Theoretical

 

 

 

 

.83 V/m is 1.8 mW/m^2, and that's per amp. You say you have 1.8 nA, so we have 3.24 x 10^-12 W/m^2 at the receiving antenna. (or 10^-16 W/cm^2)

As stated that's the peek of the exponentially decaying pulse, not the average. That's why I wrote 0.83 V/m per amp-peek.

What is this "unbelievable" value?

Depends on sample time. One hour (3600 seconds) of sampling is 1/3600 Hz bandwidth given that it's a coherent signal.

 

 

 

I don't understand your math here. How does 1.8nA and 35nV give you 10^-26 joules? What is the 1/e duration of the pulse? What's the time separation between the pulses?

It's an exponentially decaying pulse. As stated 1.8nA is the peek. The 35nV is the DC voltage across the LCR antenna, which is switched on and off. This produces a square wave, which causes the LCR circuit to oscillate. The only way I can show you how it comes to that joule amount is to show you a screenshot of the LTspice power plot, but I'm on mobile right now.

 

 

 

 

What oscilloscope model do you have?

 

Is it digital or analog? "Oscilloscope software" suggest it's digital model with USB.

 

What is its vertical resolution? How many bits? Rate?

 

Which oscilloscope model have nano volt resolution?

Since I require custom software that I wrote to analyze the signal I use a Hantek DSO-2090 PC USB 9bit with 100MB/s sample rate and ~24KB data. So each trigger takes ~ 24 thousand samples. From that you get a spectrum. Take the average of just one thousand spectrums and you'll be there.

 

Like I said. It works. Hundreds of times I've measured sub-nano volts using this method. As stated in my previous post to you it's due to taking a lot of samples.l and taking the average.

 

Unlikely.

Do you have any idea how much energy has photon at 49 MHz?

 

[math]6.62607004*10^{-34} * 49*10^6=3.2467743196*10^{-26} J[/math]

 

[math]4.135667*10^{-15} * 49*10^6=2.02647722512406*10^{-7} eV[/math]

 

Green photon f.e. 532 nm has 2.33 eV. Nearly 12 millions more energy than photon at 49 MHz.

 

We are flood with photons with higher energy. They are absorbed, emitted, absorbed, emitted, all the time. And heating environment.

Piece of metal used for antenna, will absorb and emit tremendous more energy (black body emission at room temperature) than such single photon..

 

Power equation is:

P=I*U

if you multiply it by t both sides, there is equation for energy (energy lost by electron flowing through conductor, later emitted as f.e. MW,IR,or visible spectrum as photons to cool down resistor/conductor):

P*t=I*t*U

E=I*t*U

 

But I*t=Q is charge, so

E=Q*U

and charge is quantized to e=1.602176565*10^-19

so you have

E=e*U

 

Substitute

h*f=e*U

and solve for your photon @ 49 MHz,

U will be 0.2 uV (micro volt)

 

Try this: take voltmeter, set to the smallest voltage possible to get, connect to some metal piece, and observe. It's jumping back and forth, randomly.

 

ps. I am not trying to discourage you, if you really want to perform experiments. You should perform them, to learn and gain knowledge.

But you also have to be realistic.

 

I get that a lot. Actually I've done a lot of single photon radio wave experiments, albeit different. With sample averaging it's pretty easy to detect sub-nano volts on the digital scope. What most people fail to understand is that blackbody radiation / noise is incoherent, while the signal the oscilloscope receives is coherent. Therefore you can narrow down the frequency bandwidth to unbelievable values that cuts out the noise. That's why four times as many samples of a coherent signal doubles the signal to noise ratio.

 

So I've already done the math. A 49MHz photon is 3.2e-26 joules. Lets see what classical physics predicts using a real example. The antennas radiation resistance according to the NEC2 engine is 0.28 ohms and at 5.0 meters away from the transmitting antenna field is 0.83 V/m per amp-peek. When we enter the antenna into LTspice and set the voltage source so that the transmitting antenna produces 3.2e-26 joules per pulse, the antenna peek current is 1.8nA, produced by a 35nV source pulse (easy task, easy circuit). So given past experiments I can gladly say that a signal of 1.8nA is extremely easy to detect given my setup. This was confirmed hundreds of times with correct predictions. So for example if the antenna is set to radiate a strong signal, and we then decrease the antenna current to say by a 100,000 times, the oscilloscope software shows a drop in signal by 100,000 with a very clear signal spike in the spectrum. The aforementioned example is just an example. I could very well change the details such as frequency, distances, etc.

 

So that's what classical physics predicts. And I ask everyone here, what does QM predict according to your understanding of physics? No need to give specific values. Just a simple experiment result such as "The oscilloscope will not detect the signal."

Anyone dare to predict the results? This experiment is still being built. So I don't know the results, yet. I make no claims what the experimental results will be.

 

Definition:
EDP - exponentially decaying pulse.

Goal of experiment 1 - one transmitter, *one* receiver:
1) To emit sub-photons.
2) To possibly know when the EDP (exponentially decaying pulse) is absorbed by the receiving antenna.
3) To absorb sub-photons from one receiving antenna.

Goal of experiment 2 - one transmitter, *two* receivers:
1) To emit sub-photons.
2) To possibly know when the EDP (exponentially decaying pulse) is absorbed by both receiving antennas.
3) To have two separated receiving antennas simultaneously absorb some of the energy in the emitted sub-photon. The software will either multiply both signals together or subtract both signals to guarantee that both antennas received a EDP at the same time every time.


First radio wave experiment:

The following video shows an animation of experiment 1 along with notes and descriptions:
https://youtu.be/oZf9bHqfbu0

If this forum supports animaged gifs, here's an animation of experiment 1. You might have to click on the image.

Experiment consist of one transmitter and one receiver. Both are physically separated by roughly one wavelength, but facing each other. The transmitting antenna is a simple dipole antenna (a straight wire or tube, center fed). The receiving antenna is also a simple dipole.

Every so often the transmitting antenna will transmit an EDP (exponentially decaying pulse). The center frequency of the EDP will be ~ 49MHz.

Example of an EDP:

Important: The total transmitted energy for each entire EDP will be significantly less than one h*f, where h is planck's constant, and f is the center frequency. The oscilloscope will display a spectrum and highlight the center frequency, in addition to displaying the time domain signal.

I'll try to make the *delay* between each EDP as long as possible.



Second radio wave experiment:

Similar to the first experiment, except there will be two receivers. Both receivers will be separated from each other by at least one wavelength, and at least one wavelength away from the transmitter. The second experiment will accomplish the same as experiment 1 with the addition of knowing if both receiving antennas can absorb a sub-photon *simultaneously*.


Again, I'm not saying what the results will be, and actually at this point I'm not sure.

By all means please post your prediction for experiment 2 as well. It'll be interesting.

BTW, as mentioned in the video, the purpose of the IR transmitter & detector is to signal the oscilloscope that an EDP is about to be emitted. This is fed to the oscilloscopes trigger, which causes the oscilloscope to collect a certain amount of data. The data is then fed to the PC, where my software processes the data.

Hi Eise,

 

Nice questions. Remember though this part of the forum is strictly QM. Swansont is giving you the correct QM. Although yes there is another interpretation of the experiments ... and well I'm not allowed to even so as mention any details except that IMO it's much more convincing than QM.

You had plenty of chances and wasted them on posturing/argumentation.

 

I will repeat: there is repeatable and documented experimental evidence for delayed quantum eraser and all its variants. Arguing hypothesis against empirical evidence is not a valid approach

Why the need to lie? No, I presented math based on classical physics.

 

 

Anyhow, another example of an illusion is the mouse moving on a screen.

I forgot to mention phase velocity can exceed c, but it's not communication. It corresponds to the propagation speed of a theoretical single-frequency component of the wave at that frequency. In a way it's an illusion, if you know what I mean. Look up de broglie wave.

Delayed quantum eraser experiment can have extended photon paths and show that interference drops/appears quicker than possible by a SoL communication between the two detectors.

 

NB this is not a FTL communication - all information transfer is well below SoL but we can time measurements of signal and idler photons whilst other still "in flight" and disrupt/allow pattern with delays that do not concur with a SoL signal between two

 

 

---

 

edit - Not to say this is instantaneous - nor communication. But it is weird.

 

I know that's mainstreams stance, but I have evidence that says otherwise, but I'm not allowed to post it here.

In all my studies I've never seen any experimental evidence of an instantaneous communication link. But of course they can communicate at the speed of light.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

 

"Although gravitational radiation has not been directly detected, there is indirect evidence for its existence.[5] For example, the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for measurements of the HulseTaylor binary system which suggest that gravitational waves are more than theoretical concept. Various gravitational-wave detectors are currently under construction or are in operation, such as Advanced LIGO which began observations in September 2015.[6]"

 

"Gravitational waves are not easily detectable. When they reach the Earth, they have a small amplitude, meaning that an extremely sensitive detector is needed, and that other sources of noise can overwhelm the signal.[43] Gravitational waves are expected to have frequencies 10−16 Hz < f < 104 Hz.[44]"

I don't understand why low rates indicates gamma.

 

If the discriminator is set to 1/3 of the alpha energy, then it will filter out anything below ~1.8 MeV. But that might not hold for particles that aren't alphas. I don't know the details of that detector, but since alphas deposit their energy in such a small volume, there's a possibility the detector would be less sensitive to electrons and gammas.

I don't put that much trust in PMTs. Set your discriminator to 2MeV, place a strong 1MeV source near the scintillator/PMT. I'm betting you'll see a noticeable slight increase in count rate.

 

 

 

Ask him to repeat experiment inside of Cloud Chamber, so traces will be visible and record able by digital camera..

 

Then he should use electric field, or magnetic field to learn charge of emitted particles.

This way he will know whether he has alpha, beta, or some neutral particle like gamma.

Trace will be bend accordingly to charge, and mass of particle.

 

He should use mass spectrometer on Gold foil to see whether he has Au-197. Before and after using on it alphas.

Did he use 100% 24 carat Gold?

If he used 14 carat (58.3% Au), or 18 carat (75%) Gold, it's contaminated by secondary metals like Silver, Copper etc.

24 carat can be little contaminated as well.

He should use mass spectrometer on it anyway though.

 

Hitting contamination by alpha could influence results.

 

If mass spectrometer will tell him, it's contaminated with Silver, he should check how is behaving Silver foil instead of Gold foil. If contaminated by Copper, try Copper foil instead.

Then melt Gold and Silver, or Gold and Copper, together, and make various foils with different percentages of both.

And check them to see which one behaves like this original Gold foil. Whether these additional alphas are appearing more often while using alloy.

 

 

Decay energy of Am-241 is 5.64 MeV.

Part of it takes Np-237, but still it's quite a lot for alpha particle kinetic energy.

Great method. We already know from experimentation that alpha particles don't become two alpha particles in cloud chambers, which is basically the idea he's proposing. I was just curious how he's getting the results.

Thanks. It could be insensitive to low energy gammas, but not 100%. His coincidences occur at such low rates, which seems to indicate it's gamma, or energetic electrons as you mentioned. I'm not sure what gamma energy range the alpha would produce colliding with the gold. I'd imagine there's an appreciable probability of it being at least a few MeV, no?

Braking radiation.

Let's not confuse his gamma coincidence experiments. But yes he's probably using the same scintillation counters to detect alpha particles.

[snip] Since an interaction with the gold is being claimed, that does not preclude the possibility of gammas originating there. You should know that, rather than having an attitude.

That's more like it

Unfortunately I don't have much more information either. As the image shows he's using a Am-241. Am-241 emits low energy gamma. You should know that, rather than attacking me.

So I've been exchanging emails with Eric Reiter about his alpha coincidence experiment. Basically he claims to emit alpha particles toward a gold foil. The foil causes the particle to either reflect left or travel forward, detector A or B. But he claims a single alpha particle travels in both directions.

 

He has a slab of Am-241 taken from a smoke detector. Not sure on the thickness. First off he claims two alpha particles are emitted from each nucleus traveling 180° from each other in both directions. Alphas from Am-241 have extremely low penetration depth. So it seems the alphas emit mostly from the nucleus of atoms near the surface of the material. What's the likelihood of Eric detecting two alphas traveling in opposite directions? Doesn't it seem like he's detecting gamma rays?

 

As you can see in the following image, Eric claims to emit alphas toward a gold foil, which he claims splits the alpha particle into two half alpha particles. Yes, that's correct, two alphas that are intact. I guess one could call them sub-alpha particles.

 

http://unquantum.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/alpha-split-demo-31.jpg

 

According to my calculations there's insufficient energy to split the alpha. He says his alphas are emitted at 5.5MeV, maybe more like 5.2MeV. That's roughly one fourth the energy to remove a proton from the alpha particle.

 

What about angular energy? The alpha is spinning as it's ejected. Or thermal energy? I think the probability of those being enough to split the alpha particle is low.

 

At first I thought he was seeing a weak stimulated alpha emission. But now I have to wonder if he's just detecting gamma rays.

 

Any thoughts?

 

BTW, the mention of Eric measuring two alpha particles being emitted 180° apart from each other simultaneously is another experiment Eric did. That's not the alpha coincidence experiment.

That is just a metaphor (and a rather poor one). If you follow the "spacetime" link in that sentence, it says that spacetime is a mathematical model (not a "thing").

The Wikipedia article gives the OP models and metaphors.

 

This topic is extensive. Another area is frame dragging,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Space itself is something.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

"Distances increase as more spacetime fills in between galaxies"

This is the aspect your missing. I editted the last post see above for the relevant section in the link

Yes I'm certain it is. Thank you very much!!

Now in your light beam experiment light is no longer following a Euclidean (flat) straight line. It is following a null geodesic path. Which is a curved path.

 

Some articles will describe it as compressed space time. I personally hate that analogy as its misleading. It's better to just describe it as coordinate tranformation.

Interesting. I had to look up that word, but I wonder if entering the null geodesic is path could solve this for me.

wait. You changed my experiment. It's not about measuring the speed light. It's about taking note that the signal clicks per second decrease when the mirror device is stationary near a massive body as compared to when it was far away. That's really all there is. So again, it took light more time to reflect a shorter distance. So what do you think about that experiment?

 

For anyone who doesn't want to read the thread to know what the mirror device is. It's two parallel mirrors where light reflects back and forth. Each time light reflects off a mirror, the mirror device emits a signal burst / click / bleep.

so the mirror device is a clock. The observer is always in the same location. The mirror device is either far away, or near the massive body. Obviously when the mirror device is near the massive body, it's emitted clicks per second decreases.

both the observer and the mirror device are always stationary, except for the brief time in between experiment when the mirror device is traveling to its other location, which is either near or far away from the massive body. So this experiment is not about relativistic velocity, but is about gravitational time dilation.

You need to drop the idea light travels slower. Think in terms of coordinate change due to space time curvature.

 

Remember postulate 1.

 

I found a handy simulator that you can play around with.

 

 

http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/gravitation.swf

 

It may require plugins of your using a phone.

 

Now remember time always run slower in a gravity well than the clock outside of the well. This both observers Alice and Bob agree on. Which is slightly different than inertial frame time dilation.

 

if the clock stays at the same gravitational potential it's clock will maintain the same rate which is slow to Alice at Euclidean space.

 

If you think about redshift/blueshift you can make the connection between the two scenarios.

 

[latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex]

 

So light is bluedshifted when it falls into the well ,redshifts when it climbs out. Time and length contraction follow the same relation.

 

By the formulas you posted.

 

[latex]t_o=t_f\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}[/latex]

 

[latex]d=ds\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}[/latex]

Wiki has the formula for circular orbits including a graph

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

Okay then that means you the speed of light makes no sense in terms of Relativity. Don't you see my point? Again:

 

The mirror experiment is a clock. If we send the mirror device near a massive planet for some time, then when it returns it lost time. This means that if we have the mirror device emitting a signal every time the light beam reflects off a mirror that the far away observer will see less emitted signals per second because the mirror clock is running slower. And this will be verified when the mirror device comes back to the observer. Also, according to relativity the distance between the mirrors decreases when near the massive planet. Therefore don't you see that if it takes light longer to travel from one mirror to the other mirror, and the distance is less, that the light is traveling slower. Yes initially I saw a way out of this puzzle with the Four speed theory, but that doesn't seem to explain this because we know from experiments that the atomic clocks do not have to positioned in some preferred axis.

Hm I think it's back to the drawing board because I'm certain light travels at a slower speed when closer to mass *regardless* if the light is traveling toward or parallel to the mass.

I haven't read all the posts, but are you missing the fact that because both time and distance change (from the other frame of reference) the result is that the speed of light is constant?

I know but they change in opposite directions. The distance between the mirrors decreases near the massive body, and there's more time between clicks. But anyhow his post was referring to velocity time dilation, not gravitational. So it's irrelevant.

 

Could the four velocity theory explain what I'm missing? As far as I can tell, if we use only 3 dimensions in explaining the mirror experiment, then it appears light travels slower, but if we use an extra dimension, a 4th dimension if you will, then the light always travels at c. I think this is it!

What do you all think?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-velocity

 

So then if it takes light more time to travel between the mirrors, and the mirrors are closer together, then the fourth dimensional vector must increase enough to make up the difference. Correct?

 

Hint what are the units for the speed of light? The length of the meter changes and the measurements of a second changes. So each observer still measures the same speed. Its the units that change not the quantity. Though we can measure the change in wavelength ie redshift.

Yes I get the hint now! Using the 4th dimension balances it all out. Thanks!

 

But hold on, there's more to this, right? This would mean that gravitational time dilation and length contraction only apply in the direction toward the massive body. I've read posts of people saying the same thing, that gravitational length contraction only applies on a certain axis. What do you think?

There is also the atomic clock on Everest experiment. Hopefully I can find that paper this eve.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314656/Scientists-prove-time-really-does-pass-quicker-higher-altitude.html

 

I read the peer review I'll hunt it down

Not a rigorous experiment, but this is fun: http://www.leapsecond.com/great2005/

http://leapsecond.com/great2005/tour/

Thanks. Those are clear well done experiments that shows gravitational time dilation is real. So then what am I missing regarding my mirror experiment? We know that a clock that counts the number times light reflects back and forth between two mirrors will have lower counts if closer to a massive body than if it's far away from the massive body. We know that the distance between the two mirrors does not increase. In fact Einstein's equation says it contracts near the massive object. So if it takes longer from light to travel a shorter distance, then please explain why light is not traveling slower. I fully accept that light is not traveling slower, but I don't see how to explain this. It's probably something so simple and obvious.

This eve I'll dig up some papers on gravitational redshift/dilation length contraction.

 

There is a particular article that does a good coverage. Via experiments similar to the one you suggested.

I've seen those experiments. They're in good agreement with relativity. But that also takes into account the effect of light losing energy due to leaving mass due to gravity, right? While a stationary atomic clock on a massive body doesn't take that into account as far as I see.