Controversial photon diffraction claims

[Q-reeus]

Quite some time back came across two distinctly different and controversial claims, one relating to the famous double-slit experiment, another to beam splitting. I bundle them both here as 'hey, want to look at something way-out for a change' stuff that just may lead someone to something more than nowhere useful. Hopefully either or both can be here knocked on the head - or not!

First one involves an Eric Reiter. Claiming results from numerous controlled experimental tests as evidence (not afaik independently replicated however) proving that single photons - in particular gamma-ray photons - necessarily physically divide at a beam splitter, as per coincidence counting data: http://unquantum.net/
It makes no sense that gamma-ray photons should have fundamentally different characteristics to say optical photons (relativistic transformation: gamma <-> optical), but then again it's hard to see where his experimental results have a basic flaw.

The second one makes the first seem passe by comparison. A Ray Dickenson claims there is a well known but bizarrely ignored paradox in double-slit experiment. Whereby existence of interference pattern depends on the particular order of opening/closing of the two slits!:
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/rad ... terference
[necessary to move up a page or so to get to start of sub-topic: The famous `two-slit experiment' (as within the experiment above) ]

Wouldn't have brought this one up here in a fit were it not for the disturbingly matter-of-fact way it's presented, which may mean nothing of course. Don't have either of the two books mentioned, maybe someone here does and can confirm he is outright lying as to any reference to said bizarre effect in either work.
I should add that four attempts to get feedback from that gent, first one in 2010, last three recently in 2014 (with increased goading each time), have all met with silence. That and lack of any specific chapter/verse/page referencing sure looks extra suspect. Still, even remote prospect of a genuine out-of-left-field weirdness here holds a certain fascination!
Note well: I emphasize that imo about everything else claimed on that site is either outright false, misleading or at best totally irrelevant to real physics and highly NOT recommended reading!!

If this thread is outside of guidelines, sorry and no problem for me if it goes 'poof'.

[Q-reeus]

Errata to post #1. Sorry - my memory re Eric Reiter's claims given above was not correct. He actually claims there is no photon per se, just sharply quantized emission energy that then spreads as spherical, almost-but-not-quite classical Maxwell EM light pulse. Basically this is supposed to support Planck's early loading theory, and superficially agrees with Lamb's famous 'no photons' paper, though Lamb never actually denied existence of photons.
Well respected A.Neumaier has similar ideas to Lamb: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=474537
although I have little doubt he would not support Reiter's claims his experiments prove 'no photons'.

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah, I remember Reiter from his FQXi essay. His claim is interesting but I sure would like to see it reproduced via someone else. I will look at Dickenson's claim if and when I get bored.

Neumaier believes the Coulomb field is fundamental and not quantized. I don't think that can be respected from a Standard Model of particle physics' perspective.

[Yablon]

Neumaier believes the Coulomb field is fundamental and not quantized. I don't think that can be respected from a Standard Model of particle physics' perspective.

Fred, what, exactly, does Neumaier say? Jay

[FrediFizzx]

Neumaier believes the Coulomb field is fundamental and not quantized. I don't think that can be respected from a Standard Model of particle physics' perspective.

Fred, what, exactly, does Neumaier say? Jay

Well, here is part of it; the text with the quote marks is me.

> Are you saying that the Coulomb field is composed of real photons then?

No. The Coulomb field has nothing to do with photons. It arises as an
interaction term in the QED Hamiltonian in the
Coulomb gauge.

> If not virtual photons nor virtual fermionic pairs, then there is
> nothing else to explain it within the context of QED other than real
> photons.

The standard Lagrangian --> Hamiltonian procedure is enough to
explain it.

More here.

I couldn't find the part were he comes right out and says the Coulomb field is fundamental. Perhaps it is in his FAQ.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physf ... s-faq.html

Of course if you don't believe that virtual particles are real, you are stuck with the viewpoint that the Coulomb field is fundamental.

[Q-reeus]

My main heuristic argument against Neumaier's model of photon as spherically expanding EM wave, in coping with one-at-a-time photon double-slit interference, was put in one posting thus:

Suppose ... the screen is highly efficient but presents a very small cross-section relative to an approximately hemispherical surface that has as radius r the distance from the slit or slits to the screen. Let the mean rate of photons passing through the slits be one per minute. Let the ratio of screen area As to 2*pi*r^2 be say 0.001. Then on a photon-as-particle picture an event rate of roughly once every 1000 minutes on average applies. What about the situation with photon-as-continuous-spherical-wave? Realistically if for each 'hit' some tiny fraction .001 of a single photon energy can actually be absorbed by the screen, we might expect exponential decay-rate dissipation as heat with a time constant in the nano-second range. For all practical purposes there is simply no memory between hits, and given the vast insufficiency in available energy for an electron ejection event ('click') by a single photon-as-spherical-wave, how could we ever expect one - ever?
Further, even taking the position that energy can in fact be 'borrowed' on time scales of ~ 1000 minutes in order to statistically match the photon-as-particle count rate, how would the screen 'know' how to get the stats right - when to eject an electron, given the total obliteration of evidence between hits? Is there some quantum ghost that hovers about, doing a count? In solving one 'quantum mystery' (interference), two 'mysteries' at least as serious seem to have taken it's place. Does M & W cover this situation?

There was following Q&A but as usual no-one changed their opinion. I'd say a definitive experiment (maybe already done) would be to perform something along above lines but with the added extra of cryogenic cooling of a detector screen backed by a highly efficient heat sink. 'Energy accumulation' - necessary component of loading theory - then totally ruled out. My bet is click-rate will follow photon-as-particle expectation.

[unquantum]

There is great confusion about photons. The photon is a model, it is phenomenological. A photon is not described by anything understandable in terms of some blob of energy with some kind of space and time description. The photon model is a mixture of two mutually exclusive models: 1) a particle holding itself together, and 2) a wave that spreads (does not hold itself together). Bohr, in his book "Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge" wrote how Einstein described the photon (model): "a photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter and be recorded at one detector or another, but not both, past the beam-splitter, but not at both detectors (he said film instead of detectors), but if the paths were to be reconverged with mirrors an interference pattern would emerge." This is not an exact quote, but close enough, from my memory. Most physicists will agree on this definition of the photon model. So if we are trying to understand what an experiment is saying about what light is, if you describe it in terms of photons, you will end with the photon model, and not understand much more. The alternative to the photon model has always been the loading theory, and this was described in Millikan's book, "Electrons + and -", very well. You will find the loading theory in most introductions to modern physics textbooks as a calculation of the loading time in the photoelectric effect. The problem with those textbook treatments is that they confuse the ideas of total loading time with minimum loading time (usually called response time). I elaborate on my various papers on my website.
I recently found another physicist supporting the loading theory, Chandrasekhar Roychardhoury, who just published a SPIE book. I need to revisit here to get his spelling correct. My audience should also know that I have recently been published in Progress In Physics, a peer reviewed journal; please see link on my unquantum.net website. Let me address the statement above where it was not understood why gamma-rays would act differently from visible light. With higher frequency gamma, the emission process can extend over a much shorter time and it can be initially directed in a narrower solid angle. We know this from classical optics. This pulse property of gamma is what I am taking advantage of to let us see through the photon model illusion. Try visualizing a short pulse of light interacting with an absorber that loads-up. What would tend to set-off coincident loadings up to a threshold, visible or gamma? My experiments show two-for-one at rates exceeding the chance rate, in violation of the photon model (particle-probability model of quantum mechanics). The only way to do that without violating energy conservation is to realize that here needs to be a pre-loaded state in the absorber (electron or atom) whereby a classical pulse would cause coincident detections. With visible light, such an effect would be lost in noise and we would only see coincident detection at the chance rate. When other physicists have done this coincidence-beam-split-experiment with visible light, they have only seen the chance coincident detection rate, and it looks like a "photon" went one way or another at the beam-splitter. They are just seeing noise. Mine are the only experiments doing this all-important test of the photon model with gamma-rays, and the experiments say the photon model fails. I have reported this on my website, patent applications, and papers since 2003. Many have said it would be nice to see someone reproduce my work. I have always given all the details to do my experiment, and I have always been generous to offer any form of help to anyone wanting to reproduce the test, and I have always been easy to find to communicate with. Please try communicating with me and try it already. It is a relatively easy experiment to do, and I will help you (anyone). It has been over ten years that people have said someone should reproduce it. The way to do it is with Co-57, easily purchased license-free, two NaI-PMT detectors, and NIM modules available on ebay. What are you waiting for?

[minkwe]

Bohr, in his book "Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge" wrote how Einstein described the photon (model): "a photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter and be recorded at one detector or another, but not both, past the beam-splitter, but not at both detectors (he said film instead of detectors), but if the paths were to be reconverged with mirrors an interference pattern would emerge."

Please someone explain to me how a photon creates an interference pattern. You can use any model of "photon" you like, particle or wave. Does anyone know of any experiment that has ever observed an interference pattern from a photon (whatever model you like to use)? Isn't it time that we stop this confusion and start understanding/using basic language properly.

"a photon will go one way or another at a beam-splitter and be recorded at one detector or another, but not both, past the beam-splitter, but not at both detectors"

This is the crux of the issue which you claim to have disproved in your experiment.

The central hypothesis is that an indivisible particle can only go one way at a beam splitter but a spread out divisible "photon" wave can go both ways.

To test this, you have to make sure you start out with one and only one "photon" or "wave" or whatever you call it at a time in the apparatus. Coincidence above background noise will show that it took both paths, otherwise it confirms that it is indivisible. You can not disprove the indivisible particle hypothesis unless you have made sure that only one "photon or whatever" was present at any given moment. Of course, if you do not believe in photons, then "a single photon" does not make sense to you and you probably think in terms of "a single pulse". But it is fallacious to assume that a single pulse, is equivalent to a single photon for purposes of disproving the photon model. Your experiment does not demonstrate what you think it does. You have to do the experiment under conditions which the photon model predicts will have a single photon in the system at any given moment. If under those conditions you find coincidence above background then the photon model can be questioned. Your "short pulse" unfortunately doesn't cut it.

On the other hand, Hans De Raedt has a memory model which is essentially a particle loading model. So it would appear, that even your loading model, if true, does not disprove a particle model since you can have a particle model of the photon with a loading model of detection of the particles, as De Raedt has shown.

[Q-reeus]

There is great confusion about photons...

Indeed. Eric - welcome to SPF. Glad you decided to join up and mount a defense of your unquantum position here. My earlier exposure to your work has been evidently all too superficial and pardon my preceding poor sysnopsis. Have been looking through the viXra article: http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0077
Found it hard to follow in some respects and was often unsure when it was referring to gamma-ray or electron emission/absorption. Surprised to find, if I read it right, you believe an emitted free-electron behaves as an expanding wave similarly to your EM 'photon' model! Anyway, given the real strength of your position is experimentally based, decided it best to switch to checking out: http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -37-06.PDF

The marshaled experimental evidence is quite impressive and the many variations of protocol seem to rule out the usual suspects listed there. Something very interesting is going on, but what exactly? Especially intrigued by passage, bottom of p 83 to top of p84:

Cd was prepared in two chemical states of matter (see Fig. 11 in [18]). A salt state was prepared by evaporating an isotope solution. A metal state was prepared by electroplating the isotope in solution onto the end of a platinum wire. The unquantum effect from the salt state was 5 times greater than from the metal state. This discovery measures how chemistry affects nuclear electron capture in isotope decay. We theorize that γ from the salt-crystaline source are more coherent and that the unquantum effect is enhanced by coherent waves. The singles spectrum did not measurably change with this chemical state change, so this sensitivity is due to the unquantum effect.

Incredibly hard to believe chemistry could have any appreciable effect as described. Maybe time to get real scientific and suspect Poltergeist activity! Seriously, there is a clue here something subtle is happening other than random single gamma ray emissions. Noting you have had exchanges with many physicists over the years, I assume one of the counter-examples offered was Mossbauer effect/spectroscopy:
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve ... ffect.html
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_8/3_8_4.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6ss ... ectroscopy
http://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/~L3000/Le ... sbauer.pdf

Personally, cannot imagine how any reasonable variant of loading theory could be consistent with what is detailed in the above listed articles. Ultra-sharp resonance absorption that relies to a great extent on a QM effect - total phonon suppression, just to be effective, at least in some situations. So, assuming you have faced and answered the Mossbauer challenge, would be interested to here your explanation!