[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]

[Not Logged In / Login / Register]

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

		Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/19/2005 9:56 PM by Fred's Spam	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I would like to summarize the reasons why I can not accept these claims: The experimental evidence for nonlocality & effects propagating instantenously or at superluminary velocity, evidenced by the violation of Bell's Inequality is generally considered convincing by the Physics Community. Accepting these effects at face value and carrying them to their logical conclusions would invalidate many physical principles which are pretty solid. The experimental results seem to show that two entangled particles (such as two photons generated by the annihilation of an electron & a positron)will remain entangled no matter how far they have moved apart. For example if one of these photons spins "down" the other one must spin "up" if consistently measured. There is no problem accepting this & evidence for this goes back about 70 years. The problem (my problem) arises from experiments which show that measurements carried out on one of these particles have some effect on the entangled partner, that these effects are not attenuated by distance & propagate instantaneously or above the speed of light. Interestingly enough it is generally agreed that by physicists that these effcts can not be used for sending a message, so Special Relativity is not directly endangered. The results (as far as I am aware) have not been based on measurements of identified, individual particle pairs, but are statistical measurements. In other words doing something to change the statistics at location A will change the statistics at location B. The changes while not very large are claimed to be reliable to many sigmas. To believe that this really happens, I would have to accept thi following: 1. The effects are transmitted without requiring any energy. 2.As the effect is not attenuated by distance, there can be no dispersion & it must be aimed with pinpoint accuracy at the entangled partner. Sort of a private channel. 3. The effect is not "read" by any other particle. 4. It is apparently instantaneous action at a distance. (like Newton's hypothesized gravity} 5. To explain the effect it is claimed that the two partner particles are really just one particle. However if that is true I would have to believe that there is some ghostly ectoplasm stretching over astronomical distance & that within that medium the effect is transmitted instantenously, or at least faster than light. 6. As historically all particles are believed to have been at some time entangled with one an other it is claimed that everything in the universe affects everything else at the same time. (viva New Age mysticism} So please forgive my for a great deal of reasonable doubt. Must be some real ESP operating here, except that for me ESP stands for "error some place." [Reply]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/19/2005 10:27 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://www.unquantum.com/ The experiment plots a histogram of times between events triggered in two detectors. This should be random. A peak in the histogram shows that there are events in both detectors occurring at a rate that exceeds the random chance rate. A particle cannot split to trigger both detectors, but a pulse of wave energy can. In the past, this kind of experiment was done with visible light; coincidences occurred only at the chance rate convincing people of photons. No one ever did this experiment with gamma-rays because they thought it was a “fact” that gamma-rays were photons. Only the lower “energy” gamma sources work in my experiment, because they have a high photoelectric-effect efficiency in the detector. There are few such radioisotope sources, which explain why this effect went unnoticed so long. http://www.unquantum.com/theory/theoryforpdf2.pdf http://www.unquantum.com/paper2/seriouschallenge5. html http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ We have been told that experiments agree with all the predictions of quantum theory, including those that involve the impossible - the Bell test experiments, that are supposed to show totally incomprehensible effects of separated particles on each other. I have looked at the evidence. The "loopholes" that they know are present are large enough to allow for perfectly straightforward explanations, with no sign of "non-locality". I am led to suggest that perhaps there is other currently-accepted "evidence" for both quantum theory and Einstein's relativity theories that needs re-investigation. (There is! See Forgotten History .) I am not talking of "re-interpretation", but of recognising that if we want to understand nature, not just produce "predictions", the first step is to re-assess the facts, reject falsehoods. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 2:33 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	the Copenhage 'spooky action at a distance' is a very weak interpretation of QM- essentially it says that we cannot even question the nature of reality while measurements are not being taken and simply assumes some undefined magical connection that allows entanggled particles to instantly communicate- the framework of the Many Worlds interpretation has a MUCH more solid foundation and actually coroborates the multiverse ontology- which I argue is an axiomatic feature of the Cosmos when considering the implications of infinity and probability a good FAQ on the Everett MWT approach: http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 4:56 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	yes, and the fantastic MWT interpretation suffers massively at the hands of Ockham's razor in comparison to the non-classical wave-models that become available when the statistical loopholes of the experiments and the experimental falsification of the photon concept, to which I linked, are taken into account. Furthermore, some of these non-classical wave-models (Sorce Theory in particular, but also the analogous unquantum.com model) also explain *causally* the quantum measurement problem without resorting to any non-causal "wierdness". [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 6:07 PM by Fred's Spam	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I agree with Subtillion re. the fantastic MWT theory. The universe may be weirder than we can imagine, but somehow I don't think it's THAT weird. It is amazing though how some respectable physicists have bought into this theory. Also I think of the photon as the probability particle of the electro-magnetic field. The concept of particles shooting off (say the filament of a light bulb) seems wrong. The electro-magnetic field spreads out from that filament. When it produces an event we can say, "here is a photon". Whether such an event is produced depends on the square of the amplitude of the field (psi squared) and the nature of the event. Most situations can only produce an event within a specific frequency range, or only above a specific frequency threshold. This interpretation of the photon also goes a long way in explaining the supposedly unexplainable double slit experiment. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 6:32 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	exactly! I entirely agree. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 6:33 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	in fact Planck's second, and prefered theory about his quantum interpolation equation, was just such a threshold model. This has been taken up and significantly expanded in the unquantum.com theory and indeed it does solve the double-slit enigma. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 6:54 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I guess I just have to say it again: "Many Worlds interpretation ... actually coroborates the multiverse ontology- which I argue is an axiomatic feature of the Cosmos" within the context of accepting the onto/logical necessity of a Multiverse- then MWT isn't 'weird' at all but actually makes sense and reveals how these other universes [that MUST exist under this consideration] interact with each other- [Reply] [Parent]

		Multiverse Ontology posted on 10/20/2005 7:15 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Many Worlds interpretation ... actually coroborates the multiverse ontology- which I argue is an axiomatic feature of the Cosmos" How does one argue for an axiom? The point of interpretation is to explain evidence, not to justify "wierd" ontologies, such as the "multiverse ontology". To that end, MWT is superfluous and in massive violation of Ockham's razor when vastly simpler theories will suffice and with more causal explanatory power. "within the context of accepting the onto/logical necessity of a Multiverse-" And what necessity is that? Where is the argument for this "Multiverse ontology"? " then MWT isn't 'weird' at all but actually makes sense and reveals how these other universes [that MUST exist under this consideration] interact with each other-" Again, who says these "other universes" MUST exist and what are their arguments? This ought to be a fun discussion. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Multiverse Ontology posted on 10/20/2005 7:55 PM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	groan, the guy who wrote that FAQ cited on Many Worlds told me that it's best to ignore it. Penrose thinks it's there and beives in the copenhagen thinkg see; http://www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/gif/phys /bohrfest32.jpg [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Multiverse Ontology posted on 10/21/2005 1:07 AM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Again, who says these "other universes" MUST exist and what are their arguments? "there are indeed other, equally real, versions of you in other universes, who chose differently and are now enduring the consequences. Why do I believe this? Mainly because I believe quantum mechanics. Just write down the equation describing the motion of those fateful transmitter molecules, and their effect on you and on the environment. Notice that their "randomness" consists in their doing two things at once: crossing that synapse and not crossing it; and that the effect on you was likewise that you did two things at once: buy my book and buy Penrose's. Such effects spread out, making everything do many things at once, which is what we mean by saying that there are "parallel universes." Furthermore, the universes affect each other. Though the effects are minute, they are detectable in carefully designed experiments. There are projects underway - close to your heart, I know, as well as mine - to harness these effects to perform useful computations. When a quantum computer solves a problem by dividing it into more sub-problems than there are atoms in the universe, and then solving each sub-problem, it will PROVE to us that those sub-problems were solved somewhere - but not in our universe, for there isn't enough room here. What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist? " -David Deutsch [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Multiverse Ontology posted on 10/21/2005 1:36 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	there you go, he believes it because HE BELIEVES HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE MATHEMATICS. He is a believer because he believes. What stronger argument that that is there? It cannot be penetrated by pesky "common sense". Ahhh... echoes of Tertullian’s argument for Christianity: “I believe it because it is absurd” [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 8:24 PM by Fred's Spam	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I am wondering just what sort of multiverse we're all talking about. There is the one which assumes that in infinite space universes constantly pop up, so there are infinitely many. This assumption together with the weak Anthropic principle can account for the finely tuned parameters that make life possible. This also works if the number of universes is in the gogolpex rather than infinite. That kind of multiverse is certainly possible. The one I find ridiculous is the one where weakly interacting universes are generated by every quantum event. That one explains nothing and lacks any sort of evidence. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 8:46 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	To me, the first possibility is not a multiverse at all, but merely a varied holarchical Uni-verse. Like you, it is the second version that I find useless and baseless, and it is that version that purports to solve the quantum measurement problem, as opposed to the more overtly problematic, but perhaps less overtly absurd Copenhagen interpretation. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 9:23 PM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	i seem to recall something about the number of prescribed angels dancing on the head of a pin. All scinece has to be based on philosophy, and maths too of course. there is a massive danger that unless one can do empirical work this stuff sounds like a joke to anyone paying taxes. And what is the empirical work? 1. that a photon can be fored at a slit big enough for only one photon to pass through, and 2. that a phtographic plate has two hits on it when developed, in different places. that is the sole evidence from many Wo9rld's theory. the rest is because of the maths. I know challenging mathematics is scriledge in our religion (science) but maths is NOT perfect and contains absolute crap, that we conveniently sweep under the carpet eg trancendental numbers. We absolutely have to defer to philosophy on this, and taking a vote of quantum cosmologists as cited un the MWT FAQ may look scientific but is not science. I'm aware that my ego is reacting to an assault which says i'm not essentially unique but there are upwords of infinite infinities of Eldras's all with slightly diiiferent (one particle) variation beginning diffrent histories as I type. the chapie who invented this joke must be laughing his socks off. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 9:40 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	yes, we have to refer to philosophy, as in "causal interpretation" (metaphysics/ontology) on this. The point is that there are interpretations that can indeed account for ALL the evidence so far in purely causal and RATIONAL ways that do not violate the fundamentals of philosophy or common sense. [Reply] [Parent]

		the 'common sense' of killing a gazelle posted on 10/21/2005 1:20 AM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The point is that there are interpretations that can indeed account for ALL the evidence so far in purely causal and RATIONAL ways that do not violate the fundamentals of philosophy or common sense. why have so many [myself included] have been fooled by the idea of 'common sense' when we all KNOW that what we call common sense is a collestions of kludged mutations in our brain's structure that were good at giving groups of primates good sets of abilities and ideas for hunting prey and surving the environment? how could anyone seriously conjecture that this set of cognitive tools would be much good as the final arbitor of the fundamental dynamics of Reality? ESPECIALLY when many of those 'common sense' notions do not jive with observations of Reality? "thanks largely to a succession of extraordinary scientific discoveries, we now possess some extremely deep theories about the structure of reality. If we are to understand the world at more than a superficial level, it must be through those theories and through reason, and not through our preconceptions, received opinion, or even common sense. Our best theories are not only truer than common sense, they make far more sense than common sense does." -David Deutsch [Reply] [Parent]

		Common Opinion != Comon Sense posted on 10/21/2005 1:31 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	argument by false analogy? By "common sense" I do not mean "common opinion" which changes with the seasons of history, but merely the faculties and capabilities of raw human reason, imagination and intuition. You may wish to cling to models that fail to be understandable by human beings because they have no causal/qualitative/intuitive/imaginative analogs, but there are models that do not suffer these shortcomings, i.e. models that successfully employ causal reasoning at the FUNDAMENTAL level. The fact is that the notion that human reason is inept at understanding fundamental reality HAS BECOME THE COMMON OPINION to which you make your appeal to authority. It is this common opinion that is being overturned by the faculties of human reason. And here is my appeal to authority... "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 9:18 PM by purpose	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The one I find ridiculous is the one where weakly interacting universes are generated by every quantum event. That one explains nothing and lacks any sort of evidence. Any model that states universes are "generated" via "quantum events" is obviously flawed IMO. However I wouldn't go so far as to say that within the "Infinite omniverse" there is not "subsets" of these universes that behave/interact in a way that brings about the observed quantum behavior discussed in Many Worlds Theory. In other words like most/all theories, MWT would be mistaking "the map for the territory" as subtillioN is fond of saying. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 9:27 PM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	well how do you explain two photon marks on photographoc paper? Ockham's razor is for it. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 9:37 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	a photon is a reaction between a wavefront and an atomic shell of the photographic paper, or any such detector. Photons don't exist until that reaction occurs and there is no evidence that any such photon travels through any one slit at all. The photon as particle interpretation/philosophy is flawed and the latest empirical research shows just that. http://www.unquantum.com [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 10:00 PM by purpose	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Sub, I have done my best to find peer review of unquantum.com and have failed miserably. Without that I (nor I doubt anyone here) is qualified to substantiate the claims there or debunk them. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 10:42 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	He states plain and clear that he will replicate the experiment for you upon request, and I do indeed have a peer that has reviewed and approved of his work, and one who is a noted expert in the field of optics and whose opinion I trust highly, far more so than anyone stuck in the standard paradigm. Galileo had plenty of peers review the evidence of his telescope, and they eventually put him under house arrest for challenging their self-reinforced views. I don't hold much respect for the peer-review process, as if you couldn't tell. I feel far more qualified to judge than the bulk of the dogma-blinded peers provided by the establishment. But that's just me, I guess. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 11:15 PM by purpose	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	He states plain and clear that he will replicate the experiment for you upon request, and I do indeed have a peer that has reviewed and approved of his work, and one who is a noted expert in the field of optics and whose opinion I trust highly, far more so than anyone stuck in the standard paradigm. There are a great many experts in phyiscs that would love to prove Bell's theorm incorrect. Which is why I find it odd I can't find any postive or negitive feedback on unquantum.com. There should be endless lines of people willing to validate or debunk these claims if they are being taken seriously. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 11:41 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"There should be endless lines of people willing to validate or debunk these claims if they are being taken seriously." oh, of course. Endless lines of professional scientists spending their free time searching for truth. Seems you have a rather naieve view of the process and politics of scientific progress. I have talked to professional scientists and in general they haven't the slightest interest in challenging their belief structures, and since they aren't being paid for it, there is no reason whatsoever to go there. They are (in general) instantly put on the defensive when anything of this sort is brought to their attention. I even brought this research to the attention of a local physics professor and he said it was bunk, but he couldn't tell me why, and indeed he acted as if he didn't even read it. It is standard procedure for "normal science" to sweep empirical anomalies under the rug until the point when it is impossible not to stumble over it (see Kuhn). We have a ways to go until that time, but the anomalies keep mounting, as usual. Practitioners of "normal science" are not trained to think outside their paradigm-box. They don't have the inter-paradigm tools to properly evaluate anything sufficiently "revolutionary", and in fact they can't even see anything of this sort because they don't understand the nature of paradigm incommensurability. THEY AREN"T TRAINED IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, or the methods and injunctions of interparadigm research. They look at everything from the context of their standard paradigm and anything that deviates they can only see as ERROR. I am not interested or constrained by such "peer review". My peers are inter-paradigm (extraordinary science) researchers, and their reviews have been very positive. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/21/2005 3:35 AM by purpose	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Almost every book I have ever read that mentions the Bell tests qualifies them with "if the test holds true" or "the jury is still out on". It is not a secret that many people in the physics community would be much happier if the concept of non-locality could be shown false. Hell it took what 20 years worth of testing and re-testing and requalifying before it was even accepted as being a valid test... it was only accepted grudgingly, after much kicking and screaming. If it turns out not to be valid great, if unquantum.com proves that great... but this non-sense about no one being willing to look into challenges to Bell's results sounds rather hollow to me. Perhaps no one in the science community knows about unquantum.com? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/21/2005 3:43 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The tests at unquantum.com prove that electromagnetic energy (gamma frequencies, specifically) is not made out of particles. The bell tests have their own known loopholes, and can entirely be explained by local realist models. I don't know the exact politics of why the physics community ignores challenges to its BELIEF structure, but this is hardly a single case. This is a common pattern with orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy; a pattern of history that still hasn't changed. Chalk it up to human nature, I guess. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 11:42 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"There are a great many experts in phyiscs that would love to prove Bell's theorm incorrect." Name four of these so-called "experts" ... [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/20/2005 11:54 PM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	i dont see what the big deal is here.....i'm not a scientist, but as i understand it, the local stuff must be added to the whole universe to total all the stuff going on. that's blindingly obvious to me. But since it doesn't matter if we describe an experiment tanks of say the galaxy, in which one atom of oxygen is identical to every other and we wish to say build a human being to a given recipie.. as long as we have the recipie and ingrediants, we can build it. we dont need ALL the laws local and far. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/21/2005 12:02 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	local realism can indeed account for all experiments so far invented. The point of this departure was Eric Reiter's experiments that falsify the particle interpretations of light that not only lead to "quantum wierdness", but are also rendered superfluous by the realist models. There simply is no reason to cling to interpretations that only lead to paradox and error, when there are interpretations available that do not. I suppose that if someone needs an authority figure to vouch for the validity of these new interpretations, then so be it, but that is a case in point of the cultural inertia these models face. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/21/2005 12:53 AM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	thanks peer review is an essential part of science. Like the other long tested preconditions to boot out error...not quanckery...error. I know that some stuff cnt be generally circulated and of course mavricks play an essential part in invention (you can listen to a nobel prize winner saying that great minds either work in gangs or are solo mavricks at royal society video0 but that doesn't mean that peer review is absent. er I know I wont submit my stuff for that, but that's because I've got an architecture I think could destroy us and I have stated that from the outset etc etc! Cheers Eldras [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/21/2005 1:22 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Yes, as Kuhn says, peer-review is essential for "normal science", but it is inept at dealing with anomalies. In fact, it functions to force them out of the picture so that they don't get in the way of normal functioning. And so the ailing paradigm stumbles on until the anomalies grow too big for normal science to ignore. There is still time left, but not much, imho. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/21/2005 4:52 AM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Yep I know thomas! i think we're getting our logics hicupping here: being a heretic is NOT preequisite to Oh Hell 1. There are laws in the universe 2. We know some. 3. We dont know some. If there's a new paraidgm there is some duty incumbant on the discoverer to stab at explaining it. Could you sum this up in one short paragrph for an old choir boy father? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Violation of Bell's Inequality; Nonlocility; Effects propagated at superluminary velocity posted on 10/21/2005 5:08 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	from the front page of the website: http://www.unquantum.com "The experiment plots a histogram of times between events triggered in two detectors. This should be random. A peak in the histogram shows that there are events in both detectors occurring at a rate that exceeds the random chance rate. A particle cannot split to trigger both detectors, but a pulse of wave energy can. In the past, this kind of experiment was done with visible light; coincidences occurred only at the chance rate convincing people of photons. No one ever did this experiment with gamma-rays because they thought it was a “fact” that gamma-rays were photons. Only the lower “energy” gamma sources work in my experiment, because they have a high photoelectric-effect efficiency in the detector. There are few such radioisotope sources, which explain why this effect went unnoticed so long." And from the ABSTRACT at: http://www.unquantum.com/paper2/seriouschallenge5. html "In a thought experiment, Einstein proposed that each light quantum would go one way or another at a beam splitter. In testing this model I have implemented a series of experiments using spontaneous gamma-rays from either 109Cd or 57Co, whereby a primary gamma-ray is split and detected in coincidence in two detectors. The experimental coincidence rates are found to substantially exceed the chance coincidence rate. These are full-height pulses, which directly violate the quantum mechanical probabilistic model of light, and indirectly violate the concept of quantized free charge. To help understand how all this can possibly be true, I have identified conceptual and experimental flaws in previous related experiments, and have developed a theory. Instead of quantization, I develop visualizable properties of the matter-wave to explain its particle-like properties and avoid wave-particle duality." I think that is pretty straightforward, don't you? [Reply] [Parent]