Please. You misunderstood my theory.
E=hf is still the smallest detectable energy for light, but I use hf in a model that differs from the photon model. The photon model, its definition, is phenomenological but not spatially understandable. Simply put, a photon will go one way or another at a beam splitter, but after the beam splitter the beams can be reconverged to read over time an interference pattern. Here is what I did: from a source that emits one hf at a time, by reading two detections in coincidence at rates exceeding chance, I show that the emitted hf bursts of light do NOT need to always go one way or another at a beam spltter. So there are no photons. Here is how I explain it: E=hf is still correct for an energy of emission, but thereafter the energy spreads classically. The response at absorption (detection) must include the option of continuous absorption whereby energy is pre-loaded ahead of time. At absorption, light energy must have the option of loading-up to a threshold level; then it makes a quantized emission of charge or light for us to detect. Continuous-absorption/quantized-emission is Planck's Second Theory of 1911. Otherwise I would not read coincidence rates exceeding chance. Others have seen only chance in this type of beam-split coincidence experiment using visible light, but they were reading noise and were not able to see through the illusion explained by the loading theory. Gamma rays let us see through the illusion. Waves diffract, and thresholds explain the particle-like properties. Electrons and other matter-waves diffract, so they must similarly work with a loading theory. I showed my unquantum effect for both matter and light.
Feynman and others had plenty of evidence available against the particle nature of light. The greatest mistake is that they did not understand that the response time in the photoelectric effect does have a loading time, and they confused minimum response time with maximum response time. This loading time was in the data of Lawrence and Beams 1928, but was misinterpreted by almost everyone. Also, Feynman in QED said a PMT will give pulse-heights proportional to electromagnetic frequency. This is true only for the average pulse height, and there is a wide distribution. Gamma-rays do not have that problem and this is part of how using gamma-rays can see through the QM particle/probability illusion. I elaborate on many similar points on my website: Exposure of Physics Misconceptions. My experiments could have been done in the 1950's, but by then our textbook and journal editors we were convinced in duality (the particle/probability model of QM). There were unforgivable biases propagated. I documented much historical analysis to justify this conclusion. Many others have opposed QM, but a transcendence requires, in addition to theory and historical analysis, experiments that directly contradict QM.
For practical and research applications, I expect the unquantum effect to be very useful in semiconductor research. I was able to read orientation effects in silicon and germanium. The gamma-split effect is able to read electron structure not seen otherwise; see my link to "Photon Violation Spectroscopy." Similarly for the alpha-ray, see "Particle Violation Spectroscopy," I was able to read slight variations in alloys. I have a few other practical applications, but they are potentially inventions that I want to test before blabbering them. We can expect many inventions; have at it. I expect variations in the matter-wave unquantum effect to be sensitive to neutrino flux and be a better neutrino detector. To ask for practical applications is like asking early investigators of electricity, "what can we do with it?" We can expect thousands of future practical applications, but here are a few ideas: The pre-loaded state may explain dark matter. Also, a diffused pre-loaded state may be the identity of the ether and gravity, a diffuse psi-wave field. The envelope of psi is the identity of mass, so we do not need a Higgs particle for that. But these are only good guesses. In biology, we can expect to better understand resonances in macromolecules and know how to influence how they find each other; I have an experiment constructed, but not perfected, to test that.
If someone has a way to describe my unquantum experiments, and all past experiments, without the loading theory, please let me know. Otherwise I explain everything with the loading theory. My seemingly important improvement to the loading theory was to realize that constants like h, e, & m are maximums and that their ratios are conserved. This lets matter spread like a wave and retain its complexity so that details of the wave can encode its identity (type of "particle")for subsequent loading-up to a particle-like event at thresholds h, e, & m. To fully understand my message, one needs to read my more detailed works, especially "An Understanding of the Particle-LIKE Property of Light and Charge." There, I analyze many past experiments with the loading theory and show flaws in interpretation of past experiments. Please use the links from my essay for my latest editing.
Let me add an important point that I should have stressed more in my essay. The most important fundamental physical assumption that is wrong is that our experiments have been interpreted in a way that has accepted wave-particle duality. We thought duality was a way of nature. Duality models were only "heuristic," as expressed in the title of Einstein's photoelectric paper of 1905. We should have realized that duality is only a temporary way of seeing things. Closeness to truth is found by devising an interpretation of all our experiments without wave-particle duality.
Thank you, Eric Reiter, October 14, 2012.
