[General] Current Physics

Fri Aug 21 01:42:45 PDT 2015

Responding to Chip Akins-Yes the words matter. Having demonstrated how the particle (photon) model of light fails, and how the always-applicable particle atom model fails, let me express some clear descriptions.  A particle holds itself together, waves do not.  "Particles" are often incorrectly used to denote mass, as in "Nature of Light and Particles."  The blog should be re-titled "Nature of Light and Matter."   QM uses "particle" in its context to mean  "a QM particle that also has wave properties," but that is too confusing, spelled out or not.  Then there is "photon."  A photon is not just a particle of light. Photon is an un-visualizable and contradictory model.  "A photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter, and by repeating the test, the beams can be recombined and measured to build an interference pattern."  That is my paraphrasing of Bohr who paraphrased Einstein, from the book Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. A photon is not a thing, it is a dualistic model. My gamma-split experiment shows that light is always a wave. Light is emitted quantized, and thereafter spreads classically. I also conclude matter can take on either a wave or particle state, like a soliton.  A soliton is a wave that holds itself together.   My alpha-split experiment (and another experiment I referenced in my paper) shows matter can take on a purely wave state.  I do not propose to replace "particle" with "soliton," but I do manage to keep these wording  issues clear in my writings.  When the alpha splits I call it the helium nuclear matter-wave.  I speak from experiment, mine and others, with a consistent non-dualistic model.  This is my first post and I hope it is placed properly and seen. 
Our papers are not released yet; meanwhile I post my lecture slides here:  http://unquantum.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/spie-9570-25-Eric-Reiter-21.pdfI plan to find a masters or PhD student to reproduce my results to eliminate suspected mistakes.  I ask for help on this, and of course I will help any way I can.  Thank you.  Eric Reiter 
      From: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
 To: 'David Mathes' <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 7:56 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Current Physics
   
<!--#yiv4594657655 _filtered #yiv4594657655 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4594657655 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv4594657655 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv4594657655 #yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655MsoNormal, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655MsoNormal, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 a:link, #yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4594657655 a:visited, #yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4594657655 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msonormal, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msonormal, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msochpdefault, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msochpdefault, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msonormal1, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msonormal1, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msonormal1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msochpdefault1, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msochpdefault1, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlink {}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlink1 {}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlinkfollowed1 {}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655emailstyle181 {}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655emailstyle28 {}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msonormal2, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msonormal2, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msonormal2 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlink2 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlinkfollowed2 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msonormal3, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msonormal3, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msonormal3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msochpdefault2, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msochpdefault2, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msochpdefault2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msonormal11, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msonormal11, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msonormal11 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlink11 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655msohyperlinkfollowed11 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655emailstyle1811 {color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv4594657655 p.yiv4594657655msochpdefault11, #yiv4594657655 li.yiv4594657655msochpdefault11, #yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655msochpdefault11 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655emailstyle281 {color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv4594657655 span.yiv4594657655EmailStyle39 {color:black;}#yiv4594657655 .yiv4594657655MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv4594657655 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv4594657655 div.yiv4594657655WordSection1 {}#yiv4594657655 _filtered #yiv4594657655 {}#yiv4594657655 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv4594657655 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}-->Hi All  I just wanted to express a few thoughts regarding QM, QED, and the current quantum interpretation of reality.  It seems to me that for about 100 years we have, in general, been suffering the consequences of an interpretation.  A concept was developed, and we have tried to fit everything into that concept. It is like the only tool we have is a hammer, so we have to treat everything like a nail.  Much of this has caused us to call everything a “particle”.  I deeply feel that this leads to unintentional misrepresentation of what is actually going on.  Starting with the assumption that everything is quantized, current theory has shaped our thinking in some ways which are good, but in many ways which simply cloud our thinking.  This dogma has been instilled in so many of our concepts, that it is really difficult to recognize what we are allowing ourselves to be influenced by.  Hopefully, in the not too distant future, we will recognize the importance of what many in the group have pointed out, that it appears that nature is quantized only in specific ways, and that quantization is the simple result of linear and non-linear properties of space, and its reactions to energy propagation-- Resonance, as many have said, and the explicit properties of the correct field equations, in specific circumstances.  It is a John W. has said, when we get it right, quantization will be a result we get out, and does not need to be put in a priori.  So as the current physics looks at nature, for them the zoo of “particles” continues to grow. It seems that when we finally understand what is going on, we will call these things more accurately descriptive names, we will view them for what they really are, transient states in the process of decay.  Dynamic, and controlled by the properties of nature.  Hopefully we will one day say goodbye to “virtual particles”, because the process is not virtual, and the components are probably not well described as “particles”.  Why do we want to describe the incredibly transient configuration of energy in a decay as a “particle”? These transient states are constantly changing, they really have no stable properties, and they are morphing configurations of energy simply obeying the laws of nature.   The definition of a “particle” has now become so broad that it encompasses almost everything which has an EM field.  So I feel that our clarity of thought is not only clouded by the interpretations of 100 years ago, but also by the language which has developed from that set of interpretations.  I know it is good to have a name to call things, and I understand how and why QM decided to give the name “particle” to everything it finds. But sometime in the future, I hope we dispense with nomenclature which is designed to foster a particular view of nature, and call things by names which are closer to what they actually are. We have many more tools than just hammers.  Chip    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150821/26bf4fc8/attachment.htm>