Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

January 21, 2018

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Essay Abstract

After recognizing dubious assumptions regarding light detectors, a famous beam-split coincidence test of the photon model was performed with gamma-rays instead of visible light. A similar test was performed to split alpha-rays. Both tests are described in detail to justify conclusions. In both tests, coincidence rates greatly exceeded chance, leading to an unquantum effect. This is a strong experimental contradiction to quantum theory and photons. These new results are strong evidence of the long abandoned accumulation hypothesis, also known as the loading theory, and draw attention to assumptions applied to key past experiments that led to quantum mechanics. The history of the loading theory is outlined, including the loading theory of Planck's second theory of 1911. A popular incomplete version of the loading theory that convinced physics students to reject it is exposed. The loading theory is developed by deriving a wavelength equation similar to de Broglie's, from the photoelectric effect equation. The loading theory is applied to the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, and charge quantization, now free of wave-particle duality. It is unlikely that the loading theory can apply to recent claimed success of giant molecule multi-path interference/diffraction, and that claim is quantitatively challenged. All told, the evidence reduces quantized absorption to an illusion, due to quantized emission combined with newly identified properties of the matter-wave.

Author Bio

I have been independently concentrating on fundamental physics since 1999. My experiments clearly contradicted the photon model in 2001, and the probabilistic particle atom in 2005. In my ownership of Computer Continuum, 1980-'96, I successfully designed, built, and sold computer enhancement products for industrial automation and data acquisition. Formal education: CA State University concentrating on physics and biology. At CSU Sonoma: built an electron spin spectrometer and a heliostat sunspot exhibit. Technical sculptures at San Francisco's Exploratorium 1970-'75 were well publicized. shows physics details, inventions and other projects.

Download Essay PDF File

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 10:31 GMT
I read your interesting essay.

Reading your essay I start to think that can be possible to use a superconductive screen to verify the interference patterns (fringes).

I think that it is possible a perturbation of the fringes in the collapse of the wave function, because of the screen wave function correlation: it is only a weak idea that I have not totally developed, but I think that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 10:42 GMT
I have the courage, and the unconscious, to claim my words; the lack of the name is due to a distraction.



report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 00:35 GMT
The object of my work is to demonstrate failure of the concept "collapse of the wave function." That concept does not allow coincident detection. But I do observe coincident detection; therefore that concept fails. Also, there are no interference patterns here, just coincidence rates that exceed quantum mechanical chance.

Thank you.

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 13:26 GMT
Dear Eric

Congratulations for completing a fqxi essay based on your very important experimental work and theoretical researches that you call the unquantum effect on your website I have already referred to your opposition to the photon idea in my fqxi essay Fix Physics! .

I look forward to reading your essay. All the best, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 03:18 GMT
Dear Eric

I have just read the version of the pdf with references. Your essay showed beyond any doubt your success in proving Planck's loading theory, and in 'shooting down' (your expressive words) Einstein's concept of the photon-as-a-point and not just a quantum of energy spread over space.

The highly technical presentation may have been justified by Carl Sagan's maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Having said that I think you or someone who understands your work should write The Unquntum Effect for Dummies (i.e. for the likes of me).

Such a paper would start with Einstein photo-electric effect being interpreted that light is a particle at emission, in space, and at absorption - i.e. the photon. Planck's objections and his loading theory of partial absorption. Faint-light photography of double slit interference interpreted as proof of a particle photon. Compton's experiment interpreted as a billiard-ball like nature of photons (ignoring his wave explanation of the same phenomena). How this false photon led to the obfuscating concepts of particle-wave duality and the probability of interpretation that have plagued QM to this day. And then your experiments to disprove the particle photon and prove the loading theory!

As a footnote I might add that I was independently led to mistrust the photon concept because my mid-80's streamline diffraction theory envisaged light spreading along infinite curved streamlines that negates a point photon, and imagined a primitive loading theory concept of my own. That is why I was thrilled when I recently read of your unquntum work as I mentioned in my fqxi essay Fix Physics! .

I sincerely hope that your work will be replicated in other labs, widely understood by the physics community, and that your Nobel will follow in a timely fashion. You deserve it!


this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 08:14 GMT
Thank you Vladimir. That was all well expressed. My early attempt to write an "Unquantum effect for dummies" is a paper on my website:

Experiment Reveals an Understandable World

T H Ray replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 14:59 GMT
I think Einstein is being treated a bit unfairly here on the question of whether a photon is a point particle or a blob of energy.

Fact is, it doesn't matter to the mathematical treatment, in a geometric theory like Einstein's. Just as Poncelet demonstrated point-line duality in ordinary projective geometry (i.e., the concepts are interchangeable) Einstein's duality of point and dispersed objects depends on measurement criteria.


report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 17:07 GMT

Wow. Hope this gets the attention it deserves and have you considered some of the broader applications, such as a lensing effect as cause of cosmic redshift. An interesting paper on that subject from C.I. Christov, which might well tie into your work.

My entry in the digital vs analog contest, Comparing Apples to Inches[/link}, tries to make a similar argument,from a more philosophical perspective, for propagating light as analog and only its detection and measurement as digital. Constantinos Ragazas makes a more systemic argument in his entry, A World Without Quanta.

So you will get my support certainly and likely those others who wish for a non-unicorn based physics to return. Keep up the good work, as you give others hope.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Sorry for the mucked up link, though they both seem to work.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
Thanks very much for your endorsement. The applications for doing something fundamental is like saying "what are the applications for discovering electricity?"... lots. I have thought of some. Maybe the pre-loaded state dispersed in space will change the calculations for dark matter. An astronomical lensing effect, you mentioned, of dispersed matter waves is also a good one to look at. An unrealized mass in the dispersed matter wave may need a correction by realizing its e/m and h/m ratios in the non-particle state (principle 3 in essay). I have some gamma-ray medical imaging and crystallography applications in mind. Mostly I am working on my next fundamental experiment. Thanks again. ER

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 00:24 GMT

Challenging a well established paradigm, one of the sacred ones, even with direct evidence that the paradigm is wrong is a tough go. Your viXra article title isn't even controversial, "An Understanding of the Particle-like Property of Light and Charge". I note you published the paper on your website in 2001, and recently on viXra. Did you attempt to get sponsorship so you could post it on arXiv? I suspect it would not have stayed on arXiv unless you had a number of highly ranked sponsor-supporters.

The photon and the "vacuum of space" are two common terms that writers fail to properly define, they make the assumption that we know what they are thinking. I recently encountered the term "virtual photon", a one-legged version of the traditional two-legged photon.

The fourth paragraph, page 3, of your "Experiment Reveals an Understandable World" article has a mild criticism of establishment science. I stated in my essay article, "Additionally, over time, with improved communications, the scientific community has tended to become more monolithic in defending particular assumptions. This has made it more difficult for those that challenge an established assumption to get articles published in traditional scientific journals."

My essay, topic 1294, challenges a well established assumption with a mathematical proof of concept. Even the title of the paper referenced in my essay hasn't received any attention from the scientific authority, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants". I identified the geometric-mathematical concept in 2001. I managed to get it published, with the controversial title, in IEEE Potentials in 2011, because I emphasized my EE background as the reason for recognizing the concept in the first place. It was rejected earlier by another IEEE publication, and there had been rejections from other scientific journals earlier.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 08:00 GMT
Frank: Most of my essay is ABOUT the definition of the photon, in the sense that I contradict its particle property. Its particle property is about how a photon should act at a beam-splitter. The definition of the photon is experimentally oriented only, and not intended to be well visualized, even by its author (Einstein). A simple definition is the quote I use in my other papers, a quote from Bohr's book Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, paraphrasing Einstein:

"If a semi-reflecting mirror is placed in the way of a photon, leaving two possibilities for its direction of propagation, the photon may either be recorded on one, and only one, of two photographic plates situated at great distances in the two directions in question, or else we may, by replacing the plates by mirrors, observe effects exhibiting an interference between the two reflected wave-trains."

I have collected evidence for much more than "mild criticisms of establishment science." Some of this evidence is in this FQXI essay and more is in my other writings. Like I stated in the essay, many have tried to argue against QM, but it requires strong new experimental evidence to mount a serious challenge.

I tried to publish in several ways since 2001, and in arxiv also with another co-author from a university. I had no hint that I was supposed to obtain sponsorship then, but it would not have mattered anyway. I am grateful to FQXI to receive an audience here.

Fred Diether replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 22:44 GMT
Hi Eric,

Quantum optics experimenters routinely talk about splitting photons; something that has always bothered me if we are to think of a photon as a quantum object. Plus photons should not "bounce" off mirrors and "pass" through beam splitters. Photons would have to be absorbed by such devices and new photons emitted. So Bohr's comment does not even hold up physically. IMHO, all the particle properties of a photon come from the quantum "vacuum". In that viewpoint, a photon is just a wavicle of a relativistic medium with energy hbar*w where w is omega, angular frequency.



report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 22:53 GMT

I share your reservations about 'splitting' these 'quantum objects' and suspect you are correct that "Photons would have to be absorbed by such devices and new photons emitted."

Zeilinger says "Einstein never found out what a photon is." Like Einstein, I don't know what a photon is, but if it has localized momentum it induces a C-field circulation.

Eric, I enjoyed your essay and plan to read it again before commenting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 14:17 GMT
Hello Eric,

Thank you for your essay and for all your important work. What you bring to these discussions is unique! Experimental evidence! Your essay makes a strong argument for a nonquantum photon. And I fully agree with that view. In some previous writings, and featured prominently in my upcoming fqxi contest essay (soon to be submitted), I mathematically prove the following proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, light propagates as a wave”. Thus, Einstein's CSL Postulate contradicts his Photon Hypothesis!

And in my explanation of the double-slit experiment I argue for the continuous 'accumulation of energy' before the discrete 'manifestation of energy'. This is similar to your loading theory, but with one important difference. In my view, 'manifestation' can be both 'absorption' and 'emission'. I argue for 'discrete manifestation' and 'continuous accumulation'. The loading theory assumes 'continuous absorption and explosive emission'. This may be an important difference between the two views. But both views allow a 'duration of time' (a time delay) before a physical event 'manifests'. And that, in my humble opinion, may have deeper consequences.


report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Const: Thanks for appreciating my work. However, I never saw any distinction between the "manifestation" thing you do, and what I do. We say the same thing. "Discrete manifestation" is the same thing as my saying "loading to threshold." Please argue with me direct-email on that. We are allies.

Terms like "nonquantum photon" are far too confusing. It is like saying non-quantized quanta. The photon was, and always will be a quantum mechanical concept. To contradict the photon model is to kill its reality. That is why I always write h-new, or hv, or hf, or anything but photon. An emitted hv of energy, that thereafter spreads classically, is not a photon, and needs a new word, like h-new.

Thanks, ER

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 14:28 GMT

Your groundbreaking experimental results (if confirmed by others also) is in complete agreement with my mathematical derivations of Planck's Formula, Boltzmann's Entropy Equation, Entropy and Time relationship, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, explanation of the Double-Slit Experiment, etc. So no problem there. Your experimental results and my derivations both demonstrate a 'time delay' or 'duration' as I prefer. And that is the important think about your experimental work, imho.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT

Thank's for a brilliant essay, and very important findings. I'm bound to agree as the findings verify the ontology I describe, which is fully consistent with yours (and Planck's of course). I've tracked down and derived the wider classical effects of the process emerging from kinetics (and dynamic logic) and found much other evidence.

Indeed when allowing for relative motion of the electron (as part of a moving medium/body or frame) during the non zero charging time, the classically observed effect postulated in Special Relativity emerge. In this case your mechanism, applied logically, can produce the effects that SR was formulated to explain. It is able to resolve a host of astronomical anomalies.

I hope you will read my essay, which is couched with a little theatre for readability but deadly serious none the less. But it seems few can 'think kinetically', i.e. follow the evolution of cause and effect chains with progressive motion. Current maths can't either, (as Tom has highlighted above).

Time stepping maths and quantum or dynamic logic have not yet displaced the 'points and lines' that fool us by hiding the solution. I suggest a charge time an consequential rotation of optical axis of re-emission in my last figure, but I believe this only sets an ontological framework in which your real results and precision provide all the flesh and substance.

I hope you're able to read it, and I'd be very interested in your comments.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT

Daniel Schechtman, the 2011 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry for his discovery of quasi-crystals, performed his observations of crystal patterns using an electron microscope, whereas everyone else used x-ray diffraction instruments. It seems the physics authority expects everyone to do their observations exactly as everyone else, thus you get repeatable results.

You are fighting the same monolithic "scientific authority structure", a Prof Kuhn term, that Daniel Schechtman faced. They have learned nothing from the Schechtman experience. I detailed this example in my topic, 1294. Other experimenters then used the electron microscope and confirmed Schechtman's observation. Then two things happened, x-ray diffraction instruments were improved and crystallographers learned to create larger quasi-crystals that could be used by older x-ray diffraction equipment. There was no doubt that quasi-crystals existed.

Putting your essay on FQXi is one way to get more people in the scientific community to learn how you performed your experiment and the results achieved. Perhaps some courageous experimenters will take a different approach, similar to yours, and get results equivalent to yours. It will take multiple individuals, all with good credentials, reporting consistent results to overturn what is considered "settled science".

I have never considered an electromagnetic wave having a duality, being a wave and a particle. The term "particle" seems to mean whatever the scientific authority structure intends it to mean for a particular use. The general definition of a particle is something that has volume or mass, then it is stretched and bent to mean whatever else they want it to cover.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Very good. The definition I use for particle is: a particle holds itself together. It is less confusing to distinguish a particle from a wave: a particle does not spread like a wave. "virtual particles" and "entangled particles," are due to the probability interpretation. The problem is that the probability wave is defined into a QM particle. Remove the wave of probability, make the matter-wave have mass and charge at sub-threshold levels so it can spread like a wave, use the loading theory, then everything becomes straightforward visualized.

Very good that you saw EM wave without duality. My experiments are interpreted straightforwardly to show that EM's particle-like property is at the instant of emission-only at energy hf, and thereafter spreads classically. One can describe a spreading wave function with a psi, and superimpose it with other psi, but there was a missing component: the pre-loaded state at the absorber; its psi needs to be added. The particle-like effect is easily explained by turning the situation inside-out so-to-speak, with a microscopic psi loading to threshold instead of a macroscopic psi collapse.

I read and like your fine essay.

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 23:11 GMT
previous by Eric

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 01:24 GMT
Hello Eric,

I have downloaded and begun to read your essay, and it looks very interesting, but seeing a common thread across several of the submissions, and with content in my own essay which has yet to post - I have begun to write a brief paper discussing my conceptual model for decoherence. This model is discussed in my contest submission from last year, but I attach a draft of my paper in preparation which offers a thorough review succinctly.

I shall have specific comments about your paper before long.

All the Best,


attachments: 2_DecoherenceReviewDraft.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT
Good morning,

I have still not finished digesting your paper, but after reading some of the comments above - I realize I have a photo from FFP11, that may be of interest. In the last paragraph of my essay (posting soon I hope), I mention a comment by Anton Zeilinger regarding Einstein's corpuscular theory of light. The rest of the story supports your thesis, as it talks about a letter...

view entire post

attachments: 1_AntonQuote.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 21:31 GMT
Referring to V Tamari's post of July 28, there are some details to explain:

I developed three geometries for performing the gamma-ray beam split: Tandem, beam-split, and single detector.

Tandem is with a thin detector in front of a thick one, and that works best. A thin detector plays the role of beam splitter and detector in one component. The split in the thin detector is where some gamma-ray energy is tapped off by the scintillation pulse, and some gamma-ray energy passes through. The splitting is microscopic, and that counts. So the essay describes beam-split setups: Fig 2 is a photo of the beam splitter(tandem). Fig. 3 details the tandem beam-split experiment. Fig. 6 has a beam-split diagram.

My referenced papers document beam-split experiments, that look like a beam splitter, with a slab of material at 45 degrees. They worked for both the alpha and gamma-splits. So there are several ways to depict the beam-split, and I did them all. See Particle Violation Spectroscopy Fig. 12 for tests I did at different angles for the deflected beam. It is a new crystallography.

The simplest way to do the unquantum-split is with a single detector and a pulse height analyzer. With Cd-109 there is a spectral peak at 88KeV. Then read counts at 176KeV, in the same spectral range used for the 88KeV rate. Students can request purchase a Cd-109 test source, but specify that it be free of Cd-113. I described it all in my reference: Photon Violation Spectroscopy fig 3.

I under-stated in my essay where I reported chance X 2 for the single detector test; that was an early measurement. I perfected the test to see chance X 10. It is also good to use Co-57 for this test. Results will vary but are understood by sequences of adjusted tests. Breaking chance is what matters.

Any student of physics can do this test to see the Unquantum effect for themselves. It is legal for anyone to purchase 1 microcurie of these isotopes at ~$100 each. This is an opportunity. You can display the Unquantum effect. Your professors might not easily concede. Then develop your own variation on the theme (like a sequence of intensities and distances), or go for the two detector test. The clincher is that the spectrum (unquantum effect) should change with distance while holding intensity constant. The collapse of the wave-function fails.

Please rate my essay. Thank you Vladimir Tamari, Tom Ray, and

thanks to my readers; ER.

John Merryman replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 03:42 GMT

I don't know if you have followed the evolution of the rules, but the participants ratings are now hidden, to reduce political considerations. Official judging will be of the top 35 from those ratings, not the public ones, which are not counted. That said, You will get a high one from me.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 06:08 GMT
Thanks Eric for the clarifications. I am still unclear how the tandem effect works in practice (I understand it as theory, though, and trust your confidence that the set up justifies the conclusions). I am sure re-reading your papers will make it clearer for me.

Still hoping for the Unquantum Effect for Dummies. I hope you are encouraged by the responses here in fqxi. And as you do I hope others will repeat the experiments and draw the conclusions you have.


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 11:55 GMT
Hi Eric,

Having learned a little more of what you're up to, I am reminded of events leading from Einstein's photon theorizing to the production of LASER technology.

I am impressed that gamma particle splitting preserves correlation of wave functions with no collapse, so I am not surprised that Joy is interested. For my part I conjecture that an out of equilibrium state, represented by the split and producing coherent pairs of wave energy, reconstructs the LASER phenomenon in reverse. This amounts to a demonstration that the interchangeability of mass and energy does not favor irreversibility. Purely classical, and indeed "unquantum."

Best wishes for a productive path forward in your research!


report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian wrote on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 09:06 GMT
Hi Eric,

While I am not qualified to judge your experimental work (I am a mere theorist), I do hope someone qualified is inspired by your essay to repeat your experiments and either confirm or refute your potentially groundbreaking results. You have made a wise choice in entering the essay contest here.

On the theoretical side, I share your conviction that there is no such thing as a wavefunction collapse. In the past, under a heavy influence of the ideology of my former PhD supervisor (Abner Shimony, who famously collaborated with John Clauser to produce the celebrated Bell-CHSH inequality), I did believe in wavefunction collapse and wasted some of my best research years on the idea. But now I am convinced that wavefunction itself represents simply a statistical ensemble of quantum systems, just as Einstein thought. I think you are aware of the fact that I have successfully removed the only theoretical obstacle---namely Bell's theorem---against realizing Einstein's local-realistic dream. I have now collected my argument against Bell's theorem in a book, which you might find interesting.

Best of luck for the essay contest,

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
Dear Joy,

I think that you would like my recent work Positive Definite Phase Space Quantum Mechanics, which provides a confirmation of the Einstein ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. My work confirms that the wavefunction associated to the Schrödinger equation represents an ensemble instead of a single system and gives the explicit representation of the ensemble in a phase formulation (beyond the Winger & Moyal formulation of QM).


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 03:59 GMT
Hello Eric,

I finished a first read through of your paper, and besides I couldn't let Joy have the last word. So I have to comment. It was very interesting; a thorough investigation by a careful experimentalist. Not the norm for FQXi essay contests, which tend to be heavier on theory than experiment.

I think you may have found evidence of some things I knew were true already, but you ply a model that's unfamiliar, so I will have to acquaint myself with loading theory a bit - before I know for sure it is what I think it is. I don't think I can say much more than that I think I agree with your interpretation of your findings, for the most part.

I need to read again, when I am more wakeful, before I say more.

all the best,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT
Hello Eric,

After a little time to read, learn, and digest, I think your work is definitely significant. You may be the guy future researchers will point to and say "He performed the crucial experiment that showed the way beyond the limiting views of 20th century Quantum Mechanics." Or something like that. You chose to focus on one erroneous assumption, while I chose several of my favorite challenge points, but I think you will find there is some agreement in my essay with your work.

If your results bear out in other laboratories, or using even better equipment, it will be seen as a definite step forward in our understanding. It appears that you are using a methodology similar to the one that won Doug Osheroff the Nobel Prize, which I comment about in my essay.

You are not afraid to "look in an area of the parameter space that is not already well-explored," and accordingly you are much more likely to find something interesting and significant. I'm not rating any essays until I get a sense of the quality of this year's entries, but will be sure to give you a high rating when I do.

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 20:38 GMT
Hello again, Eric;

This is a link to the slides for Professor Osheroff's talk, mentioned above, which I saw him deliver at UWA near Perth, during FFP10. His wonderful lecture details some of the best ways that experimenters can improve their chances for success. I think you put some of his recommendations into practice already, though. Kudos...

How Advances in Science Are Made

I'm a little surprised you did not comment about the photo of Anton Zeilinger in front of the book entry about Albert Einstein's doubts - regarding the corpuscular theory of light - in the comment and link a few entries above. Zeilinger advised attendees of FFP11 in Paris we should not regard that one as a fact, as even Albert had his doubts.

Sometimes a personal angle like that - which is emotionally relevant - will sell your idea better than evidence alone.



report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 02:10 GMT
Hello again Eric,

I'm coming to believe that the experiments you are doing are very important indeed, and will help us to understand how Quantum Mechanics relates to the world of observable quantities. It appears that you are both a careful and a thorough experimental investigator, and I find the technical discussion of your apparatus and technique interesting.

My main confusion comes in with your choice of the term "Unquantum" because it appears that you are showing that reality is more quantum than classical. You may be providing conclusive evidence that wavefunction collapse is not actually what is happening, but I've understood QM this way for years, since discovering Decoherence Theory.

I think FQXi member H.D. Zeh would be very interested in your results, as they validate some of the things he has been saying for years (though your interpretation is somewhat different). I've had some correspondence with Dieter, and would be happy to send a link to your paper with a recommendation to check your work out - if you do not feel comfortable to contact him yourself.

I may advise him there is something here of interest, regardless.



report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 02:35 GMT
Hello again Eric,

I went ahead and sent an e-mail to Dieter Zeh. If your work is as significant as I think, he will definitely want to check it out.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:06 GMT
Hi Eric,

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
Hmm,... Let's try that again.

Hi Eric,

I wanted to ask you the question that keeps coming up for me. Do you think that the coincident detection you are observing relates more to the increased sensitivity of the detectors available for gamma rays, and their ability to distinguish pulse heights, or is there some component relating to the differences between visible light wavelengths and shorter wavelength EM?

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 01:27 GMT
Here is how I see it: The gamma rays are emitted in a shorter time frame, and the wave energy spreads transversely in a narrower cone than with lower frequency EM, as expected by classical theory. These spatial & temporal properties affect the detector atoms with a pulse of wave energy that lets the atom reach threshold to and respond to make a quantized emission in a sudden manner for the detection. Visible light does not have those properties. Also, the gamma detectors have high "energy" (detector pulse height is proportional to EM frequency and the illusory photon energy) resolution. Visible light would not set-off coincidences from its classical pulses, and we would see a random distribution of detector timings past the beam splitter; we would think it acts like photons in that the energy seems to go one way or another at the beam splitter. Also, the high pulse height resolution of gamma detectors is necessary to be fair to both the photon model and the loading theory, by taking into account energy and timing. Another criteria is high photoelectric effect efficiency in the detector type for the selected gamma-ray. I was able to measure all these effects for what I am saying here and in the essay. Usually the detection split is random and does not make coincident detections. But by comparing to chance, we see there must have been energy pre-loaded such that a partial absorption of classical wave energy can set-off coincident detection pairs well above the chance rate. It was years of hard work. Good question. Thanks. ER

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 01:58 GMT
Thanks Eric,

An excellent and informative reply. As I understand it; you are saying the effect is more pronounced for gamma rays AND you also get a more detailed picture of what's going on, because you have available and use a better type of detector - which allows you to distinguish coincidence rates more readily.

This combo would greatly enhance the possibility to actually see the effects of pre-loading and partial absorption - if/when they occur. Which may be why you are likely the first to observe/report these results. The main FQXi Forum page talks about a 3-slit (rather a 3-way interferometer) experiment that may be of interest.

I wonder how that would work with gamma rays.

all the best,


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:23 GMT

Have you considered any effects of lateral motion (of the non zero spatial 'particle' structure, with respect to the incoming waves during the (non zero time) charge process?

You'll note from my own essay and recall from previously that I agree with your thesis, have explored this route and found what I think is an important asymmetry of charge. I don't think you've read it yet as I posted above on 29th July but with no response. I'd greatly appreciate it if you did and could comment.

Many thanks


report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
Hi Eric,

You did the hard stuff. I have little doubt this is a breakthrough. The data will stand and mark the end of the photon as we know it. I also believe other explanations besides Loading Theory are possible. I will post one on your blog when I get some time. I'll bet the FQXi audience alone can generate 3 or 4 reasonable ones. This is not to say that Loading Theory is not the best one.

Question: You say "By QM and the photon model, a singly emitted "photon" of energy hf must not trigger two coincident detections in a beam-split test"

What do you consider that single "photon" to consist of?

Congratulations on changing our models about how things work.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 21:39 GMT
Don: In the case of light absorption, it seems very hard to circumvent the conclusion that there needs to be energy present at the absorber ahead of time in the detection event. Like I argued in the essay, the experiment asks that we either give up conservation of energy or quantized absorption. I will address other models when offered.

Your question: The conclusion from many variants of the experiment outlined in the essay is that an hf of EM energy is emitted quantized, but thereafter spreads classically; light itself is not quantized. The initial hf has a narrow solid angle and short emission time as a function of frequency, as understood classically. I take advantage of these properties, enhanced by the gamma-ray, to set-off coincident detection events at rates exceeding chance. I measured a distance and EM frequency dependence in the Unquantum effect to support this view (in essay). My theory of the charge-wave and its application to the photelectric and Compton effects in the essay clarifies things. An absorption threshold and a subsequent quantized emission of light or charge reduces the photon model to an illusion.

It was nice that you understood to put photon in quotes. My hope for the future is that since we are showing the photon model fails, it is less confusing to use a different word like h-new, hf, hv, light emission, or anything but photon. One may say: "how can we replace the photon model"? (not knocking you at all)

Also, I would like to acknowledge that another essay by Ragazas has embraced the loading theory.

Very thankful for your comment. Eric Reiter, Sept 12, 2012.

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 02:01 GMT
Hi Eric,

I am going to write down my conception of what a photon is and what a particle is and perhaps show how they can fit with your experimental results. I hope others will join me in making theories to fit your data. This is not to denigrate Loading Theory, it may be The Theory, but when you have a very large pool of bright people, the bell curve can work its magic in finding other unexpected solutions.

This is not to take away from your essay or your work, I believe your place in history is certain and that you have broken a logjam that has been blocking physics.

I call my pet theory "Digital Wave Theory" ( If you visit my web site see the section "The Mechanics of Digital Waves".

Photons are discontinuous appearances of something that lasts for a Planck length and has a value of h (Planck's constant). This something is separated form the next something by a wavelength. A little thought will show that this string of somethings is a representation of the equation E=hf. I call the "somethings" Planck instances. A solitary Planck instant is undetectable but its reappearance after a wavelength has energy E = hf = hc/wavelenght.

A particle is similar to a photon but now the Planck instance is replaced by a Compton instance. A Compton instance is a photon that resonates at a wavelength that is the Compton wavelength for that particle. So, a particle looks like resonant high frequency light trapped in moving low frequency light.

Both Photons and Particles make their appearances according to Feynman's sum over histories technique, and can fit in with his diagrams. When light or particles are directed to a beamsplitter or a diffraction grating or to dual slits they technically do not enter the device but appear across it. An electron when it encounters a dual slit does not go thru it but hops across it. Technically an electron never goes thru even a single slit, because it does not move in a continuous fashion.

This is probably a good place to stop, with the comment that I believe this conception of a photon can fit in with your experimental results because with this concept it is very unlikely that your gamma ray source is producing what you conceive of as single quanta. If you are interested in how these weird ideas came about, you can find them on my website :)

Again thanks for your contribution.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 09:04 GMT
Dear Eric Reiter,

Constantinos Ragazas pointed me to your essay. I guess that your view is also not very different from those by Zeh and by Kadin who does perhaps not trust in someone who is forced to publish in arXiv backwards. So far I am supporting Kadin's main argument: Photons are no particles.

I admit having no proficiency in this subject. Nonetheless I do not exclude that my overly critical approach to very foundational questions could be of interest or even helpful to you.

Most of my readers will not even immediately understand how relevant in particular my Fig. 5 might be. It intends to qualitatively and quantitatively explain how a quite understandable mistake led to Lorentzian and Einsteinian speculations.



report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear Eric Reiter,

Meanwhile I am pretty sure having found out where Michelson and Morley went wrong. Maxwell's opinion proved correct; Michelson's attempt to measure the speed of aether re earth by means of interference was doomed to fail. Potier was also correct; Michelson's reasoning of 1881 ignored any effect on the second path. However the 1887 correction was still incorrect too. All experts of the 19th and 20th century were misled because Lorentz and others overlooked a trifle that was not obvious re space. I am about describing the fallacy in detail. Perhaps Norbert Feist was correct when he recently defended a common frame of reference.

I wonder if there are still serious arguments in favor of particle-like photons instead of electromagnetic waves.

Incidentally, did you notice my reference to Gompf et al. in earlier essays of mine?

Your ally Eckard Blumschein (1364)

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:07 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Eric,

Your essay is very informative and fundamental. I agree with in many points. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay about it) there is not the case that for example all protons have exactly the same mass. Every particle has its own mass which may be differ from the middle value. The same is for electrons and photons and so on. May be you look at the model of electron and explanation of its spin and some calculation of passing energy from electron to photon.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:10 GMT
Hello Eric

This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.


report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 17:21 GMT
Dear Eric,

Your essay consists of an interesting combination of experimental data, historical remarks, theoretical analysis, and epistemological considerations.

I found interesting your quantity Q. In my work Positive Definite Phase Space Quantum Mechanics, I obtain a similar quantity proportional to (h^2/m) that measures the deviation from Newtonian behaviour.

I completely agree with you that "attempts to explain wave properties of particles have serious flaws". I have devoted part of my essay to criticize some incorrect assumption taken in quantum mechanics.


report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:51 GMT
It is an amazing thing that so many physicists try to make wave action happen with particles. Extended fuzzy particles, or wave fronts on particles or other dimensions, or other universes, or whatever else they do seem like acts of desperation to me. Particles do not cancel out. It requires giving up the particle. But we see particle effects. That is why the ratio trick I developed is such a natural solution. Planck's constant, e, and m are maximums. It is a sophisticated concept that many will ignore. In many experiments the constants are at their threshold and we do not need to model the constants as maximums that track each other in e/m etc ratios. But there are still particle structures, from lots of evidence. The solution is that there must be two states of matter: (1) a contained wave state which is a particle, and (2) a true spreading matter-wave state. At least that is how I interpret our experimental evidence, mine and from others. I will study and rate your paper and please rate mine nicely. Thank you very much, ER

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT
Mr Eric,

Congratulations on An excellent essay with original thinking & interpretation of experimental results.

This is definitely a thought process that challenges the contemporary thinking on finality of views on nature as defined by contemporary physics. The topic challenging ‘Quantized Absorption’ based on experimental observation of energy variation due to preceding...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 12:05 GMT
Deae Eric,

I would like to read about Planck's loading theory. Do you know of any document on internet accessible to general public that can give an idea about the same? I tried to google, but was unable to get any idea about the same.

I will appreciate if you provide a URL in reply to this message.

Vijay Gupta

Proponent Unary Law - Space Contains Knergy

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:27 GMT
Vijay; Thanks for your interest in the loading theory. I did much search for other works on the subject. All history I know of is referenced in my essay. Other than my work, see T. Kuhn where he discusses Planck's Second Theory, Millikan's book, and Compton and Allison's book, in my references. Other than Ragazas' work and his essay here, It seems we are the only ones currently working on the loading theory. Please see my paper linked from my references: An Understanding of the Particle-Like Property of Light and Charge, and also please visit my website The loading theory was unfairly taught to fail in nearly all our physics textbooks, which is why no one uses it.

Thank you, ER

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:55 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [equation] and [equation] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [equation] of points. After it anyone give you [equation] of points so you have [equation] of points and [equation] is the common quantity of the people which gave...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 01:03 GMT
Hello Eric,

It appears that the community has given you a good ranking after all, and I hope that the judges will treat your work kindly. I get the impression that you are committed to your research program, and given the results to date - this is understandable.

Try to give others plenty of slack, to interpret your results in their own way - while pointing out to all who ask that loading theory explains your results handily, as you have done - and you will avoid challenging others' pet beliefs.

Keep going with your research, my friend, and you will make us all proud to have affirmed your work - by placing you among those still in the game. I hope to see you in the winners' circle.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 02:05 GMT
Hello again,

I mean no disrespect with the above comment, as I know that you have been thoughtful in all of your answers to questions and comments. I just think that you are sitting on something so important, that you should not feel like you have to work so hard to prove it, but rather can let the evidence speak for itself.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT

I agree with Jonathen's wise words. Appearing 'prickly' and closed minded can only drain support. Congrats for getting in. I agree you well deserve to be. I still hope you can make a greater effort to receive and follow the logic of my own essay, supporting and relying on loading theory, but also offering more.

I'm also interested in your views and predictions of the work of the new Nobel Laureates wrt loading theory.

Best of luck


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 22:07 GMT
Dear Eric,

I am sorry that I have only just got to your essay. It seems to be one of very few essays in the competition discussing new experimental work. You have explained it very clearly and it is interesting to me. When I watched the videos of Richard Feynman's Auckland lectures I was stuck by how adamant he was about the particle nature of light, despite so much uncertainty surrounding the reason "why" for quantum statistical behaviour. That view was based upon the then available experimental evidence.

I have been happy to sit on the fence having no way of verifying what is there for myself while regarding a photon as the smallest detectable amount of energy (change). That view is shown to be incorrect if you have demonstrated smaller detections are possible. Do you have any thoughts about the practical implications/ usefulness of this research, such as for technology?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
Thank you very much for your explanation. I now understand what you mean by pre-loading, I was thinking you had somehow primed the receptor so it could give a reading with less than a photon of energy input. Which was not what you were saying. (Good, I won't have to change the definition of a photon on my word list after all.) I remember this kind of building up of energy prior to detection idea from Constantinos Ragazas' essay from last year, and discussion of it.

Really interesting to hear that you already have new applications for the unquantum effect and lots of possibilities for the future.Fascinating and surprising reply to that question. Good luck. Regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 08:11 GMT
Georgiana; I cannot tell if you really understand, so please let me clarify. You are correct in saying that I do not need to prime the detector. The experiment shows that matter, in this case the charge-wave, can exist pre-primed below a naturally existing threshold. It does give a detection that is characteristic of a "photon" hf, with less than a photon's (hf)worth of energy hitting the detector. That is what my experiments show because it gives two-for-one. Some may try to change the definition of a photon, but that would be too confusing. I am showing that the photon model fails, but that E=hf is still correct. The important concept is that h is a maximum. Thank you.

Author Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT
Please. You misunderstood my theory.

E=hf is still the smallest detectable energy for light, but I use hf in a model that differs from the photon model. The photon model, its definition, is phenomenological but not spatially understandable. Simply put, a photon will go one way or another at a beam splitter, but after the beam splitter the beams can be reconverged to read over time an interference pattern. Here is what I did: from a source that emits one hf at a time, by reading two detections in coincidence at rates exceeding chance, I show that the emitted hf bursts of light do NOT need to always go one way or another at a beam spltter. So there are no photons. Here is how I explain it: E=hf is still correct for an energy of emission, but thereafter the energy spreads classically. The response at absorption (detection) must include the option of continuous absorption whereby energy is pre-loaded ahead of time. At absorption, light energy must have the option of loading-up to a threshold level; then it makes a quantized emission of charge or light for us to detect. Continuous-absorption/quantized-emission is Planck's Second Theory of 1911. Otherwise I would not read coincidence rates exceeding chance. Others have seen only chance in this type of beam-split coincidence experiment using visible light, but they were reading noise and were not able to see through the illusion explained by the loading theory. Gamma rays let us see through the illusion. Waves diffract, and thresholds explain the particle-like properties. Electrons and other matter-waves diffract, so they must similarly work with a loading theory. I showed my unquantum effect for both matter and light.

Feynman and others had plenty of evidence available against the particle nature of light. The greatest mistake is that they did not understand that the response time in the photoelectric effect does have a loading time, and they confused minimum response time with maximum response time. This loading time was in the data of Lawrence and Beams 1928, but was misinterpreted by almost everyone. Also, Feynman in QED said a PMT will give pulse-heights proportional to electromagnetic frequency. This is true only for the average pulse height, and there is a wide distribution. Gamma-rays do not have that problem and this is part of how using gamma-rays can see through the QM particle/probability illusion. I elaborate on many similar points on my website: Exposure of Physics Misconceptions. My experiments could have been done in the 1950's, but by then our textbook and journal editors we were convinced in duality (the particle/probability model of QM). There were unforgivable biases propagated. I documented much historical analysis to justify this conclusion. Many others have opposed QM, but a transcendence requires, in addition to theory and historical analysis, experiments that directly contradict QM.

For practical and research applications, I expect the unquantum effect to be very useful in semiconductor research. I was able to read orientation effects in silicon and germanium. The gamma-split effect is able to read electron structure not seen otherwise; see my link to "Photon Violation Spectroscopy." Similarly for the alpha-ray, see "Particle Violation Spectroscopy," I was able to read slight variations in alloys. I have a few other practical applications, but they are potentially inventions that I want to test before blabbering them. We can expect many inventions; have at it. I expect variations in the matter-wave unquantum effect to be sensitive to neutrino flux and be a better neutrino detector. To ask for practical applications is like asking early investigators of electricity, "what can we do with it?" We can expect thousands of future practical applications, but here are a few ideas: The pre-loaded state may explain dark matter. Also, a diffused pre-loaded state may be the identity of the ether and gravity, a diffuse psi-wave field. The envelope of psi is the identity of mass, so we do not need a Higgs particle for that. But these are only good guesses. In biology, we can expect to better understand resonances in macromolecules and know how to influence how they find each other; I have an experiment constructed, but not perfected, to test that.

If someone has a way to describe my unquantum experiments, and all past experiments, without the loading theory, please let me know. Otherwise I explain everything with the loading theory. My seemingly important improvement to the loading theory was to realize that constants like h, e, & m are maximums and that their ratios are conserved. This lets matter spread like a wave and retain its complexity so that details of the wave can encode its identity (type of "particle")for subsequent loading-up to a particle-like event at thresholds h, e, & m. To fully understand my message, one needs to read my more detailed works, especially "An Understanding of the Particle-LIKE Property of Light and Charge." There, I analyze many past experiments with the loading theory and show flaws in interpretation of past experiments. Please use the links from my essay for my latest editing.

Let me add an important point that I should have stressed more in my essay. The most important fundamental physical assumption that is wrong is that our experiments have been interpreted in a way that has accepted wave-particle duality. We thought duality was a way of nature. Duality models were only "heuristic," as expressed in the title of Einstein's photoelectric paper of 1905. We should have realized that duality is only a temporary way of seeing things. Closeness to truth is found by devising an interpretation of all our experiments without wave-particle duality.

Thank you, Eric Reiter, October 14, 2012.

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 03:02 GMT

We are on the same train-of-thought re: non-quantum physics. The Loading Theory you use to explain your experimental results is what I call 'accumulation of energy'. Both of these ideas can account for the 'time delay' seen before a 'threshold' is reached for 'emission' to be observed.

But there are some small differences between our thinking on this. And though these...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Oct. 14, 2012 @ 14:10 GMT

I saw you mention not finding many others coming to the same view and thought you would find this interview with Carver Mead to be of interest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 22:11 GMT
John; There are many important concepts in Mead's writing that are/were consistent with mine. The electron as a wave that does not need a medium for the wave to spread in, is most important. I see light that way also. Does light propagate its own medium? What a great interview. Pretty sure I saw this page long ago.

Thank you. ER

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 10:24 GMT
Eric, Georgina, John

I enjoyed Eric's explanation in answer to Georgina's comment.

John I started reading through the Carver Mead link you provided with great interest. And then it hit me that the page was on Caroline Thompson's website .

Please allow me a few personal words about her - we corresponded in the early 2000's by the then rather novel (for me) medium of email. She was a computer scientist associated with a Welsh university and had taken a keen interest in physics. Like many of us she could not accept the weirdness of Quantum physics, particularly the idea of entanglement without local causality in Bell's Theorem. When I read her claims about Einstein not being original or even wrong, I was aghast, but through corresponding with her - mainly about our common belief that there were "only waves" in nature, I came to realize that Einstein was indeed not sacrosanct . By the time I had published my Beautiful Universe theory in 2005 in which I presented a picture of energy transport that precludes a point photon, and explained probability as diffraction in a universal ether, Caroline was very sick but did not mention it to me - she passed away in 2006. She disagreed with my model, but we continued a friendly correspondence till the end.

We can all learn from her courageous example to seek out and engage whoever she can get to listen to her views in the physics establishment and not get discouraged. Eric, have a look what she says under the link "Suggestions for Experiments": " 'Photons' [her quotes] get split at beamsplitters" . Her explanation of why they do differs from our shared views (because it is a wave), but nevertheless she had the right instincts to question what was deemed beyond question. RIP Caroline Thompson.


report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT
Yes Caroline was great, and an early ally of mine. Caroline Thompson and I exchanged many letters ~2003-05. Most of our conversation was about artifacts in reports of buckyball diffraction. We agreed that it was not possible that such large molecules could act like waves and that there must be something else going on to explain their data. She listed me on her website here.

The link there is old. My dot com url was stolen from me by webcountry; really.

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Nov. 14, 2012 @ 01:32 GMT
That is great that you had contacts with Caroline. Another researcher friend with whom I corresponded is Gabriel LaFreniere - his simulation of matter as standing waves may be relevant to the discussion of particle diffraction. Sadly his original website is deleted, but it is preserved as a web archives - be sure to click on the latest archived version in the top bar.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 03:22 GMT

In my essay I make a very simple observation, that the problem with our understanding of time is that we focus on the chain of events, which physics re-enforces by treating time as a measure of interval, rather than considering the underlaying process. Rather than it being a progression from past to future, it is change causing future to become past. For example, the earth doesn't travel some fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but that tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

What this means in regard to not just quantum phenomena, but everything, is that the object cannot be isolated from its action, because there is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time. Time is an effect, just like temperature. In terms of waves, time is frequency and temperature is amplitude. We are all wave action.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Eric,

I just now discovered that you wrote a comment on my 'understanding' QM article in vixra. I need to better understand loading theory before I can make an informed judgement, but let me say that I am impressed by your empirically based approach. Although I am very disappointed in how this contest was handled, I am glad that you made it to the top finalists (even though, by virtue of believing that standard QM is essentially correct, I disagree with your conclusions) and hope that your experiment will be replicated by independent researchers. After all, we are in this as a search for truth, even if it refutes what we believe, and having other independent researchers duplicate your findings will give you a tremendous boost.

All the best,


You should seriously consider, if you haven't already, presenting your findings at some quantum foundations conferences. you can find a list e.g. at and click on conferences.

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 05:32 GMT
Dear Eric Stanley Reiter,

As universe is infinite, quantization is imperative in that wave mechanics in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe differs in quantization as this paradigm does not describe the fundamental matters as point like particles and ascribes as eigen-rotational strings. In this regard, your work on Particle violation spectroscopy is much appropriate to validate some of the conjectures in this paradigm, in that we may assume string splitting at the wavefront on wave progression.

With best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Nov. 21, 2012 @ 07:43 GMT
I do not understand your first few sentences, but I agree on string splitting. The alpha-ray matter-wave string is split-able. Thank you.

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 18:17 GMT
Congratulations Eric!

The publication in Scientific American of David Tong's article on The Unquantum Quantum is sure to be a boost to your research and your visibility, even though the author makes no mention of you specifically. It is apparently an edited version of his contest essay from last year, and it contains a link at the end to the FQXi essay contest - which of course features the current crop. And anyone scanning for related content is likely to find your essay.

I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving!



report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Nov. 22, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT
Happy Thanksgiving to all - yes Jonathan - you beat me to the punch! At the library today I was happily surprised to see the huge title "The Unquantum Quantum" in the December issue of SA, and wanted to tell Eric that David or whoever wrote the title - must have read his work. In an abridged digital version of the paper the title was changed, but the original title is mentioned in a footnote.



report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT

Thank you very much for your comment in the brief "Scientific American" online preview article, Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?, in which you provided a reference to Eric's essay entry. I look forward to reading it.

BTW, IMO it should't be presumed that David Tong selected the title for his "Scientific American" article, "The Unquantum Quantum" - the SA editors may have been (once again) at least to some extent responsible... Also, the brief print article preview ('teaser') articles often have somewhat different titles.

You might find the SA version of the "Nature" article I've referenced (in my comment to Eric) below interesting (along with perhaps some of the comments) - please see Single Photon Could Detect Quantum-Scale Black Holes.

Thanks again,


report post as inappropriate

Russ Otter wrote on Nov. 24, 2012 @ 20:05 GMT

Congratulations on "Outstanding" work... You are an asset to the cause of science. Note: Much in Physics today, even with the traditions of Thermodynamics and warped SpaceTime are askew, pending additional thought, review and testing... Your efforts are thoughtful and sound, albeit possibly not all conclusions are firmed up as of yet, and may never be given the nature of the finite, being limited in examining our infinite truths...

But to my point: Great Work, and I agree with another gentleman, you should write a book for "Dummies", so that I can quickly grasp your fullness of efforts...

Again, thanks for adding to the wisdom of pushing the envelope...


report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT

Thanks, to Vladimir F. Tamari I've just discovered your very interesting essay. Not being a physicist, it'll be a slow read for me. However, I think you might find the following 'simple' experiment, proposed to test whether spacetime is granular or continuous, very interesting - if you haven't already, please see Single photon could detect quantum-scale black holes:

Jacob D. Bekenstein, (Nov 16 2012), "Is a tabletop search for Planck scale signals feasible?" arXiv:1211.3816v1 [gr-qc]

I for one would be very interested in (independent) test results, or at least a thorough evaluation of the proposed experiment methodology...

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Nov. 26, 2012 @ 21:40 GMT
Good work Jim,

You beat me to the punch on this one, as I believe that Eric may indeed be equipped to examine this matter, or will be once he has some FQXi prize money to work with. The Bekenstein paper looks very interesting. For comparison; you should look at Craig Hogan's experiment - also looking at Planck scale variations. IMO; Hogan tests for a wider range of possible variations, while Bekenstein is counting on the Compton wavelength equals Schwarzchild radius for prediction of mini Black Holes. I'll post a link below, once I find same, assuming I find time. Either way; happy hunting.



report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 14:41 GMT

Thanks - in my case I'm sure it was just happenstance (as opposed to dumb luck).

I'd first be interested in Eric's thorough technical evaluation of the proposed experimental methodology - that might not require any of the hoped for prize money...

Thanks for recommending Craig's Hogan's work,


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 06:20 GMT
Hi Eric,

I found a couple of Hogan's papers to link to. I also copied sets of presentation slides to my computer, which show details of the experiment, but they are larger than the 1 Meg limit. I can e-mail those slides if this work sounds interesting, and I also have some ideas about how this experiment might be shrunk significantly using folded paths.

An earlier paper discussing...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

gilstamp wrote on Dec. 2, 2012 @ 02:25 GMT
"The solution is that there must be two states of matter: (1) a contained wave state which is a particle, and (2) a true spreading matter-wave state."

This is the fundamental statement. This is the question I had fifty years ago when I first heard the proposition that light appears to exist both as waves and particles. I could not fully accept it then and I still cannot now. The condition, as I later found out, is that the change is observed in interaction with matter. Lately, I refined my ideas to suggest that a stream of discrete packets of energy (photons) or interruptions in the continuity of the wave is caused when the wave intersects with the energy of electrons in orbit around a nucleus. The electrons, as we know, gain energy in this interaction and are promoted to larger orbits around the nuclei of their respective atoms. The energy that is absorbed from the intersecting wavefront reduces the constancy needed for continuity of the wave and appears as discrete packets to the observer. The exact nature of this interaction should be able to be calculated as a function of the frequency of the waveform and the energy constant of the outer orbitals of the specific elements involved. The observed frequency of the stream of pseudo-particles, in this scenario, would relate to the frequency of revolution of the orbital electron. Under this conjecture, when out of the influence of matter, the wave should reform at the same or at a less energised level of the spectrum (e.g., the same or a different colour), depending on how much energy has been "robbed" from it. Can this be tested?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 19:56 GMT
Dear Eric;

In a comment to me on my paper’s comment page, Valdimir Tamari mentioned your paper, so I looked at it and I am glad that I did. It is always good to see a paper from an experimental scientist because it is more likely to be at least connected to the reality of actual observation than those that are provided strictly from information from theories that are not based on observed...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul N Butler wrote on Jan. 4, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
Dear Eric,

For some reason my previous post went in as anonymous even though I had signed in previous to sending it. I also noticed that I had used the word atom instead electron in the fourth sentence in the second paragraph of my previous paragraph, so I am repeating that sentence here with the correction made in it.

If the excess motion from the second interaction was transferred as an increase in kinetic energy to the ejected electron, the loading theory could be proven simply by noting that when atoms are bombarded by gamma ray photons of a specific frequency (all containing the same amount of energy) the ejected electrons sometimes had greater velocities than would be expected from the interaction of the atom with one such gamma ray photon, due to the energy that had been preloaded from some previous interaction.

May you prosper in your search,

Paul N. Butler

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 09:58 GMT
Dear Eric,

Your post of April 5, 2013 on the forum blog caught my eye,

RE:"FQXI treated my 2012 essay as if an experiment means nothing". This forced me to have a look at your essay and from there your website This is in view of my intended plan to examine what effect the space I describe in my 2013 FQXi Essay would have on the Quantum World.

The space is one which derives its meaning, its existence, its function entirely from binary choices (Wheeler's words) and one which can move and act as body can (Newton's words). Such a space apart from being discrete, participates in motion. If you care you may read the essay and the subsequent Judgement posted on my blog on 28 July, 2013.

On photon theory, I share your sentiments and I have noted your experiment. Space may modify light theory significantly, with wave behaviour being favoured and your loading theory worthy of consideration regarding the Photo-electric effect.

Apart from photo-electricity I will like your opinion on the Two-Slit experiment of Quantum theory which for wave behaviour is easily explained but for particle behaviour brings up the mystery of a particle being in two places at once.

Finally,if you have any translated references to Sommerfeld's description of the elliptical electron orbit in atoms kindly bring this to my attention as I am inclined to think this would not be different from what we see on the classical scale with planets. Indeed, if space is discrete the question of a field being of infinite dimensionality is excluded and equilibrium can be established between particles and fields without the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 05:37 GMT
The double slit experiment is easy to explain with the loading theory. For light, the energy goes across space classically, it loads up at the absorber until it reaches the threshold, then an electron is emitted. The threshold event gives the illusion that a photon hit there. For matter, it is a matter wave that diffracts. In the case of helium that I demonstrated, helium matter-wave would need to load up.

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 18, 2013 @ 11:23 GMT
Hi Eric,

The beam splitting and photo-electricity experiments are different from the two-slit experiment for photons and electrons, so my question not fully answered. But no matter. Is it not possible for you to apply for a grant and collaborate with a renowned and accredited laboratory so this photo-electricity matter can be laid to rest for all time? One dissenter to current theory has also mentioned that current theory treats the electron as being stationary before impact with light, when this is unlikely to be the case (although I guess based on SR, the observer's (electron's) motion may not matter).



report post as inappropriate

Author Eric Stanley Reiter replied on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 07:11 GMT
The beam split experiment shows that the wave goes across space and the particle-like effect is a threshold phenomenon; otherwise energy is not conserved. So the double slit experiment should then be easy to understand.

Apply for a grant? I think I would have better chance of becoming a rock star with my electric sitar, than seeing acceptance from physicists for a grant. They are convinced that duality is a done deal and are not about to rock the boat. We can see that negative attitude just from the response to this essay. I plan to publish my book and do lectures. We do not need a grant, but you are correct that another team should reproduce my work. My experiment is a relatively easy thing to do even in an undergraduate physics department. There is an even easier experiment one can do with only one detector; I described it in my essay. Thanks very much for your interest and encouragement.

Kamilla Kamilla wrote on Apr. 10, 2016 @ 17:18 GMT
I haven’t any word to appreciate this post.....Really i am impressed from this post....the person who create this post it was a great human..thanks for shared this with us.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.