Eric, Georgina, John

I enjoyed Eric's explanation in answer to Georgina's comment.

John I started reading through the Carver Mead link you provided with great interest. And then it hit me that the page was on Caroline Thompson's website .

Please allow me a few personal words about her - we corresponded in the early 2000's by the then rather novel (for me) medium of email. She was a computer scientist associated with a Welsh university and had taken a keen interest in physics. Like many of us she could not accept the weirdness of Quantum physics, particularly the idea of entanglement without local causality in Bell's Theorem. When I read her claims about Einstein not being original or even wrong, I was aghast, but through corresponding with her - mainly about our common belief that there were "only waves" in nature, I came to realize that Einstein was indeed not sacrosanct . By the time I had published my Beautiful Universe theory in 2005 in which I presented a picture of energy transport that precludes a point photon, and explained probability as diffraction in a universal ether, Caroline was very sick but did not mention it to me - she passed away in 2006. She disagreed with my model, but we continued a friendly correspondence till the end.

We can all learn from her courageous example to seek out and engage whoever she can get to listen to her views in the physics establishment and not get discouraged. Eric, have a look what she says under the link "Suggestions for Experiments": " 'Photons' [her quotes] get split at beamsplitters" . Her explanation of why they do differs from our shared views (because it is a wave), but nevertheless she had the right instincts to question what was deemed beyond question. RIP Caroline Thompson.

Vladimir

    Eric,

    We are on the same train-of-thought re: non-quantum physics. The Loading Theory you use to explain your experimental results is what I call 'accumulation of energy'. Both of these ideas can account for the 'time delay' seen before a 'threshold' is reached for 'emission' to be observed.

    But there are some small differences between our thinking on this. And though these differences do not change any of the explanations of the experiments, they may be theoretically important for the underlying 'physical view' we have of this. I like to seek to clarify these differences. And hope to come to an agreement.

    Your view: Continuous absorption followed by discrete emission when a threshold is reached.

    My view: While energy propagates continuously as a wave it manifests discretely when local equilibrium conditions are attained and a threshold is reached. But before discrete manifestation there is continuous accumulation.

    The main difference as I see it is in your continuous absorption till a threshold is reached and observable emission happens. In my view, both 'absorption' and 'emission' (manifestations of energy) happen discretely. But before such discrete 'manifestation of energy' (when a threshold is reached) there is continuous 'accumulation of energy'. We both agree that energy propagates continuously as a wave. And there is a 'loading/accumulation' of energy before a threshold is reached and 'emission/manifestation' occurs.

    I really do not see the need to have 'continuous absorption'. And if I was to make an analogy with human affairs, I would argue it is more natural to have 'discrete' absorption of events by individuals (for example) in an otherwise continuous social environment; and when a 'personal threshold' is reached to have a discrete action/behavior to such events.

    Your response to Georgina is thorough. But your view she may not be understanding may not be quite right. From many previous exchanges with Georgina I had a couple of years ago I know she understands the 'accumulation before manifestation' of energy idea. And this, for all practical purposes, is equivalent to 'loading'.

    Constantinos

    Yes Caroline was great, and an early ally of mine. Caroline Thompson and I exchanged many letters ~2003-05. Most of our conversation was about artifacts in reports of buckyball diffraction. We agreed that it was not possible that such large molecules could act like waves and that there must be something else going on to explain their data. She listed me on her website here.

    The link there is old. My dot com url was stolen from me by webcountry; really.

    John; There are many important concepts in Mead's writing that are/were consistent with mine. The electron as a wave that does not need a medium for the wave to spread in, is most important. I see light that way also. Does light propagate its own medium? What a great interview. Pretty sure I saw this page long ago.

    Thank you. ER

    Eric,

    In my essay I make a very simple observation, that the problem with our understanding of time is that we focus on the chain of events, which physics re-enforces by treating time as a measure of interval, rather than considering the underlaying process. Rather than it being a progression from past to future, it is change causing future to become past. For example, the earth doesn't travel some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

    What this means in regard to not just quantum phenomena, but everything, is that the object cannot be isolated from its action, because there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time. Time is an effect, just like temperature. In terms of waves, time is frequency and temperature is amplitude. We are all wave action.

    Dear Eric,

    I just now discovered that you wrote a comment on my 'understanding' QM article in vixra. I need to better understand loading theory before I can make an informed judgement, but let me say that I am impressed by your empirically based approach. Although I am very disappointed in how this contest was handled, I am glad that you made it to the top finalists (even though, by virtue of believing that standard QM is essentially correct, I disagree with your conclusions) and hope that your experiment will be replicated by independent researchers. After all, we are in this as a search for truth, even if it refutes what we believe, and having other independent researchers duplicate your findings will give you a tremendous boost.

    All the best,

    Armin

    You should seriously consider, if you haven't already, presenting your findings at some quantum foundations conferences. you can find a list e.g. at quantum.info and click on conferences.

    Dear Eric Stanley Reiter,

    As universe is infinite, quantization is imperative in that wave mechanics in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe differs in quantization as this paradigm does not describe the fundamental matters as point like particles and ascribes as eigen-rotational strings. In this regard, your work on Particle violation spectroscopy is much appropriate to validate some of the conjectures in this paradigm, in that we may assume string splitting at the wavefront on wave progression.

    With best wishes

    Jayakar

      19 days later

      That is great that you had contacts with Caroline. Another researcher friend with whom I corresponded is Gabriel LaFreniere - his simulation of matter as standing waves may be relevant to the discussion of particle diffraction. Sadly his original website is deleted, but it is preserved as a web archives - be sure to click on the latest archived version in the top bar.

      7 days later

      Congratulations Eric!

      The publication in Scientific American of David Tong's article on The Unquantum Quantum is sure to be a boost to your research and your visibility, even though the author makes no mention of you specifically. It is apparently an edited version of his contest essay from last year, and it contains a link at the end to the FQXi essay contest - which of course features the current crop. And anyone scanning for related content is likely to find your essay.

      I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving!

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      Georgiana; I cannot tell if you really understand, so please let me clarify. You are correct in saying that I do not need to prime the detector. The experiment shows that matter, in this case the charge-wave, can exist pre-primed below a naturally existing threshold. It does give a detection that is characteristic of a "photon" hf, with less than a photon's (hf)worth of energy hitting the detector. That is what my experiments show because it gives two-for-one. Some may try to change the definition of a photon, but that would be too confusing. I am showing that the photon model fails, but that E=hf is still correct. The important concept is that h is a maximum. Thank you.

      Happy Thanksgiving to all - yes Jonathan - you beat me to the punch! At the library today I was happily surprised to see the huge title "The Unquantum Quantum" in the December issue of SA, and wanted to tell Eric that David or whoever wrote the title - must have read his work. In an abridged digital version of the paper the title was changed, but the original title is mentioned in a footnote.

      Best

      Vladimir

        Eric,

        Congratulations on "Outstanding" work... You are an asset to the cause of science. Note: Much in Physics today, even with the traditions of Thermodynamics and warped SpaceTime are askew, pending additional thought, review and testing... Your efforts are thoughtful and sound, albeit possibly not all conclusions are firmed up as of yet, and may never be given the nature of the finite, being limited in examining our infinite truths...

        But to my point: Great Work, and I agree with another gentleman, you should write a book for "Dummies", so that I can quickly grasp your fullness of efforts...

        Again, thanks for adding to the wisdom of pushing the envelope...

        Russ

        Eric,

        Thanks, to Vladimir F. Tamari I've just discovered your very interesting essay. Not being a physicist, it'll be a slow read for me. However, I think you might find the following 'simple' experiment, proposed to test whether spacetime is granular or continuous, very interesting - if you haven't already, please see Single photon could detect quantum-scale black holes:

        Jacob D. Bekenstein, (Nov 16 2012), "Is a tabletop search for Planck scale signals feasible?" [link:arxiv.org/abs/1211.3816v1] arXiv:1211.3816v1 [gr-qc][/link]

        I for one would be very interested in (independent) test results, or at least a thorough evaluation of the proposed experiment methodology...

        Best wishes,

        Jim

          Vladimir,

          Thank you very much for your comment in the brief "Scientific American" online preview article, Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?, in which you provided a reference to Eric's essay entry. I look forward to reading it.

          BTW, IMO it should't be presumed that David Tong selected the title for his "Scientific American" article, "The Unquantum Quantum" - the SA editors may have been (once again) at least to some extent responsible... Also, the brief print article preview ('teaser') articles often have somewhat different titles.

          You might find the SA version of the "Nature" article I've referenced (in my comment to Eric) below interesting (along with perhaps some of the comments) - please see Single Photon Could Detect Quantum-Scale Black Holes.

          Thanks again,

          Jim

          Good work Jim,

          You beat me to the punch on this one, as I believe that Eric may indeed be equipped to examine this matter, or will be once he has some FQXi prize money to work with. The Bekenstein paper looks very interesting. For comparison; you should look at Craig Hogan's experiment - also looking at Planck scale variations. IMO; Hogan tests for a wider range of possible variations, while Bekenstein is counting on the Compton wavelength equals Schwarzchild radius for prediction of mini Black Holes. I'll post a link below, once I find same, assuming I find time. Either way; happy hunting.

          Regards,

          Jonathan

          Dear Eric Reiter,

          Meanwhile I am pretty sure having found out where Michelson and Morley went wrong. Maxwell's opinion proved correct; Michelson's attempt to measure the speed of aether re earth by means of interference was doomed to fail. Potier was also correct; Michelson's reasoning of 1881 ignored any effect on the second path. However the 1887 correction was still incorrect too. All experts of the 19th and 20th century were misled because Lorentz and others overlooked a trifle that was not obvious re space. I am about describing the fallacy in detail. Perhaps Norbert Feist was correct when he recently defended a common frame of reference.

          I wonder if there are still serious arguments in favor of particle-like photons instead of electromagnetic waves.

          Incidentally, did you notice my reference to Gompf et al. in earlier essays of mine?

          Your ally Eckard Blumschein (1364)

          Hi Eric,

          I found a couple of Hogan's papers to link to. I also copied sets of presentation slides to my computer, which show details of the experiment, but they are larger than the 1 Meg limit. I can e-mail those slides if this work sounds interesting, and I also have some ideas about how this experiment might be shrunk significantly using folded paths.

          An earlier paper discussing the basis for Hogan's experiment is:

          Interferometers as Probes of Planckian Quantum Geometry

          And a more recent paper with further detail is:

          Quantum Geometry and Interferometry

          Regards,

          Jonathan

          Jonathan,

          Thanks - in my case I'm sure it was just happenstance (as opposed to dumb luck).

          I'd first be interested in Eric's thorough technical evaluation of the proposed experimental methodology - that might not require any of the hoped for prize money...

          Thanks for recommending Craig's Hogan's work,

          Jim

          4 days later

          "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."

          This is the fundamental statement. This is the question I had fifty years ago when I first heard the proposition that light appears to exist both as waves and particles. I could not fully accept it then and I still cannot now. The condition, as I later found out, is that the change is observed in interaction with matter. Lately, I refined my ideas to suggest that a stream of discrete packets of energy (photons) or interruptions in the continuity of the wave is caused when the wave intersects with the energy of electrons in orbit around a nucleus. The electrons, as we know, gain energy in this interaction and are promoted to larger orbits around the nuclei of their respective atoms. The energy that is absorbed from the intersecting wavefront reduces the constancy needed for continuity of the wave and appears as discrete packets to the observer. The exact nature of this interaction should be able to be calculated as a function of the frequency of the waveform and the energy constant of the outer orbitals of the specific elements involved. The observed frequency of the stream of pseudo-particles, in this scenario, would relate to the frequency of revolution of the orbital electron. Under this conjecture, when out of the influence of matter, the wave should reform at the same or at a less energised level of the spectrum (e.g., the same or a different colour), depending on how much energy has been "robbed" from it. Can this be tested?