Dear Eric;
In a comment to me on my paper's comment page, Valdimir Tamari mentioned your paper, so I looked at it and I am glad that I did. It is always good to see a paper from an experimental scientist because it is more likely to be at least connected to the reality of actual observation than those that are provided strictly from information from theories that are not based on observed data, especially those based only on math models that often contradict actual observation. When you have the experimental data, it is only necessary to interpret that data to be in accord with observational reality. The most basic problem is that man has not yet been able to directly or even indirectly observe individual matter particles or energy photons (electromagnetic waves in your theory). (I will use the term photon to refer to the real entity whichever it actually is.) We are, therefore, left with looking at larger scale observations to get an understanding of their nature. First, observational data has shown that when an electron and a positron that both possess low kinetic energy are allowed to interact with each other, they generally produce two photons. The electron and positron both cease to exist. This shows us that an electron and a photon are basically composed of the same substance with just some difference in how that substance is arranged in them. Secondly, when a photon interacts with an electron in an atom it ceases to exist, leaving behind only motion that is either in the form of angular motion of the electron moving to a higher orbit within the atom or linear motion of the electron as it escapes the atom and travels off in some direction or a combination of both. From this it can be easily understood that the photon is composed of motion. By extension it can also be seen that a matter particle is composed of motion. The primary property of a motion is that it continually changes position and a change in position is an action, so it can be seen that internal action is a property of both the photon and the matter particle. In an interaction between a photon and an electron in an atom, the input action that occurs is that the photon's motion is transferred to the electron. Since the photon was composed of motion and that motion was transferred to the electron, the photon ceases to exist. The motion received by the electron is added to its kinetic motion, thus causing its motion to change as described above, which is the output action from the interaction. My paper "Understanding the Structure of the Universe a Basic Structural Toolkit" goes more in detail about the internal motion structure of photons and matter particles, etc. if you are interested.
I looked at your experiments as mentioned in your paper and find them very interesting. I noticed that you used them as evidence that an atom could be preloaded with energy (motion) from a photon interaction that would not add enough energy to eject an electron, but the photon would transfer its energy to the atom, which would, somehow, store that energy, so that a later interaction with another photon that did contain enough energy to free an electron from that atom, would do so sooner because it only needed to transfer some and not all of the second photon's energy to the atom to bring it up to the level necessary for electron ejection. I did not see anything about how the energy from the first interaction would be stored in the atom or why the excess energy from the second interaction would not just be transferred to the ejected electron in the form of kinetic energy (greater velocity). If the excess motion from the second interaction was transferred as an increase in kinetic energy to the ejected electron, the loading theory could be proven simply by noting that when atoms are bombarded by gamma ray photons of a specific frequency (all containing the same amount of energy) the ejected atoms sometimes had greater velocities than would be expected from the interaction of the atom with one such gamma ray photon, due to the energy that had been preloaded from some previous interaction. It is my understanding that experiments have been done by man that show that if you bombard atoms with a specific frequency of gamma ray photons and note the velocity of the ejected electrons and then do the same experiment again with higher frequency gamma ray photons, the ejected electron velocity will be greater when the higher frequency gamma ray photons are used. If that is the case, your theory would have to explain why the extra energy from the higher frequency photon would be transferred to the ejected electron, but the extra energy from preloading would not be transferred. Another thing that would seem to be necessary for the loading theory to explain is that one would expect that if you bombard atoms with photons that have a frequency that contains one half of the amount of energy required to eject an electron, the first interaction should preload the atom with that amount of energy and the second interaction would then supply the rest of the energy needed and thus trigger the release of an electron. It would be expected that if the beam magnitude or intensity was the same, about one half as many electrons would be ejected compared to the same experiment using photons that were just high enough in frequency to eject an electron. I believe this has been tried and such electron ejection has not occurred with the lower frequency photons.
I suggest the following experiments to give additional information that could possibly help to clarify whether preloading actually occurs and if so, possibly give more information about how it works.
1. Bombard a target with gamma ray photons from a very distant source. The source should be continuous (not pulsed, etc.) and distant enough that it might be expected that it would only result in the ejection of an electron on the average of about one per second or less. Velocity detectors should be used to determine the velocity of the ejected electrons. The high gamma ray frequency and the greater than one second charging time between electron emissions, would mean that the minimum preload energy step would be less than one billionth of the ejection level. To say it another way, it would take over a billion individual wavelength interactions with the atom to bring the preload all the way up to the ejection level (One good thing to determine would be if a minimum step level existed and if so, what it is). The incoming beam should be adjusted so that each wavelength would impact the entire target surface. This would mean that it should equally preload the same amount of energy into a large number of surface atoms during each wavelength interaction with the target. Unless there was an equal number of atoms at each preload charge state (not vary likely to happen), one would expect to see the time between electron ejections vary in accordance with how many atoms were at each charge state as each incoming photon wavelength would bring all of the atoms at the same step level up one step closer to electron emission until they reached the ejection level. They would then all eject electrons at once. This would mean that the ejection of electrons would proceed in order from the atoms with the greatest preload all the way down to those that had no preload. Since after an atom would eject an electron it would begin to preload again with the next incoming wavelength, the cycle would be continuous. This would mean that the same charge pattern would continually repeat. It may be that not every atom on the surface would interact with each incoming wavelength, so the pattern might change over time, but adjacent cycles should be adequately similar to give an idea of the initial preload pattern of the atoms on the surface of the target. If the photon is not a wave with an extended wave front, but is a localized entity that contains its energy (motion) within itself, one would not expect to see such a repetitive pattern. Instead the average time between electron ejections would just increase with increasing distance between the target and the source of photon emission. This would be because the photons would just become spaced farther apart as they spread out in the larger sphere that they would inhabit as the distance of that sphere got farther from the photon emission source in all directions. This would decrease the probability that a photon would be within the area of that sphere that intersected with the target at any given time, thus making it likely to take a longer time on the average between photon detections with increasing distance from the photon source. Each interaction would free an electron because the photon would contain the needed amount of energy within itself to do so regardless of how far it travelled. (Only Doppler shift would need to be considered). If there were no preloading of atoms, it would be obvious why an electron would not be ejected if two photons (with each containing one half of the energy needed to free an electron) struck an atom one after the other.
2. Next, the same input beam width that previously covered the entire target surface should be focused onto a small part of the target surface (let's say one hundredth or less of the target surface area). This should concentrate the wave energy onto a much smaller number of atoms and would, therefore, be expected to make any cycle pattern simpler because fewer atoms would be involved in the ejection cycle, so fewer preload charge steps could be occupied and the cycle would become shorter because each atom would receive one hundred times the preload energy from each input photon wave cycle. In the case of the localized photon no changes would be seen because the same number of photons would still be inputted to the detector. They would just interact with a smaller number of atoms on the target.
3. Finally, experiment one should be repeated and the input gamma ray source should be changed to a similar distant source of gamma ray emission that was about one half of the frequency of the original gamma ray source. The velocity of the ejected electrons should be compared to those ejected in experiment one when using the higher frequency gamma ray source. At this point it would be good to look at some possible energy storage types.
a. If the storage was a simple direct storage such as small additions to the electron's velocity with each wave cycle until escape velocity was reached, it would be expected that the ejected electron's velocity would be very small and could vary from just enough to allow the electron to escape the atom to that amount plus up to the amount added by one input wave cycle. This would mean that regardless of the incoming gamma ray frequency, the output electron velocity would be very close to the same velocity when a very weak wave from a very distant source was used in all cases because if the low frequency gamma ray required a billion steps to charge the electron to escape velocity a double frequency wave would still require five hundred million charge steps so the addition of one wave length of energy of either gamma ray would still be a very small part of the escape velocity, so the difference in ejected electron velocity would be very small regardless of the input gamma ray frequency.
b. If the storage was more indirect, it could be that the energy would be transferred to the electron only after some tipping point was reached. In this case, it could be that it would be transferred when the energy amount was high enough to allow the ejected electron to possess a greater velocity. Again, this output electron velocity would likely be about the same regardless of the frequency of the input gamma ray source, except as mentioned above due to the amount of energy added by one wavelength of the input wave.
c. The only way that the ejected electron velocity could vary greatly with the frequency of the input gamma ray would be if a very complex storage mechanism with a tipping point that was sensitive to the input energy frequency was involved.
i. There could be a separate energy storage and tipping point for each input frequency (not very likely),
ii. or just one place that energy is stored, but different tipping points that depend on the input energy wave frequency.
4. If the output ejected electron velocity varies greatly according to the input gamma ray wave frequency and a cycle pattern was detected in experiment one above and if there was a place in that cycle where a large number of ejections would occur compared to the rest of the cycle, then experiment one should be repeated and when the atoms that would eject electrons during that period would be charged to three quarters of the full ejection level, the input gamma ray source should be changed to a source of gamma ray emission that was about one half of the frequency of the original gamma ray source. If there was only one energy storage place and the electron ejection tipping point was dependent on the input gamma ray frequency, all of the atoms that were charged to three quarters of the high frequency ejection tipping point would be over charged for the lower frequency tipping point and would, therefore, be expected to eject electrons during the first wavelength of the lower frequency gamma ray input. If this did not occur, it would indicate that either the photon was not a wave or it would have to have a separate energy storage place for each possible input wave frequency, which would not be very likely because that could mean a very large number of storage places.
You may, of course have a detailed concept of how the preloading energy storage and energy transfer to generate electron emission would work; if so I would like to know what it is. In the long run, the important thing is to use the observational data to come to a more detailed understanding of how energy photons and matter particles are structured internally and how this internal structure comes into play in interactions between them to produce the observed outputs and explains why the probability of occurrence of each of the possible outputs is as it is. These are the kinds of things lacking in current quantum mechanics and where explanations have been given they often vary far from observed reality and are thus of little use in practical terms because they create more unknowns than they eliminate.
May you prosper in your search,
Paul N. Butler
