[General] paper

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>