18 Nov
2013
18 Nov
'13
7:28 a.m.
great scott - he's doing all this in a keg!
Nov 18, 2013 03:12:54 AM, juul(a)labitat.dk wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Jake jake(a)spaz.org> wrote:
i've been to his lab and seen everything up-close. I also saw it at maker
faire in 2008 or so.
My favorite experiment is one where he has two
sodium-iodide scintillators, each optically coupled to its own photomultiplier tube, and a
radioactive source.
>I looked at this pdf of this:
> http://www.unquantum.net/seriouschallenge.pdf
>I found MCA 49 #2 somewhat odd. It is
supposed to be a measure of noise, possibly from cosmic interference. The test was
conducted with no gamma-ray source. The result I'd expect would be completely random
detection events with only random time-correlations between detection events. Here's
what the author has to say:
>"In plot MCA 49 #2 there was no source inside the Pb shield, but a low level of
coincidences were
>still detected. This is assumed to be from cosmic rays interacting with the Pb shield
and showering x-rays to the detectors in coincidence. This is a background to be
subtracted at similar test setups. No background coincidences were found outside the 173
ns window shown, and the total rate was 17 pairs/39906s ≈ (1.5 event-pairs)/hour."
>So he observed coincidences within a window of 173 ns in his negative control (the
same window he uses for the experiment) but no coincidences outside of that window. Unless
there is something I'm not understanding, that seems very suspicious. The only
semi-plausible explanation I can think of is if all of the following are true:
> 1. The rate of background radiation events is so small that coincidences inside of
the scale of measurement (microsecond range) are very unlikely to occur.
> 2. Both detectors are being triggered by
the same wave/particle of background radiation (cosmic of otherwise).
>I'm not sure if number 2 is even possible, but if it is, then we can calculate the
approximate distance between the two detectors based on the 173 ns delay between
detections and the speed of light. If nothing is slowing down the light:
> ~3e9 meters/second * 1.79e-7 seconds = 53.7 meters
>The actual value will be lower depending on
the refractive index of whatever material is between the detectors, but unless his
detectors are spaced unusually far apart, there'd have to be something like a solid
block of the material with the highest recorded refractive index (38.6 as far as I could
find [1]) in between the detectors.
>If not, then this casts doubt on all of his experimental results, since something
unknown is causing false readings to appear in exactly the coincidence window of interest.
It is not reasonable to simply subtract those readings as noise from the other
experiments: Since the source is unknown, we cannot guess at its nature and there exists
the possibility that the number of false reading increase when the radiation source is
present.
>Or am I missing something?
>[1]
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/feb/16/metamaterial-breaks-re…
The objects are placed source, detector, detector, such that one detector (only the
sodium iodide crystal, the rest is off to the side) is in between the other detector and
the radioactive source.
He sets up window comparators on both detectors,
so they only trigger on events which correspond to the energy of the radiation source, and
sets up a time-comparison between the two detectors. If detector A triggers within a
certain time of detector B it is called a coincidence.
Coincidences are mapped on the x-scale of a
chart, where x=0 is when the event from A and B are simultaneous. If they are not
simultaneous, the difference in time between the detections is where on X they land. The
vertical of the chart is a cumulative addup of how many times that has happened in that x
position.
You would think that a gamma event could only be
detected by one detector or the other, and be annihilated - and his chart would be white
noise. But you can see very clearly that there is a lot of detection of the same event by
the two detectors.
How is that possible? come see for yourself and
try to figure it out.
-jake
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
Gamma rays are high-energy high-frequency
photons. What Reiter is claiming is that he can demonstrate that gamma rays behave in a
manner unlike visible light photons, that
refutes the particle/wave duality that is
central to the quantum theory.
What's Reiter's history of peer-reviewed
publications?
If Reiter's theory goes back to 2003 and the
demonstration setup is portable, has he ever booked an open-forum slot at a physics
conference, to demonstrate his results?
If this worked and could be replicated, it
should have been major news years ago.
I'm highly skeptical. Comments welcome from
anyone with formal education in physics.
-G
=====
On 13-11-17-Sun 8:21 PM, Jake wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Hello friends of Unquantum,
I am doing a live demonstration of the
gamma-ray unquantum effect that refutes the photon model of light.
It will be at the Chit-Chat Cafe, 5 West
Manor Dr, tomorrow Monday night November 18th and Monday night November 25th at 6 to 7:30
PM. The poster for the event and
details of
this work are at http://www.unquantum.net
This issue is important even if you are
not a physicist. Not all of you are "friends of unquantum;" some are foes.
Some of you will think this unquantum effect is
impossible,
so this is your chance to see it for
yourself. I will video the event to post on Youtube, and will field all questions and
feedback.
Please forgive me for the following: This
is a mass mailing and not personalized. I only do these mailings for important events.
I may have sent some of you this
notice
earlier. The poster on my website has me
with my electric guitar. I did it that way to appeal to a wide audience. I will also
play a musical instrument I made at
the end of
the event. For some of you it is a long
drive, but I reviewed my list and did not want anyone to feel left out.
Each event will be unique but each will
demonstrate gamma-rays defying the photon model. If you know anyone who would be
interested I hope you will please
inform.
Thank you for your interest.
Eric Reiter
Unquantum Laboratory
http://www.unquantum.net
Pacifica, CA, 94044
650 738 9255
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>_______________________________________________
>sudo-discuss mailing list
>sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss