nano-crystal) and that "cutting edge of nanotechnology, didn't exist in 1985" and it even today it is very rare and only can be made in science labs.

4) Object contained 4.3% of silver. Who's crazy enough to spray underside of agricultural machinery with silver? Silver is both expensive and very soft and very conductive (meaning, helps rusting). That coating was meant to increase resistance to wear and tear and reduce rusting.

Product “Thermal Spray Technology” just happens to look similar, but it is not the same thing. You are comparing opinion of some car mechanic to a Los Alamos scientist with 15-20 years of experience in the most sophisticated top-level national security lab of in US. That approach is politics, not a genuine skepticism.

Everything has a certain amount of radioactivity and the examples you give don't confirm any amount that is abnormal. But even if there were radioactive elements in the material, that still doesn't mean it's an alien artifact. I can also see how the mechanisms that have been proposed as an explanation could definitely create such an object. Bear in mind that there's also a huge leap in logic in calling something with nano sized particles "technology". A lot of natural non-technological things have nano sized particles. There's no evidence that it is "technology". But there is evidence that the Bob White artifact is simply a byproduct of our own technology. IMO it's as cut a dried as Eduard Meier's fake UFOs.

 

[DROBNJAK]

... the examples you give don't confirm any amount that is abnormal.

I shouldn't agree with that. Bob White's object was clearly intensively radioactive, far more than ordinary background radiation. Otherwise Bob White's object wouldn't be able to damage electronics through 3mm thick aluminum plates. Neither it would be able to expose film etc.

... But even if there were radioactive elements in the material, that still doesn't mean it's an alien artifact. I can also see how the mechanisms that have been proposed as an explanation could definitely create such an object.

Of course, the whole of Bob White's object can be made in some workshop. But that just makes a mute point, it doesn't disprove his story.

... Bear in mind that there's also a huge leap in logic in calling something with nano sized particles "technology". A lot of natural non-technological things have nano sized particles. There's no evidence that it is "technology".

When scientist was referring to "polycristaline semiconductor" (nano-crystal) he wasn't talking about a size of grains inside material, but a very specific structural organization of crystals that doesn't exist in nature and can only be artificially made. In this case size is irrelevant, shape and form of crystalline structure is what makes the difference.

"Polycristaline semiconductors" had not yet been invented in 1985, so yes, it might not be proof of alien technology, but it certainly falls in a high strangeness category.

On the balance of probabilities, while it is extremely easy to make the mixed metal powder shape of Bob White's object, getting hold of strongly radioactive ingredients, fruitlessly throwing away 4.3% silver and getting hold of "polycrystalline semiconductor" in 1985 before it was invented is extremely unlikely.

 

[Randall]

I shouldn't agree with that. Bob White's object was clearly intensively radioactive, far more than ordinary background radiation. Otherwise Bob White's object wouldn't be able to damage electronics through 3mm thick aluminum plates. Neither it would be able to expose film etc.

Whether or not some device was allegedly damaged by supposed radiation isn't how radiation is measured. These are IMO simply unproven stories for the purpose of adding an air of mystery.

Of course, the whole of Bob White's object can be made in some workshop. But that just makes a mute point, it doesn't disprove his story.

Proof is simply evidence sufficient to justify belief in a claim. I think that the fact that because objects like the Bob White artifact are a known byproduct of a known process here on Earth, we have sufficient evidence to justify disbelief. If you don't agree, then I'd say that maybe you should consider raising the bar a little.

When scientist was referring to "polycristaline semiconductor" (nano-crystal) he wasn't talking about a size of grains inside material, but a very specific structural organization of crystals that doesn't exist in nature and can only be artificially made. In this case size is irrelevant, shape and form of crystalline structure is what makes the difference.

That seems to be a bit of a stretch and I'd like to see more than one opinion on that from scientists at arm's length from UFO Hunters or any other ufology interest group.

"Polycristaline semiconductors" had not yet been invented in 1985, so yes, it might not be proof of alien technology, but it certainly falls in a high strangeness category.

"Research and development in electroluminescence (EL) of polycrystalline semiconductors is almost as old as semiconductor research as a whole. The aim from the very beginning was to obtain EL from large areas. As early as 1936 Destriau [1] started the run for "cold-light" emitting devices based on ZnS powders as the luminescent polycrystalline (pc) material." Source

On the balance of probabilities, while it is extremely easy to make the mixed metal powder shape of Bob White's object, getting hold of strongly radioactive ingredients, fruitlessly throwing away 4.3% silver and getting hold of "polycrystalline semiconductor" in 1985 before it was invented is extremely unlikely.

As you can see the assumption about polycrystalline semiconductors not being available until 1985 doesn't seem to be accurate. Other info indicates that they exist in nature as amorphous compounds. So again. I see insufficient reason to think the Bob White artifact is anything other than a byproduct of a known manufacturing process.

BTW: It might help you to know that I do believe alien visitation has happened. However when something can be explained without invoking alien visitation, I tend to concede that alien visitation probably wasn't involved. Maybe sometimes I'm wrong, but I can live with that if it filters out the vast majority of fakes, frauds, misidentifications, and so on.

 

[Trajanus]

BTW: It might help you to know that I do believe alien visitation has happened. However when something can be explained without invoking alien visitation, I tend to concede that alien visitation probably wasn't involved. Maybe sometimes I'm wrong, but I can live with that if it filters out the vast majority of fakes, frauds, misidentifications, and so on.

Exactly the right attitude. UFOlogy has been greatly tarnished by the tendency to invoke ET for everything. It gets me sick to see, for example, claims that humans didn't evolve here; that we were created by aliens. Or only aliens could have produced structures on Mars like "the face."

 

[Randall]

Exactly the right attitude. UFOlogy has been greatly tarnished by the tendency to invoke ET for everything. It gets me sick to see, for example, claims that humans didn't evolve here; that we were created by aliens. Or only aliens could have produced structures on Mars like "the face."

There might be some truth to the idea that aliens have interfered to some extent in human evolution. It might even be possible that life here was seeded by some alien race at the very beginning. But the evidence is overwhelming that either way, evolution has played a major role, and only very weak circumstantial evidence for the other. The Mars stuff drives me nuts too. Whether it's faces or pyramids or other strange looking formations, it's become obvious that interpreting it as something artificial is just click bait for YouTube videos. All that being said, I don't want to dampen @DROBNJAK's enthusiasm. There are some other really good posts on other threads. It also doesn't hurt to revisit these cases from time to time for the benefit of others who might not have encountered them before.

 

[DROBNJAK]

There might be some truth to the idea that aliens have interfered to some extent in human evolution. It might even be possible that life here was seeded by some alien race at the very beginning. But the evidence is overwhelming that either way, evolution has played a major role, and only very weak circumstantial evidence for the other. The Mars stuff drives me nuts too. Whether it's faces or pyramids or other strange looking formations, it's become obvious that interpreting it as something artificial is just click bait for YouTube videos. All that being said, I don't want to dampen @DROBNJAK's enthusiasm. There are some other really good posts on other threads. It also doesn't hurt to revisit these cases from time to time for the benefit of others who might not have encountered them before.

When you are creating your world view, based on so called "scientific rationality" you have to take in account that scientists are not telling to general public things exactly as they are.

For example, Big Bang theory doesn't work without Inflation and the exact probability that Inflation happened is 1/Googleplex. And, what is a Googleplex? It is an integer with more than billion zeros. Put it simply, Big Bang is an temporary theory that just papers over what scientists don't know. Back in 1920 there were over 100 competing theories and Big Bang theory was the worst one, because it predicted cosmic background radiation CBR at 50degK. Only when measurements of CBR came in, proponents quickly fudged the numbers. The rest was just question of public relations.

Second example is Quantum Mechanics QM and the whole particle-wave duality thing. There are no such things as particles. That's a concept that was abandoned back in late 70's. Today science is guided by Quantum Field Theory QFT which is phenomenally accurate and correctly predicted Higgs bozon. Nobody in CERN takes QM seriously any more and QFT is used for all hadron collider calculations and modelling.

Third example is that General Relativity, while mostly right, is in disagreement with 11 astronomical observations, one of them being speed of rotation of the outer parts of galaxies. That's why whole the fuss about dark matter/energy had started. As well, energy stress tensor part of GR, where pure light can create gravity had never been experimentally confirmed, because simply such energy can't be produced in the lab or in astronomical events.

In short, scientist are deliberately distorting the picture that they give in public lectures and one should not use these ideas as solid foundations of world view. Many of ideas that are promoted are at best a consensus and at worst scientist's personal favorites.

Science is not about being right, but about continuing to answer unanswered questions.

 

[Trajanus]

There might be some truth to the idea that aliens have interfered to some extent in human evolution. It might even be possible that life here was seeded by some alien race at the very beginning. But the evidence is overwhelming that either way, evolution has played a major role, and only very weak circumstantial evidence for the other.

I do suspect ETs have intervened but not more recently than a few centuries or millennia ago.

 

[Randall]

When you are creating your world view, based on so called "scientific rationality" you have to take in account that scientists are not telling to general public things exactly as they are.

For example, Big Bang theory doesn't work without Inflation and the exact probability that Inflation happened is 1/Googleplex. And, what is a Googleplex? It is an integer with more than billion zeros. Put it simply, Big Bang is an temporary theory that just papers over what scientists don't know. Back in 1920 there were over 100 competing theories and Big Bang theory was the worst one, because it predicted cosmic background radiation CBR at 50degK. Only when measurements of CBR came in, proponents quickly fudged the numbers. The rest was just question of public relations.

Second example is Quantum Mechanics QM and the whole particle-wave duality thing. There are no such things as particles. That's a concept that was abandoned back in late 70's. Today science is guided by Quantum Field Theory QFT which is phenomenally accurate and correctly predicted Higgs bozon. Nobody in CERN takes QM seriously any more and QFT is used for all hadron collider calculations and modelling.

Third example is that General Relativity, while mostly right, is in disagreement with 11 astronomical observations, one of them being speed of rotation of the outer parts of galaxies. That's why whole the fuss about dark matter/energy had started. As well, energy stress tensor part of GR, where pure light can create gravity had never been experimentally confirmed, because simply such energy can't be produced in the lab or in astronomical events.

In short, scientist are deliberately distorting the picture that they give in public lectures and one should not use these ideas as solid foundations of world view. Many of ideas that are promoted are at best a consensus and at worst scientist's personal favorites.

Science is not about being right, but about continuing to answer unanswered questions.

Good post. I don't think science is the only way or always the best way of discerning the truth, but it is a very powerful tool, and the types of examples you've given demonstrate how science also evolves when new and better ideas come along. I also agree that science often seems self-serving in the way things are interpreted, but to be fair, that seems to be the spin of the pop-science entertainers and producers more than the people crunching the numbers. Personally I defer to a process called critical thinking, which can include science when science can be properly applied. BTW, last time I checked, the detection of the Higgs Boson was still not unanimous. Some say it has. Others aren't so sure. Source. Besides that: If there are no particles how could it be discovered? But then again, if there are no particles, what makes those tracks in the collider chambers?

 

[DROBNJAK]

Yeah, once you understand QFT it all makes sense and it sounds much more probable than QM. Essentially only field exists. When you disturb a field you get an wavelike excitation. Now that wavelike excitation travels around and when it bumps into something, it collapses. That collapse of the wave we perceive as a particle.

Think of a pier wall during a big storm full of big waves. Big storm brings a big wave and wave slams into the pier with a big splash and all waves energy goes into pier wall. That collision splash of wave and pier wall we perceive as particle. That's QFT.

The main problem with particles is that when they come very close to each other equations produce infinite forces. That's because particles have size of zero. If you have 1/(distance) in equation than when distance is near 0 you get infinity.

For example, believe it or not, Newton's theory of gravity is wrong at short distances and it produces infinities ;-). You have F = G (m1 * m2)/r^2. As m1 and m2 get closer and closer r becomes zero and dividing by zero produces infinite gravitational attraction force. Obviously that's wrong. But most people miss that. In reality, if Moon was falling onto Earth, attraction would grow big, but not infinite. Problem is that reducing the whole Earth and the whole Moon to just a single point (particle) is a bad model that doesn't work at short distances.

When you replace particles with waves, than the above problem goes away, waves are much bigger than zero. Waves have some positive size. As two waves come closer and closer to each other, when they start overlapping the attractive force actually starts falling down, not going up to infinity. Because of the overlap. That's called 'asymptotic freedom' if you want to look it up.

Here is a good video explaining the whole thing:

Essentially, that video shows how QFT won over QM and got Nobel prize to Frank Wilzcek. That's why particles are out.