tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post7341357371131821904..comments2024-03-29T02:14:39.189-07:00Comments on Why I hate physics: There Are No Pea-Shooters For PhotonsMarty Greenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17624084719249673373noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-29719602989189972922022-04-02T22:11:20.047-07:002022-04-02T22:11:20.047-07:00The pea shooter I use is spontaneous decay of gamm...The pea shooter I use is spontaneous decay of gamma-rays or alpha-rays. The test to see one-at-a-time is well known in nuclear physics, called the true-coincidence test. Put the source between two large detectors, if the coincidence rate equals the chance rate, the emission is one-at-a-time, a pea shooter. Then I rearrange the detectors like a beam splitter. Surprise! I see that gamma and alpha can go both ways at rates substantially exceeding chance. This refutes particle-energy conservation. My theory explains how energy is conserved but not as particles. Ratios h/e, e/m, h/m explains how that can be. For wave effects, the ratios are quantized, but action, mass, and charge are thresholded. I want to know you, Marty.Eric Stanley Reiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02393041044914588049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-46697262786791609462022-04-02T22:08:18.679-07:002022-04-02T22:08:18.679-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eric Stanley Reiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02393041044914588049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-27309540787480230442020-08-10T08:36:07.405-07:002020-08-10T08:36:07.405-07:00Marty. I agree with most of your views. Please s...Marty. I agree with most of your views. Please see my website http://www.unquantum.net Let me address one issue, the Compton effect. There is a wave derivation of the equation describing that effect in the book by Compton and Allison. I elaborated on the derivation in my posted papers. <br />Eric Stanley Reiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02393041044914588049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-61189395252953470832020-03-02T08:53:15.887-08:002020-03-02T08:53:15.887-08:00David LaPoint solved the double slit experiment in...David LaPoint solved the double slit experiment in his YouTube video called The Primer Fields Part 3Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04123879622731190641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-61106548708917313992018-12-23T08:50:06.270-08:002018-12-23T08:50:06.270-08:00I just got around to reading your original essay, ...I just got around to reading your original essay, which someone claimed was vindication for his theory which I have forgotten about. I was taken aback by your repeated assertion that "the wave theory" had been abandoned in favor of "the particle theory". What? In 35 years of teaching University Physics (and the 15 years of learning it before that) I have never heard anyone else claim that any version of quantum mechanics had been successfully formulated in terms of particles alone, without including their wave nature. <br /><br />It seems to me that you have constructed a "straw man" argument. JESS H BREWERhttp://jick.net/skept/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-38838094667637005002016-09-07T06:05:57.075-07:002016-09-07T06:05:57.075-07:00Thanks, George. Yes, that's the calculation I ...Thanks, George. Yes, that's the calculation I do in my article on the Crystal Radio, which is linked to above. It's a very classical calculation and doesn't make any sense if you treat light as a particle. And yet everywhere you go, the so-called paradox of the photo-electrric effect starts of with the premise that to eject an electron the "photon" must concentrate its power in an area the size of an atomic cross-section.<br />Marty Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17624084719249673373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-46836917775877883062016-09-06T12:59:56.876-07:002016-09-06T12:59:56.876-07:00Hi Marty, I seem to have found your physics blog ...Hi Marty, I seem to have found your physics blog a bit late. I did want to tell you that if you measure the cross section for an atom to absorb a "photon" resonant with some energy level in the atom you find the answer is not the area of the electron orbit, but closer to the wavelength squared of the "photon". (With factors of 2 and pi here and there.)George Heroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10856527872293160233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-70176293656989089372016-05-04T10:13:21.411-07:002016-05-04T10:13:21.411-07:00Thanks, David. But remember, it was Schroedinger&#...Thanks, David. But remember, it was Schroedinger's argument for wave-on-wave Compton scattering, not mine. (That's why I didn't get the Nobel Prize, right?) I analyze only the very simplest case, a center-of mass system with a light wave and an electron wave interacting head-on. In that situation, the superposition of the incident and reflected electron waves creates a perfect diffraction grating (or an array of charged sheets) which provides an impenetrable barrier to light of the same wavelenght. Since wavelength is momentum, that's the Compton effect.<br /><br />I don't analyze the further complications because the historical argument is that the electron is a tiny ping-pong ball which simply cannot interact with the wave in any manner whatsoever. Once you identify the basic flaw in that argument, I figure "the reset is commentary". Marty Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17624084719249673373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5376628436133716219.post-83178354955471634022016-04-24T17:42:29.875-07:002016-04-24T17:42:29.875-07:00Just read your post and your original paper. I ver...Just read your post and your original paper. I very much enjoyed both. But I still don't get what the basic argument is (or was) when it comes to Compton scattering demonstrating particle-like behavior. Is it merely because the re-emitted "photon" of a new wavelength is always found to travel in a single, definable direction? "A big wave-blob couldn't do that!" Is that about the gist of it? David Reishinoreply@blogger.com