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

    • [deleted]

    • Post #28

    Very good. The definition I use for particle is: a particle holds itself together. It is less confusing to distinguish a particle from a wave: a particle does not spread like a wave. "virtual particles" and "entangled particles," are due to the probability interpretation. The problem is that the probability wave is defined into a QM particle. Remove the wave of probability, make the matter-wave have mass and charge at sub-threshold levels so it can spread like a wave, use the loading theory, then everything becomes straightforward visualized.

    Very good that you saw EM wave without duality. My experiments are interpreted straightforwardly to show that EM's particle-like property is at the instant of emission-only at energy hf, and thereafter spreads classically. One can describe a spreading wave function with a psi, and superimpose it with other psi, but there was a missing component: the pre-loaded state at the absorber; its psi needs to be added. The particle-like effect is easily explained by turning the situation inside-out so-to-speak, with a microscopic psi loading to threshold instead of a macroscopic psi collapse.

    I read and like your fine essay.

    Thank you.

    Hello Eric,

    I have downloaded and begun to read your essay, and it looks very interesting, but seeing a common thread across several of the submissions, and with content in my own essay which has yet to post - I have begun to write a brief paper discussing my conceptual model for decoherence. This model is discussed in my contest submission from last year, but I attach a draft of my paper in preparation which offers a thorough review succinctly.

    I shall have specific comments about your paper before long.

    All the Best,

    JonathanAttachment #1: 2_DecoherenceReviewDraft.pdf

    Good morning,

    I have still not finished digesting your paper, but after reading some of the comments above - I realize I have a photo from FFP11, that may be of interest. In the last paragraph of my essay (posting soon I hope), I mention a comment by Anton Zeilinger regarding Einstein's corpuscular theory of light. The rest of the story supports your thesis, as it talks about a letter written by A. Einstein that laments about the mistaken notions and limitations of that idea. Apparently, Einstein had his doubts.

    The photograph shows Anton Zeilinger standing in front of a slide showing a page from a book where a portion of Einstein's letter is cited. As I recall, the letter was written to the book's author. So this is supporting evidence, and proof that you are not fighting the good fight alone. You have my permission to reproduce the photo crediting me as photographer, and the event as FFP11 in Paris, July 2010.

    Regards,

    JonathanAttachment #1: 1_AntonQuote.jpg

    Referring to V Tamari's post of July 28, there are some details to explain:

    I developed three geometries for performing the gamma-ray beam split: Tandem, beam-split, and single detector.

    Tandem is with a thin detector in front of a thick one, and that works best. A thin detector plays the role of beam splitter and detector in one component. The split in the thin detector is where some gamma-ray energy is tapped off by the scintillation pulse, and some gamma-ray energy passes through. The splitting is microscopic, and that counts. So the essay describes beam-split setups: Fig 2 is a photo of the beam splitter(tandem). Fig. 3 details the tandem beam-split experiment. Fig. 6 has a beam-split diagram.

    My referenced papers document beam-split experiments, that look like a beam splitter, with a slab of material at 45 degrees. They worked for both the alpha and gamma-splits. So there are several ways to depict the beam-split, and I did them all. See Particle Violation Spectroscopy Fig. 12 for tests I did at different angles for the deflected beam. It is a new crystallography.

    The simplest way to do the unquantum-split is with a single detector and a pulse height analyzer. With Cd-109 there is a spectral peak at 88KeV. Then read counts at 176KeV, in the same spectral range used for the 88KeV rate. Students can request purchase a Cd-109 test source, but specify that it be free of Cd-113. I described it all in my reference: Photon Violation Spectroscopy fig 3.

    I under-stated in my essay where I reported chance X 2 for the single detector test; that was an early measurement. I perfected the test to see chance X 10. It is also good to use Co-57 for this test. Results will vary but are understood by sequences of adjusted tests. Breaking chance is what matters.

    Any student of physics can do this test to see the Unquantum effect for themselves. It is legal for anyone to purchase 1 microcurie of these isotopes at ~$100 each. This is an opportunity. You can display the Unquantum effect. Your professors might not easily concede. Then develop your own variation on the theme (like a sequence of intensities and distances), or go for the two detector test. The clincher is that the spectrum (unquantum effect) should change with distance while holding intensity constant. The collapse of the wave-function fails.

    Please rate my essay. Thank you Vladimir Tamari, Tom Ray, and

    thanks to my readers; ER.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #33

      Eric,

      I don't know if you have followed the evolution of the rules, but the participants ratings are now hidden, to reduce political considerations. Official judging will be of the top 35 from those ratings, not the public ones, which are not counted. That said, You will get a high one from me.

      Thanks very much for your endorsement. The applications for doing something fundamental is like saying "what are the applications for discovering electricity?"... lots. I have thought of some. Maybe the pre-loaded state dispersed in space will change the calculations for dark matter. An astronomical lensing effect, you mentioned, of dispersed matter waves is also a good one to look at. An unrealized mass in the dispersed matter wave may need a correction by realizing its e/m and h/m ratios in the non-particle state (principle 3 in essay). I have some gamma-ray medical imaging and crystallography applications in mind. Mostly I am working on my next fundamental experiment. Thanks again. ER

      Thanks Eric for the clarifications. I am still unclear how the tandem effect works in practice (I understand it as theory, though, and trust your confidence that the set up justifies the conclusions). I am sure re-reading your papers will make it clearer for me.

      Still hoping for the Unquantum Effect for Dummies. I hope you are encouraged by the responses here in fqxi. And as you do I hope others will repeat the experiments and draw the conclusions you have.

      Vladimir

      Hi Eric,

      While I am not qualified to judge your experimental work (I am a mere theorist), I do hope someone qualified is inspired by your essay to repeat your experiments and either confirm or refute your potentially groundbreaking results. You have made a wise choice in entering the essay contest here.

      On the theoretical side, I share your conviction that there is no such thing as a wavefunction collapse. In the past, under a heavy influence of the ideology of my former PhD supervisor (Abner Shimony, who famously collaborated with John Clauser to produce the celebrated Bell-CHSH inequality), I did believe in wavefunction collapse and wasted some of my best research years on the idea. But now I am convinced that wavefunction itself represents simply a statistical ensemble of quantum systems, just as Einstein thought. I think you are aware of the fact that I have successfully removed the only theoretical obstacle---namely Bell's theorem---against realizing Einstein's local-realistic dream. I have now collected my argument against Bell's theorem in a book, which you might find interesting.

      Best of luck for the essay contest,

      Joy Christian