One minute video.
New Experiments Call for a Continuous Absorption Alternative to Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum Wave-Function Collapse Discovered Inside-Out.
Threshold Model Explains Unquantum Effect.
Quantum mechanics fails in our experiments
There is a type of experiment, famous for upholding quantum mechanics that argues for a particle property of light. In that same type of experiment, for the first time ever, we used gamma-rays. Quantum mechanics fails! For the wave-particle property of matter, we report the same sensational result using alpha-rays. We are not just showing wave or particle properties. We show how the particle property fails. Additionally, a new theory and a new interpretation of key historical experiments lead to replacing quantization with a threshold model. Quantum mechanics will confuse you with entanglement, non-locality, wave-function collapse, photons, superposition, virtual particles and quantum-particle weirdness. Those concepts are all the same. Here, we transcend those concepts.
Here we reveal false assumptions applied to famous experiments that made people think that light was quantized. Also, here we analyze beam-split experiments similar to ours.
Who are we? It is Eric S Reiter, and help from my wife and friends. Studied physics at Sonoma State University 1977- 1980, and biology at San Francisco State U. While doing business as Computer Continuum 1980-1995 I produced laboratory and automation circuits and software for personal computers. Now I do Independent research and consulting. Published: Progress In Physics, SPIE What are Photons? conference 2015, Foundations of Mind conference 2016. My technical sculptures were well received at San Francisco's Exploratorium 1969-1974. Credit is given to my friend Ken Kitlas for many important consultations and donations toward the unquantum project.
Let me explain what I see as my most important accomplishment: the idea I call nature's ratio trick. The realization was after months of study and working equations for the likes of the photoelectric and Compton effect, in year 2000. Those equations are for key experiments you will find in any introductory text of modern physics. I wrote to a physics teacher, Roger Bland, and asked: which experiments deliver Planck's constant? He nicely wrote back citing experiments I already knew of. However, that had me thinking. It was during a walk in the park with my wife Miriam, the realization hit me, hit me hard, that kind of ah-ha moment you hear-tell about. Those key experiments do not deliver Planck's constant by itself. They deliver a ratio of two important constants. Thinking of the electron, the ratios are e/m, h/m, and e/h, where e = electron charge, m = electron mass, and h = Planck's constant. Preceeding my realization, it was obvious to me that any attempt to quantize a wave is wrong. The question remained: how do we explain those particle-like effects. It was those pesky little constants m, h, and e in our equations that made one think of particles. The ratio trick resolves that issue. Take the case of nuclear decay emitting an electron's worth of charge. At the instant of emission the charge-wave will have a quantized e and m. However, thereafter it spreads, diffracts, and interferes. It must not be a particle. Now visualize a small sample volume of that initial emission and realize that its e/m ratio is conserved. In that sample volume, let us imagine half-values of e and m. Now realize those fractions will cancel to deliver only the ratio e/m, the way our experiments read. Therefore, an absorber can soak up fractions of charge until threshold _e and threshold_m are reached. The hypothesis is to treat our constants to indicate thresholds. We apply similar arguments to the other two ratios e/h, h/m. Without this ratio trick, the result of our unquantum effect experiment would seem impossible.
Let us examine how we know e and m. JJ Thomson's electron deflection experiment was the first to deliver e/m. JJ also did an oil-drop experiment to reveal the charge constant e. Therefore JJ also gave us m. Back then, charge was assumed to be quantized in free space, as well as in larger masses. But take notice. We know e, independently of m only in experiments upon a relatively large mass, like in the oil drop experiment. In a large mass, an ensemble effect can rally the charges toward our threshold_e such that the experiment will reveal only multiples of e. This argument also applies to Faraday constant and shot noise experiments. We have witnessed the illusion of quantization. Charge need not be quantized in free space. Looking back to the equations of our key experiments, we now take e, m, and h as maxima, whereby charge, mass, and action need not be quantized in free space. Indeed, Planck proposed that his action constant was a threshold in 1911. The concept of thresholding will work everywhere quantization has been applied. We are not throwing out quantum mechanics altogether. However, by assigning the wave-function to an abstract probability, quantum mechanic suffers from macroscopic wave-function collapse, and all that weirdness you hear-tell about. The distinction between quantum mechanics and the threshold model is demonstrated by the unquantum effect. My theory and experiments call for reversing the idea of the wave-collapse disconuity. A microscopic accumulation discontinuity happens instead of a macroscopic collapse discontinuity. ER 2021.