Hmm,... Let's try that again.
Hi Eric,
I wanted to ask you the question that keeps coming up for me. Do you think that the coincident detection you are observing relates more to the increased sensitivity of the detectors available for gamma rays, and their ability to distinguish pulse heights, or is there some component relating to the differences between visible light wavelengths and shorter wavelength EM?
All the best,
Jonathan
Here is how I see it: The gamma rays are emitted in a shorter time frame, and the wave energy spreads transversely in a narrower cone than with lower frequency EM, as expected by classical theory. These spatial & temporal properties affect the detector atoms with a pulse of wave energy that lets the atom reach threshold to and respond to make a quantized emission in a sudden manner for the detection. Visible light does not have those properties. Also, the gamma detectors have high "energy" (detector pulse height is proportional to EM frequency and the illusory photon energy) resolution. Visible light would not set-off coincidences from its classical pulses, and we would see a random distribution of detector timings past the beam splitter; we would think it acts like photons in that the energy seems to go one way or another at the beam splitter. Also, the high pulse height resolution of gamma detectors is necessary to be fair to both the photon model and the loading theory, by taking into account energy and timing. Another criteria is high photoelectric effect efficiency in the detector type for the selected gamma-ray. I was able to measure all these effects for what I am saying here and in the essay. Usually the detection split is random and does not make coincident detections. But by comparing to chance, we see there must have been energy pre-loaded such that a partial absorption of classical wave energy can set-off coincident detection pairs well above the chance rate. It was years of hard work. Good question. Thanks. ER
Thanks Eric,
An excellent and informative reply. As I understand it; you are saying the effect is more pronounced for gamma rays AND you also get a more detailed picture of what's going on, because you have available and use a better type of detector - which allows you to distinguish coincidence rates more readily.
This combo would greatly enhance the possibility to actually see the effects of pre-loading and partial absorption - if/when they occur. Which may be why you are likely the first to observe/report these results. The main FQXi Forum page talks about a 3-slit (rather a 3-way interferometer) experiment that may be of interest.
I wonder how that would work with gamma rays.
all the best,
Jonathan
Eric
Have you considered any effects of lateral motion (of the non zero spatial 'particle' structure, with respect to the incoming waves during the (non zero time) charge process?
You'll note from my own essay and recall from previously that I agree with your thesis, have explored this route and found what I think is an important asymmetry of charge. I don't think you've read it yet as I posted above on 29th July but with no response. I'd greatly appreciate it if you did and could comment.
Many thanks
Peter
Hi Eric,
You did the hard stuff. I have little doubt this is a breakthrough. The data will stand and mark the end of the photon as we know it. I also believe other explanations besides Loading Theory are possible. I will post one on your blog when I get some time. I'll bet the FQXi audience alone can generate 3 or 4 reasonable ones. This is not to say that Loading Theory is not the best one.
Question: You say "By QM and the photon model, a singly emitted "photon" of energy hf must not trigger two coincident detections in a beam-split test"
What do you consider that single "photon" to consist of?
Congratulations on changing our models about how things work.
Don L.
Don: In the case of light absorption, it seems very hard to circumvent the conclusion that there needs to be energy present at the absorber ahead of time in the detection event. Like I argued in the essay, the experiment asks that we either give up conservation of energy or quantized absorption. I will address other models when offered.
Your question: The conclusion from many variants of the experiment outlined in the essay is that an hf of EM energy is emitted quantized, but thereafter spreads classically; light itself is not quantized. The initial hf has a narrow solid angle and short emission time as a function of frequency, as understood classically. I take advantage of these properties, enhanced by the gamma-ray, to set-off coincident detection events at rates exceeding chance. I measured a distance and EM frequency dependence in the Unquantum effect to support this view (in essay). My theory of the charge-wave and its application to the photelectric and Compton effects in the essay clarifies things. An absorption threshold and a subsequent quantized emission of light or charge reduces the photon model to an illusion.
It was nice that you understood to put photon in quotes. My hope for the future is that since we are showing the photon model fails, it is less confusing to use a different word like h-new, hf, hv, light emission, or anything but photon. One may say: "how can we replace the photon model"? (not knocking you at all)
Also, I would like to acknowledge that another essay by Ragazas has embraced the loading theory.
Very thankful for your comment. Eric Reiter, Sept 12, 2012.
Hi Eric,
I am going to write down my conception of what a photon is and what a particle is and perhaps show how they can fit with your experimental results. I hope others will join me in making theories to fit your data. This is not to denigrate Loading Theory, it may be The Theory, but when you have a very large pool of bright people, the bell curve can work its magic in finding other unexpected solutions.
This is not to take away from your essay or your work, I believe your place in history is certain and that you have broken a logjam that has been blocking physics.
I call my pet theory "Digital Wave Theory" (www.digitalwavetheory.com). If you visit my web site see the section "The Mechanics of Digital Waves".
Photons are discontinuous appearances of something that lasts for a Planck length and has a value of h (Planck's constant). This something is separated form the next something by a wavelength. A little thought will show that this string of somethings is a representation of the equation E=hf. I call the "somethings" Planck instances. A solitary Planck instant is undetectable but its reappearance after a wavelength has energy E = hf = hc/wavelenght.
A particle is similar to a photon but now the Planck instance is replaced by a Compton instance. A Compton instance is a photon that resonates at a wavelength that is the Compton wavelength for that particle. So, a particle looks like resonant high frequency light trapped in moving low frequency light.
Both Photons and Particles make their appearances according to Feynman's sum over histories technique, and can fit in with his diagrams. When light or particles are directed to a beamsplitter or a diffraction grating or to dual slits they technically do not enter the device but appear across it. An electron when it encounters a dual slit does not go thru it but hops across it. Technically an electron never goes thru even a single slit, because it does not move in a continuous fashion.
This is probably a good place to stop, with the comment that I believe this conception of a photon can fit in with your experimental results because with this concept it is very unlikely that your gamma ray source is producing what you conceive of as single quanta. If you are interested in how these weird ideas came about, you can find them on my website :)
Again thanks for your contribution.
Don L.
Dear Eric Reiter,
Constantinos Ragazas pointed me to your essay. I guess that your view is also not very different from those by Zeh and by Kadin who does perhaps not trust in someone who is forced to publish in arXiv backwards. So far I am supporting Kadin's main argument: Photons are no particles.
I admit having no proficiency in this subject. Nonetheless I do not exclude that my overly critical approach to very foundational questions could be of interest or even helpful to you.
Most of my readers will not even immediately understand how relevant in particular my Fig. 5 might be. It intends to qualitatively and quantitatively explain how a quite understandable mistake led to Lorentzian and Einsteinian speculations.
Curious,
Eckard
Dear Eric,
Your essay is very informative and fundamental. I agree with in many points. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) there is not the case that for example all protons have exactly the same mass. Every particle has its own mass which may be differ from the middle value. The same is for electrons and photons and so on. May be you look at the model of electron and explanation of its spin and some calculation of passing energy from electron to photon.
Hello Eric
This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.
This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:
Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.
An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.
Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity
Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.
Thank you and good luck.
Vladimir
Dear Joy,
I think that you would like my recent work Positive Definite Phase Space Quantum Mechanics, which provides a confirmation of the Einstein ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. My work confirms that the wavefunction associated to the Schrödinger equation represents an ensemble instead of a single system and gives the explicit representation of the ensemble in a phase formulation (beyond the Winger & Moyal formulation of QM).
Regards
Dear Eric,
Your essay consists of an interesting combination of experimental data, historical remarks, theoretical analysis, and epistemological considerations.
I found interesting your quantity Q. In my work Positive Definite Phase Space Quantum Mechanics, I obtain a similar quantity proportional to (h^2/m) that measures the deviation from Newtonian behaviour.
I completely agree with you that "attempts to explain wave properties of particles have serious flaws". I have devoted part of my essay to criticize some incorrect assumption taken in quantum mechanics.
Regards
Mr Eric,
Congratulations on An excellent essay with original thinking & interpretation of experimental results.
This is definitely a thought process that challenges the contemporary thinking on finality of views on nature as defined by contemporary physics. The topic challenging 'Quantized Absorption' based on experimental observation of energy variation due to preceding interaction can be considered to be a result of;
1. As per interpretation of author Eric S. Reiter, the exception to Quantized Absorption.
2. It can also be interpreted as challenge to conservation of energy itself.
Mr Eric S Reiter has chosen to minimize the challenge to energy conservation, these observations present, I believe it will be as big a challenge as we faced when we hypothesized potential energy (gravitation) as a form of energy to apply law on conservation (of matter) to energy.
As PicoPhysicist, I have commented on the essay by Norman D. Cook, where in I have stated that in interaction between particles with energy exchange does not necessary means exchange of photon in PicoPhysics.
This is so, since in PicoPhysics; energy of an identity (identified with space containing Knergy) is the measure of its deviation from dark energy per unit Knergy. The unit Knergy being the universal constant related to plank's constant. This is also a measure of disturbance it causes to uniformity of space.
A unit of Knergy undergoes continuous transformation representing change in its energy. While unit Knergy is indivisible due to Konservation, all interactions that are accompanied (or result of) by exchange particles, shall conform to Quantum mechanics. However Schrodinger's equation is mother law of quantum mechanics. The wave-function is analogous in nature. It represents a hypothecation of interaction between Knergy and space transforming natural quantum behaviour into continuous cause effect logic. So while interpreting quantum mechanics, if we are considerate about these facts;
1. Energy is not Konserved but conserved
2. Continuous nature of mathematical representation
PicoPhysicist find himself in peace with quantum mechanics in spite of the observations analysed by Eric S. Reiter. Conservation of energy is due to 'an interaction is governed by relaxation time of Space and Knergy in participating identities'.
Thanks & best Regards
Vijay Gupta
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
Deae Eric,
I would like to read about Planck's loading theory. Do you know of any document on internet accessible to general public that can give an idea about the same? I tried to google, but was unable to get any idea about the same.
I will appreciate if you provide a URL in reply to this message.
Vijay Gupta
Proponent Unary Law - Space Contains Knergy
Vijay; Thanks for your interest in the loading theory. I did much search for other works on the subject. All history I know of is referenced in my essay. Other than my work, see T. Kuhn where he discusses Planck's Second Theory, Millikan's book, and Compton and Allison's book, in my references. Other than Ragazas' work and his essay here, It seems we are the only ones currently working on the loading theory. Please see my paper linked from my references: An Understanding of the Particle-Like Property of Light and Charge, and also please visit my website unquantum.net. The loading theory was unfairly taught to fail in nearly all our physics textbooks, which is why no one uses it.
Thank you, ER
It is an amazing thing that so many physicists try to make wave action happen with particles. Extended fuzzy particles, or wave fronts on particles or other dimensions, or other universes, or whatever else they do seem like acts of desperation to me. Particles do not cancel out. It requires giving up the particle. But we see particle effects. That is why the ratio trick I developed is such a natural solution. Planck's constant, e, and m are maximums. It is a sophisticated concept that many will ignore. In many experiments the constants are at their threshold and we do not need to model the constants as maximums that track each other in e/m etc ratios. But there are still particle structures, from lots of evidence. The solution is that there must be two states of matter: (1) a contained wave state which is a particle, and (2) a true spreading matter-wave state. At least that is how I interpret our experimental evidence, mine and from others. I will study and rate your paper and please rate mine nicely. Thank you very much, ER
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Hello Eric,
It appears that the community has given you a good ranking after all, and I hope that the judges will treat your work kindly. I get the impression that you are committed to your research program, and given the results to date - this is understandable.
Try to give others plenty of slack, to interpret your results in their own way - while pointing out to all who ask that loading theory explains your results handily, as you have done - and you will avoid challenging others' pet beliefs.
Keep going with your research, my friend, and you will make us all proud to have affirmed your work - by placing you among those still in the game. I hope to see you in the winners' circle.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Hello again,
I mean no disrespect with the above comment, as I know that you have been thoughtful in all of your answers to questions and comments. I just think that you are sitting on something so important, that you should not feel like you have to work so hard to prove it, but rather can let the evidence speak for itself.
All the Best,
Jonathan