• [deleted]

  • Post #8

ESSAY WITH REFERENCES

The reference page was left out. The entire essay is here, from my website:

http://www.unquantum.net/challenge2.pdf

ER

  • [deleted]

  • Post #10

Eric,

Challenging a well established paradigm, one of the sacred ones, even with direct evidence that the paradigm is wrong is a tough go. Your viXra article title isn't even controversial, "An Understanding of the Particle-like Property of Light and Charge". I note you published the paper on your website in 2001, and recently on viXra. Did you attempt to get sponsorship so you could post it on arXiv? I suspect it would not have stayed on arXiv unless you had a number of highly ranked sponsor-supporters.

The photon and the "vacuum of space" are two common terms that writers fail to properly define, they make the assumption that we know what they are thinking. I recently encountered the term "virtual photon", a one-legged version of the traditional two-legged photon.

The fourth paragraph, page 3, of your "Experiment Reveals an Understandable World" article has a mild criticism of establishment science. I stated in my essay article, "Additionally, over time, with improved communications, the scientific community has tended to become more monolithic in defending particular assumptions. This has made it more difficult for those that challenge an established assumption to get articles published in traditional scientific journals."

My essay, topic 1294, challenges a well established assumption with a mathematical proof of concept. Even the title of the paper referenced in my essay hasn't received any attention from the scientific authority, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants". I identified the geometric-mathematical concept in 2001. I managed to get it published, with the controversial title, in IEEE Potentials in 2011, because I emphasized my EE background as the reason for recognizing the concept in the first place. It was rejected earlier by another IEEE publication, and there had been rejections from other scientific journals earlier.

    Dear Eric

    I have just read the version of the pdf with references. Your essay showed beyond any doubt your success in proving Planck's loading theory, and in 'shooting down' (your expressive words) Einstein's concept of the photon-as-a-point and not just a quantum of energy spread over space.

    The highly technical presentation may have been justified by Carl Sagan's maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Having said that I think you or someone who understands your work should write The Unquntum Effect for Dummies (i.e. for the likes of me).

    Such a paper would start with Einstein photo-electric effect being interpreted that light is a particle at emission, in space, and at absorption - i.e. the photon. Planck's objections and his loading theory of partial absorption. Faint-light photography of double slit interference interpreted as proof of a particle photon. Compton's experiment interpreted as a billiard-ball like nature of photons (ignoring his wave explanation of the same phenomena). How this false photon led to the obfuscating concepts of particle-wave duality and the probability of interpretation that have plagued QM to this day. And then your experiments to disprove the particle photon and prove the loading theory!

    As a footnote I might add that I was independently led to mistrust the photon concept because my mid-80's streamline diffraction theory envisaged light spreading along infinite curved streamlines that negates a point photon, and imagined a primitive loading theory concept of my own. That is why I was thrilled when I recently read of your unquntum work as I mentioned in my fqxi essay Fix Physics! .

    I sincerely hope that your work will be replicated in other labs, widely understood by the physics community, and that your Nobel will follow in a timely fashion. You deserve it!

    Vladimir

    Frank: Most of my essay is ABOUT the definition of the photon, in the sense that I contradict its particle property. Its particle property is about how a photon should act at a beam-splitter. The definition of the photon is experimentally oriented only, and not intended to be well visualized, even by its author (Einstein). A simple definition is the quote I use in my other papers, a quote from Bohr's book Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, paraphrasing Einstein:

    "If a semi-reflecting mirror is placed in the way of a photon, leaving two possibilities for its direction of propagation, the photon may either be recorded on one, and only one, of two photographic plates situated at great distances in the two directions in question, or else we may, by replacing the plates by mirrors, observe effects exhibiting an interference between the two reflected wave-trains."

    I have collected evidence for much more than "mild criticisms of establishment science." Some of this evidence is in this FQXI essay and more is in my other writings. Like I stated in the essay, many have tried to argue against QM, but it requires strong new experimental evidence to mount a serious challenge.

    I tried to publish in several ways since 2001, and in arxiv also with another co-author from a university. I had no hint that I was supposed to obtain sponsorship then, but it would not have mattered anyway. I am grateful to FQXI to receive an audience here.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #14

    Hello Eric,

    Thank you for your essay and for all your important work. What you bring to these discussions is unique! Experimental evidence! Your essay makes a strong argument for a nonquantum photon. And I fully agree with that view. In some previous writings, and featured prominently in my upcoming fqxi contest essay (soon to be submitted), I mathematically prove the following proposition: "If the speed of light is constant, light propagates as a wave". Thus, Einstein's CSL Postulate contradicts his Photon Hypothesis!

    And in my explanation of the double-slit experiment I argue for the continuous 'accumulation of energy' before the discrete 'manifestation of energy'. This is similar to your loading theory, but with one important difference. In my view, 'manifestation' can be both 'absorption' and 'emission'. I argue for 'discrete manifestation' and 'continuous accumulation'. The loading theory assumes 'continuous absorption and explosive emission'. This may be an important difference between the two views. But both views allow a 'duration of time' (a time delay) before a physical event 'manifests'. And that, in my humble opinion, may have deeper consequences.

    Constantinos

      • [deleted]

      • Post #15

      I think Einstein is being treated a bit unfairly here on the question of whether a photon is a point particle or a blob of energy.

      Fact is, it doesn't matter to the mathematical treatment, in a geometric theory like Einstein's. Just as Poncelet demonstrated point-line duality in ordinary projective geometry (i.e., the concepts are interchangeable) Einstein's duality of point and dispersed objects depends on measurement criteria.

      Tom

      Eric

      Thank's for a brilliant essay, and very important findings. I'm bound to agree as the findings verify the ontology I describe, which is fully consistent with yours (and Planck's of course). I've tracked down and derived the wider classical effects of the process emerging from kinetics (and dynamic logic) and found much other evidence.

      Indeed when allowing for relative motion of the electron (as part of a moving medium/body or frame) during the non zero charging time, the classically observed effect postulated in Special Relativity emerge. In this case your mechanism, applied logically, can produce the effects that SR was formulated to explain. It is able to resolve a host of astronomical anomalies.

      I hope you will read my essay, which is couched with a little theatre for readability but deadly serious none the less. But it seems few can 'think kinetically', i.e. follow the evolution of cause and effect chains with progressive motion. Current maths can't either, (as Tom has highlighted above).

      Time stepping maths and quantum or dynamic logic have not yet displaced the 'points and lines' that fool us by hiding the solution. I suggest a charge time an consequential rotation of optical axis of re-emission in my last figure, but I believe this only sets an ontological framework in which your real results and precision provide all the flesh and substance.

      I hope you're able to read it, and I'd be very interested in your comments.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Dear T H,

      OK, good points. It does not matter if a photon is visualized as a point or blob. And agreed, localized or wave aspects depend on the experimental setup. I do not see why something I did was unfair though. Many people think of the photon as consisting of a quantized amount of energy because Einstein said so in the 1905 paper:

      "According to the concept that the incident light consists of energy quanta of magnitude (equation hf), however, one can conceive of the ejection of electrons by light in the following way. Energy quanta penetrate into the surface layer of the body, and their energy is transformed, at least in part, into kinetic energy of electrons. The simplest way to imagine this is that a light quantum delivers its entire energy to a single electron: we shall assume that this is what happens. The possibility should not be excluded, however, that electrons might receive their energy only in part from the light quantum."

      This is really interesting because in the last part of this quote he actually acknowledges the loading theory. Einstein was pretty sharp. However, most physicists use the quantized light model. A few posts below I quote the definition of the photon based on experiment, that I and many physicists use. The important point is that the experiments I do contradict the particle aspect of the definition. Therefore I say we should not describe light using the photon word at all. It is difficult because we really need a new word to replace photon. I like to just talk of an "h-new" for the energy quantized at light emission, or reached at a threshold of light absorption in matter. When NOT dealing with the quantized emission aspect of light, or reaching the threshold hf of kinetic energy in matter, please IMHO, we should just talk of light in space, and not photons.

      One more point. I took down my link above to my paper Experiment Reveals an Understandable World, because the writing needs editing. I can sometimes come across too confrontational for some people and make steam come out of their ears. Thank you, ER

      Hi Eric,

      Quantum optics experimenters routinely talk about splitting photons; something that has always bothered me if we are to think of a photon as a quantum object. Plus photons should not "bounce" off mirrors and "pass" through beam splitters. Photons would have to be absorbed by such devices and new photons emitted. So Bohr's comment does not even hold up physically. IMHO, all the particle properties of a photon come from the quantum "vacuum". In that viewpoint, a photon is just a wavicle of a relativistic medium with energy hbar*w where w is omega, angular frequency.

      Best,

      Fred

      Fred,

      I share your reservations about 'splitting' these 'quantum objects' and suspect you are correct that "Photons would have to be absorbed by such devices and new photons emitted."

      Zeilinger says "Einstein never found out what a photon is." Like Einstein, I don't know what a photon is, but if it has localized momentum it induces a C-field circulation.

      Eric, I enjoyed your essay and plan to read it again before commenting.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #20

      Hi Edwin,

      You said that if a photon has localized momentum, then it induces a C-field circulation. In QM, the momentum of a photon is,

      [math]\vec p = \frac{h\vec{k}}{2 \pi} = \frac {h}{\lambda}[/math]

      It's momentum is dependent upon a wave-length. In my view, the photon is the energized portion of an aether wave. Is "localization" of the photon dependent upon the context?

      Hi Jason,

      The meaning of my remark is laid out in my essay. I don't wish to take over Eric's thread on this point, I merely wanted to echo Fred's comment on "splitting quantum objects". I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about the context.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Tom

      Both the points you raised make sense: Einstein is often made responsible for interpretations of his work that he did not quite make himself quite so emphatically. I am guilty of such generalization myself. But the point is that in modern thinking the point photon is universally regarded as Einstein's baby.

      Your second point that the mathematics can account for the facts whether it is a particle or a wave may be true in certain situations. But as I have argued in my essays it is very important to decide which is nearer to how Nature actually works. I concluded that the notion of a point photon is responsible for the probabilistic interpretation of QM - and that idea has led to all sorts of problems blocking efforts to reach a workable simple physical theory uniting physics.

      Good luck Eric for re-writing the Unquntum for Dummies paper! I think it should include a diagram of the beam-splitter setup missing from your fqxi essay.

      Cheers- Vladimir

      • [deleted]

      • Post #23

      Eric,

      Daniel Schechtman, the 2011 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry for his discovery of quasi-crystals, performed his observations of crystal patterns using an electron microscope, whereas everyone else used x-ray diffraction instruments. It seems the physics authority expects everyone to do their observations exactly as everyone else, thus you get repeatable results.

      You are fighting the same monolithic "scientific authority structure", a Prof Kuhn term, that Daniel Schechtman faced. They have learned nothing from the Schechtman experience. I detailed this example in my topic, 1294. Other experimenters then used the electron microscope and confirmed Schechtman's observation. Then two things happened, x-ray diffraction instruments were improved and crystallographers learned to create larger quasi-crystals that could be used by older x-ray diffraction equipment. There was no doubt that quasi-crystals existed.

      Putting your essay on FQXi is one way to get more people in the scientific community to learn how you performed your experiment and the results achieved. Perhaps some courageous experimenters will take a different approach, similar to yours, and get results equivalent to yours. It will take multiple individuals, all with good credentials, reporting consistent results to overturn what is considered "settled science".

      I have never considered an electromagnetic wave having a duality, being a wave and a particle. The term "particle" seems to mean whatever the scientific authority structure intends it to mean for a particular use. The general definition of a particle is something that has volume or mass, then it is stretched and bent to mean whatever else they want it to cover.

        The object of my work is to demonstrate failure of the concept "collapse of the wave function." That concept does not allow coincident detection. But I do observe coincident detection; therefore that concept fails. Also, there are no interference patterns here, just coincidence rates that exceed quantum mechanical chance.

        Thank you.

        Please: The only way to use the photon model to make a "photon" split is by frequency down-conversion. Otherwise, to talk of splitting the photon defies its definition. However, I do show a split, in a two-for-one manner (without down-conversion). This shows there is no such thing as a photon, and that there was energy released at the absorber to maintain energy conservation. If someone wrote of splitting the photon, and it was not down-conversion, please show me the reference.

        Thank you.

        Const: Thanks for appreciating my work. However, I never saw any distinction between the "manifestation" thing you do, and what I do. We say the same thing. "Discrete manifestation" is the same thing as my saying "loading to threshold." Please argue with me direct-email on that. We are allies.

        Terms like "nonquantum photon" are far too confusing. It is like saying non-quantized quanta. The photon was, and always will be a quantum mechanical concept. To contradict the photon model is to kill its reality. That is why I always write h-new, or hv, or hf, or anything but photon. An emitted hv of energy, that thereafter spreads classically, is not a photon, and needs a new word, like h-new.

        Thanks, ER

        • [deleted]

        • Post #27

        Eric,

        Your groundbreaking experimental results (if confirmed by others also) is in complete agreement with my mathematical derivations of Planck's Formula, Boltzmann's Entropy Equation, Entropy and Time relationship, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, explanation of the Double-Slit Experiment, etc. So no problem there. Your experimental results and my derivations both demonstrate a 'time delay' or 'duration' as I prefer. And that is the important think about your experimental work, imho.

        All the best,

        Constantinos