[General] paper
Vladimir Tamari
vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 26 10:27:05 PDT 2016
John Hodge and Wolf, I I am glad that Eric Reiter's work is being discussed. His experimental refutation of Einstein's concept of a point photon deserves a Nobel prize. It confirms concepts about the double slit-experiment and about diffraction that I had, that it is not a point photon releasing an electron on the screen, but rather a photon quantum released suddenly spreading into a wave that reaches all the atoms on the screen until one of them reaches a threshold and the electron is released. I mention that in my 1993 paper, republished years later: http://vladimirtamari.com/United-Dipole-Field-Tamari.pdf Section IV: "Here the photon
will be described as a single continuous classical wave
with local intensity fluctuations, which then cause random
particle events during absorption or emission, and
occurring within the sensor." [original italics] .The late Caroline Thompson told me this was just the old semi-classical theory of gradual absorption put forward by Planck and others, that sought to refute the point photon idea. Eric's experimental proof upsets all the commonly seen explanations of the double-slit experiment and other quantum effects - he proves that there is no particle-wave duality, hence probability and quantum weirdness are unnecessary baggage confounding physics for far too long now. Ironically it all goes back to Einstein's mistaken assumption of 1905, because he is the one who rightly complained the most about Quantum weirdness! Eric and others have pointed out that Compton himself gave an alternative wave explanation for his effect, usually taken to prove the photon as a particle!Eric's papers and videos are here http://unquantum.net/
Best wishes,Vladimir
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:20:30 +0000
From: jchodge at frontier.com
To: wolf at nascentinc.com; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] paper
Wolf:
I have
difficulty printing the Academia papers. Do you?
If
so, I understand why you see only 1 page.
The
following link is easier to print.
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1712
Is
Eric Reiter the author of “New Experiments call for a continuous absorption …”
?
Hodge
On Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:14 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:
John;
just got back from a trip
Thank you for the reference and the up load to your further
thoughts.
An experiment that distinguishes between particle and wave
diffraction would certainly be important on its own whether or not
it supports a STOE theory or not.
I do not know if anyone can get the water tank
experiment done?
Would your Experiment show the electron to be a particle? Can it be
carried out?
Do not understand this "However, I
don’t know about the EM radiation. How does the nature of charge
depend on whether EM
is particle or wave."
"The wave inthe
plenum then reflects off the mask except where the
slit is. The wave thendirects
the particle. The impinging particles then cause the screen
image."
Why do you need to assume a particle, Photon, in the wave? Why
would the the photon concept not simply be explained by resonant
antenna effects at the absorber? This would allow an atom to
absorb radiation from a larger area and then the photon concept
would simply be an explanatory projection into the EM field
Bth ERic Reiters papers and mine from the San diego conference
suggest photons are mental projections introduced by detector
effects.
I have to apologize since I do not have to fully understand your
experiment, however the claim that your experiment can distinguish
between particle and wave diffraction is in my opinion very
important. Is there any way you could send me a short rational for
this claim (perhaps an excerpt)
best
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 4/22/2016 6:55 AM, Hodge John wrote:
Wolf:
I was working on
this when your e-mail arrived.
https://www.academia.edu/24659165/Hodge_Experiment_distinguishes_between_wave_and_particle_caused_diffraction_patterns
ABSTRACT
The
Hodge
Experiment was designed to support the Scalar Theory of
Everything (STOE)
particle model of the photon. It also rejected the wave
models of light. The
general model of light waves within the Hodge Experiment's
conditions is shown
to lead to unobserved effects. It also provides an insight
into inertia. The
STOE model of particles and the wave model of a continuous
medium yield
indistinguishable results for the screen image in the
traditional diffraction
experiment. Therefore, the Hodge Experiment provides a
method to distinguish
between a direct wave caused diffraction pattern and a
particle caused
diffraction pattern that resolves the wave--particle duality
conundrum.
I’d accept a
water wave experiment when the setup shows a
Fraunhofer diffraction pattern at the 2nd mask (the
1st
slit should be several wavelengths wide). Can anyone get the
water tank
experiment done?
I think the
electron would show to be a particle. However, I
don’t know about the EM radiation. The nature of charge
depends on whether EM
is particle or wave.
Hodge
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
Click here to unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160426/ad00288f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list