[Noisebridge-discuss] [sudo-discuss] Live demo refuting quantum mechanics, invitation (fwd)

GtwoG PublicOhOne g2g-public01 at att.net
Mon Nov 18 09:06:52 UTC 2013

I saw the write-up and diagram on his website.  First thing that
occurred to me is that he could be measuring wave behavior, triggered
when the gamma ray photon hits the beam splitter, or that the
high-energy gamma ray converts down to two lower-energy photons. 

What you're describing is a different setup.  Question is, how tight are
his measurement thresholds?  Is the triggering threshold high enough
that the only other way to trigger both detectors would be if
conservation is violated (which we can rule out a-priori)?  Is the time
base set tight enough that near-simultaneous emissions are excluded from
his coincidence count?  The same alternative hypothesis applies here:
that the initial high-energy gamma ray is converted down to two
lower-energy photons, and the second one trips the second detector.

I don't have the educational background to analyze the experimental
setup in enough detail to get even personally-satisfactory answers to
those questions.  That's why I'm asking for people with relevant
education to comment. 

Though, one thing I would do is swap the positions of the two detectors
and see how that affects the size of the peaks on his oscilloscope
screen.  If the peak sizes remained equal, that would tend to falsify my
alternative hypothesis.  He's probably done this and gotten that result,
but none the less I'd like to see it.  Also, what happens if you use
more precise apparatus?  A provocative finding with his existing
apparatus should be a decent ticket into a university lab for a few days
to use current state-of-the-art equipment. 

I'm not a-priori averse to alternative or even "fringe" theories (and I
have a few of my own: for example what happens to the measurement of
time at the point of the heat-death of the universe when all movement
above the level of Brownian motion ceases?, and what are the
implications of that?).  I just want to check out possible explanations
that comport with the Standard Model before speculating about possible
breakthroughs or new physics. 

If I came up with an anomalous result that was easily reproducible on
demand, first thing I'd do is write to a physics professor at a nearby
university and ask if they could send over a grad student to check my
work and look for mistakes.  After a few such goings-over including with
better apparatus at a university lab, I'd take it to a conference and
ask other working physicists to check it for mistakes.  Then if it
seemed that it all checked out, I'd write it up for a journal article
and ask one of the university physicists who had checked it out, to
write an introductory letter to the submissions editor.  A published
article gets the ball rolling and then we see where it goes. 

The chances of me getting to Pacifica on Monday evening are zero given
my work schedule.  But someone should invite Reiter up to SR or any
location in the East Bay, and publicize the visit sufficiently to get
some physics grad students in attendance.  I'd make it a point to come
see him and I'd pay close attention to the Q&A session. 

But one thing to keep in mind with these things is, one of the quickest
ways to provoke an avalanche of an entirely different kind of
skepticism, as in, the kind that can't be satisfied no matter how well
the results check out, is to make claims of breakthroughs without having
a serious publication track record to back them up.  Better to just say
"I'm getting an odd result here and it's reproducible, can someone check
my work?"



On 13-11-17-Sun 11:44 PM, Jake wrote:
> i've been to his lab and seen everything up-close.  I also saw it at
> maker faire in 2008 or so.
> My favorite experiment is one where he has two sodium-iodide
> scintillators, each optically coupled to its own photomultiplier tube,
> and a radioactive source.
> The objects are placed source, detector, detector, such that one
> detector (only the sodium iodide crystal, the rest is off to the side)
> is in between the other detector and the radioactive source.
> He sets up window comparators on both detectors, so they only trigger
> on events which correspond to the energy of the radiation source, and
> sets up a time-comparison between the two detectors.  If detector A
> triggers within a certain time of detector B it is called a coincidence.
> Coincidences are mapped on the x-scale of a chart, where x=0 is when
> the event from A and B are simultaneous.  If they are not
> simultaneous, the difference in time between the detections is where
> on X they land.  The vertical of the chart is a cumulative addup of
> how many times that has happened in that x position.
> You would think that a gamma event could only be detected by one
> detector or the other, and be annihilated - and his chart would be
> white noise. But you can see very clearly that there is a lot of
> detection of the same event by the two detectors.
> How is that possible?  come see for yourself and try to figure it out.
> -jake
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
>> Gamma rays are high-energy high-frequency photons.  What Reiter is
>> claiming is that he can demonstrate that gamma rays behave in a
>> manner unlike visible light photons, that
>> refutes the particle/wave duality that is central to the quantum
>> theory. 
>> What's Reiter's history of peer-reviewed publications? 
>> If Reiter's theory goes back to 2003 and the demonstration setup is
>> portable, has he ever booked an open-forum slot at a physics
>> conference, to demonstrate his results? 
>> If this worked and could be replicated, it should have been major
>> news years ago.
>> I'm highly skeptical.  Comments welcome from anyone with formal
>> education in physics.
>> -G
>> =====
>> On 13-11-17-Sun 8:21 PM, Jake wrote:
>>       ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>       Hello friends of Unquantum,
>>       I am doing a live demonstration of the gamma-ray unquantum
>> effect that refutes the photon model of light.
>>       It will be at the Chit-Chat Cafe, 5 West Manor Dr, tomorrow
>> Monday night November 18th and Monday night November 25th at 6 to
>> 7:30 PM.   The poster for the event and
>>       details of
>>       this work are at http://www.unquantum.net
>>       This issue is important even if you are not a physicist.  Not
>> all of you are "friends of unquantum;" some are foes.  Some of you
>> will think this unquantum effect is
>>       impossible,
>>       so this is your chance to see it for yourself.  I will video
>> the event to post on Youtube, and will field all questions and
>> feedback. 
>>       Please forgive me for the following:  This is a mass mailing
>> and not personalized.   I only do these mailings for important
>> events.  I may have sent some of you this
>>       notice
>>       earlier. The poster on my website has me with my electric
>> guitar.  I did it that way to appeal to a wide audience.  I will also
>> play a musical instrument I made at
>>       the end of
>>       the event.  For some of you it is a long drive, but I reviewed
>> my list and did not want anyone to feel left out.  
>>         Each event will be unique but each will demonstrate
>> gamma-rays defying the  photon model.  If you know anyone who would
>> be interested I hope you will please
>>       inform.  
>>       Thank you for your interest.
>>       Eric Reiter
>>       Unquantum Laboratory
>>       http://www.unquantum.net
>>       Pacifica, CA, 94044
>>       650 738 9255
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list