I thought maybe I should look at describing how the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment outcomes come about. Sabine Hossenfelder has an informative video on it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U Which is basically showing the reaction to the results is 'a fuss about nothing'. She mentions at the end, the weirdness of the original double slit experiment and says she thinks the bomb experiment is far weirder than the quantum eraser. in the first half of my latest paper, I have given both the quantum physics and photon partition hypothesis explanation of the results both of these experiments; (the latter quashing the weirdness).

Here, once again, we are dealing with a situation that doesn't have a simple black and white answer.

The subtle difference between a wave and something influenced by a wave/ waves. Only the something influenced, (a localized existence, or element of noumenal realty) that is able to cause a detectable phenomenon.

The wave by itself is not detectable. Because of that it is less than a photon (sub photon Companion). Known to be present because of its influence on the localized element of object reality ( or in some scenarios its separate non local presence can be inferred by the lack of detected influence.) Still, evidence of physically real interaction.

Hello again, both Tom and Georgina,

At great risk of setting off an 'Oh Hell NO!' reaction, both of your recent postings actually contribute to a matter near and dear to me. Modeling a realistic cyclic Wave/Particle soliton 'wavetrain' of EMR. One big metaphysical problem is an ontology that provides a gravitationally bound soliton that does NOT interact with (a manifold) other solitons, independent of wavelength. So the spacetime displacement model Tom has sketched out is workable. And Georgina, now you are getting serious! Good to see. I also conceive of a partition of a divisible Quanta, though I'll not discount efforts to quantize a partition of a whole Quantum. best wishes. jrc

Hi John,

Good to talk to you again. I am working to make this idea compelling, and I appreciate your vote of confidence.

It is in broad agreement with Samir Mathur's 2021 1st prize winning essay in the Gravity Research Foundation competition, The Elastic Universe. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f27b8/t/609d5462d37887169927b065/1620923493922/Mathur_2021.pdf

So far as Georgina's program goes, I think she is trying to redefine "quantum". I'm not into that, because if it's plausible, it takes too much work to prove mathematically, and I see no practical way to test it. It seems to me that a massless particle divides infinite times, and what's the use of that?

Best,

Tom

    Thanks, Zeeya. Much appreciated, though the title should be "radiation WITHOUT annihilation".

    Tom,

    You make a very solid argument equating the std QM superposition of 'massless particles' with a displacement of physically real spacetime. And that implies a rigidity at the limit of gravitational bound, however tenuous by our macro world registry devices to observe.

    It also implies that a Quantum of energy along with its mass equivalence is transferred across space. I do however agree with Georgi in that the conventional interpretation of 'Quantum' is ill defined. Afterall, the quantum is an empirically derived theoretical measure of the energy transferred over the duration of one full second of time. Yet we are accustomed to counting the actual number of waves in such reception apparatus as good ol' radio. So if we accept that e=hf, then a quantum is nothing more or less than the number of waves of any specified frequency per second, and it is only by experimental estimation of intensity that it can be calculated that only a very few 'quantum' have been observed. So I am pleased that Georgina is getting down into the weeds of experimental comparison towards an ontology which will call into practice an actual mathematical analysis that makes 'hypothesis' something more than conjecture.

    I think we can all agree that "massless particles" continue to be a convenient patch over an experimental lack of understanding. While this does not dispute that light velocity is the limit to acceleration of any size mass, that does not preclude that size of mass may well be the limit to that velocity being achieved. A small enough mass equivalent quantity may have a proportionate upper density bound that would be less than that exhibiting a ballistic, or parabolic function response which is the criteria by which mass is measured. And as always, I continue to hold that energy density varies in direct inverse relation to existant velocity. We would not be able to directly observe that relative density, but if we can theoretically deduce it, we would still be dependent on SR for measurement in observations. best ;-) jrc

    Hi John,

    Not superposition, which is a mathematical artifact. In general relativity, spacetime is a real, physical quantity. Because it has the property of "having an effect ... not itself influenced by physical conditions" it must displace itself. I maintain that the same Newtonian equation that defines mass, applies to spacetime under pressure (the LASER effect, which I plan to expand upon).

    You speak of a "quantum of energy" when Georgina is using a quantum of light--a photon. So I really don't understand what she and you are up to, and I won't have time to study it in the near future. (At my age, everything is in the near future.)

    More, later.

    Best,

    Tom

      Hi Tom,

      LOL, my future is pretty near too! I'm waiting on results for an EKG, apparently I've developed some arrythmia but I don't notice it.

      To my way of thinking, what we generically call 'energy' is a material manifestation of the tension inherent to spacetime conceptually illustrated as the difference between a straight line and a curve. 'Material' connotes substance such as macroscopically experienced solid objects, yet I think we can stretch that to include the physicality of spacetime being provisional of the stuff of a material point. It need not be of such density to exhibit an inelastic response, in parlance it could be quite ephemeral and yet rigid in that it would not be itself influenced. So I can easily envision a soliton manifesting in physical form a whole range of tension density that gives rise to the fields from gravitational response only, across 4 magnitudes of light velocity to the gravitationally compact 'hard' particle with which convention holds the fields are associated. But one does have to narrow things down to a modest enough scope to be able to produce at least some aspect of nature in usable formality. best jrc

      Hi Tom, John, I'm not trying to redefine 'quantum' but questioning the idea. At the outset, there is a question to be asked- When we detect/ measure a photon are we detecting/measuring all that there is ? Or are we only measuring that part which activates the sensor or causes visible effect? In the latter case we can speculate that the detectable portion may be separated from some of the not directly detectable. Which as argued can account for interference on reunion, non local effects after beam splitting; in particular 'interaction free testing.' The sub photon part, while not directly detectable can be known by its effect. (Like an animals presence in an area can be known by its footprint.) That it exists and can be directed may yet have some practical application beyond 'interaction free testing'. As to whether the detectable photon body is divisible, it may well be more cohesive than the sub photon. I offer some experiments to interrogate photon nature.

      I should make clear, that what I'm calling a photon is that existence, a noumenal reality, emitted by an exited atom. Also initiating the phenomenal realty of a photomultiplier click or discreet spot of exposure of a film. The name is also taken to imply 'something ( fitting previous description) that is entire.

      hi Georgena,

      Yes, I got that, and I think its worthwhile to inquire into. There are the Conservation Laws that are a reliable guide to investigation so any partition can be quantifiable within an experimental protocol of total input and total output of measurable effects. I like the Work function of rapidity, myself, in the interpretation of the photoelectric effect, in contravention of the general consensus of a whole quantum valued single particle photon. There is lots of theoretical room to be had in the Transition Zone as well. Best of Luck and don't hesitate to commit to a few mathematical guesses to see what might pan out, you don't have to tell anyone unless you think you've hit on a rationale that promotes an ontological line of reasoning. That's how a lot of discoveries were actually made. The ol' "poke it with a stick" approach. jrc

      John, Georgina:

      As soon as I can penetrate your reasoning enough to comment, I will.

      I've refined my quantum gravity paper: Gravity

      Hey John,

      Usually, when one gives physical meaning to lines and curves, it is in terms of changes in velocity, not an inherent energy in spacetime. That's what special relativity says, too. Change of velocity due to strong gravity ('curved spacetime') does not change the velocity of light. It's the constant by which mass is measured.

      I have a long passage from Einstein on building a theory out of material points, if that's where you're going. Otherwise, I don't get the rest of what you are saying, could be my reading comprehension declining with age.

      Georgina,

      I still can't grasp the value of splitting a quantum. What am I missing? What physical conclusion am I expected to reach?

      Best always, guys -- Tom

        Hi Tom,

        I think one important point is that it allows for physical reality based explanation of 'quantum strangeness', rather than just abstract mathematical. Nicely demonstrated by " interaction free' testing. Which using the partition hypothesis is not interaction free- but enabled by removal from circulation of the interacting (not directly detectable) sub photon.

        Hi Georgina,

        So if it's based in physical reality, it's testable, true?

        I'm confused. You say it's interaction free tested (I don't really know what that means), but your tests are not interaction free. Then if it's already tested, why do you need to introduce another set of conditions that show the existence of an undetectable particle?

          Hi Tom, it's possible to carry out some tests that will give some evidence of photon nature.

          Interaction free testing is suggested by the Erlitzer-Vaidman bomb tester thought experiment . If a QM explanation is used.( A variation of the experiment has been carried out. I don't have the reference to hand). Two sensors are positioned so that they correspond to the 'dark' and 'light' bands of an interference pattern. If there is interference the 'dark band' detector doesn't make a detection; as it is dark, Only the 'light band ' detector detects. However if there is no interference the formerly unresponsive detector can be activated. There is no interference when, according to QM while in superposition , there is non local 'encounter' with the bomb, which is a measurement. The measurement causes the superposition to become instead a localized particle, on the path without a bomb. No interference when the paths are joined and the particle never encountered the bomb, That's why it's called interaction free.

          The partition hypothesis proposes that wave like sub photon companion takes both paths. That gives interference UNLESS the free sub photon is taken out of circulation by a barrier or detector or object in its path. There has to be interaction, by that way of thinking, to loose interference.

          It isn't directly testable but can be known by its effect.

          The tests are not the bomb experiment but asking what happens if the photons nature is this that or the other.

          HI Georgina,

          The bomb experiment sounds to me like a fancy way to observe collapse of the wave function. That could be valuable, for narrowing the field of candidates for a correct quantum theory. Personally, I believe that it can't succeed, merely for the facts that superposition is a mathematical, not physical artifact--and that the transformation of the superposed particle is discontinuous.

          A non-collapsing interpretation of QM (such as Hugh Everett's relative state model) has the advantage of preserving locality without those assumptions of conventional quantum theory. BTW, my research agrees with the Everett model, insomuch as the role of time defaults to a local nonlinear state--as opposed to the conventional nonlocal linear state. It's in the paper.

          As to the nature of the photon--speaking of my paper, which deals a lot with photons--what would you say happens when the mirrors reach zero separation? What is the nature of the trapped photons vs. the photons that escape? What are the consequences of having two sets of photons with different natures?

          Thanks for the clear explanation, much appreciated.

          Tom, I've taken a look at your papers. They are over my head. I don't have any answers to your questions.

          The very end, last paragraph before the acknowledgments.

          Georgina,

          Okay. Then just explain to me what you mean by "photon nature."

          By photon nature i mean Form and function, as it exists and happens within material, noumenal reality. Not the measured or observed phenomenon. Not an abstract 'entity' in mathematical space. I don't presume to know photon nature but I've made some suggestions and given what I think would be the experimental outcomes of such; for the given experimental set up.

          Forgive me again if I've missed it. What do you expect to conclude, or predict as an outcome of the experiment?

          My fault I was being ambiguous. The experiment I was referring to was set out in https://vixra.org/abs/2203.0095 The Revised Photon Partition Hypothesis: Interrogating Photons Not your own thought experiment.

          From that paper, Question:

          Is a treated photon that has encountered a half silvered mirror and not been reunited by path joining,

          1. divisible into all non detectable members

          2. divisible into a detectable and an undetectable part like an untreated entire photon or

          3. fundamentally different from an entire photon in its indivisibility.

          Using a combination of Mach Zehndler interferometers, with and without barriers to deny and allow reuniting of paths as needed.

          Possible outcomes and what they imply:

          Outcome 1: no detection. Addresses the question Can the cut photon body be divided? May indicate that even a cut photon body is not an indivisible fundamental particle. As will occur if divisible into all non detectable members. Supports the photon partition hypothesis for explanation of so called quantum effects. (Check the apparatus is working and set up correctly by testing with opaque blocks removed and getting usual photon detection results.)

          Outcome 2: Usual photon behaviour. Detectable as particle or showing interference pattern if paths are reunited. Supplementary question: If this is found How many times can an un-reunited photon be 're-cut'? If the nswer is many or indefinitely many it may be indicating that the sub photon companion is being regenerated from the environment. Further investigation is needed to differentiate non split-able photon (photon partition hypothesis is wrong) from one that can split (so can have non local effect) and also spontaneously regenerates.. Lets call it 'partition plus hypothesis' Supplementary experiment: If outcome 2 is found, use a series of interferometers as a modification of the apparatus to investigate; after how many half silvered mirror encounters, the interference pattern ceases to be formed after necessary pathway joining. Given a laser of sufficient intensity for use with a series of interferometers.

          Outcome 3: Photons can be detected but no evidence of an interference pattern can be obtained, suggests that the photon minus part of its sub photon companion can not be re-divided into normally interfering sub photon companion, and a cut photon body complement. Showing that a cut photon body is different from an entire photon. Supports the photon partition hypothesis for explanation of so called quantum effects

          Georgina,

          Of the three questions and outcomes, I cannot find one that is testable by scientific method and verifiable by correspondence with a theory that makes a closed logical judgement. I'm only interested in truths that can be shown correspondent to a mathematical model. Not to disparage your research, however--by 3-valued logic, there is true, false and unproven. Many unprovable truths have been converted to scientific theories.

          Tom, thank you for thinking about it. I have given the apparatus set up that could be used. I don't know which outcome will be found, It is more a preliminary fact finding mission than proof of a theory. Each question could be written as if, then. If a photon is divisible into all unmeasurable parts then no detection will be obtained; and so on for all three questions and possible outcomes. That's all it is at present. Asking what happens in this specific circumstance.

          As for your question. Ii think the crushed source will prevent the mirrors from being brought completely touching together. So the trapped photons will be undergoing repeated phase changes. Whereas the free photons that have passed through stop changing phase when free of the mirrors. I don't know if trapped photons still qualify as photons.

          Re. yours. What about gradual dissipation of energy by the material of the mirrors, with very many reflections; especially by the metalic backing? Loss of photons of energy not loss of energy content of individual photons.

          Georgi and Tom,

          Thinking of Rob McEachern's argument that what we measure is simply that which we seek, the question of 'what is a photon' is a matter of the experimenter's choice. While I can go along with there being non-detected properties, and a divisible quantum or specifically, Quanta, at some point there is a need to mathematically qualify what it is that we seek.

          In my early modeling, I simply followed a naive mathematical rationale which partitioned the individual Planck value Quanta between a mass:energy particle and the impetus which accelerated it to a peak periodic velocity at mid-point of any wavelength, and let the chips fall where they would. That quickly led to a seeming contradictory condition wherein the particle portion exceeded the Planck value at twice the wavelength of the arbitrary benchmark wavelength. In the same wise of a 'fact finding' exercise, I simply contented myself with an intuitive reasoning that the physical mass equivalence mattered less then the rate of momentum transfer by the particle form with any detection system. Crude and naive to be sure. But it, in the end analysis panned out as a parametric model leading to fully relativistic mathematical rationale which can account for the quantity of energy in a rest mass particulate field, distributed in a continuous gradient of density defining a finite volume. This satisfies Wheeler's zero boundary condition, where conventional attempts employing integrating over partial differentials always leads to a feedback loop at the minimum density boundary limit.

          So I'm not the one whom should argue with how anyone else attempts to analysis "what is a photon?".

          Best, as always. I've been dealing with some personal issues, so excuse me if I don't chime in very often :-) jrc

          Edit to last post:

          I should have stated it as 'a generally relativistic mathematical rationale' rather than 'fully' in that while the rationale to be consistent with the zero boundary condition requires the time parameter to be generally covariant with dilation. Rather than velocity of the energy field decelerating from light velocity to nil across the condensate, the rate of passage of time slows from light speed equivalence to nil. Hence at the light velocity limit of an empirically derived universal minimum energy density necessary to maintain simple connectivity translatory of inertia, no physical motion of the enrgy at that boundary is either necessary or possible.

          ON A PERSONAL NOTE: I have belatedly joined Facebook to facilitate downsizing a bunch of stuff collected over my adult life through the Marketplace feature and 'Groups'. Pretty handy, but FB's conglomerated entanglement is complicated, error-prone, sluggish and a PITA. It wouldn't let me post a listing on a local buy and sell group until I tried logging in to FQXI and leaving that tab open to let FB's algorithm know I was a real account while I went through the FB posting process. It seemed to work BUT... on my next session after shutting down and tabbing up FQXI, I got a big red Alert flag saying fqxi or I might be getting hacked! I have chanced it this once by going the work around of the alert which cleared my FQXI loggin button and had to manually put in my email and password. If you don't hear from me for a while, I've been screwed! Onward through the fog! Facebook is notorious for data mining and I debated long and hard before creating an account, but its gotten to the point where you can't DO anything without being online! Like Einstein said, "It's easier to control the splitting of an atom, than to control what men do with it". :-) jrc

          Georgina,

          "Ii think the crushed source will prevent the mirrors from being brought completely touching together."

          Why? Any number of massless particles can occupy the same space,

          "So the trapped photons will be undergoing repeated phase changes. Whereas the free photons that have passed through stop changing phase when free of the mirrors."

          Significance?

          "I don't know if trapped photons still qualify as photons."

          Do they qualify as light? What, then? Is a trapped photon still a quantum of light?

          The end result should be a polarized population, the dense phase-changing positive state, and the unchanging negative state.

          Tom,

          I get what you argue as the end result. Providing a perfect mirror could exist, but essentially valid. jrc

          Hi Tom, the source of the photons isn't just photons though. Surly its something like a laser or light bulb or heated metal. What is it if not some kind of atomic material or object?

          The trapped photon can't be measured or have any effect. so it has no phenomenal reality. You will have to state it is a noumenal reality on the belief that photons can remain as trapped entities, if it is to be at all real. Only achievable because you employ an unrealistic perfect kind of mirror. It seems to me. But I don't claim understand your work.

          John, Georgina,

          It's a thought experiment, but even a thought experiment must be doable in principle.

          To try and cut to the chase, I'll say that if the Aharonov-Bohm effect is true, my proposed experiments--soliton creation and space roar source--are valid.

          7 days later

          Fundamental nature has revealed these numerical clues: the speed of light is 299792458, the proton/electron mass ratio is 1836.15289, and the intervals between the atomic numbers of the noble gases is 2/8/18/18/32. What is the meaning of these numbers? Why not some other quantities?

          Tom, that said on the other thread, the solitons semm important, the real secret is still the philsophiucal origin of the universe and why we have these solitons and the most importan why theyr propagate and these propagations are the secret and for this we have also the superfluidity becoming a key.They are everywhere these solitons in nmechanic, like in optic , like in hydrodynamic..... and they can be linear or non linear. For me the real interest now is to analyse the QFT and inconsidering the 3 systems merging that I explained, There are so deeper parameters implying these solitons and the works of sine gordon and schrodinger can be utilised but we need in logic to superimpose deeper equations of cause and mainly the space vacuum possessing the main codes .All this to tell that the cause of our standard model for example if not from the GR but from the spacevacuum of this DE and so the solitons and propagations and oscillations also in a sense ....

          2 months later
          5 months later

          Electron Doping? by David Vognar

          I think it helps to visualize physics so that it doesn't amount to equations that don't describe the "fitness" of their operations to physical reality as precisely as they could.

          For instance, when we think of an electron, which seems to play the most vital part of Quantum Computing (because even the most advanced QC's try to achieve alternating states of superconductivity or single-state per macro state conditions), I think we can think of it as similar to doping sticks.

          Considering a Bohmian 8 +1 + 1 + 1 + n +1... universal physical reality accessible at this point in history to human consciousness (with 4 implicate and 4 explicate dimensions of time/space/energy/matter and 1 rotating through point standing for the "0" dimension or vacuum space: Can we think of this one micro state per macro state condition as "doping" or adding through electron valences: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.5027198.

          This doping can be Levy Flighted to create a system whereby one can expressly interchange and "control" the doping and thus the motion of 8! states through the above paper, I suspect, or similar approaches of adjusting doping at the "0" vacuum site, which allows continuous jumps from say -4 to 3 in our world, or as we tune through doping downward, 2 to -1. The motion of such doping can be used to harness large amounts of energy and also fine tune energy levels. A resonance calculation that keeps the doping pace and procedure stable would have many applications for our physical world. Levy Flighting such a crystal doping regime means being able to rotate the crystal in a pattern consistent with one's intended effects. A suitable way to do so would be to suspend the crystal in zero gravity and influence it through fields of electromagnetic and containment fields.