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. 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:

I've tried to read this guy's theories a bunch, but keep getting pretty confused. Is he not just describing *exactly* what the Heisenberg certainty principle predicts (in mathy terms dXdP > h/2)? In this instance, he has set up an experiment where he is expecting to detect particle interactions on an oscilloscope (making dX very small). However, the behavior he is getting is that of a photon spread over both of the detectors at the same time (dP is getting very large and "smearing" the particle over both of the detectors). So, I guess I don't understand the mystery... That being said, it has been about 10 years since I used to TA quantum back in college, so my brain could use a reboot..I know he has tried to get this published in Nature before...but that is mind of like submitting your first ever photograph for front page publication on National Geography. Would be great if he aimed his research at more targeted journals for peer review. If they turn him down, he'll at least get some idea why peers think he is off track. Sean On Nov 17, 2013 11:45 PM, "Jake" <jake(a)spaz.org> wrote:

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