Resolution of wave-particle duality
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! We report the same sensational result with alpha-rays. 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.
In my humble opinion:
My most important accomplishment is a hypothesis: a realization I call the ratio trick (for lack of a better word). Without this realization, physics will be stuck in wave-particle duality. 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 the 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 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. It was plain to me: if you see wave interference, any attempt to quantize the wave is wrong. The question remained: how do we explain those particle-like effects. It was those pesky little m's in the equations that made one think of the mass of a particle. The ratio trick resolves that issue. Take the case of nuclear decay emitting an electron's worth of charge. The emitted charge-wave will initially have e and m, but it spreads, diffracts, and interferes. Whatever it is that crosses space must not hold itself together; it is a wave. Now visualize a small sample volume of that initial emission and realize that its e/m ratio is conserved. In that sample volume, you can have half an e and half an m, but it cancels to a full e/m, just what the experiment reads. Therefore, an absorber can soak up fractions of charge until threshold _e and threshold_m are reached. Here we take our constants to be thresholds. Similar arguments work for the other two ratios I mentioned. Without the ratio trick, the result of the unquantum effect 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 quantized charge at e. Therefore JJ gave us m. Back then, charge was assumed to be quantized in solids as well as free space. But take notice. We know e independent of m only in the case of balancing a large mass. In a large mass, an ensemble effect can rally the charges toward threshold_e such that we will only see multiples of e. A similar argument can be applied to the Faraday constant. 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 maxims, 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 was applied. Quantization cannot explain wave effects unless you force the wave to an abstraction suffering from macroscopic wave-function collapse. The distinction between quantum mechanics and the threshold model is demonstrated by the unquantum effect. My theory and experiment say that a microscopic wave-function growth-discontinuity is at play instead of the idea of a macroscopic wave-function collapse-discontinuity. ER 2021.