The double slit experiment

[gill1109]

Michel, first I understood that you were using non-locality (action at a distance) to explain the double slit experiment, then I thought you were using memory.

There is nothing wrong or stupid with either explanation: both kinds of explanation have been put forward many times in the past, by very serious researchers. In the first case, we suppose that the two slits are in one massive apparatus which reacts differently when an electron passes through one slit, depending on whether the other slit is open or closed. This is what people mean by classical but non-local. Classical mechanics allows action-at-a-distance because it allow the concept of a rigid body.

In the second case if many electrons one at a time travel to the two slits one can imagine that what happened to earlier electrons changes things for the later electrons. For instance, this could be a mechanism whereby information as to whether the second slit is open or not changes microscopic oscillations going on at the first slit. Now we no longer have "non-locality", we just use "memory".

Perhaps you can try to explain in more simple terms how your new explanation works.

[minkwe]

1) quanta/particles can transfer momentum to the walls if the slits.
2) The amount of momentum transferred, determines the angle of deflection of the particle.
3) Transfered momentum is quantized. Therefore the particles are deflected into discrete directions.
4) The allowed directions are determined by the relationship between the normal modes if the slit system and the frequency of the quanta/particle.
5) Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different.
6) The pattern produced, and the slit system producing it have a dual relationship. They can be expressed as Fourier transforms of each other.

the dynamics of an atom in the slit can be determined by the structure of the whole, so that a completely local interaction between an impinging particle and a single atom will contain information about the whole, without the interaction itself being with the whole slit assembly. Diffraction patterns are only produced by combining multiple different interactions of millions of different particles with different atoms of the slit ensemble, spread out over time, at different times in their oscillation cycles. That is why the pattern builds up over time. There is no interaction with the "whole slit assembly", rather the particles sample the time varying dynamics of the different particles of the slits. The dynamics, which in-turn is determined by the structure of the whole slits. Most of the confusion is introduced by naively believing that a single particle produces a diffraction pattern. It does not. A single particle samples one vibrational state of one atom at one given moment in time (the relevance of the Fourier transform then becomes quite clear).

The key is that, although each particle impinges on a specific molecule at a time, different particles impinge on different molecules at different times, at different points in their vibrational cycles, thus transferring different amounts of momentum. The diffraction pattern is therefore a sort of "histogram" of momentum transferred. The particles could be said to be sampling the "allowed" momentum transfers to the molecules. ... , there is no group action. Different particles simply sample different points in the vibrational cycle.

... each particle only interacts with a given atom, transfers only an "allowed" amount of momentum. The angle it leaves the slit is a function of the momentum transferred. Different particles do the same thing. At the end you look at the histogram of angles leaving the slits and find that there are more particles heading in some directions -- ie, certain values of momentum transfers are more preferable than others, hence the bright regions vs the dark regions. This is why it may appear as though the pattern is random until you have collected a large number of particles.

Ask a specific question about anything not clear in the above. There is no non-locality or memory in the above explanation.

[gill1109]

Thank you. Please look at this point:

5) Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different.

This seems to me "non-locality", more precisely: instantaneous action-at-a-distance. The slit system is treated as a rigid body. A particle hitting the right hand slit can "feel" if the left hand slit is open or closed.

Suppose one can close either slit by a kind of curtain hanging immediately on the other side of the slit. So the particle first meets a solid object with one or two slits in it, goes through one or the other slit ... and then, if it goes through the right hand slit, it is absorbed by a curtain hanging just behind the right hand slit.

No change to the "normal modes" of the slit system.

Will the particles which now only go through the left hand slit still end up only in the "bright bands" of the diffraction pattern which we see when neither is obstructed?

[gill1109]

Most of the confusion is introduced by naively believing that a single particle produces a diffraction pattern. It does not. A single particle samples one vibrational state of one atom at one given moment in time (the relevance of the Fourier transform then becomes quite clear).

So what would we see if we did N = 10^6 two-slit experiments each with just one particle each? (And afterwards superimpose all the 10^6 pictures of one dot on one screen?)

This seems to me to be where you are assuming some kind of memory in the system. Later particles "know" about the two slits both being there, because the way the whole thing is vibrating, due to earlier collisions.

In other words, you relax the "rigid body" picture of the assembly with the two slits, now it consists of lots of interacting molecules, but now it takes some time for the molecules making up the left hand slit to know that the right hand slit is open or closed. They slowly get this information from feeling the collisions of the particles with the molecules in the neighbourhood of the slits.

[minkwe]

Thank you. Please look at this point:

5) Since different slit systems have different normal modes, the diffraction patterns are different.

This seems to me "non-locality", more precisely: instantaneous action-at-a-distance. The slit system is treated as a rigid body. A particle hitting the right hand slit can "feel" if the left hand slit is open or closed.

There is no non-locality here. The problem is probably that you are thinking the dynamics is happening because the particle impinges on the slit, but it is not. The dynamics of the slits exists as a property of the slit already before the particle impinges. And it is not just some abstract global property. all the atoms/molecules which make up the slit assembly have coordinated oscillation as part of that dynamics. The coordination happens at/or below the speed of light, just like in Newton's cradle or when a person jumps on a trampoline. So you need to think of the atoms in the slit system already oscillating in a manner determined by the structure of the slits. You just have to look at the Fourier transform of the double box function, and compare that with the single box function to understand what a difference an extra opening makes for the possible vibrational states.

Suppose one can close either slit by a kind of curtain hanging immediately on the other side of the slit. So the particle first meets a solid object with one or two slits in it, goes through one or the other slit ... and then, if it goes through the right hand slit, it is absorbed by a curtain hanging just behind the right hand slit.

No change to the "normal modes" of the slit system.

This is precisely the experiment we discussed at the beginning of this thread, and I explained that the results as shown in Figure 2, continue to reveal a double slit pattern (not a single slit pattern), even when it appeared that one slit was completely blocked by the curtain, contrary to popular belief, and the claims of the authors. Please review the paper and their results, not just the erroneous claims which other people make about it. Also note from the results of the experiment that even when both slits were "blocked", you still got a diffraction pattern, which further demonstrates that the author's definition of "blocked" is questionable. The suggestion that they have blocked one slit completely, is of cause based on their assumption about the trajectory of the particles leaving the slit in question. The fact that we still get a diffraction pattern after they "blocked" both slits, reveals that those assumptions are wrong.

[minkwe]

So what would we see if we did N = 10^6 two-slit experiments each with just one particle each? (And afterwards superimpose all the 10^6 pictures of one dot on one screen?) This seems to me to be where you are assuming some kind of memory in the system.

If the slits are similar and the particles are similar and each of the experiments are performed under similar conditions, then you should get a double slit diffraction pattern just the same. Like I've explained many times previously, there is no memory in my explanation and I'm still stunned as to where you see memory in it. Do you think the atoms in the slit are sitting still until you start your experiment? They are always vibrating.

Later particles "know" about the two slits both being there, because the way the whole thing is vibrating, due to earlier collisions.

Nope. A given particle interacts with a given molecule/atom at the slit, and a specific amount of momentum is transfered in that specific interaction, and the specific amount of momentum transfered is dependent on the vibrational state that atom/molecule was in when the particle impinged. And the distribution of all the different vibrational states encountered by all the different impinging particles and different times, is characteristic of the vibrational dynamics of the molecules which make up the walls of the slit system which in-turn is dependent on the structure of the slit system. There is nothing mysterious here. No need for memory or non-locality whatsoever. Particles don't need to know anything. They just interact with an atom and head off in a direction governed by the momentum transferred.

[minkwe]

In other words, you relax the "rigid body" picture of the assembly with the two slits, now it consists of lots of interacting molecules

I haven't relaxed anything, all "Rigid" bodies are made up of interacting atoms/molecules. Atoms and molecules are always vibrating around mean positions. Normal modes are present in all solids. In fact, the rigidity of "rigid" bodies is precisely due to the allowed momentum transfers to the atoms.

but now it takes some time for the molecules making up the left hand slit to know that the right hand slit is open or closed. They slowly get this information from feeling the collisions of the particles with the molecules in the neighbourhood of the slits.

How long does it take for the atoms in your head to sense the momentum transferred to the atoms in your feet when you jump on a trampoline. Do you believe it happens faster than the speed of light? But again you misunderstand my explanation. The particles do not "feel" each other vicariously through the slits, they interact only with the atom they impinge on. They "feel" only that single atom. But that atom had previously felt it's neighbor and it's neighbor had felt it's other neighbor and that cascade had continued until there was no neighbor on the other side, over time, the vibrations of all the atoms in the slits has reached steady state, incorporating all the structural information about which atoms have neighbors and which do not into the dynamics of all the atoms. And that dynamics will be different since the number of atoms which have no neighbor are different for each, etc. All this happens at/below the speed of light before your experiment even began.

[jreed]

I thought about how solid state physics could be used to explain the slit problem. There are some difficulties with this explanation. For example, depending on the material forming the slits, if this is a metal, the lattice vibrations contribute to the transfer of momentum, and momentum transfer is not conserved for the collision. Some of the momentum is taken up by the lattice in what is called an Umklapp (German for "flipped over") interaction. This would not happen for slits made of glass or other non crystal materials. Then there is a problem with temperature. If the material is close to absolute zero, all phonons are in the ground state, but if it's at an elevated temperature the phonon states will all be excited to some degree so the diffraction pattern would change with temperature. AFAIK, there is no dependence on the diffraction patterns for either the slit material, or temperature. All the experiments depend only on the slit separation and slit size.

[gill1109]

How long does it take for the atoms in your head to sense the momentum transferred to the atoms in your feet when you jump on a trampoline. Do you believe it happens faster than the speed of light? But again you misunderstand my explanation. The particles do not "feel" each other vicariously through the slits, they interact only with the atom they impinge on. They "feel" only that single atom. But that atom had previously felt it's neighbor and it's neighbor had felt it's other neighbor and that cascade had continued until there was no neighbor on the other side, over time, the vibrations of all the atoms in the slits has reached steady state, incorporating all the structural information about which atoms have neighbors and which do not into the dynamics of all the atoms. And that dynamics will be different since the number of atoms which have no neighbor are different for each, etc. All this happens at/below the speed of light before your experiment even began.

Indeed, it takes some time. All this happens at/below the speed of light.
Hence slit 1 "knows" that slit 2 was open a few nano-seconds ago, but it doesn't know if is open right now. So if we open and close the slits very rapidly and unpredicatably, your explanation will no longer work.

I call this the memory loophole! You can call it what you like, but it corresponds precisely to well known loopholes in EPR-B experiments.

[minkwe]

How long does it take for the atoms in your head to sense the momentum transferred to the atoms in your feet when you jump on a trampoline. Do you believe it happens faster than the speed of light? But again you misunderstand my explanation. The particles do not "feel" each other vicariously through the slits, they interact only with the atom they impinge on. They "feel" only that single atom. But that atom had previously felt it's neighbor and it's neighbor had felt it's other neighbor and that cascade had continued until there was no neighbor on the other side, over time, the vibrations of all the atoms in the slits has reached steady state, incorporating all the structural information about which atoms have neighbors and which do not into the dynamics of all the atoms. And that dynamics will be different since the number of atoms which have no neighbor are different for each, etc. All this happens at/below the speed of light before your experiment even began.

Indeed, it takes some time. All this happens at/below the speed of light.
Hence slit 1 "knows" that slit 2 was open a few nano-seconds ago, but it doesn't know if is open right now. So if we open and close the slits very rapidly and unpredicatably, your explanation will no longer work.

I call this the memory loophole! You can call it what you like, but it corresponds precisely to well known loopholes in EPR-B experiments.

You need to read what I write more carefully. Slit 1 doesn't know anything. There is no memory.

[gill1109]

You need to read what I write more carefully. Slit 1 doesn't know anything. There is no memory.

It seems that we two use the same language, English, in some mutually incompatible ways. Hopefully someone else understands me and can try to translate.

[minkwe]

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

Those of you familiar with the discussion we had on this thread might be interested in the above experiment.

[Q-reeus]

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

Those of you familiar with the discussion we had on this thread might be interested in the above experiment.

It pays to check out all the subforums: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=147

[Gordon Watson]

Any clarifications of the above needed, before I proceed?

No.

[Guest]

I just became aware of this group. Thanks Freddi! I searched previous postings on this subject and did not find anyone commenting on what I would like to introduce. So…
The Core reason for Quantum Mechanics (QM) to exist, AFAIK, was the inability of Classical EM to explain why itty-bitty “stuff,” like electrons and photons, seemed to sometimes “act like” a particle and sometimes “act like” a wave.
The primary manifestation of this “duality” is the two-slit experiment, and the wave-like patterns that occur when electrons are “shot” through a set of slits. One “weird part” is that the result seems to require “sentience” on the part of the electron in “knowing” whether the opposite slit is open or closed.
I have followed the work of Dr. Randall Mills for several years, through information available at his company, Black Light Power (BLP). He has developed an *all-classical* alternative to QM. He calls this the “Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics) or GUTCP for short.
His company is developing a product based on the GUTCP.
For what it is worth, I have concluded that his theory is correct.
The complete theory book is here: http://issuu.com/blacklightpower/docs/v ... 98/2669360
Electron scattering and wave-particle duality is discussed in detail in Chapter 8.
#Caution# The book is *huge* and much of it is difficult to follow due to complex equations and Dr. Mills’ style. The medium is also not easy to read and strongly “resists” attempts to highlight and copy sections for study.
Just a few months ago, he released a *much* simpler document. Most of the verbage is gone (mostly equations and diagrams) and it is a PDF file so copy and analyze is easy. It also contains an animation that shows that the “sentience” is nothing more than fields induced in the slits that are interacting with the incident electrons.
The PDF file is here:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-conte ... ionPt1.pdf
All the best, Bill

[Q-reeus]

Guest - it's good to be open minded about radical claims given apparently independently verified claims of experimental evidence for 'new physics' i.e. 'hydrino states', and a theoretical framework that sort of makes sense. And which has an apparent very accurate correspondence to experimental data i.e. spectral lines for many atomic/ionic/molecular states. Both of which seem to be so for Randall Mills GUT of CP. But you have to wonder why now decades-old grand promises of breakthrough clean energy remain always 'just around the corner' - a bit like with the fusion community.

I began a skim through the linked pdf article. Not happy initially that a number of equation entities were never defined. However, pp 107-110 (according to my Foxit pdf Reader): The Field of the Photon Observed from the Laboratory Frame is where Mill's GUT of CP theory obviously starts falling apart for me. In fact just p107 sealed it (p108 being a useless and misleading distraction). See if you can guess why (hint: he claims full consistency with special relativity).

Also, explanation for double slit pattern - pp123-124, is hardly unique to him and imo falls down when the more general case is considered (hint: neutrons and other neutral entities exhibit the same interference physics - just search for e.g. 'neutron double slit interference').
Still, IF the 'hydrino' spectral and chemical data are real not cunning fraud, he evidently has stumbled onto something outside of conventional physics.

[Bill]

Thanks Q for your reply. I apologize for the delay, but I have been having some serious conversations with some trout!
You said, “Not happy initially that a number of equation entities were never defined.” The pdf was generated because the entire GUTCP is kilo-pages long and extraordinarily challenging to understand.
Re your p 107/108 comments, you said, “See if you can guess…”
I am extraordinarily poor at guessing what someone that I do not know *might* be considering to be erroneous. If you would like to provide a clear, concise explanation of the perceived error, I’ll be happy to tackle it – alone or in concert with associates on the “Society For Classical Physics” group.
You said, “Also, explanation for double slit pattern - pp123-124, is hardly unique to him…” I am not aware of any such “uniqueness” claim, in fact, I some years ago on th the old EM forum, I noted the striking resemblance between the “un-explainable” double slit patterns and those patterns that one encounters in antenna design (my passion) when an antenna is excited by RF and another, similar-but-unexcited antenna is present.
You *have* read Chapter 8, right? This explains the concept in (almost) excruciating detail. Mills also addresses some aspects on “un-charged” double slit performance.
Re neutrons, it is not obvious (to me) how one goes about accelerating a neutron without imparting *some kind* of non-kinetic energy to it. Also, unless the “neutron gun” is incredibly accurate, some of the neutrons *will* smash into the slit edges. And that action will transform some of the neutrons into charged particles with similar mass. Also, the energy of impact of neutrons will set up slit fields that will interact with the now-charged neutron “residue” resulting in patterns associated with the Fourier transform of the slit pattern.
Put another way, in a double-slit experiment involving neutrons, how do we *know* that the items hitting the target on the far side of the slit are *still* neutrons and not charged heavy particles?
One last note: You suggest that Mills “stumbled” across a whole new concept. The initial concept was begun when Randy became disgusted with the imprecise nature of QM. He (IMO correctly) perceived that the nonsense of QM came about because of an inaccurate model of the electron. Basically, he noted that *all* previous electron models either had basic flaws causing them to “blow up” (as discussed by Jackson in Ch 17.4) or “radiate away.”
He developed a model that is stable as both a free and an orbiting item. Perfecting this took 20+ years.

*Stumbled?* Not hardly.

All the best, Bill

[Q-reeus]

Thanks Q for your reply. I apologize for the delay, but I have been having some serious conversations with some trout!

Well I trust you won the 'conversations' there.

You said, “Not happy initially that a number of equation entities were never defined.” The pdf was generated because the entire GUTCP is kilo-pages long and extraordinarily challenging to understand.

A lot of his equations are not even numbered, and symbols are introduced at times without any explanation, or not until much later.

Re your p 107/108 comments, you said, “See if you can guess…”
I am extraordinarily poor at guessing what someone that I do not know *might* be considering to be erroneous. If you would like to provide a clear, concise explanation of the perceived error, I’ll be happy to tackle it – alone or in concert with associates on the “Society For Classical Physics” group.

It's quite simple. The lhs figure on p107 purports to show the field configuration of a photon 'in it's own rest frame'. Long known to be an impossibility given the zero rest energy status of a photon. Unless you dispute E = hf, one has E & f = 0, hence infinite 'wavelength' and zero field energy densities, thus nonexistent. The paradox is resolved by dropping any meaningful notion of a photon 'rest frame', something Randall is evidently ignorant of. After 20 yrs 'perfecting' his theory, such a basic fact should have been picked up along the way - like at the very start.
One can get a feel for it by considering the ultra-relativistic limit for Lorentz transformation of length into the rest frame of a massive (i.e. non-zero rest mass) object that is both ultra relativistic and nominally 'round' in the lab frame.

You said, “Also, explanation for double slit pattern - pp123-124, is hardly unique to him…” I am not aware of any such “uniqueness” claim, in fact, I some years ago on th the old EM forum, I noted the striking resemblance between the “un-explainable” double slit patterns and those patterns that one encounters in antenna design (my passion) when an antenna is excited by RF and another, similar-but-unexcited antenna is present.

Sure, sympathetic excitation in Yagi-Yuda etc. parasitic element designs work along those lines. But double-slit interference pattern is a universal feature applying not just to electrons but photons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, as many experiments have confirmed. All based on the one de Broglie wavelength relation λ = h/p :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... brog2.html
Not possible to understand in a classical context.

You *have* read Chapter 8, right? This explains the concept in (almost) excruciating detail. Mills also addresses some aspects on “un-charged” double slit performance.
Re neutrons, it is not obvious (to me) how one goes about accelerating a neutron without imparting *some kind* of non-kinetic energy to it.

Such as? Neutrons carry an intrinsic spin of 1/2 along with all other Fermions, which will precess if immersed in a B field, but that's it.

Also, unless the “neutron gun” is incredibly accurate, some of the neutrons *will* smash into the slit edges. And that action will transform some of the neutrons into charged particles with similar mass. Also, the energy of impact of neutrons will set up slit fields that will interact with the now-charged neutron “residue” resulting in patterns associated with the Fourier transform of the slit pattern.
Put another way, in a double-slit experiment involving neutrons, how do we *know* that the items hitting the target on the far side of the slit are *still* neutrons and not charged heavy particles?

This article provides a nice reference and summary of how: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... f-neutrons

One last note: You suggest that Mills “stumbled” across a whole new concept. The initial concept was begun when Randy became disgusted with the imprecise nature of QM. He (IMO correctly) perceived that the nonsense of QM came about because of an inaccurate model of the electron. Basically, he noted that *all* previous electron models either had basic flaws causing them to “blow up” (as discussed by Jackson in Ch 17.4) or “radiate away.”
He developed a model that is stable as both a free and an orbiting item. Perfecting this took 20+ years.

Mill's basic idea may be original, but he has been criticized for plagiarism; see Reference 51 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackLight_Power

I was initially open minded about Mill's hydrino model, especially given the experimental claims, but dropped interest once certain glaring errors in his theory became apparent. Ask yourself what kind of stupendous energy densities and pressures are implied in e.g. his hydrogen atom electron shell, which he claims has a thickness of 1 Planck length! Maybe ask him to explain what magical forces of a necessarily non-EM nature hold such together against the huge tendency to explode.
Further, I doubt very much such orbitsphere models are stable against the slightest perturbation, even on a vastly weaker magnetic energy interaction basis.
Also dimly recall being aghast at his 'stability analysis' for free electron - as I recall the 'balance' between electrostatic, magnetic, and centrifugal forces was impossible as proposed there.
Sorry to rain on your parade Bill, but much as QM certainly has it's weird aspects, RM is not the long-sought light-bearing saviour here.

[Bill]

Again, Q, thanks for taking time to state your thoughts. As I promised, I have passed your comments regarding the erroneous nature of the photon model to my associates on the other list. We'll see what replies may come.

Re conversations with trout, One thing I have learned is that hungry trout concentrate on food. When they encounter something that is clearly not food, they quickly reject it.

So... let me take a lesson from trout and point out that this topic is about the double-slit; not the viability of Mills' Hydrino concept.

In Chapter 8, Mills develops an analysis of the double slit using *only classical concepts.* Neither hydrinos nor orbitspheres form any part of the argument. He relies entirely on classical concepts to show that the double slit phenomenon is *completely classical.*

So... I ask all readers to concentrate *only* on the structure and rigour of Mills' classical derivation.

If you find it to be in error, I would love to learn, using nothing but classically derived concepts, *why the derivation is incorrect.*

All the best,

Bill

[Bill]

Since I promised to take Q’s comments to the “Society For Classical Physics” group to get a group response, I find that I *must* break my “trout rule” one last time:

First off, several associates pointed out that the “erroneous” diagram 107 that was so heavily criticized could not be found! Here is one comment: “neither the page labeled as 107 in its corner, nor the 107th from the start of Volume I (including front-matter pages labeled stuff like "iv") have figures of the photon. He should *read* Chapter 4 (Equation of the Photon) and look at figures 4.1 through 4.7.”

Second, here is an edited-for-brevity set of comments that catch the ‘flavor’ of the group’s response:
“Dr. Mills isn't saying that it's possible for a photon (or its fields) to be at rest. Those figures show what the EM fields would look like if you could be in the *photon's inertial reference frame* (which of course you can't be). The photon's wavelength is the diameter of its EM field orbitsphere and its frequency is the number of times a second that the overall E field vector (or equivalently the B field vector) completes a 360 degree rotation (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6).
This is for a single photon which must be either be left-hand or right-hand circularly polarized (individual photons have h-bar angular momentum so their field vectors must rotate either clockwise or counter-clockwise).”
Note: If you do not know what an “orbitsphere” is, then it would be useful to do some additional reading (whether you agree or not) since this is the basis for a correctly derived *non-radiating* electron model upon which the photon model is based.
Continuing with group comments:

“As is well known in classical electrodynamics, photons obey the superposition principle, so a left-hand and right-hand circularly polarized photon can superimpose to give us a linear polarized photon pair (see Figure 4.7).

Since the photon travels at c, in the lab frame we see relativistic length contraction *such that the photon appears "flat" in the axis of propagation.* There are some very good animations of a linearly polarized photon (pair) if you scroll down in this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation “

Note that the E and B field vector lengths in these animations are the superposition (vector sum) of two counter-rotating E & B vectors from the left-hand and right-hand photons. IOW this is a view of a *pair” of complementary photons.

“Note that in this lab reference frame view that the photon (pair) appears to have zero extent in the direction of propagation due to relativistic length contraction (just like in Mills' Figures 4.5 & 4.6). “

Third, and most important, physics is an empirical science, so reproducible experimental evidence trumps any wiggling around about theoretical semantics.

There are *many* reproducible experimental results in top-tier journals that defy explanation in quantum theory, but are *predicted* by GUT-CP. These include *many* experiments that yield unexplained (by current physics and QM) excess heat. In addition. And, within the last year, in-house and public demonstrations have shown a dramatically new configuration that generates enormous amounts of light that can be captured by conventional Solar Cells and turned directly into electricity.
This technique has not, AFAIK, been independently replicated. Engineering (as opposed to R&D) work is currently in process.
One of the group added, WRT independent verifications: “I link a ton of such evidence in my comments in that awful Forbes blog post from 6 months ago here: http://goo.gl/XTXczp http://goo.gl/XTXczp


Dr. Mills also took time and commented: “Of course there is angular momentum and energy stored in the photon fields. The electric field of a photon is calculated in Appendix V.”
Q: I suspect that we agree that accuracy in details matters in everyday life, and is even more important in physics. The accuracy of Q’s comments seems to be under serious disagreement here.
It is fascinating to me that so many Physicists can blindly follow the epicycle-like “theory” of Quantum Mechanics when there is so much empirical evidence showing how wrong it is.
If Q. would wish to continue this discussion, I believe it might be better to start an entirely new thread, since the contents here have drifted dramatically from the double slit.