The collapse of the "collapse of the wave function" theory

[Goldminer]

You may like to see this physics essay I wrote for the Foundational Questions Institute contest, sponsored in part by Scientific American.

Essay title: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory.
Theme of the contest: Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?

You are invited to read, comment upon and rate the essay.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344

This essay is a condensed report of my work toward resolving the wave-particle problem.
Hope you like it. Please forward this message.
Thank you,

Eric Reiter
Unquantum Laboratory
Pacifica, CA
http://www.unquantum.net

Download the pdf file here, and read all about it

[Solar]

This is quite interesting though I haven’t really taken time to fully get into the papers at the website as of yet. I became interested in the foundational reasoning behind the work presented and I find this “long abandoned accumulation hypothesis, also known as the loading theory”, unique though the theory (Loading Theory) isn’t new. I was after three of the references provided in the paper you’ve linked.

Ref 9: “On Cathode Rays” - PA Lenard 1906 Nobel Lecture

R.A. Miliken’s book “Electrons (+ and -): protons, photons, neutrons, and cosmic rays” is still available apparently and if I’m not mistaken the reference to page 253 is under the subheading called “The Nature of Radiant Energy”. I’d really like to read Milliken’s approach on this.

Lastly, I thought the following very ‘telling’, with regard to the ‘politics’ of physics, and the “abandoned accumulation hypothesis”. It is a July-December, 1914 copy of some sort of journal called “Current Opinion” with W. Crookes pictured entitled “Must the wave Theory of Light be Abandoned?”. In the article and concerning “radiant energy” the differences of approach (“quanta” vs. “wave”) are briefly touched on and it mentions the mechanism of the alternate Loading Theory thus:

“The handing on of a quantity of energy intact from X-Rays to kathode-ray and back to X-Ray was used to support an atomistic view of the X-Rays themselves, until it was found that the same rules apply to the liberation of electrons by ultra-violet light itself (and probably all radiation is atomic, or there is some mechanism by which radiant energy can be absorbed until a definite quantity (proportional to the frequency) is accumulated, whereupon an electron is expelled. The remarkable thing is that this energy of the electron is actually derived from the light, so that the later does not simply liberate internal energy by some sort of “trigger action”.”

The above fundamentally describes the theoretical “mechanism” accounting for the emission of “quanta” per “loading theory” i.e. “continuous absorption; explosive emission” with “quantization” being the result of maximum threshold/ratio properties (solitons) of the mater-wave. The overall principle of Arps ‘ejection model’ generally comes to mind but at the quantum scale.

This is complementary with another theory that I like so I’ll be hanging about Reitner’s website for a few days to try and compare some things. Though it may be a stretch the theory you linked also seems to have implications with regard to the dichotomy presented with the nature of considering the universe as “quantized” which paradoxically runs counter to its apparent nature as that a Continuum.

Thank you for posting this. For weal or for woe I look forward to settling down with it a bit further over the weekend.

[Goldminer]

This is quite interesting though I haven’t really taken time to fully get into the papers at the website as of yet. I became interested in the foundational reasoning behind the work presented and I find this “long abandoned accumulation hypothesis, also known as the loading theory”, unique though the theory (Loading Theory) isn’t new. I was after three of the references provided in the paper you’ve linked.

Ref 9: “On Cathode Rays” - PA Lenard 1906 Nobel Lecture

R.A. Miliken’s book “Electrons (+ and -): protons, photons, neutrons, and cosmic rays” is still available apparently and if I’m not mistaken the reference to page 253 is under the subheading called “The Nature of Radiant Energy”. I’d really like to read Milliken’s approach on this.

Lastly, I thought the following very ‘telling’, with regard to the ‘politics’ of physics, and the “abandoned accumulation hypothesis”. It is a July-December, 1914 copy of some sort of journal called “Current Opinion” with W. Crookes pictured entitled “Must the wave Theory of Light be Abandoned?”. In the article and concerning “radiant energy” the differences of approach (“quanta” vs. “wave”) are briefly touched on and it mentions the mechanism of the alternate Loading Theory thus:

“The handing on of a quantity of energy intact from X-Rays to kathode-ray and back to X-Ray was used to support an atomistic view of the X-Rays themselves, until it was found that the same rules apply to the liberation of electrons by ultra-violet light itself (and probably all radiation is atomic, or there is some mechanism by which radiant energy can be absorbed until a definite quantity (proportional to the frequency) is accumulated, whereupon an electron is expelled. The remarkable thing is that this energy of the electron is actually derived from the light, so that the later does not simply liberate internal energy by some sort of “trigger action”.”

The above fundamentally describes the theoretical “mechanism” accounting for the emission of “quanta” per “loading theory” i.e. “continuous absorption; explosive emission” with “quantization” being the result of maximum threshold/ratio properties (solitons) of the mater-wave. The overall principle of Arps ‘ejection model’ generally comes to mind but at the quantum scale.

This is complementary with another theory that I like so I’ll be hanging about Reitner’s [spelling] website for a few days to try and compare some things. Though it may be a stretch the theory you linked also seems to have implications with regard to the dichotomy presented with the nature of considering the universe as “quantized” which paradoxically runs counter to its apparent nature as that a Continuum.

Thank you for posting this. For weal or for woe I look forward to settling down with it a bit further over the weekend.

Eric Reiter is a very congenial physicist, and will answer your email. I have been to his laboratory, and seen his setup. Very ingenious!

[Unquantum]

Right. There is a farce. I have collected much info, some of which is on my http://www.unquantum.net website. See article
Exposure of Physics Misconceptions: http://www.unquantum.net/exposure.pdf
In this essay contest public rating is very important, so please read the FQXI paper and leave a good rating if you like it. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
Thanks very much for your interest.
Eric Reiter

[Goldminer]

Right. There is a farce. I have collected much info, some of which is on my http://www.unquantum.net website. See article
Exposure of Physics Misconceptions: http://www.unquantum.net/exposure.pdf
In this essay contest public rating is very important, so please read the FQXI paper and leave a good rating if you like it. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
Thanks very much for your interest.
Eric Reiter

Eric's entry in the FQXI essay contest has been moving up in the ratings of the site "community." This is a good sign for his chances of being recognized.

[ztifbob]

Thanks for posting...this is very interesting.

[chut]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting. A few days ago I was talking with a guy called Ray Tomes from NZ. He has some interesting view on light quanta that mirror the loading theory:

. However I think that quantum stuff can be explained by a purely wave nature. There are several blind spots in the standard view.
1. There is no such thing as a quantum of light in flight. Only at emission and absorption time is energy quantised.
2. An emitted photon spreads out and can be absorbed multiple times, with mean 1 but poisson distribution.
3. Atomic events are not random. Radioactive decay shows cycles related to Earth/Moon/Sun configurations and the spacings of the planets.

There is a section that further elaborates on (1) in an article he wrote years ago, in 1996:
http://www.geocities.ws/fsmn_nz/RayTomes_WSM.html

[chut]

Eric, I hope you are still monitoring this thread.

In your paper, towards the end, you mentioned Coulder experiment on walking droplets:

In a recent test employing silicone walking droplets,(49) waves were allowed to go over (not through) their slits, rendering an extrapolation of those results to the wave-particle problem void

The double slit experiment has been done with the barrier raised above the water surface, so your objection is not valid. See this video, towards the end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUBaBdl0Aw.

I believe Clouder preference of using shallow regions to create barriers is more 'realistic', in the sense that in reality there is no absolute barrier. His shallow region create a barrier, but still allows quantum tunneling to happen.

Coulder walking droplets experiment exhibits almost all know quantum effects - diffraction, interference, quantum tunneling, quantum corral, quantized orbits. It is the most coherent model for quantum mechanics I have seen so far.

[seasmith]

A 'movie' of ultrafast rotating molecules at a hundred billion per second

Do the ultrafast rotating subnano-scale molecules show a wave-like nature rather than particle-like behavior?
The Japanese research team led by Professor Yasuhiro Ohshima at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, and Dr Kenta Mizuse at the Institute for Molecular Science, National Institutes of Natural Sciences, successfully took sequential "snapshots" of ultrafast unidirectionally rotating molecules at a hundred billion per second.

In the present study, the RWPs were created by using a pair of ultrafast laser pulses, of which mutual delay and polarization were properly adjusted. In addition, by using a specially designed ion-imaging setup, the team got images of unidirectional RWPs at a viewing angle that the previous 2D imaging studies could not adopt. As a result, the team succeeded in recording a series of images of time-varying molecular angular distribution with high-spatial resolution,
which is nothing but a "movie" on the RWPs with a defined sense of rotation. The movie clearly shows the wave-like nature of the RWPs.

Multiple running waves get together at some time to give a highly concentrated spatial orientation
and split after a while into parts having different angular velocities, while the overall movement keeps rotating in one direction.

"Spin-orbit" as propagation of spin.

http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology- ... =40677.php

[RayTomes]

Quantum Physics does not require the collapse of the wavefunction concept. The McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology does not have the term in its index and yet devotes volumes to Quantum Physics.

IMO the problem is that even most physicists do not understand statistics, particularly when subsets get involved.

My own take on simply explaining it all is in a talk I gave some years ago:
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/ ... WSM_RT.pdf
In particular the part about drip model of light.

There is quantisation only ay emission and absorption, but not in between. A single emission event may cause none, one or more absorption events.

[A Chang]

Hi Ray,

Can you explain to me what actually is EPR experiment again?

Evertime I check EPR experiment, it felt more like a conjuncture than an experiment, very annoying~
Or what it is trying to say~

BTY I like your idea, it means message can be transmitted instantaneously.

A Chang

[willendure]

IMO the problem is that even most physicists do not understand statistics, particularly when subsets get involved.

Very true. I had to study physics in first year university (my main subject was computer science), and loved the course on statistical physics. I'd say every student that was majoring in physics hated that course, and I do not understand why, except that it was too different to what they had previously learned and challenged their ideas too much at that stage. It was much easier to enjoy it as someone that didn't really care for the subject so much. I think most physicists develop a blind-spot for statistics from that moment onwards.

[saul]

Interesting ideas all, keep up the good work. I think people are starting to come to grips with quantum mechanics and throw out the garbage. Let's polish the turd.

I am working on a rewrite of this paper now to appear in Physics Essays, here's the draft:

http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0148

The Emperor Has No Nonlocality

Authors: Lukas A. Saul

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment and the relevant predictions of quantum mechanics in theoretical and experimental forms are reinterpreted here with a locally realistic model. We demonstrate a consistent description based on probabilistic measurement for Mermin and Aspect EPR setups, and show how Bell's theorem applies. Quantum non-locality is shown to be an interpretation dependent on deterministic measurement and vanishes when a treatment of probabilistic measurement and relevant information theory is included.