• [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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #37

        Hi Eric,

        Having learned a little more of what you're up to, I am reminded of events leading from Einstein's photon theorizing to the production of LASER technology.

        I am impressed that gamma particle splitting preserves correlation of wave functions with no collapse, so I am not surprised that Joy is interested. For my part I conjecture that an out of equilibrium state, represented by the split and producing coherent pairs of wave energy, reconstructs the LASER phenomenon in reverse. This amounts to a demonstration that the interchangeability of mass and energy does not favor irreversibility. Purely classical, and indeed "unquantum."

        Best wishes for a productive path forward in your research!

        Tom

        Correction: Eric did not use the expression "shooting down the photon" in his published essays as I reported. Apologies. His reports about the careful experiments he made are very technical and such an expression does not reflect the exacting and meticulous seriousness of his work.

        Hello Eric,

        I finished a first read through of your paper, and besides I couldn't let Joy have the last word. So I have to comment. It was very interesting; a thorough investigation by a careful experimentalist. Not the norm for FQXi essay contests, which tend to be heavier on theory than experiment.

        I think you may have found evidence of some things I knew were true already, but you ply a model that's unfamiliar, so I will have to acquaint myself with loading theory a bit - before I know for sure it is what I think it is. I don't think I can say much more than that I think I agree with your interpretation of your findings, for the most part.

        I need to read again, when I am more wakeful, before I say more.

        all the best,

        Jonathan

        Hello Eric,

        After a little time to read, learn, and digest, I think your work is definitely significant. You may be the guy future researchers will point to and say "He performed the crucial experiment that showed the way beyond the limiting views of 20th century Quantum Mechanics." Or something like that. You chose to focus on one erroneous assumption, while I chose several of my favorite challenge points, but I think you will find there is some agreement in my essay with your work.

        If your results bear out in other laboratories, or using even better equipment, it will be seen as a definite step forward in our understanding. It appears that you are using a methodology similar to the one that won Doug Osheroff the Nobel Prize, which I comment about in my essay.

        You are not afraid to "look in an area of the parameter space that is not already well-explored," and accordingly you are much more likely to find something interesting and significant. I'm not rating any essays until I get a sense of the quality of this year's entries, but will be sure to give you a high rating when I do.

        Hello again, Eric;

        This is a link to the slides for Professor Osheroff's talk, mentioned above, which I saw him deliver at UWA near Perth, during FFP10. His wonderful lecture details some of the best ways that experimenters can improve their chances for success. I think you put some of his recommendations into practice already, though. Kudos...

        How Advances in Science Are Made

        I'm a little surprised you did not comment about the photo of Anton Zeilinger in front of the book entry about Albert Einstein's doubts - regarding the corpuscular theory of light - in the comment and link a few entries above. Zeilinger advised attendees of FFP11 in Paris we should not regard that one as a fact, as even Albert had his doubts.

        Sometimes a personal angle like that - which is emotionally relevant - will sell your idea better than evidence alone.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        Hello again Eric,

        I'm coming to believe that the experiments you are doing are very important indeed, and will help us to understand how Quantum Mechanics relates to the world of observable quantities. It appears that you are both a careful and a thorough experimental investigator, and I find the technical discussion of your apparatus and technique interesting.

        My main confusion comes in with your choice of the term "Unquantum" because it appears that you are showing that reality is more quantum than classical. You may be providing conclusive evidence that wavefunction collapse is not actually what is happening, but I've understood QM this way for years, since discovering Decoherence Theory.

        I think FQXi member H.D. Zeh would be very interested in your results, as they validate some of the things he has been saying for years (though your interpretation is somewhat different). I've had some correspondence with Dieter, and would be happy to send a link to your paper with a recommendation to check your work out - if you do not feel comfortable to contact him yourself.

        I may advise him there is something here of interest, regardless.

        Regards,

        Jonathan