Demonstration Resolving Wave-Particle Duality Paradox.

[cptn_fantastic]

This fits to my World view. Though I don't necessarily trust my World view- it's all I've got.
I'd be interested to see what others make of it....

Demonstration Resolving Wave-Particle Duality Paradox. Photon Model Fails
Published on 22 Dec 2013

"For details of this experiment go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKHb3...
An experiment famous for convincing the world that light must be photons, is for the first time performed with gamma-rays, and the photon model fails. This beam-split coincidence experiment was performed live for this video. A similar experiment was described, performed at the author's lab, that defied quantum mechanics applied to matter. An important mistake physicists make, and elements of the author's new theory, are described. This video is from the November 25, 2013, Pacifica, CA Chit-Chat Physics event. These unquantum effect experiments were performed and made public as early as 2002. Extensive repeats and variations of this work assure us there is nothing wrong with its fundamental message: the long abandoned Loading Theory is correct and the particle/probability model of quantum mechanics is flawed. The loading theory removes quantum weirdness. These are the only known experiments demonstrating the failure of QM. The experiment shows that there are no photons, light is classical, and that Planck's constant is a property of matter, not light. Please see http://www.unquantum.net for extensive information on this work. Thank you, Eric S Reiter, December 22, 2013."

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

I saw videos on Eric quite some time ago & I've mentioned it on here a number of times whenever the subject of the W/P duality issue comes up. .
He's a bit eccentric, but I was impressed by his ethics in the face of negative comments; that he continually improved his testing methods to remove all possible suggested sources of false signals & interference.

[cptn_fantastic]

Well I suppose given our entire experience of the so-called outside world is a rendition in mind, particles are not strictly necessary- particles can be drawn from waves it seems. Clever mind!
Given that, it's little wonder the so-called material world disappears upon close inspection- it's all a picture in mind!
The universe is dependent upon us for its very existence it seems. It has none of its own- not as we see it at least.

Anywho, it makes sense to me...sort of...

[willendure]

"For details of this experiment go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKHb3...

Dead link. Have you another working link to the video?

[comingfrom]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YHaWHwJHWo

[comingfrom]

After watching the video, I searched my favorite author to see if he says something about the loading theory.
Turns out he speaks about Eric Reiter's theory in the paper.

It may be of interest to you

An argument for Photons

~Paul

[cptn_fantastic]

After watching the video, I searched my favorite author to see if he says something about the loading theory.
Turns out he speaks about Eric Reiter's theory in the paper.

It may be of interest to you

An argument for Photons

~Paul

Thank you.

Quoting Miles;
"Notice, for instance, that he [Reiter] calls the particle idea a “bias.” But ask yourself whether the particle idea is really a bias. Isn't it simply a logical inference?"

No Miles, it most certainly is not. It is a logical inference only relative to and confined within a materialistic view.
Therein lies the catch- Miles is a materialist and a materialist MUST have a particle at all cost.
The material world as we think of it de-materialises in the absence of the particle- no-one wants that it seems.

"As every verb requires a noun (what is “running” without someone running?), every wave requires a particle. By definition, a wave is pattern, but patterns are like verbs: they requires nouns or things to create them. Or, a wave is not a thing, it is a characteristic of a thing. By definition, it is always secondary, never primary."

He makes the mistake of assuming the syntax of language is the syntax of existence. It isn’t.
Language separates, isolates and objectifies what is essentially a seamless undifferentiated whole.
Mind and language create and divide up into things that which is not a thing.
A separate, individual, independent thing is a creation of mind, a creation of the machinery of perception.
Hold up a pen for inspection- the pen is an activity, a happening, a process, and not a thing. So too the Cosmos.
The pen comes at you in waves. The machinery of perception render the waves into a separate object pen.
Outside of perception and interpretation the pen remains as it always is- a process of waves.
So the wave is primary- the particle a picture.
To fully describe the running someone one must ultimately describe the entire cosmos, for the entire Cosmos is required and involved in someone running.

"In art it is the whole subjective/objective question: is beauty objective or subjective, for example. Does beauty exist in the object, or is it in the eye of the beholder? Most would now say the latter, since that is what we are taught, but Ruskin argued the opposite. Beauty is a quality of a thing, and for it to be seen it first has to exist in that thing. The recognition of beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder cannot be the cause of a real characteristic. The object is what it is, and the beholder cannot influence that reality in any way."

That quote is a load of nonsense in my view. If two people can look at the same object and one finds the object beautiful and the other ugly then it follows that beauty and ugly are interpretations of an essentially neutral object.
"There is nothing good nor bad save thinking make it so" is the principle involved.
Beauty has no meaning without ugly, up without down, in without out. These are limits and interpretations of mind.
There is no up and down, in and out, beauty and ugly in the world of waves- it all just is.
We make of it what we will.
We make it what we believe it to be.
We believe there is an independetly existing material universe into which we are born.
The fact of the matter is that the entire Cosmos exists within us, not as something outside.


I could go on, but youre probably bored senseless...and I don't know what I'm talking about. Just opinion.
(-:

Namaste.

[cptn_fantastic]

"For details of this experiment go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKHb3...

Dead link. Have you another working link to the video?

Sorry, yup...hopefully'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YHaWHwJHWo

His you tube channel;
https://www.youtube.com/user/ericreiter ... d=0&view=0

[freemanjack]

You may want to visit the work of David Bohm, his quantum model is quite radically different from others in his field;
Bohmian Mechanics- An Alternative to Quantum;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbRVnC92sMs
and
A problem with Bohmian Mechanics? Contextuality;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz4CHI_W-TA
and the man himself;
Interview with David Bohm;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0
Enjoy!

[webolife]

Well I suppose given our entire experience of the so-called outside world is a rendition in mind, particles are not strictly necessary- particles can be drawn from waves it seems. Clever mind!
Given that, it's little wonder the so-called material world disappears upon close inspection- it's all a picture in mind!
The universe is dependent upon us for its very existence it seems. It has none of its own- not as we see it at least.

Anywho, it makes sense to me...sort of...

It's not an unusual argument... clearly we have no other access to the universe, to "reality", except via our perception. This doesn't necessarily mean that the universe of reality is subject to our mind, ie. our thoughts, although true materialists would say otherwise, that our thoughts are subject to a kind of primordial determinism of particles and motion. But it must be accepted that our perception, our reception, our senses are tuned, resonant with, functioning in the natural world "outside" of our thoughts. Given this premise, I don't think it can be stated without controversy that either particles or waves are primary. On the contrary, our reception of signals [ie. light, or "electromagnetism" if we must] from the universe must [as I see it] be connected to their origination. As Descartes understood, though I see it a bit differently than him, light is a pressure. It is controversial if that pressure is an attractive or repulsive phenomenon, so our models must choose one outlook or the other, then proceed from there.
I find no cause or reason in an attractive mechanism for either light or gravity, so my model proceeds from the opposite view: light signals [also gravitation] are centropic pressure, ie. directed toward the centroid of a system.
The pressure acting on the retina, in this view, must therefore be the same pressure that is on the source/centroid. Being directed toward that centroid, it stands to reason that the source is not an emitter, but rather a sink. This explains entropy as well [centropy is entropy], since all interchanges and interactions [energy transformations] result in a net system "collapse" [sometimes decay, degradation, decrease in energy usefulness, increase in disorder, increase in heat]. Vision is then a peripheral monitoring of compressive or energy dropping events at the centroid source, rather than a collecting or detecting of particle or wave impacts. That signals are pulsed or quantized is a necessity of a finite system in which "events" happen rather than continuous action. That these signals may be periodic or fluctuating is a necessity of a system in which rotation happens. This is what we observe in the universe. We hypothesize that the quantized behavior is due to particles flying, and the fluctuation is due to waves travelling, even when no media is known to conduct the wave energy. My model of course relies on the possibility of action at a distance [or that all objects in the universe are interconnected], and I claim that is in fact what is observed and measured. All other models must assume imponderable particles or invisible waves acting in no medium [the challenge of aether models]. Regardless of the scale envisioned for a medium, I believe that particles not in direct contact with each other must be "communicating" by some means across a distance. In a unified field model, this "communication" must be transferrable to any scale.

So this communication connection becomes primary rather than particular or wavish nature.

Back to perception or reception, I being a fundamental element of my universe must be perceiving or receiving the nature of the universe. Pressure from the "outside" in [Centropy] works for me. A compressional event at the centroid [eg. an electron drops to a lower energy state] results in the peripheral detection of the field collapse [eg. my retina resonates and an electrochemical signal is initiated to my brain].

[Zyxzevn]

Bohmian Mechanics- An Alternative to Quantum;

As far I understand, it still assumes particles.
An assumption that is kind of refuted in the unquantum experiments.

[cptn_fantastic]

Thank you freemanjack.

David Bohm- New Age in Tweed!

The interview I've seen...and enjoyed.
The others I'll take a peek....just a little more to boggle the mind.
I'm not looking for a collection of facts to set in stone to proudly claim I know.
The more I've learnt, the less I know, but for me, the material world is fading...
.

[cptn_fantastic]

Well I suppose given our entire experience of the so-called outside world is a rendition in mind, particles are not strictly necessary- particles can be drawn from waves it seems. Clever mind!
Given that, it's little wonder the so-called material world disappears upon close inspection- it's all a picture in mind!
The universe is dependent upon us for its very existence it seems. It has none of its own- not as we see it at least.

Anywho, it makes sense to me...sort of...

It's not an unusual argument... clearly we have no other access to the universe, to "reality", except via our perception. This doesn't necessarily mean that the universe of reality is subject to our mind, ie. our thoughts, although true materialists would say otherwise, that our thoughts are subject to a kind of primordial determinism of particles and motion. But it must be accepted that our perception, our reception, our senses are tuned, resonant with, functioning in the natural world "outside" of our thoughts. Given this premise, I don't think it can be stated without controversy that either particles or waves are primary. On the contrary, our reception of signals [ie. light, or "electromagnetism" if we must] from the universe must [as I see it] be connected to their origination. As Descartes understood, though I see it a bit differently than him, light is a pressure. It is controversial if that pressure is an attractive or repulsive phenomenon, so our models must choose one outlook or the other, then proceed from there.
I find no cause or reason in an attractive mechanism for either light or gravity, so my model proceeds from the opposite view: light signals [also gravitation] are centropic pressure, ie. directed toward the centroid of a system.
The pressure acting on the retina, in this view, must therefore be the same pressure that is on the source/centroid. Being directed toward that centroid, it stands to reason that the source is not an emitter, but rather a sink. This explains entropy as well [centropy is entropy], since all interchanges and interactions [energy transformations] result in a net system "collapse" [sometimes decay, degradation, decrease in energy usefulness, increase in disorder, increase in heat]. Vision is then a peripheral monitoring of compressive or energy dropping events at the centroid source, rather than a collecting or detecting of particle or wave impacts. That signals are pulsed or quantized is a necessity of a finite system in which "events" happen rather than continuous action. That these signals may be periodic or fluctuating is a necessity of a system in which rotation happens. This is what we observe in the universe. We hypothesize that the quantized behavior is due to particles flying, and the fluctuation is due to waves travelling, even when no media is known to conduct the wave energy. My model of course relies on the possibility of action at a distance [or that all objects in the universe are interconnected], and I claim that is in fact what is observed and measured. All other models must assume imponderable particles or invisible waves acting in no medium [the challenge of aether models]. Regardless of the scale envisioned for a medium, I believe that particles not in direct contact with each other must be "communicating" by some means across a distance. In a unified field model, this "communication" must be transferrable to any scale.

So this communication connection becomes primary rather than particular or wavish nature.

Back to perception or reception, I being a fundamental element of my universe must be perceiving or receiving the nature of the universe. Pressure from the "outside" in [Centropy] works for me. A compressional event at the centroid [eg. an electron drops to a lower energy state] results in the peripheral detection of the field collapse [eg. my retina resonates and an electrochemical signal is initiated to my brain].

Unless I have misunderstood, all you have said pre-supposes a pre-existing or objective material universe in which we all reside and perceive subjectively. Ie there is one room in which 10 people sit each with their own interpretation of the one room.

From where I sit, the eye; the brain; the body; the body-mind or ego, that thing we call "I," the room and the travelling of light from one place to another etc- all of it is illusory. When we look closely at experiments, we do so believing in the existence of a material physical reality forgetting that both the experiment and the experimenter are the illusion.
That which we commonly think we are and what "it" is is an illusion.
The quantum madness is trying to give a physical reality to a concept!

In the east they call it the great Maya. They say Maya is build upon the play of three energies they call Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. We in the west call them the Neutron, the Electron and the Proton. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" They point to the same energies.

All of it is a picture. None of it is real in the sense we believe it to be- including the picture we have of ourselves!
There is no space, there is no time, there are no things outside of illusion.
There are ten rooms, not one.

imo...

[comingfrom]

It was just to show another point of view on the topic, Captain.

You don't have to agree.

Quoting Miles;
"Notice, for instance, that he [Reiter] calls the particle idea a “bias.” But ask yourself whether the particle idea is really a bias. Isn't it simply a logical inference?"

No Miles, it most certainly is not. It is a logical inference only relative to and confined within a materialistic view.
Therein lies the catch- Miles is a materialist and a materialist MUST have a particle at all cost.
The material world as we think of it de-materialises in the absence of the particle- no-one wants that it seems.

"As every verb requires a noun (what is “running” without someone running?), every wave requires a particle. By definition, a wave is pattern, but patterns are like verbs: they requires nouns or things to create them. Or, a wave is not a thing, it is a characteristic of a thing. By definition, it is always secondary, never primary."

He makes the mistake of assuming the syntax of language is the syntax of existence. It isn’t.

Mathis has a simple explanation which works, how a particle can create a wave pattern.

So far, I haven't seen any explanation how wave patterns can become, or produce, or act like, particles,
or if you prefer, vessels
(when Reiter wants to refer to particles, he calls them vessels, because he doesn't believe in particles).

Mathis solves the duality, where as Reiter has wave bias.

I could go on, but you're probably bored senseless...and I don't know what I'm talking about. Just opinion.
(-:

And my post is just my opinion.


I still enjoyed the video, so thank you,
and Eric's experiments still seem significant to me.
Mathis also acknowledges that, and Eric's criticism of QM.

Salem
~Paul

[comingfrom]

Now I know why the name, Captain Fantastic.

All of it is a picture. None of it is real in the sense we believe it to be- including the picture we have of ourselves!
There is no space, there is no time, there are no things outside of illusion.
There are ten rooms, not one.

Fantastic.

And if a meteorite fell through the roof, and took out one of the ten,
which room would that have occurred in?