Re: [sudo-discuss] Live demo refuting quantum mechanics, invitation (fwd)

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Jake <jake(a)spaz.org> wrote: 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