This is a fine cut on a 3.5″ aluminum disk to be used for yet another alpha-particle mortification machine. I mean the experiment defies the idea that the atom is always a particle. My earlier experiments have shown many ways the alpha splits like a wave. It would need to defy the binding energy calculation to split into two deuterons or something. Besides, I did experiments that gave two-for-one at 4 X chance, defying particle-energy conservation, in evidence of the loading theory. The disk is the base plate for a small bell jar vacuum chamber.
Abstract for A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory
After recognizing dubious assumptions regarding light detectors, a famous beam-split coincidence test of the photon model was performed with gamma-rays instead of light. A similar test was performed to split alpha-rays. Both tests are described in detail to justify conclusions. In both tests coincidence rates greatly exceeded chance: the unquantum effect. This is a strong experimental contradiction to quantum theory. These new results are interpreted as evidence of the long abandoned accumulation hypothesis, also known as the loading theory, and draw attention to assumptions applied to key past experiments that led to quantum mechanics. The history of the loading theory is outlined. Planck’s second theory of 1911 was a loading theory. A popular incomplete version of the loading theory that convinced physics students to reject it is exposed. The loading theory is developed by identifying dubious assumptions in de Broglie’s matter-wavelength equation derivation, and re-deriving a matter-wavelength equation from the photoelectric effect equation. The loading theory is applied to the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, and charge quantization, now free of wave-particle duality. The loading theory is unlikely to apply to recent claimed success of giant molecule diffraction, and this issue is addressed. This all leads to concluding that quantized absorption is an illusion, due to quantized emission combined with newly identified properties of the matter-wave.
Please read the essay here: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
This is the interaction I had by email to the first named author. Below is the author’s response. What do I think of his response? Each point was handled poorly in a typical attitude of denial. You need to read the original paper to understand the issues. ER
On Di, 22.05.2012, 01:54, Eric Reiter wrote:
> Dear Dr Juffmann
> Regarding your recent article, “Real-time single-molecule imaging of
> quantum interference,” I have performed calculations on your data that do
> not make sense to me.
> 1) Let’s calculate the fall of a particle. We can use (1/2)gt^2, where t
> = time = distance/velocity. For a fast particle Hfast =
> (9.8/2)(2m/340m/s)^2 = 169×10^-6 meters. For a slow particle Hslow =
> (9.8/2)( 2m/140m/s)^2= 1×10^-3 meters. Hslow – Hfast = 830 micrometers.
> But you show only 240 micrometers. Therefore the difference in falls
> should be 3.4 times larger than you show.
> 2) I used a multiple slit diffraction simulation tool to test what the
> intensity profiles should be. I found your first order fringes were a few
> times brighter than they should be for the given wavelength/slit-width and
> wavelength/slit-spacing ratios. The the tool I used is
> http://wyant.optics.arizona.edu/multipleSlits/multipleSlits.htm. Though
> this tool has fewer slits than yours, I found this did not change the
> intensity ratios.
> 3) Given the dimensions of your instrument, the velocity resolution should
> cover 0.43 of the sensor plane by the following calculation: The slit
> height is 100 micrometers, and the projection to the sensor plane should
> make this 2/(2 – 0.56) larger, that is 138 micrometers at the sensor
> plane. But the sensor plane is 320 micrometers high. Since 138/320 =
> 0.43, a particle of any given velocity could land anywhere in a vertical
> segment of height that is 0.43 of the screen height. So the first order
> fringes should have been very noticably widened as the fringes descend, by
> this apparently poor velocity resolution.
> 4) In the published movies of the detector plane, the intensity profiles
> of the fringes have edges that seem to rise and fall too abruptly. Also,
> the intensity profile of each fringe, especially the central fringe, in
> the movie looks flat. Fringes should have peak-like profiles. The fact
> that the peaks appear in fig 4c is irrelevant since they are a result of
> integrating offset overlapping square shaped fringes between the dashed
> yellow lines.
> Unless I have made several silly errors, there is something going on other
> than quantum interference. Please consider a control test to eliminate
> the possibility that you are looking at a shadow pattern that has been
> magnified by a charge deflection effect at the slits. It would be very
> easy for the slits to become charged to deflect dye particles in a manner
> similar to a cylindrical lens. A simple test would be to introduce a
> voltage control wire to the slits. An even simpler test would be to shade
> half of the slit array to see if a half side of the fringe pattern
> disappears. Whether or not a focus effect was like a positive or negative
> lens, half of the fringe pattern would disappear. A focused shadow would
> explain the anomalies I point out.
> Thank you for your consideration and I hope to hear from you.
> Eric S Reiter
> Unquantum Laboratory
Dear Mr. Reiter,
concerning your considerations:
1) The equations are of course right, but our source emits molecules in
all directions. Thus a flight parabola is defined by three source, the
grating (which is only written onto a 100µm high window) and the height on
the detection plane. Thus it is wrong to simply enter the distance
source-detection plane into the calculations, since in the plane of the
grating all molecules pass at the same height.
2) Your observatin is right. The high intensity of the higher interference
orders is due to the van der Waals interaction between the molecules and
the grating wall. This is mentioned several times in our paper.
3) Please don’t forget, that also the grating is only 100µm high and that,
especially for the slow molecule, the projection is a non valid
4)I don’t agree. Regarding the high transversal coherence in our
experiment the shape of the fringes is in agreement with the theoretical
Eric Reiter has also invented or produced:
- The Versatile Connector Building Block System
- Mobile Utility Core
- Circuits for automation LAB-40
- Computer control for stepper and servo motors in QUICKBASIC and DOS
- SlantBindbook binding machine =>Paper is a much more valuable thing to own than an electronic file.
- narrow-band lasers and Fabry-Perot spectroscopy,
- enzyme reaction automation and analysis,
- 17 ft dia 42 blade wind turbine and others windmills,
- Solar collector design and construction,
- vacuum chamber technology,
- metabolic rate meter experiments,
- bio-electromagnetic experiments,
- heart monitor
- digital signal processor board with shared memory.
- Sitar, veena, mini-cello, bass guitar, electric guitar, sarod conversio
- The Solar Sphere with versatile machine tool and Cosmoligical Harp of 1970 at the Exploratorium.
Other Unpublished papers:
- The computer as a technological fix (1994)
- The Nature of Introns (1995)
- Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy at SSU (1980)
There are recent experiments that seem to uphold the quantum mechanical interpretation of particles guided by a probability wave. We need to examine them in detail to be sure there is no artifact in those experiments, the same way you might ask if there is an artifact in the Unquantum experiments.
A recent experiment was published in Nature Nanotechnology: Real-time single-molecule imaging of quantum interference.” The fringes are not parallel, and the authors explain this is due to gravity displacing the slower molecules downward. The slower ones would shift the wavelength longer to spread apart the diffraction fringes.
However, the resolution distance at the detection screen is much smaller than the height of the diffraction slits, so there is no velocity resolution to separate these different particle velocities. There is some mysterious problem with this experiment that the authors have not explained. I await their explanation.
Please see below some theoretical works that defy Quantum Mechanics
Photon Dies Screaming by Bill Beaty
Please see below links of interest:
Past lecturewith the San Francisco Tesla SocietyJune 12, 2011
Unquantum Physicsdiscussion Google groupGroup email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The Unquantum Effect
Resolving the Wave-Particle Paradox
Table of Contents
Exposure of Physics Misconceptions and Flawed Beam-Split Tests of Past.Excerpts from selected articles of pivotal influence in physics.
An Understanding of the Particle-like Property of Light and Charge (2001). More difficult theory paper.
A Serious Challenge to Quantization. How the unquantum effectwas discovered, elimination of artifact. Repeats some theory from Part I (2003).
Part III black
Photon Violation Spectroscopy. Five physics discoveries, and restated material from Parts I and II (2005).
Unquantum Measurement of Annihilation Radiation. See cover photo (2007).
Photo Essay for Photon Violation Spectroscopy.
Proposed Unquantum spectrometer products.
Particle Violation Spectroscopy. New work on splitting the alpha-ray, and the discovery of proto-helium(2007).
Planck’s A New Radiation Hypothesis, 1911, translated.
Industrial Application Note.
Part VI color
Photo Essay for Particle Violation Spectroscopy.
Photo Essay, Other Creations. Inventions from the author’s past.
There is a famous test of the validity of the photon concept that has been performed in the past. This test closely resembles a simplified definition of the photon as described by Einstein. The definition states that a singly-emitted photon’s worth of energy, an hv, must all go one way or another at a beam splitter (h = Planck’s constant, v = frequency, v is Greek letter nu). Amazingly, I the am the only one to perform this test with gamma-rays. These tests with gamma-rays show that a single emitted “light quanta” can cause coincident detection events beyond a beam splitter at rates that far exceed accidental chance. I show how to defy this defining property of the photon. To defy this principle of the photon is to defy a very strong prediction of quantum mechanics. There are many who have challenged quantum mechanics. My experiments and theory lead to the most serious challenge to quantum mechanics. There is no easy way to convey my message without invoking immediate skepticism. That is why I did the experiment so many different ways, and why my writings describe this test in far greater detail than any similar experiment you will ever find. My finding of coincident detections beyond a beam splitter means that similar tests, performed by others with visible light, are just measuring noise. My test does not split a gamma “photon” into two half–size detection pulses; it detects two full-size pulses in coincidence. This does not violate energy conservation; it violates the principle of the photon. The obvious explanation is the loading theory, long abandoned and unfairly treated in our textbooks. Light is emitted in a photon’s worth of energy hv, but thereafter the narrow cone of light spreads classically. There are no photons!
The Unquantum Effect
Resolving the Wave-Particle Paradox
Wave-particle duality is the most disturbing problem in the history of physics. It has been a
problem since Einstein’s light quantum hypothesis of 1905. Waves and particles are mutually exclusive
ideas. We had a paradox. A paradox is something that is contradictory, yet seems to be true. A
solution to this problem implies the possibility of a totally understandable world.
This book is a collection of dated chapters with additions and editing. There is repeated material
among some chapters. An Understanding of the Particle-like Property of Light and Charge (2001) is
the most difficult, but may be the most important. It predicts experiments that were later confirmed. A
Serious Challenge to Quantization (2003) shows the search, discovery, and development of the
unquantum effect. It also describes my in depth search for artifact, not described in the other chapters.
The chapter Exposure of Physics Misconceptions contains ample evidence that data and ideas were
distorted to make people think quantum mechanics must be right. Photon Violation Spectroscopy
(2005) describes the perfected experiment, and links the unquantum effect to physical variables to show
how it all makes sense. This chapter repeats material from previous chapters. Particle Violation
Spectroscopy demonstrates the unquantum effect for matter waves.
The Spectroscopy chapters were originally patent applications and are archived at www.uspto.gov.
After several attempts to publish in mainstream scientific journals, I was compelled to develop the
unquantum effect into methods of measurement useful in material science. The arguments from both
sides are on the USPTO PAIR website for history to witness their corruption. For example: I gave
them 20 experiments worth of data, and they essentially told me there was no data. A granted patent
was never necessary. By filing at the USPTO, my work becomes published and dated. Mainstream
journals, including the patent office, are controlled by people invested in photons, and they are not
about to publish something that makes them look bad.
Although the new physics presented here does embrace quantized emission, currently accepted
physics calls for matter and energy to be quantized for both absorption and emission. Here, that
generality has been experimentally defied, justifying the unquantum term. The unquantum effect
shows that absorption can be continuous and does not always occur quantized.
Many have written that there must be something wrong with quantum mechanics. However,
quantum mechanics remained strong because no one came up with an experiment to defy its
predictions. I expose experimental, theoretical and historical distortions that have confused physics for
100 years. In addition to revealing an incredible new physics, this book corrects what seems like the
most profound collective intellectual blunder that ever happened.
Eric S Reiter, April 2012
Special recognition is to Ken Kitlas for technical support, ideas, and equipment loans. Ken first suggested
the beam split experiment should be done with gamma-rays instead of x-rays. Michael Kan helped with many
technical issues. Robert A Wolf provided much assistance and translated the article by Max Planck.
A book with a slanted parallelogram cross section and a single film of clear plastic wrapped around its covers and spine has the advantage of a stronger and more flexible spine than a conventionally shaped paperback book. This advantage is due to a longer glue spine, and its bound pages being exposed to glue at a thin face strip in addition to its page edge. The slant angle is typically acute at 35 degrees from the front cover.
A slantbind book can remain open and flat whereas a conventional paperback needs to be held open. The slanted spine offers a manufacturing advantage because the wedge shaped spine of a glued book block can be fed between spring loaded rollers to apply a clear film around the book to form its book covers. The film may be a heat activated laminating film or a wide tape-like pressure sensitive adhering film. The film helps strengthen the book spine while preserving its flexibility. The invention affords all sheets including graphics for the book covers to be printed from a single low cost printer.
Physics Demonstration was successfully performed at the Maker Faire May 19 & 20, 2007, San Mateo County Fairgrounds.
I demonstrated the gamma split in tandem. A rather large 50% background tested on site was subtracted, but it still surpassed chance by 120 times (I have better shielding in the lab).
In photo from left are Unquantum assistants Ron Seefred and R A Wolf. ER at right.
Announcement of new experiment. If you use a low “energy” gamma-ray like 88 keV from Cd109 and let it scatter to two scintillator (NaI-PMT) detectors, like a beam splitter experiment, it will trigger two detectors in coincidence at a rate surpassing chance. These detectors make pulses, and physicists usually explain it with the photon model. But therein lies the paradox: particles cannot source fields that can guide them to a wave pattern, and conversely, a wave function would need to magically collapse to the energy conversion event.
My experiment shows detector pulses are due to the detection mechanism, as a fundamental property of matter, not particles of light. If it was photons and a probability wave, I would read only chance-rate coincidences (the way all other experiments did). I was very careful to only count full height (windowed) pulses and eliminate various confounding factors, as described on my website. The chance coincidence rate at the detectors is easily calculated, and I measure coincidences from two to 200 times the chance rate. It only works when the photoelectric effect efficiency is larger than the Compton effect for the type of detector.
There are very few isotopes that have the low “energy” (giving high PE efficiency)and are also free of other gamma that interfere, explaining why this has not been seen before. There were serious mistakes in previous attempts at this beam-splitter experiment using light and x-rays, and no one even tried it with gamma-rays. Why? Because it was thought to be a fact that gamma-rays were photons. My theory is an enhancement of the loading theory, first proposed by Planck in 1911. By using the wavelength of the group in de Broglie’s equation and realizing e/m, h/m, e/h are the constants, and that e, h, and m are maximums that can thin-out in free space, I can derive the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, spin g factor, black body spectrum, and can picture the inner structure of matter/antimatter.
My PhotoElectric derivation links the PE equation to the deBroglie eq and Balmer’s eq. Einstein’s photoelectric work was more a statement of his particle model than a derivation. To Einstein’s credit he titled it “On a heuristic point of view… .” The loading theory was rejected prematurely, mostly from not accepting the partially loaded state in time calculations, and from not accepting a mechanism for accumulation at arbitrary frequencies (see Compton’s and Millikan’s books). My work represents a serious challenge to quantum mechanics.
I challenge the physical science community to find any crucial mistake in my experiment and to repeat my effect. My web site shows 20 versions of the experiment in detail. Furthermore I do a historical analysis that identifies common misconceptions of famous physics works. My experiment was first on the web May 2002. I have been submitting to publishers, since 5/01.