[General] Your query

[Hodge John]

Wolf: Please send links to your papers. We and Reiter seem to havesimilar goals - replace QM. Therefore, the Theory of Everything is a basicNewtonian/ Gr model (matter warps space, space directs matter) which is mySTOE. 
 I think you are asking a question about my line of thinking. I have suggested the principle that the universe is fractal(self similar) on all scales. That is, the quantum world should obey the sameequations as our everyday world. The scale difference then requires new modelsto show the similarity. The QM model and its bizarre models such aswave-particle duality and entanglement need to be re-addressed in everydayterms. That is what the STOE attempts. I developed the STOE model (in many, sometimes long papers)to explain Young’s Experiment by a calculating model of photons - Now achieved(I hope). Now experiments are necessary. I think the Hodge Experiment can distinguish between waveand particle. The STOE is needed now because it presents a model. The next needis to do the experiment with a known (read in our everyday size world) wavesuch as water and a known particle such as the walking drop of the Bushreference. If these observation are different, the separation of the experimentfrom the STOE would be achieved (given the self similar principle). I’mthinking of building a water tank. But that is looking problematic for me.  Yes, electron diffraction does present some issues. However,the following may have a way to produce the desired pattern as the first mask.It seems a second such arrangement may be able to make the second mask with areal slit to form the selection followed by another interferometer to producethe resultant pattern. I haven’t looked into it thoroughly because I don’t havethe equipment.  A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda,T. Kawasaki and H. Ezawa, "Demonstration of Single-Electron Buildup of anInterference Pattern,"Amer. J. Phys. 57 (1989) pp.117-120.Do you think such a thing can be done? I think the usualdiffraction of electrons through crystals is probably impractical. The STOE postulates there are just 2 constituents (afterDemocritus) and their interaction in our universe - particles (hods) and plenum- names given because their properties dictate their interaction. Hods warpplenum (like “space” GR got something there) and plenum directs hods trajectory(GR and Bohm). EM radiation results from electron moving on a metal rod(antenna). What is radiated - particles that then hit the detectors or plenumwaves that then cause electrons in the detector to move? Whatever charge ismust be indicated by the EM radiation. For example, if charge is acharacteristic of particles - what characteristic - their shape, anyoscillations. If charge is a plenum characteristic (your resonate antennaeffect. The STOE suggests ``entanglement’’ is a resonate-plenum-effect onmatter.), what character - wavelength, combination of frequencies? How doesthis make electron neg. and positron +? Why need a photon? Because the goal is to refuteQM. Many papers (years) ago - the need was to form a basic model to address QMin everyday terms - wave or particle. ``A single model of light has remained a mystery. Black bodyradiation, the photoelectric effect, and the Compton effect observations rejectthe wave-in-space model of light. The reflection, diffraction, interference,polarization, and spectrographic observations reject the traditional particlemodel of light.’’ To refute QM, either (1) a wave model of the Black bodyradiation, the photoelectric effect, or the Compton effect needed to bedeveloped or (2) a particle model of reflection, diffraction, interference,polarization, or spectrographic effects needed to be developed. I thought alongboth lines for a time. I thought I saw a way forward with the particle inYoung’s Experiment. It seems to be working.  Yourquestion on the-resonate-effect-on-an-absorber is a possible alternate if theEM has to be a wave.  If a photonmodel is not acceptable or you want resonate effects of waves, then a model ofBlack body radiation, the photoelectric effect should be developed. Actually,given the hod/plenum concept, this doesn’t seem impossible. A resonate effectcould look like a particle result in an experiment (is that your point). Butthe photon is easier, or so I thought.  The ``wave model of light’’ suggests a wave going throughthe slit that then forms the diffraction pattern. Very straight forward. Butsuppose the goal is to have a (single) particle going through the slit. Whatdirects it? Young’s Experiment and the walking drop suggest an edge effect. Ifthe particle is between the mask and screen, what directs it?In the walking drop experiment (BTW this is the experimentthat suggested I try for a particle model for the wave observation) there is nowave coming through the slit to direct the drop and the drop does changedirection after the slit. Because plenum (gravitational) waves direct matter(GR), very specific plenum waves are required to direct the photons after theslit. The only source for wave source is the moving photon. Hence, the need toreflect (which also gives us the QM effect of observer/wires/equipment on theexperiment - one less peculiarity to worry about which implies a simplificationto the overall model).  Part of the claim is that the STOE describesYoung’s Experiment with a particle model, then shows a difference with the wavemodel (side of illumination). ``The math of the full slit, diffraction experiment for STOEparticles with plenum inertia can be mathematically transformed into theFraunhofer wave model with HF assumptions \citep[Section 4]{hodg15a}.’’ ``TheSTOE model of particles and the wave model of a continuous medium yield indistinguishableresults for the screen image in the traditional diffraction experiment.’’However, the claim needs to be supported with further experiment. The waterexperiment should do this (1) show Fraunhofer diffraction on second maskposition, (2) show Fraunhofer diffraction on screen when second mask iscentered, (3) move second mask so slit has varying illumination, and (4) seemost energy on the same side.  The rationalfor doing the Experiment was that the STOE model suggested a difference betweena wave model and the STOE model (Fig. 1 in the first paper you commented) whileshowing indistinguishable results for Young’s Experiment.  Did this (long) message answer your last query? Hodge 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160425/f9cf12c5/attachment.htm>