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
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter
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
Eric
I agree with Jonathen's wise words. Appearing 'prickly' and closed minded can only drain support. Congrats for getting in. I agree you well deserve to be. I still hope you can make a greater effort to receive and follow the logic of my own essay, supporting and relying on loading theory, but also offering more.
I'm also interested in your views and predictions of the work of the new Nobel Laureates wrt loading theory.
Best of luck
Peter
[deleted]
Dear Eric,
I am sorry that I have only just got to your essay. It seems to be one of very few essays in the competition discussing new experimental work. You have explained it very clearly and it is interesting to me. When I watched the videos of Richard Feynman's Auckland lectures I was stuck by how adamant he was about the particle nature of light, despite so much uncertainty surrounding the reason "why" for quantum statistical behaviour. That view was based upon the then available experimental evidence.
I have been happy to sit on the fence having no way of verifying what is there for myself while regarding a photon as the smallest detectable amount of energy (change). That view is shown to be incorrect if you have demonstrated smaller detections are possible. Do you have any thoughts about the practical implications/ usefulness of this research, such as for technology?
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.
[deleted]
Thank you very much for your explanation. I now understand what you mean by pre-loading, I was thinking you had somehow primed the receptor so it could give a reading with less than a photon of energy input. Which was not what you were saying. (Good, I won't have to change the definition of a photon on my word list after all.) I remember this kind of building up of energy prior to detection idea from Constantinos Ragazas' essay from last year, and discussion of it.
Really interesting to hear that you already have new applications for the unquantum effect and lots of possibilities for the future.Fascinating and surprising reply to that question. Good luck. Regards Georgina
[deleted]
Eric,
I saw you mention not finding many others coming to the same view and thought you would find this interview with Carver Mead to be of interest.
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
[deleted]
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
[deleted]
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.
[deleted]
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
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.
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
I do not understand your first few sentences, but I agree on string splitting. The alpha-ray matter-wave string is split-able. Thank you.
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.